Monday, February 26, 2007
What started out as quite a promising programme turned out, like the Hutton Report, a whitewash.
Not mentioned in last night's episode:
Operation Mason - this started hours BEFORE Kelly was reported missing by his wife, and ended shortly after Kelly's corpse had been discovered. Thames Valley Police say Mason does relate to the Kelly death. Hmm.
Hutton himself is quite a ranking Mason, and was in charge of Northern Irish Justice during the 1970's (or rather as a Mason was told how to run Northern Irish "justice").
Kelly was a member of the Bahai faith which is opposed to suicide (which fits in well with the lack of a suicide note and the fact that Kelly had emailed several friends just before he disappeared telling them that he was looking forward to getting back to work again and that the whole episode would blow over).
Once again it is the omission of certain evidence that betrays the motive for such programmes.
Kelly had dealt with Iraq for over a decade. He busted a programme of theirs in the mid 1990's. He was a tough man, determined to rid the world of certain types of WMD.
As reported last night, Kelly had referred to "dark actors playing games", and that he "would probably be found dead in the woods".
As Norman Baker MP reported last night, correspondence between himself and others has been blatantly interfered with by "someone".
And why was Kelly's death certificate signed without the legal requisite of an inquest and just as the Hutton Inquiry kicked off, an inquiry with a legal status less than a coroner's inquiry?
And DC Coe, the man who was alone with Kelly's corpse for a half hour and the subject of speculation that he interfered with and moved Kelly's corpse, did NOT give his evidence to Hutton under oath. There is also a BIG question over who was with Coe at the time, and why they were there.
It all stinks!! AGAIN!!
Monday, February 19, 2007
It may be possible to get 9/11 discussed via this.
Be The Editor
9/11 is THE event that needs exposing.
That's why the official 9/11 myth was protected in the jokeumentary last night. In fact we could take a degree of comfort, as tiny as it is, that for the BBC to air such a hit piece indicates that serious questions about 9/11 are being asked on a large scale, in pubs, in clubs, in restaurants, in schools and colleges, in workplaces, in gyms, in the parks, on mountain tops, in planes, on buses. In fact wherever there are people, 9/11 is being seriously questioned. Hence the BBC jokeumentary.
THEY CREATE IT!!
It really is that simple.
They create the money for the loans, mortgages etc. They don't have it physically. They have some in hard currency, but only a fraction.
That is where the name FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING comes from.
Lord Josiah Stamp once said
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money ."
The banking system is basically a means of the banks creating money for themselves, but they only get to see that money by using us to repay it back over several years or decades. They need us to take out loans so that they can lend us money they simply create and then we pay it back with interest after years of work and labour!
So banking is not rocket science.
It's legalized fraud on a global scale.
And one must ask how such vast profits have been used in modern history? clue: think tanks. A double entrende.
One should also ask who would do such a thing?
Bank profits go through roof despite bad debts
· HSBC likely to lead way in record-breaking year
· Increased range of bank charges still expected
Monday February 19, 2007
Britain's banks are on track to report more than £40bn of profits in the coming days despite being saddled with the cost of unpaid loans from customers trying to protect themselves from their burgeoning debts.
HSBC, the country's biggest bank and the third biggest in the world, may even break last year's record of $20.9bn (£10.7bn) of profits despite its unprecedented warning about problems in its US arm, which caused City analysts to knock up to 10% off their forecasts.
Barclays, which reports tomorrow, is likely to make profits of more than £7bn despite being hit by debts from customers failing to make credit card payments. The country's third-biggest bank may signal an attempt to pull back from riskier loans with reports yesterday that it was considering the sale of its Monument operation, which targets lower-income customers.
Banks set the scene for their record tally after reporting a combined £20bn profit for the first six months of 2006. They swallowed charges of more than £2.5bn in the first half to cover the cost of customers struggling to repay loans.
Though bad debts will again be closely watched, there is also speculation that the end of "free" banking is not far away. Intervention by the competition authorities into a variety of areas - ranging from credit cards to payment protection and last week the voluntary banking code itself - has led to forecasts that banks will soon start to charge for even the most basic facilities.
HSBC's phone bank First Direct has initiated charges in some instances and others may follow, according to Natasha Miller at Accenture. "More of that will happen as banks show they've got to fund the cost of banking," she said.
Scrutiny of bad debts may occupy investors most, though. Lloyds TSB, the country's largest unsecured lender, and Barclays have felt the most pain. In trading statements issued ahead of the reporting season, they indicated that the picture may be stabilising. The City will be watching for any fresh information about the impact that individual voluntary arrangements are having on bad debts.
