Letters to the Empire

By James Delingpole

If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from  the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists

Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is. Even Wikipedia’s own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an “uninvolved editor” makes clear.

Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia’s entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

Connolley has supposedly been defrocked as a Wikipedia administrator. Or so Wikipedia claimed in its feeble, there’s-really-not-much-we-can-do response to anxious questions from one of Watts Up With That’s readers.

In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming.

If this is true, it doesn’t seem to have made much difference to his creative input on the Wikipedia’s entries. Here he is – unless its just someone with an identical name – busily sticking his oar in to entries on the Medieval Warm Period (again) and the deeply compromised, soon-to-be-leaving (let’s hope) IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri. And here he is again just three days ago, removing a mention of Climategate from Michael Mann’s entry. And here is an example of one of his Wikipedia chums – name of Stephan Schulz – helping to cover up for him by ensuring that no mention of that embarrassing Lawrence Solomon article appears on Connolley’s Wikipedia entry. And here he is deleting criticism of himself.

Connolley, it should also be noted, was one of the founder members of Real Climate – the friends-of-Michael-Mann propaganda outfit (aka “The Hockey Team”) which, in the guise of disinterested science, pumps out climate-fear-promoting hysteria on AGW and tries to discredit anyone who disagrees with the ManBearPig “consensus”.

Here he is, for example, being bigged up in a 2006 email from Michael Mann:

>> I’ve attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there,
>> but not clickable in word format. I’ve already given it a good
>> go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal “peer
>> review” process at RC), so I think its in pretty good shape. Let me
>> know if any comments…
>>

and here are some of his associates:

From: Phil Jones
To: William M Connolley ,Caspar Ammann
Subject: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:38:40 +0000
Cc: Tom Crowley ,”Michael E. Mann” , “raymond s. bradley” , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig ,gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov,rasmus.benestad@physics.org,garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, David Archer , “Raymond P.” ,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, “Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)” , “Jenkins, Geoff” , “Warrilow, David \(GA\)” , Tom Wigley ,mafb5@sussex.ac.uk, “Folland, Chris”

Get that? The guy who has been writing Wikipedia’s entry on Climategate (plus 5,000 others relating to “Climate Change”) is the bosom buddy of the Climategate scientists.

Nope, this isn’t a problem that is going to go away. Wikipedia may well be beyond redemption – as this useful resource site for Wiki-inaccuracieswould seem to suggest. Like so many hippyish notions, Jimmy Wales’s idea of a free encyclopedia for everyone was a noble intention which has been cruelly and horribly abused by some very ugly people.

Do you want to know just how ugly? I’ve been saving the worst till last. Here it is: William Connelley’s Wikipedia photograph.

UPDATE: (thanks, wondrous Thomas 33 for your delving). Et Tu, Jimmy Wales? It seems that the dread Connolley once earned the approbation of the Wiki-King himself, as he boasts here on an old blog:

2005-12-19

CONNOLLEY HAS DONE SUCH AMAZING WORK…

Back to wikipedia… Nature has an article on wikipedia vs Britannica. It was an interesting exercise, and as the most notable climatologist on wikithey interviewed me, which lead to the sidebar article “Challenges of being a Wikipedian” (see theNature article; click on the “challenges” link near the bottom). It contains the rather nice quote from Jimbo Wales “Connolley has done such amazing work and has had to deal with a fair amount of nonsense” (does Lumo still read this?).

He can also be found gloating evilly over his powers:

2006-01-16

WIKINEWS

A few snippets from wikipedia… I’m now an admin, and hence have ultimate power to CRUSH ALL MY ENEMIES HA HA HA HA!!! <evil laugh trails off into the distance>. Sadly no: the rules prohibit me from abusing my powers and there are always other people watching anyway. And not that I have too many enemies, Of Course. Some of the comments are interesting though: try the RFA, scroll down for the Opposes.

