This entry was posted on
Thursday, June 22nd, 2006 at
9:31 am and is filed
under It’s War! It’s Legal! It’s Lovely!.
BSSC – Supporting WMD: So Gordon has announced that he wants the UK to retain an independent nuclear deterrent thus prejudging the “debate” we’re all going to be allowed to have on this. Hurray! Is he Prime Minister already then?
No, he’s not. And he never will be. There, I said it.
For all those who missed goat-face on Newsnight. There are differing views on how this turned out for Coulter/Paxman here.
More SOCPA fun with fraidy-cat Blair.
UPDATE – The UK Today – The Man Who Would Be King: But last night was the final straw, the moment when it was confirmed that saving the Labour Party would be achieved by just the removal of Blair, but would also hinge on stopping Brown from becoming leader… This matter has nothing to do with national security, nothing to do with using state finances wisely, nothing to do with making the world a safer place. This is politics at its most unpalatable. This is Brown standing up and saying “Look at me, I’m hard!”. This is Brown pulling Blairs balls out of the fire. Again. Above all, this is a betrayal by New Labour. This just confirms what I have suspected for some time now; that Gordon Brown must not become Labour Leader or Prime Minister.
Oh, and have another quicky…
BBC – US confirms Heathrow hijack plot: An official US report has confirmed al-Qaeda planned to hijack flights from Heathrow and fly planes into the airport and a Canary Wharf skyscraper. Reports of such a plot had surfaced in the media before but have not previously been confirmed… In February 2003, military vehicles were deployed to Heathrow Airport to deal with a suspected terrorist threat, a move which proved controversial. It is not believed the deployment was linked to the same Canary Wharf plot confirmed by the US report.
UPDATE – And another for laptop users.
By james_q June 22, 2006 - 11:29 am
“Independent nuclear deterrent”? So that’s what we call WMDs when they belong to us. I suppose it’s not a completely misleading phrase – the “nuclear” bit at least is accurate.
By Steve Smith June 22, 2006 - 12:59 pm
If the US confirms it, it must be true.