"They are going to be big numbers and they are going to be going up," said John-Paul Crutchley, analyst at Merrill Lynch. "But there should not be a lot of surprises and we should start to see evidence of them stabilising."
Analysts at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods believe there will be only a marginal deterioration in the situation.
Most of the rapid profits growth is expected to come from outside the UK. Banking experts at Accenture believe that the major banks' high-street businesses will show pedestrian growth in comparison with the faster pace of expansion in investment banking, corporate markets and investment management.
Some banks also face scrutiny of strategies on acquisitions and disposals. Analysts at KBW wonder if Barclays - often cited as a target for Bank of America - is eyeing a deal in the US after taking out a $400m sponsorship deal. Standard Chartered may also be planning acquisitions, the KBW analysts said.
At Fox-Pitt Kelton, analysts regard Barclays as a "hunter, not the hunted" and they see Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley as the mostly likely targets.
Lloyds TSB, often also seen as a takeover target, will face questions about its plans for Abbey Life amid reports that it may sell off the insurer, which has been closed to new business for the past six years. Lloyds declined to comment.
HSBC caused most excitement in the run-up to the reporting season by admitting it is increasing its bad-debt provision to cover poor lending decisions in its US mortgage business. The chairman and chief executive usually split up to present the figures to audiences in Hong Kong and London simultaneously, but this year Stephen Green and Michael Geoghegan will both be in London to face hostile questions. They may point to rapid growth in Asia to deflect attention from their US problems. Even so, the consensus for its profits - in the range of $21.9bn to $23.2bn - signals that the City believes the bank will still produce record results.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
No mention of PNAC and their "new Pearl Harbour".
No mention of Cheney running all those drills (there was a very brief mention of one).
No mention of Sibel Edmonds and the FBI hierarchy being told to stay off al-Qaeda.
No asking the question, cui bono?
No analysis as to why no fighters were dispatched from Andrews until the Pentagon had been hit (though there was a very brief mention of a C130 from Andrews).
No mention of "the high-fivers".
No mention of someone profitting greatly from particular stocks which dropped due to 9/11 indicating foreknowledge.
And to finish it off there was this; "the 9/11 conspiracy files will undoubtedly remain open, much to the anguish of those who lost their loved ones on September 11th"...
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
This is an all-or-nothing situation.
Paul also suggests that the Democrats are not that bothered about stopping Bush & Cheney spend that ridiculous amount of money on the Iraq War because it will damage the Republicans in the 2008 election.
Well, I've got one thing to say to those Democrats; impeach Bush and Cheney or there will not be another election!
As soon as that first bomb drops on Iran the public of the USA will expect a few terror attacks on US soil.
AND THEY WILL GET THEM.
But they won't be from Iran.
They'll be 911/false-flag terror attacks, much worse than 9/11, resulting in martial law.
The law in the USA has been slowly becoming more centralised towards the President, so that now anything the President says is law is taken as law. This happened in Nazi Germany.
And if that means no more elections because of the GWOT, then that means no elections.
But I guess you know that...
Congress Racing to Spend
$1 Trillion on Iraq
by Rep. Ron Paul
Two weeks ago I discussed how Congress and the administration use our fiat money system to literally create some of the funds needed to prosecute our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've already spent more than $500 billion in Iraq, mostly through supplemental spending bills that are not part of the normal appropriations and budget process. But with costs soaring and no end to the war in sight, yet another supplemental spending bill must be passed soon – and both parties in Congress are only too willing to provide the money under the guise of supporting the troops.
Never mind that the American people showed their dissatisfaction with the war in the fall elections. Congress lacks the political will to stand up to the administration and assert its power over the purse strings, and too many vested interests in the defense sector benefit from the supplemental bills. A cynic might even suggest that many Democrats want the war to drag on, despite their supposed opposition, to damage the president politically and benefit them in 2008. But whatever the reason, the money for war keeps flowing.
Defense Department officials will ask Congress for the next supplemental bill in coming weeks. The amount requested is likely to be at least $140 billion. If we stay in Iraq beyond 2007 – and the administration has made it clear that we will – the bill to American taxpayers easily could top one trillion dollars in another year or two.
I doubt very seriously that most Americans think the war in Iraq is worth one trillion dollars. Even those who do must face the reality that the federal government simply doesn't have the money. Congress continues to spend more than the Treasury raises in taxes year after year, by borrowing money abroad or simply printing it. Paying for war with credit is reckless and stupid, but paying for war by depreciating our currency is criminal.