And I’ve just made my 10,000th edit. That slacker Lubos only has 2.3k, & Charles matthews has a feeble 54k.

by George Washington

Sara Flounders writes:

By every measure, the Pentagon is the largest institutional user of petroleum products and energy in general. Yet the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements.

***

The Feb. 17, 2007, Energy Bulletin detailed the oil consumption just for the Pentagon’s aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities that made it the single-largest oil consumer in the world.

***

Even according to rankings in the 2006 CIA World Factbook, only 35 countries (out of 210 in the world) consume more oil per day than the Pentagon.

***

This information is not readily available … because military emissions abroad are exempt from national reporting requirements under U.S. law and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change" …

Bryan Farrell in his new book, "The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism," says that "the greatest single assault on the environment, on all of us around the globe, comes from one agency … the Armed Forces of the United States."

Just how did the Pentagon come to be exempt from climate agreements? At the time of the Kyoto Accords negotiations, the U.S. demanded as a provision of signing that all of its military operations worldwide and all operations it participates in with the U.N. and/or NATO be completely exempted from measurement or reductions.

After securing this gigantic concession, the Bush administration then refused to sign the accords.
***
Although the U.S. had already received these assurances in the negotiations, the U.S. Congress passed an explicit provision guaranteeing U.S. military exemption. Inter Press Service reported on May 21, 1998: "U.S. law makers, in the latest blow to international efforts to halt global warming, today exempted U.S. military operations from the Kyoto agreement which lays out binding commitments to reduce ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions. The House of Representatives passed an amendment to next year’s military authorization bill that ‘prohibits the restriction of armed forces under the Kyoto Protocol.’"
***
According to environmental journalist Johanna Peace … "The military accounts for a full 80 percent of the federal government’s energy demand."

As I pointed out out last week:

Professor Michael Klare noted in 2007:

Sixteen gallons of oil. That’s how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis — either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.

And in 2008, Oil Change International released a report showing that:

• The [Iraq] war is responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) since March 2003. To put this in perspective, CO2 released by the war to date equals the emissions from putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US this year.

• Between March 2003 and October 2007 the US military in Iraq purchased more than 4 billion gallons of fuel from the Defense Energy Support Center, the agency responsible for procuring and supplying petroleum products to the Department of Defense. Burning these fuels has directly produced nearly 39 million metric tons of CO2 Just transporting 4 billion gallons of fuel to the military in Iraq consumed at least as much fuel as was delivered nearly doubling overall fuel-related emissions.

• Emissions from the Iraq War to date are nearly two and a half times greater than what would be avoided between 2009 and 2016 were California to implement the auto emission regulations it has proposed (but that the Bush Administration struck down).

• If the war were ranked as a country in terms of annual emissions, it would emit more CO2 each year than 139 of the world’s nations do, more than 60% of all countries on the planet…

Of course, the escalation of the war in Afghanistan will lead to a huge surge in greenhouse gas emissions as well.

The fact that the U.S. military is one of the world’s largest sources of C02 is an open secret that no one is addressing. If C02 causes warming and the military is one of the largest producers of C02, then any talk of climate change which does not include the military is nothing but hot air.

