Bastard Bush's Bitch Blair Busted?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1592904-523,00.html

― Ian in Brooklyn, Sunday, 1 May 2005 01:06 (twenty years ago)

wow. hardly surprising, but nice to see it's official.

― Simon H. (Simon H.), Sunday, 1 May 2005 01:22 (twenty years ago)

I am unconcerned about this issue right now at this stage... I am happy to see Kennedy's LDs move forward significantly, with Labour retaining a reasonable majority over the Tories. In fact, I'd like to see Howard's cynical "I'm sor-ee I tell it like it is!" campaign as resoundingly defeated as possible. But I would not want to see a thorough vindication or massive backing for Blair's distinct brand of government.

Should prove an interesting night on Thursday; I hope to heavens that we don't see a string of surprise Tory gains, as is very possible... But what joy if the LDs oust a good few Tories (David Davis, Oliver Letwin and more are certainly vulnerable, to say the least) and advance as Labour's challenger in the North and in metropolitan cities? :)

― Tom May (Tom May), Sunday, 1 May 2005 01:31 (twenty years ago)

I hate David Davis. Letwin is the only one I'd trust.

― Frogm@n Henry, Sunday, 1 May 2005 03:12 (twenty years ago)

New Labour have in effect won the argument. Petty squabbling over procedure and the legality of the war has managed to completely obfuscate the very real and far more pressing moral arguments against engaging in a war that has left 100s of thousands of people dead.

― Ed (dali), Sunday, 1 May 2005 04:50 (twenty years ago)

Especially given that the Tories are only attacking the procedure for going to war, and still agree that the war itself was a Good Thing.

― caitlin (caitlin), Sunday, 1 May 2005 06:38 (twenty years ago)

I like the justification it's 'nothing new' so it doesn't matter right?

― Nellie (nellskies), Sunday, 1 May 2005 09:30 (twenty years ago)

Do top secret government documents really have "Secret and strictly personal — UK eyes only" and "The paper should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know" written on them? I'm completely unsurprised by the content of the paper here, but equally I'd be unsurprised if this leak was a fake.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Sunday, 1 May 2005 09:53 (twenty years ago)

they do this so that when it's leaked it'd look as if it's a crap fake.

― ken c (ken c), Sunday, 1 May 2005 12:05 (twenty years ago)

I think "need[s] to know" is a well-estbalished bureacratic phrase. When I was working for a contractor that worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, I remember my supervisor or me having to submit something that said "[my name] needs to know" (a phrase I remember just kind of hanging there like that, without it saying what I needed to know, though that was probably said elsewhere).

― RS_LaRue (RSLaRue), Sunday, 1 May 2005 12:23 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.