Even the most modest suggestions for controlling spending in Iraq have been rejected. Some in Congress argued that reconstruction money should be paid back when Iraq's huge oil reserves resume operation. Another idea was to find dollar-for-dollar offsets in the rest of the federal budget for every dollar spent in Iraq. But the administration adamantly opposed both ideas. Budget cuts are unpopular, and the profits from Iraqi oil will never compensate American taxpayers.
The mentality in Washington is simple: avoid hard choices at all costs; spend money at will; ignore deficits; inflate the money supply as needed; and trust that the whole mess somehow will be taken care of by unprecedented economic growth in the future.
We have embarked on the most expensive nation-building experiment in history. We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq's judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down – all with hundreds of billion of U.S. tax dollars. We will pay to provide job training for Iraqis; we will pay to secure Iraq's borders; we will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq. In doing so, we will saddle future generations of Americans with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one Congress should answer now –by refusing another nickel for supplemental spending bills.
Monday, February 12, 2007
(a) supply high-powered explosives to fuel the civil war in Iraq and kill US and UK soldiers?
(b) supply high-powered explosives to fuel the civil war in Iraq and kill US and UK soldiers?
(c) supply high-powered explosives to fuel the civil war in Iraq and kill US and UK soldiers?
For that is what America claimed yesterday.
From the British media you would think the case is closed; Iran is guilty of supplying such weapons to "insurgents" in Iraq.
But read this from The Washington Post (which is a surpise).
Military Ties Iran To Arms In Iraq
Explosives Supplied To Shiite Militias, U.S. Officials Say
By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, February 12, 2007; Page A01
BAGHDAD, Feb. 11 -- Senior U.S. military officials in Iraq sought Sunday to link Iran to deadly armor-piercing explosives and other weapons that they said are being used to kill U.S. and Iraqi troops with increasing regularity.
During a long-awaited presentation, held in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, the officials displayed mortar shells, rocket-propelled grenades and a powerful cylindrical bomb, capable of blasting through an armored Humvee, that they said were manufactured in Iran and supplied to Shiite militias in Iraq for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops.
"Iran is a significant contributor to attacks on coalition forces, and also supports violence against the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi people," said a senior defense official, who was joined by a defense analyst and an explosives expert, both also from the military.
The officials said they would speak only on the condition of anonymity, so the explosives expert and the analyst, who would normally not speak to the news media, could provide information directly. The analyst's exact title and full name were not revealed to reporters. The officials released a PowerPoint presentation including photographs of the weaponry, but did not allow media representatives to record, photograph or videotape the briefing or the materials on display.
It sounds a rather shady media operation. Anonymous officials. No photographs or recordings allowed. Not quite the indisputable proof.
Assuming the weapons displayed were Iranian, it is possible that Iranians smuggled them out of Iran to elements of US intelligence.
Or the weapons, like the intelligence on WMD, were manufactured in the USA!
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Yes, Putin does have a go at NATO-creep and accuses the USA of destabilising the world. All true. But read this last paragraph!
PUTIN: We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.
British media is not referring to this paragraph. Why?
All world leaders should look at this part of the speech, and see an opportunity to form a bulwark against Anglo-American Imperialism, the people who brought us slavery, the fraudulent banking system, world wars, the holocaust and international terrorism.
And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.
Speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy
February 11, 2007
Munich Printer-Friendly Version
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you very much dear Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr Teltschik, ladies and gentlemen!
I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs and experts from more than 40 nations.
This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first two or three minutes of my speech Mr Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there.
Therefore. It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.
This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”
These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference – global crises, global responsibility – exemplifies this.
Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.
This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community’s and the world’s agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.
The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.
The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?
However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.
It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.
And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.
Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.
Along with this, what is happening in today’s world – and we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.
And with which results?
Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!
Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?
In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.
And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.
The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.
And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.
Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.
There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.
In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states.
However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other, dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people – hundreds and thousands of civilians!
But at the same time the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? As a matter of fact, this was also at the centre of the question that our dear colleague Mr Lieberman asked the Federal Chancellor. If I correctly understood your question (addressing Mr Lieberman), then of course it is a serious one! Can we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer your question as well: of course not.
But do we have the means to counter these threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law?
I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleague, the Italian Defence Minister, just said or what he said was inexact. In any case, I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view. Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along with this, it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms.
And one must not forget that democratic political actions necessarily go along with discussion and a laborious decision-making process.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
The potential danger of the destabilisation of international relations is connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue.
Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question.
It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to weapons destruction and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons.
Together with the United States of America we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31 December 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfil the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.
Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones.
In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small- and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.
Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems.
It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own security.
At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilising high-tech weapons. Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space. Star wars is no longer a fantasy – it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980s our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite.
In Russia’s opinion, the militarisation of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space.
Today I would like to tell you that we have prepared a project for an agreement on the prevention of deploying weapons in outer space. And in the near future it will be sent to our partners as an official proposal. Let’s work on this together.
Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.
Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.
And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.
NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues, as everybody knows. There are still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction.
But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.
I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?
The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family.
And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls?
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons.
This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Last year Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centres for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centres not only be created in Russia, but also in other countries where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy. Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct participation in these centres. And the centres would, of course, operate under strict IAEA supervision.
The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment. It is precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and missile capabilities, that must act as leaders in developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends.
In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political incentives and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states’ interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities.
In connection with this I shall talk about international energy cooperation in more detail. Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly – she mentioned, touched on this theme. In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.
We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia – and please think about this figure – up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try, try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic sectors in western countries. Such examples do not exist! There are no such examples.
I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.
Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly.
For that reason more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy. Experts and our western partners are objectively evaluating these changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision.
Furthermore. As you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.
And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial financial resources. But to be honest -- and many here also know this – linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.
And let’s say things as they are – one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in, shall we say, a region such as the Middle East where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation.
It is obvious that the world’s leading countries should see this threat. And that they should therefore build a more democratic, fairer system of global economic relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop.
Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the Conference on Security Policy, it is impossible not to mention the activities of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As is well-known, this organisation was created to examine all – I shall emphasise this – all aspects of security: military, political, economic, humanitarian and, especially, the relations between these spheres.
What do we see happening today? We see that this balance is clearly destroyed. People are trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries. And this task is also being accomplished by the OSCE’s bureaucratic apparatus which is absolutely not connected with the state founders in any way. Decision-making procedures and the involvement of so-called non-governmental organisations are tailored for this task. These organisations are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control.
According to the founding documents, in the humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request. This is an important task. We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop.
It is obvious that such interference does not promote the development of democratic states at all. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable.
We expect that the OSCE be guided by its primary tasks and build relations with sovereign states based on respect, trust and transparency.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.
In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy.
We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.
Thank you for your attention.
and for all you Russians out there it is available in Russian too!
The CFR Russia Task Force(!) published its view on what Russia should do. Task Force members include John Edwards, Dov Zakheim, and Stephen Sestanovich who is George F. Kennan Senior Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies at the CFR. (Kennan was sponsored by Schiff during the first two decades of last century to provoke a revolution in Russia, which eventually occured and led to the capture of the Russian market and natural mineral wealth by Wall Street.)
The conclusion of the report reads,
We have prepared this report to answer the difficult question of what policy should the United States pursue toward Russia. Because we believe that Russia ‘‘matters,’’ we have paid close attention to those problems that cannot be effectively addressed unless Moscow and Washington cooperate. Several of these are of critical importance—most notably, the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program and the risk that inadequately secured nuclear materials in Russia could fall into the wrong hands. The United States has every reason to preserve and expand such cooperation. At the same time we have sought to identify those issues on which cooperation is becoming more difficult. There are many of these as well, and they shape our judgment that relations are headed in the wrong direction. In particular, Russia’s relations with other post-Soviet states have become a source of significantly heightened U.S.-Russian friction. While avoiding unnecessary rivalry, American policy should counter Russian pressures that undermine the stability and independence of its neighbors and help ensure the success of those states that want to make the leap into the European mainstream. In the next several years the most important negative factor in U.S.- Russian relations is likely to be Russia’s emergent authoritarian political system. This trend will make it harder for the two sides to find common ground and harder to cooperate even when they do. It makes the future direction of Russian politics much less predictable. If Russia remains on an authoritarian course, U.S.-Russian relations will almost certainly continue to fall short of their potential.
Even today Russia’s economic revival, political stability, and international self-confidence ought to have led to expanded cooperation on many fronts. Yet what has emerged instead is a relationship with a very narrow base. The large common interests that might animate a real partnership, including energy, counterterrorism, and nonproliferation, are frequently subordinated to other concerns of Russian policy—to internal struggles over property and power, to sensitivity about Russia’s influence on its periphery, to anxieties about its looming political transition. Drawing Russia into the Western political mainstream remains a critical interest of American foreign policy. Success would help the United States realize the promise of an undivided Europe, promote China’s peaceful entry into the circle of great powers, and address a host of other major international problems. Only Russia can decide on a change of course, but other countries can help to frame its choice, making clear how much is to be gained—and how much has to be done. Doing so will be a long-term effort, but it should begin now, and the way to start is by talking about it. Russia’s leaders—and its people—deserve to know what the world’s real democracies think.