by Chris Floyd

In recent days we have all witnessed two vomitous eruptions of moral nullity that would tax the powers of a Voltaire or a Vidal to do them proper justice; they quite o’er-crow the meager gifts of a hack like me. But I will sketch a few observations here nonetheless, if only to add one more small voice to those few who bear witness to the evils perpetrated by our unaccountable leaders.
We speak of course of Barack Obama’s Nobel speech and Tony Blair’s recent comments on the Iraq War.  Let’s take the lesser figure first.
I.
Since leaving office, Tony Blair has dipped his blood-smeared snout into various corporate troughs, amassing millions, while simultaneously becoming one of the great whited sepulchres of our day, making a great show of his conversion to Catholicism, his "faith foundation," and so on. He has even lectured at Yale Divinity School. But this holy huckster looks more haunted every day. The glaring, bulging eyes, the frantic rictus of his grin – indistinguishable from the grimace of a man in gut-clenching pain — and the ever-more strident, maniacal defense of his war crimes give compelling testimony to the hellish fires consuming his psyche.
Next month, Blair will go before the Chilcot Inquiry, a panel of UK Establishment worthies charged with investigating the origins of Britain’s role in the invasion of Iraq.  Although the worthies have been remarkably toothless in their questioning of the great and good so far – the smell of whitewash is definitely in the air – the inquiry has at least performed the useful function of bringing the forgotten subject of Iraq back into the public eye, while collating and confirming, with sworn testimony, much of what we have learned in dribs and drabs over the years about the rank, deliberate deceit behind this murderous catastrophe. One choice bit that has emerged from the inquiry is the revelation that the centerpiece of Blair’s case for immediate war – the claim that Saddam Hussein could hit Europe with WMD-loaded missiles on just 45 minutes’ notice – came from unconfirmed, third-hand gossip passed along by an Iraqi taxi driver.
As Blair’s turn on the well-padded Chilcot cushion draws near, he has launched frantic efforts to keep his testimony secret while at the same time trying to undercut the rationale for the whole war origins inquiry, which has focused on the professed justification for the invasion: disarming Iraq’s (non-existent) WMD. So last week, Blair gave an interview to a friendly, timorous chat-show host in which he made the brazen admission – no, the proud boast – that he would have found a way to drive Britain into war with Iraq even if he had known for certain that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. (And of course, given the nature of the "’intelligence" that Blair used in his pre-war WMD claims  it is certain that Blair  was indeed certain that Saddam had no such weapons when the invasion was launched).
Thus it is now Blair’s contention that there is no charge to answer concerning the origins of the war; all this WMD guff is meaningless. He would have found "other arguments" to persuade Britons to follow George W. Bush into the war that American militarists had long been planning.
Blair’s admission has drawn a remarkable response from another Establishment mandarin, Sir Ken Macdonald, who served for five years as Director of Public Prosecutions under Blair’s government – and now works in private practice at a major law firm…alongside Tony Blair’s wife, Cherie. The headline in The Times puts it plainly: "Intoxicated by power, Blair tricked us into war." In his column, Macdonald writes:

The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage. It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible.
…Mr Blair’s fundamental flaw was his sycophancy towards power. Perhaps this seems odd in a man who drank so much of that mind-altering brew at home. But Washington turned his head and he couldn’t resist the stage or the glamour that it gave him. In this sense he was weak and, as we can see, he remains so. Since those sorry days we have frequently heard him repeating the self-regarding mantra that “hand on heart, I only did what I thought was right”. But this is a narcissist’s defence and self-belief is no answer to misjudgment: it is certainly no answer to death. “Yo, Blair”, perhaps, was his truest measure.

Macdonald also gives us a sneak peek inside the workings of the elite, with observations that doubtless apply equally well across the ocean:

In British public life, loyalty and service to power can sometimes count for more to insiders than any tricky questions of wider reputation. It’s the regard you are held in by your peers that really counts, so that steadfastness in the face of attack and threatened exposure brings its own rich hierarchy of honour and reward. Disloyalty, on the other hand, means a terrible casting out, a rocky and barren Roman exile that few have the courage to endure. So which way will our heroes jump?
We must hope in the right direction — for it is precisely this privately arranged nature of British Establishment power, stubborn beyond sympathy for years in the face of the modern world, that has brought our politics so low. If Chilcot fails to reveal the truth without fear in this Middle Eastern story of violence and destruction, the inquiry will be held in deserved and withering contempt.

