"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message
...

Actually, if she 'doesn't know about the legalities' then why is she
commenting on them in the first place?

I think you are missing the point. The reality is that the UK government
have as good as admitted that they spied on Annan. Sure, they use weasal
wording to try to put a spin on it by saying that they never did anything
illegal, but most importantly they are not denying they did it.

This is at odds with the UN who state that it would be illegal.

Claire Short left government (she is an ex-minister) under a cloud because
she did not think going to war was legitimate.

She is well known in the UK as hot head who shoots from the hip. That's the
way she is. I don't share her politics, but at least I feel I could trust
her far more than the rest of them.

It's another embarrassment for the UK government, especially in the manner
they let the case drop on the GCHQ whistleblower yesterday. They suddenly
realised that they would have to disclose the findings of the lawyers
investigating the legality of going to war in order to win the case. Funny
they then promptly dropped the case.

And even more importantly, why is the
disgraced Brit media making so much of a story around someone who,
admittedly, is not qualified to comment?

You would think that they would have learned their lesson by now.

Interestingly, that is not the view in the UK. Here it is generally believed
that the 'disgraced Brit media' aka the BBC was a victim of the government
whitewash called the Hutton Report.

Quite honestly, the British electorate feel patronised by their own
governent. The spin doctors still think we're stupid. Sadly there is little
viable opposition.

Wasn't it Rumsfeld who stated "it's completely clear to me that these are
weapons of mass destruction" when showing satellite pictures trying to
convince the US and the world that war was justified? Still waiting to see
those nearly a year later...

Regards, Howard