What is a "real" democracy to which the authors refer?
Please point one out to me? If they believe the USA, or Great Britain, is a democracy I would strongly disagree. Our leaders are selected for us at informal interviews called Bilderberg, and even the CFR itself, by warmongers who have the power to create money for whatever sick megalomaniac schemes they desire.
The above report is simply another attempt to convince Russia to give its oil and gas away. As stated at the recent World Forum Russia is now a creditor, writing off its debts, and is set to become a bigger producer of fossil energy than Saudi Arabia (is this why global warming is such a topic at the moment?). This gives Russia alot of power, and it is not clear that the NWO controls it. It is therefore a possible threat to the NWO.
Although Putin's speech at Munich yesterday was the most confrontational since Beslan when I think Putin accused London and Washington it was not as powerful and as revealing as it could have been. We need something like that letter from Ahmedinejad to the American people, but containing more provable revelations about the people who control the USA and Great Britain and their intentions. For the leaders of the USA and Great Britain will not reveal their blood-soaked crimes to their people. I'm trying. Some others are trying. But we don't have the media access. Until such revelations are made there will always be a tiny doubt...
Saturday, February 10, 2007
...Q. That’s been your view all along? Not only that war is inevitable, but that we should launch it?
A. Yes. It is strategically sound and morally just. The Middle East is a strategic region for us. It is where oil does play into all this. It is not about oil prices or controlling the oil as some conspiracy theorists claim. It is about stability in the region. Saddam has been very destabilizing, to say the least— in his attempts to unseat his neighbors and what he has done to his own people. The continuation of the Iraqi regime has been very difficult for our partners, the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Kuwaitis, the Turks, and the Gulf states. Over the years, they have said our Iraq policy has been a very hard policy for them to sustain.
Strategically trying to get rid of one of the most destabilizing forces in the Middle East is a good idea. But the moral aspect doesn’t get as much play as it should. What’s gone on in Iraq to the Iraqi people has been horrendous. Prisons with children of political prisoners being tortured and abused— many younger than ten years old. Just imagine. And sanctions have strengthened the reign of this maniacal leader. We put sanctions into place for very good reasons: we didn’t think they would last long, and we thought they were more just than war. But it turns out we were wrong. And this policy which we have supported and have actively defended has contributed to the aching misery of the Iraqi people. It allowed Saddam Hussein to consolidate his power and use it to horrible ends.
When Secretary Albright said it was not us causing the suffering of the Iraqi people, but Saddam, technically she was right. And everyone in the region agreed; but what they couldn’t understand was why we pursued a policy knowing that Saddam would use it to his advantage to torture his people. We were complicit. We have got to get rid of this monster. He is our Frankenstein.
Q. You mean because of money from the sale of oil not filtering down?
A. Aside from the money that goes to reparations and to administrate northern Iraq, all economic resources get directed into the coffers of Saddam Hussein, who then decides how to distribute it. It increases his power. You don’t have the free flow of trade. The results are horrendous.
The American people won’t go to war unless they feel it is in our national interest. Strategically I think this is in our national interest, but you won’t get sustained commitment to a war unless it is also morally just. Saddam is unique. He is a strategic and moral menace. For that reason, it is important for us to go after him. It doesn’t imply that anyone else is necessarily next. This is a uniquely awful problem.
So the the USA invades Iraq and makes the region more unstable, and does indeed get the oil as claimed by some conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile Bronson is now at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which looks like yet another globalization love-in receiving Rockefeller grants and sponsorship by JP Morgan
1. signal weakness and defeat for the USA, a nation initially built on freedom,
2. would minimize casualties in eventually getting the hydrocarbon law passed
3. remove an obvious target for Iran when Tehran is attacked and thus save the oil wells which would then belong to Anglo-American oil corporations, and would make Israel the focus of any Iranian retaliation, which I think is the whole point of Israel.
4. would give the troops and the nation a breather before the next war
US think tank urges retreat from Iraq by Dave Clark
Fri Feb 9, 9:02 AM ET
BAGHDAD (AFP) - An independent think tank warned that the situation in Iraq was beyond repair and urged that US forces should be pulled out whatever the result of the current "surge" of troops into Baghdad.