It is almost certain that the Chilcot inquiry will produce little more than the usual blood-flecked whitewash. Certainly, Tony Blair will face no official action for his crimes; he will not even lose any of his corporate sponsors, unlike the heinous Tiger Woods, whose sexual intimacy with consenting adults is obviously far worse than the murder of more than one million innocent people. (We’ll never see Woods lecturing at Yale Divinity School now!)
But keep looking at Blair’s face; watch, year by year, as it brings forth the hideous fruits of the inferno within. For as one of his illustrious countrymen once put it: "Murder, though it have no tongue, will speak with most miraculous organ."
II.
"A narcissist’s defense." As a description of Obama’s Peace Prize speech, Macdonald’s phrase could hardly be bettered. But the intense, near-pathological self-regard in the speech was not Obama’s alone, of course; we must do him the credit of acknowledging that in this regard, at least, he was what we so often proclaim our leaders to be: the embodiment of the nation. His soaring proclamation of American exceptionalism, in a setting supposedly devoted to universal principles of peace, was breathtaking in its chutzpah – but entirely in keeping with the feelings of the vast majority of his countrymen, and the ruling elite above all.
Many have already remarked on Obama’s adoption in the speech of Bush’s principle of unilateral, "pre-emptive" military action, anytime, anywhere, whenever a leader declares his nation is under threat. This approach — which Bush called "the path of action" — was roundly scorned by critics of the former regime, many of whom now scramble to praise Obama’s "nuanced" embrace of aggression. But again, let us give credit where it is due; in this aspect of the speech, Obama did in fact go beyond Bush’s more narrowly nationalist conception, saying: "I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation."
Thus Obama would, apparently, extend the right of unilateral military action to "any head of state" that feels the necessity of defending his or her nation. But of course this is just empty verbiage, a pointless, bald-faced lie that not even Bush would have tried to get away with. Would Obama accept a unilateral, pre-emptive strike by Tehran against Israel, where legislators and government officials routinely talk of attacking Iran? Would Obama cheer the "right" of Russia to strike unilaterally at Poland if the U.S. "missile shield" deal, now on hold, was suddenly consummated? Would Obama support a unilateral strike by India at Pakistan — or vice versa — in the still-seething cauldron of tensions on the subcontinent, where both nations legitimately feel threatened by the other? Would he support the right of Kim Jong-il to "defend his nation" by attacking South Korea the next time there is a threatening border incident there?
No, it is clear that only the United States — and its allies, like Israel — are to be allowed the supreme privilege of unilateral war. The line was inserted in the speech simply because it would sound good in the moment, and create a temporary emotional reaction that might carry listeners past the macabre incongruity underlying the entire event: giving a peace award to the bloodstained leader of a military machine hip-deep in the coagulate gore of two, vast, civilian-slaughtering wars.
Obama staked his boldest claim to American exceptionalism with a passage that he lifted, almost verbatim, from his West Point speech just a few days before (see here and especially here), when he announced his second massive escalation of the war in Afghanistan:

Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people’s children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

Here is chutzpah — and hubris — raised to the level of the sublime. Obama has taken the words he used to instigate the certain death of thousands of human beings and the acceleration of hatred, extremism, chaos and brutal corruption around the world — and offered them as justification for the hideous, unabashedly Orwellian doctrine at the core of his speech: War is Peace. In this perverse inversion of values, Obama, as a warmaker, is actually a peacemaker, you see — and thus a legitimate heir to the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., who was evoked at several points in the speech.
And here we come to what was for me the most revolting part of the speech. And perhaps the most significant too. All the cant about America’s altruism and "enlightened self-interest" in killing millions of people — Indochina was one of many convenient blank spots in Obama’s historical survey– for the sake of all the children of the world (red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in our sight) was just par for the rhetorical course. It was nothing that had not been said many times before, including the references — so lauded by Obama’s liberal apologists — to those inadvertent "mistakes" America seems to keep making; out of a surfeit of good intentions, no doubt. But I don’t think an American president has so openly and directly traduced the work of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi before. (And to do it while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, no less! Oh, that sublime brass….)
Although larded with usual hyper-yet-flaccid, florid-yet-false oratorical stylings that have become Obama’s trademark, his words about King and Gandhi drip with scorn and condescension. I was actually taken aback when I read these passages:

I make this statement [about the moral justification for war] mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.

