The present British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said it was right to go to war, also saying that the United States dismissed warnings of chaos and violence once Saddam Hussein was toppled.  Brown testified for over four hours before a public inquiry panel about Britain’s role in the conflict and its aftermath.

Defending his role in the conflict, but at the same time cautious not to inflame tensions over the unpopular war ahead of a looming national election campaign, Brown said joining the 2003 U.S.-led invasion was a tough call.

“We have got to recognize that war may be necessary, but it is also tragic in the effect it has on people’s lives,” said Brown, who voted – like most British lawmakers – to approve Britain’s role in the war.

“These were difficult decisions. I believe they were the right decisions for the right reasons,” he said.

But he was critical of U.S. planning, saying American officials failed to heed warnings about the need for clarity on how to protect and govern Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion.

Unlike Tony Blair, who defiantly stood by the invasion and argued Saddam was a threat to the entire world; Brown said he believed the war was justified because Baghdad had breached international rules in failing to abide by U.N. resolutions.

If you do some searching, you will find that a number of countries, including the main U.S. ally in the Middle East have also failed to abide by a whole slew of U.N. resolutions. Nevertheless, the “coalition” has not invaded those countries.

Brown insisted that Iraq had posed the first serious test to the post-Cold War world, claiming that any failure to depose the Iraqi leader would have emboldened other dictators and stirred global tensions.

Brown also sought to distance himself from President George W. Bush, suggesting their relations were “amicable” and criticizing the doctrine of some members of Bush’s administration.

“I never subscribed to what you might call the neo-conservative proposition that somehow, at the barrel of a gun, overnight, liberty or democracy could be conjured up,” Brown told the panel.

Hard to believe that either Brown, or Blair could actually believe in the crud they were spewing. It was without a doubt still another case of justifying their crimes and of covering their well-fed asses.

Technorati Tags: Britain, defend, Gordon Brown, Iraq invasion, Tony Blair

Bush’s top aide Karl Rove just wrote a memoir, entitled Courage and Consequence, in which he claims that Bush 43 did not mislead the nation about weapons of mass destruction as a way to “lie us” into a war.

Crap! Remember the memoirs by other neocons, such as Douglas Feith, who has denied any responsibility in the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal and really any responsibility for anything altogether?

While defending the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq, Rove concedes that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction damaged the administration’s credibility. And he blames himself for failing to set the record straight.

Yes, Karl, please DO blame somebody for not finding stacks and warehouses full of WMDs. You might as well blame yourself too for a very different than expected – by people like you – Iraqi reception of our invading troops. After all, some neocons claimed that the Iraqi people would line the streets and welcome us with flowers and tears in their eyes.

“When the pattern of the Democratic attacks became apparent in July 2003, we should have countered in a forceful and overwhelming way,” wrote Rove. “We should have seen this for what it was: a poison-tipped dagger aimed at the heart of the Bush presidency.”

Rove also comes up with all kinds of lame excuses for the administration’s abject failure after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans and other parts of the Gulf coast.

We’ll keep this short and succint: Don’t waste your money buying another neocon memoir.

Technorati Tags: bush, Iraq War, justifying, Karl Rove, Katrina, memoir

The picture of the unhappy-looking individual on the right shows of course the world’s number one golfer Tiger Woods.

Woods talked for more than 13 minutes Friday from the clubhouse at the TPC Sawgrass, home of the PGA Tour. About 40 people were in the room, including his mother. The event was tightly controlled, with only a few journalists allowed to watch Tiger live.

He said: “I was unfaithful. I had affairs. I cheated. What I did was not acceptable,” said Woods, looking composed and speaking in a steady voice. His wife, Elin, was not present in the room.

Tiger Woods also informed the public that he has undergone therapy for 45 days and that he will return for some more.

This is, as far as we are concerned the gist of the issue. Officially, the therapy was for so-called “sexual addiction”. The way we look at this is that if Tiger needed therapy for sex addition, the same kind of therapy should probably be administered to almost every man on the planet and some women as well.