A report from Washington's Council on Foreign Relations concluded that a US military victory was impossible in Iraq, where "amateurish" post-invasion rule by American officials had seen Iraq collapse into civil war.
The respected institute's stark assessment comes at a time of collapsing public support for the war in the United States and mounting opposition to President George W. Bush's strategy within Congress.
"The United States has already achieved all that it is likely to achieve in Iraq... Staying in Iraq can only drive up the price of those gains in blood, treasure and strategic position," wrote Steven Simon, author of the report.
But look at this statement again; "The United States has already achieved all that it is likely to achieve in Iraq..."
What has been achieved? Worldwide hatred and mistrust of the USA, grand theft and corruption, civil war and the hydrocarbon law.
Job's a good 'un!
Friday, February 09, 2007
On 1 January 1985 we made the UK’s first mobile call. It marked the launch of the mobile industry and transformed global communications. Today Vodafone is the world’s leading international mobile telecommunications group with equity interests in 27 countries across 5 continents, 186.8 million proportionate customers and 33 partner networks*. For more than 20 years we’ve been at the forefront of mobile innovation. Now we’re entering a stretch of uncharted territory as next generation technology opens up a whole new range of opportunities for customers. It’s a new and exciting stage in our journey.
The mobile communications industry is about drowning us in a sea of microwaves to gently interfere with our body's and brain's electrical system, and bombarding us with useless information to keep us distracted from the horror of this world.
The three sixes in the Vodafone logo are;
1. the inverted comma in the large circle at the top of the logo
2. this same inverted comma is then in the first o of vodafone
3. the same comma is in the second o of vodafone.
NB all three sixes are red, the colour of blood and a favourite colour of satanism.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
In a statement after their release from Coventry's Chace Avenue police station in the early hours of today, the men said there had been no mention to them by police of a plot to kidnap or behead any soldier.
Their solicitor Gareth Peirce said: "They have left the police station without any better understanding of why they were there than when they first arrived seven days ago.
"Not a word was ever mentioned to either of them about a plot to kidnap or the grizzly suggestion of a beheading or even of a soldier at all.
"Both have been met with a consistent refusal over seven days for any explanation for their arrest.
"They are convinced that others in the police station must be
as innocent as they and urge that they also be swiftly released."
Saturday, February 03, 2007
During the 1990's UNEP published its first report. I can't remember which section it is in but there is a research paper that stated the world only had room for 1 billion people to live a reasonable lifestyle.
The UN sits on land donated to it by the Rockefellers, and continues to receive substantial donations for its global governance from the Rockefellers.
Before that the Rockefellers donated the land for the HQ of the League of Nations.
So what is it about the Rockefellers and world government?
The Rockefellers are BIG oil men, controlling Exxon and a few other oils. But they also part-control the Federal Reserve, which enables them to create virtually unlimited amounts of money. The USA gets its money from the Federal Reserve. Thus the Rockefellers profited greatly from the blood of our ancestors spilled during world wars 1 and 2.
The Rockefellers and their mates want world government. They are prepared to finance our fathers into gruesome world wars to fight and kill each other to persuade us we need a world government to stop world wars. The world government, the UN, is then agreed after WW2. If they are prepared to finance world wars then a report into convincing us that WE are the problem is not beyond them. The Rockefellers then finance that world government to tell us in a report that we humans are responsible for global warming from driving around on too much Rockefeller petroleum, and that a global solution is required for a global problem.
To assist into driving us into this reaction it is leaked that the Exxon-sponsored AEI has been offering to pay scientists and economists $10k each to write against the existence of global warming. The effect of this is that it gives the IPCC report more credibility. However it is not leaked that the Rockefellers and their mates have been financing world wars to create the UN in the first place.
I think global warming does exist, and is happening.
I also think it was designed to happen, with the destruction of rain forests and the burning of fossil fuels. It creates a global problem. We are all affected by the climate. Our economies depend upon it.
And global problems require global solutions.
However I do not think that the global solution that will be proposed, an all-powerful UN, is the answer.
The UN was born in blood. It stands on a former slaughterhouse and was the result of a devastating bloody world war.
The UN is not all-powerful...not yet.
9/11 kicked off the world war 3 planned by Albert Pike. Pike's WW3 will be more devastating than WW1 and WW2 together. Billions will die in nuclear, chemical and bio warfare, reducing the world population drastically. Those that survive will have seen many reasons for an all-powerful world government, among them global warming.