The intellectual incoherence and arrogant sneering behind this supposedly laudatory passage is staggering. After claiming to be the personal embodiment of King and Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent action, Obama gives the game away with this line: "I face the world as it is." Those other two guys, they were just dreamers, they were unrealistic, they were unserious; they didn’t "face the world as it is," they weren’t savvy and pragmatic, like me. I have to go to war because I’m a head of state "sworn to protect and defend my nation."
[Here, Obama indulges in a trope that is pandemic among his apologists: the idea that he was somehowforced to become the head of a militarist state waging endless war around the world, that he has somehow woken up and found himself "the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars." But of course he chose to pursue this kind of power in this kind of system -- chose it, pursued it, fought like hell to win it. It's what he wanted. Yet still this notion of Obama as a helpless victim of fate -- lost in a world he never made -- persists.]
He then goes on to give the lie to his previously stated admiration for Gandhi and King: "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms." Thus, King, Gandhi and any practitioner of non-violent resistance to evil are, ultimately, naive, ineffectual — weak.
Notice the incoherence – or perhaps deliberate elision – at work here. Obama says he must face down "threats to the American people" — and then talks about Hitler’s armies, immediately coupling, and rhetorically equating them, with al-Qaeda’s scattered handful of hidden fugitives. Are the American people now threatened by Hitler’s armies? Are al-Qaeda’s paltry forces — less than 100 of them in Afghanistan, according to Obama’s own war-wagers — the equal of Hitler’s armies of millions of men?
But there is a deeper untruth beyond these cheap rhetorical tricks. For it is blatantly untrue to say that "a nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies." First of all, one cannot make that statement because this approach was never tried. Therefore you cannot say categorically that it would not have worked. Doubtless it would have cost millions of lives; but as Gandhi himself pointed out, the violent resistance to Hitler’s armies also cost tens of millions of lives. But Obama’s formulation — which is a hackneyed one indeed — only deals with one view of non-violent resistance to Hitler: i.e., from the outside, resisting his armies as they poured across the borders. There is another way in which a non-violent resistance movement without any doubt could have "halted Hitler’s armies": if it had taken root and spread throughout Germany itself, including among the armed forces and its supporting industries.
In the event, this did not happen. But it was not, and is not, an impossibility for humankind to pursue such an approach. Therefore it is fatuous and false to state what cannot possibly be known: whether non-violent resistance would have thwarted Nazism, and whether this would have been more or less costly than the way of violence.
Similarly, it is false to say that "negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms." The only response to this bald statement is: How do you know? Has anybody tried it? No. Therefore you cannot call it an impossibility — and then use this supposed, untested "impossibility" as your justification for laying waste to whole nations. You may say that it would be unjust to negotiate with al-Qaeda, that those who use murderous violence to achieve their ends should simply be killed or prosecuted. (Although where would that leave the leaders of the exalted, exceptional, unilateral United States?) But of course this is precisely what Gandhi did: he sat down and negotiated with the representatives of an empire that had caused the deaths of millions of his own people. He negotiated with them in good faith, with good will, despite what they had done and were doing to his people — and despite the fact that many of his interlocutors, such as Winston Churchill, hated him with a blind, racist fury. And he was successful — although again, not without cost, both before and after the liberation. But Gandhi, and King, knew the costs of non-violence – because they were genuinely savvy, and genuinely realistic about the nature of evil.
In any case, aside from the particulars of any real situation or hypothetical scenario, the speech is a glaring example of Obama’s deep-seated (and perhaps unconscious) contempt for the path of peace, and its practitioners. It is also a manifestation of his own inferno, of his desperate need to justify — to himself and to the world — his free, deliberate choice to follow the blood-choked "path of action" as the commander-in-chief of a bloated, brutal war machine.
No one forced any of these decisions – or these specious, obscene justifications – on Obama or Blair. It is their own narcissism — their own lust for power, and their love for the system that gave them that power – that has covered them with the blood and shame that now taint their every word and deed.