But they won't understand that the whole scam was manufactured for that sole purpose, as an evil experiment in mass psychology. A handful of families can't force their world government on to us. But what they are trying to do is create so much chaos and devastation that we relinquish our freedoms and sanity to save the human race from destruction.
On that day Dick Cheney, ex-Halliburton, was running several terrorist drills. Cheney is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations along with the Rockefellers, who control Exxon.
Exxon, and the other big oil companies, Shell and BP included, have been reporting record profits since 9/11.
I wonder what gets discussed over a shandy at the CFR?
The following article briefly examines the geopolitics of oil and the GWOT. There's not much oil that's available now; Venezuela has lots but that darned Chavez guy wants to keep a big chunk of the profits for the Venezualans. Russia has lots too, but that Putin guy wants to keep the profits for the Russians.
How do would YOU destabilise their governments so they crumble and are replaced by a government more acceptable to US oil corporations?
So I guess they had to get Iraq, and blame that 9/11 on that Saddam guy. What was the Neocon mantra during 2002? "9/11, 9/11, Saddam, 9/11, Saddam, 9/11, WMD, Saddam" etc etc etc ad nauseum...
The three giant US-based energy conglomerates—ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhilips—posted record profits for 2006, according to reports issued by the companies at the end of the week.
Profiteering off of the doubling of crude oil prices in the space of just two years—topping $78 a barrel in the summer of 2006—the big three recorded combined windfall profits of over $72 billion.
ExxonMobil, the world’s largest publicly traded company, raked in $39.5 billon last year—the largest annual profit recorded in US corporate history. The oil giant generated a staggering average of $108 million in profits a day, or $4.5 million an hour. The total topped the previous record for corporate profit, also set by Exxon Mobil in 2005, of $36.13 billion.
Exxon’s total annual profits amounted to more than the federal government spends on public K-12 education per year and were roughly equivalent to the amount that Congress appropriated to provide health care for some 6 million low-income children over a span of 10 years.
Total revenues for the biggest oil company topped $377 billion last year, an amount greater than the gross national product of countries that include Belgium, Sweden, Turkey and Austria.
The profits of ExxonMobil’s closest US competitors also soared. Chevron, the nation’s second-largest oil company, posted its most profitable year on record with $17.1 billion in earnings, while number-three ConocoPhillips did likewise, taking in $15.55 billion.
The big oil companies have profited mainly off of the volatility and chaos on the crude oil markets, resulting in large part from the war for oil in Iraq and the threat of even widening the war to include military aggression against Iran.
The vast annual profits for ExxonMobil came despite a 4 percent decline in profits for the last quarter of 2006, largely the result of the driving down of gasoline prices in the immediate run-up to the 2006 elections. It is widely suspected that the energy monopolies deliberately cut gas prices in the vain hopes of bolstering the political fortunes of their allies in the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress.
Conscious of public outrage over the profiteering by big oil, ExxonMobil ran full-page ads in national newspapers Thursday claiming that its 2006 profits were not excessive and that much of them are reinvested in the discovery and exploitation of new energy sources to meet growing global demand.
“Our revenues are large and they need to be large to support the huge investments we make to produce the energy our country and the world needs,” company spokesman Kevin Cohen said defending ExxonMobil’s profits Thursday.
In reality, however, in 2006 Exxon spent considerably more of its profits to buy back its own shares on the stock market than it did on new capital investments.
The company laid out fully $25 billion on repurchasing its own shares in a scheme to drive up stock prices. During the same year, it spent $19.9 billion for capital investment. Exxon shares rose by approximately 20 percent in 2006, posting another dollar increase on annual profit news Thursday to reach $75.08 on Wall Street.
The big three US oil companies, as well as their smaller competitors, owe their record profits to the gouging at the gas pumps, which saw consumers paying an average of $3 a gallon last spring and summer. This fleecing of average working people on gasoline sales is supplemented by an array of corporate welfare measures, tax breaks and royalty relief worth tens of billions of dollars.
High fuel prices continue to exact their toll on working class Americans, with the poorest section of society unable to afford heating their homes through the winter. While continuing to underwrite the staggering profits of the big energy conglomerates, the federal government slashed funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program by one third last year, from $3.2 billion to $2.1 billion. Barely 17 percent of low-income households eligible for assistance are presently benefiting from the program.
Big payday for Exxon CEO
ExxonMobil’s Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson took home a total compensation package of at least $18.5 million in 2006—making considerably more in one hour than someone working for the federal minimum wage earns in an entire year. This massive sum is by no means exorbitant by the standards of the oil industry, and pales by comparison to the $400 million retirement deal awarded to his predecessor, Lee Raymond.
The announcement of ExxonMobil’s profits follows by only days President George W. Bush’s speech delivered on Wall Street on the state of the US economy. In it, Bush acknowledged growing income inequality in America as “real” and admonished his big business audience that “salaries and bonuses of CEOs should be based on their success at improving their companies and bringing value to their shareholders.”
By this perverse standard, both Tillerson’s and Raymond’s compensation are fully justified, given the huge profits that their company has generated, and the driving up of share values, in part through an aggressive buyback campaign that had the not incidental effect of substantially fattening the personal portfolios of Tillerson and other Exxon executives.
The consequences of the economic activity of ExxonMobil and other energy giants for society as a whole, however, are quite another matter.
Aside from the toll taken by price gouging on gasoline and home heating fuels on working families in the US, the oil companies and ExxonMobil in particular have engaged in a concerted campaign to block any effective response to the immense threat posed by global warming and to deny the mountain of scientific evidence blaming climate change on the use of fossil fuels. A report issued last month by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that the oil giant paid out $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a web of advocacy groups dedicated to denying the human cause of global warming.
The Guardian newspaper in Britain, meanwhile, carried a report Friday detailing an attempt by an ExxonMobil-funded think tank, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), to bribe scientists and economists into attacking the new report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirming global warming and its source in human activity. AEI, whose vice-chairman is former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond, offered to pay $10,000 for papers casting doubt on the IPCC document.
There is also the strong evidence that Exxon Mobil and other US energy monopolies played a significant role in the preparations for the war to conquer Iraq and open up its oil reserves to direct exploitation. Executives for the companies met behind closed doors with Vice President Richard Cheney and his Energy Task Force in 2001, reviewing maps of Iraq’s oilfields and lists of companies seeking contracts with Baghdad.
In its article on the oil profits Friday, the Wall Street Journal warned that market trends may not prove as favorable for big oil in 2007. “Exxon, Shell and their oil peers face a tough future,” the newspaper reported. “Many untapped oil and gas reserves are held by nations that don’t want to let in Western oil companies. The companies also face industry-wide cost inflation and pressure by governments seeking more for themselves in production agreements.”
The Journal pointed in particular to Exxon’s negotiations with the Venezuelan government, which is demanding a greater stake in multibillion-dollar heavy crude oil ventures in the Orinoco Belt.
The unmistakable implication is that, as in the case of Iraq, “nations that don’t want to let in Western oil companies” can become the targets of US military aggression.
The massive oil profits recorded for 2006 once again point to the necessity of taking these corporations, which promote social inequality, militarism and the destruction of the environment, out of private hands and turning them into public utilities. Only in this way can society begin to confront the urgent dangers posed to the future of humanity by war and climate change.
Or perhaps he won't, after Iran gets bombed and all hell breaks lose, martial law is declared and he annoints himself Supreme Fuhrer.
Tony and Cherie Blair are buying another house - next to the property they will move into after Downing Street.
They have already exchanged contracts on the Georgian mews house in London's Bayswater area, according to reports.
The property, their fifth, is located at the rear of the £3.65m Connaught Square townhouse they bought in 2004.
Thought to be worth about £800,000, it is a two-bedroom house with two floors above ground and a basement currently serving as office space.
But the Blairs are said to be planning to knock the two properties into one to create extra space.
It will also provide an alternative point of access which is thought to be preferable from a security perspective and also secure a better point of access to their home.
Mr and Mrs Blair already own two flats in Bristol, where son Euan attended university, which they bought in 2002.
The Prime Minister also has his Myrobella constituency home in County Durham. He bought that when he became an MP in 1983.
Reports suggested that the latest purchase would take the Blairs' mortgage repayments to up to £20,000 a month.
A Downing Street spokeswoman refused to comment.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Again, especially after the farce of August last year, I have deep reservations about this alleged plot. Of course, this one may exist, but I think we are entitled to a high degree of skepticism.
Fresh bid to extend detention period for terror suspects
Thursday February 1, 2007
The home secretary, John Reid, is to make a fresh attempt to extend the maximum period that terror suspects can be detained without charge beyond 28 days, it was announced today.
Mr Reid told ministers at this morning's cabinet meeting he would attempt to find cross-party consensus on a longer detention period for questioning, the prime minister's official spokesman said.
Following consultations with the police, Mr Reid said police chiefs thought it was "right and proper" for the government to address the issue once more, following a failed attempt to introduce 90-day detention in 2005.