Technorati Tags: Organ,Blair,Obama,Narcissist,Defence,Chris,Floyd,Voltaire,Vidal,justice,gifts,observations,evils,leaders,Barack,Nobel,speech,Tony,comments,Iraq,office,snout,conversion,Catholicism,faith,foundation,Yale,School,pain,testimony,psyche,Chilcot,Inquiry,panel,Establishment,origins,Britain,role,invasion,Although,subject,deceit,catastrophe,revelation,Saddam,Hussein,Europe,missiles,Iraqi,taxi,efforts,rationale,justification,host,admission,weapons,mass,destruction,nature,intelligence,Thus,contention,guff,arguments,Britons,George,Bush,American,response,mandarin,Macdonald,Director,Public,government,practice,wife,Cherie,Times,column,degree,decision,policy,proportions,television,conclusion,subterfuge,British,basis,flaw,sycophancy,Washington,glamour,self,mantra,heart,belief,death,workings,life,reputation,peers,exposure,hierarchy,Roman,courage,direction,sympathy,world,politics,truth,Middle,Eastern,violence,contempt,action,Tiger,Woods,intimacy,inferno,Murder,tongue,description,Peace,Prize,embodiment,nation,proclamation,chutzpah,feelings,Many,adoption,principle,leader,threat,path,regime,aggression,aspect,fact,conception,Tehran,Israel,Iran,Russia,Poland,missile,India,Pakistan,Jong,South,Korea,incident,moment,reaction,listeners,event,machine,civilian,West,Point,escalation,Afghanistan,America,strength,Germany,democracy,places,Balkans,children,freedom,Here,words,human,acceleration,extremism,chaos,corruption,Orwellian,doctrine,peacemaker,heir,legacy,Martin,Luther,cant,altruism,Indochina,surfeit,president,Mohandas,Gandhi,brass,trademark,condescension,statement,ceremony,consequence,threats,Evil,movement,Hitler,Negotiations,Qaeda,philosophy,savvy,pandemic,Commander,Chief,midst,system,hell,notion,victim,fate,admiration,practitioner,resistance,Notice,talks,forces,untruth,tricks,cost,borders,Nazism,ends,empire,Winston,Churchill,fury,liberation,particulars,situation,scenario,example,manifestation,narcissism,eruptions,troughs,sepulchres,crimes,Prosecutions,heroes,critics,tensions,nations,references,apologists,intentions,examples,armies,dreamers,industries,deaths,decisions,justifications,blood,millions,defense,worthies,didn,countrymen,exceptionalism,emptive,grandchildren,incoherence,himself,whether

Windows Live Tags: Organ,Blair,Obama,Narcissist,Defence,Chris,Floyd,Voltaire,Vidal,justice,gifts,observations,evils,leaders,Barack,Nobel,speech,Tony,comments,Iraq,office,snout,conversion,Catholicism,faith,foundation,Yale,School,pain,testimony,psyche,Chilcot,Inquiry,panel,Establishment,origins,Britain,role,invasion,Although,subject,deceit,catastrophe,revelation,Saddam,Hussein,Europe,missiles,Iraqi,taxi,efforts,rationale,justification,host,admission,weapons,mass,destruction,nature,intelligence,Thus,contention,guff,arguments,Britons,George,Bush,American,response,mandarin,Macdonald,Director,Public,government,practice,wife,Cherie,Times,column,degree,decision,policy,proportions,television,conclusion,subterfuge,British,basis,flaw,sycophancy,Washington,glamour,self,mantra,heart,belief,death,workings,life,reputation,peers,exposure,hierarchy,Roman,courage,direction,sympathy,world,politics,truth,Middle,Eastern,violence,contempt,action,Tiger,Woods,intimacy,inferno,Murder,tongue,description,Peace,Prize,embodiment,nation,proclamation,chutzpah,feelings,Many,adoption,principle,leader,threat,path,regime,aggression,aspect,fact,conception,Tehran,Israel,Iran,Russia,Poland,missile,India,Pakistan,Jong,South,Korea,incident,moment,reaction,listeners,event,machine,civilian,West,Point,escalation,Afghanistan,America,strength,Germany,democracy,places,Balkans,children,freedom,Here,words,human,acceleration,extremism,chaos,corruption,Orwellian,doctrine,peacemaker,heir,legacy,Martin,Luther,cant,altruism,Indochina,surfeit,president,Mohandas,Gandhi,brass,trademark,condescension,statement,ceremony,consequence,threats,Evil,movement,Hitler,Negotiations,Qaeda,philosophy,savvy,pandemic,Commander,Chief,midst,system,hell,notion,victim,fate,admiration,practitioner,resistance,Notice,talks,forces,untruth,tricks,cost,borders,Nazism,ends,empire,Winston,Churchill,fury,liberation,particulars,situation,scenario,example,manifestation,narcissism,eruptions,troughs,sepulchres,crimes,Prosecutions,heroes,critics,tensions,nations,references,apologists,intentions,examples,armies,dreamers,industries,deaths,decisions,justifications,blood,millions,defense,worthies,didn,countrymen,exceptionalism,emptive,grandchildren,incoherence,himself,whether

WordPress Tags: Organ,Blair,Obama,Narcissist,Defence,Chris,Floyd,Voltaire,Vidal,justice,gifts,observations,evils,leaders,Barack,Nobel,speech,Tony,comments,Iraq,office,snout,conversion,Catholicism,faith,foundation,Yale,School,pain,testimony,psyche,Chilcot,Inquiry,panel,Establishment,origins,Britain,role,invasion,Although,subject,deceit,catastrophe,revelation,Saddam,Hussein,Europe,missiles,Iraqi,taxi,efforts,rationale,justification,host,admission,weapons,mass,destruction,nature,intelligence,Thus,contention,guff,arguments,Britons,George,Bush,American,response,mandarin,Macdonald,Director,Public,government,practice,wife,Cherie,Times,column,degree,decision,policy,proportions,television,conclusion,subterfuge,British,basis,flaw,sycophancy,Washington,glamour,self,mantra,heart,belief,death,workings,life,reputation,peers,exposure,hierarchy,Roman,courage,direction,sympathy,world,politics,truth,Middle,Eastern,violence,contempt,action,Tiger,Woods,intimacy,inferno,Murder,tongue,description,Peace,Prize,embodiment,nation,proclamation,chutzpah,feelings,Many,adoption,principle,leader,threat,path,regime,aggression,aspect,fact,conception,Tehran,Israel,Iran,Russia,Poland,missile,India,Pakistan,Jong,South,Korea,incident,moment,reaction,listeners,event,machine,civilian,West,Point,escalation,Afghanistan,America,strength,Germany,democracy,places,Balkans,children,freedom,Here,words,human,acceleration,extremism,chaos,corruption,Orwellian,doctrine,peacemaker,heir,legacy,Martin,Luther,cant,altruism,Indochina,surfeit,president,Mohandas,Gandhi,brass,trademark,condescension,statement,ceremony,consequence,threats,Evil,movement,Hitler,Negotiations,Qaeda,philosophy,savvy,pandemic,Commander,Chief,midst,system,hell,notion,victim,fate,admiration,practitioner,resistance,Notice,talks,forces,untruth,tricks,cost,borders,Nazism,ends,empire,Winston,Churchill,fury,liberation,particulars,situation,scenario,example,manifestation,narcissism,eruptions,troughs,sepulchres,crimes,Prosecutions,heroes,critics,tensions,nations,references,apologists,intentions,examples,armies,dreamers,industries,deaths,decisions,justifications,blood,millions,defense,worthies,didn,countrymen,exceptionalism,emptive,grandchildren,incoherence,himself,whether