What in the heck is “sex addiction”? Isn’t that the natural sexual drive which most of us have? It is also patently obvious that it is easier to enjoy this so-called affliction if one is famous, rich and successful. Not that we are being too permissive here, but that is simple, unadorned reality.

What is also pretty obvious is that Tiger’s wife Elin is pretty hot indeed, probably much hotter that any of his casual squeezes.

Yes, newness, excitement and all that do play an important role in sexual attraction, but since most of our sexual feelings appear to be centered in our brains, rather than crotches, we firmly believe that the therapy needed here would be one that would help enhance the subject’s thinking ability, rather than something called a “sexual addiction”.

There is a saying out there that:  “there is no cure for stupidity”. There is also probably no viable cure for what our social rule makers and the mental health industry label as “sexual addiction”.

Technorati Tags: apology, Cheating, golf, sexual addiction, therapy, tiger woods

In public, Toyota is running apologetic TV ads, vowing to win back customer trust. Behind the scenes, the Japanese carmaker is trying to learn all it can about congressional investigations, maybe even steer them along if it can.

It is all a part of an all-out drive by the world’s biggest automaker to redeem its once unassailable brand – under siege now as Toyota’s global recall expanded to some 8.5 million cars and trucks. The recall of 440,000 of its flagship and very trendy Prius and other hybrids, plus a Tokyo news conference where the company’s president read a statement in English pledging to “regain the confidence of our customers,” underscored a determination to keep buyers’ faith from sinking to depths from which it might not be able to recover again.

Facing U.S. congressional inquiries and government investigations, Toyota through its army of lawyers and lobbyists is working full-tilt to salvage its reputation. The confidential strategy – as Toyota will say little publicly about it – includes efforts to sway upcoming hearings on Capitol Hill and is based on experiences by companies that have survived similar consumer and political crises – and those that haven’t.

It was recently revealed that State Farm, the largest U.S. auto insurer, said it had informed federal regulators late in 2007 about growing reports of unexpected acceleration in Toyotas. That raised new questions about whether the government missed clues about the problems.

Federal safety officials said they were examining complaints from Toyota Corolla owners about steering problems.

Some say that the best strategy for Toyota would be apology, openness, details about a specific fix – plus a little help from friends on Capitol Hill.

Friendly legislators can limit the duration of congressional hearings and ask convenient questions that would give Toyota officials a chance to tell their side of the story. The goal would to limit unfavorable news stories about the hearings to as few days as possible, while making sure the company avoids being confrontational.

The Toyota recalls are the highest-profile congressional probe of the auto industry since a series of deadly accidents prompted the Firestone tire recall in 2000. Most of the tires were on popular Ford Explorer sport utility vehicles. Although the tires might have been defective, few other vehicles besides the Ford Explorer rolled when the Firestones blew out. Funny that Firestone seemed to take most of the blame for these design and manufacturing defects.

Both companies suffered damage to their reputations, but both bounced back. Ford was proactive, briefing officials with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Congress and stressing that the safety of their customers was paramount. Firestone offered to replace its tires for free. Everything was pretty much forgotten and neatly swept under the carpet. We wonder if Toyota will manage to come out of this smelling like a rose…

Technorati Tags: accelerators, brakes, congress, hybrids, lobbying, recalls, reputation, steering, Toyota

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker wants to prohibit commercial banks from some high-risk trades, saying that this should be an essential component of broader financial regulations and would cut back on institutions deemed “too big to fail.”

That’s seems eminently reasonable to us and we are glad to see Paul Volcker brought to the front of the regulatory battle.

President Obama has embraced Volcker’s idea to prohibit large financial companies that have both commercial and investment functions, such as Goldman Sachs, from engaging in speculative trading.

Large banks have already said that they oppose the idea. Do you blame them? These guys had the best deal around, since mobsters built Las Vegas and they don’t want to give any of that up.

Volcker said commercial banks, whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,  should not be allowed to engage in speculation that does not benefit their commercial customers.

The ban would distinguish between commercial and investment banks – a separation that had existed until 1999 when Congress, Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers and President Bill Clinton repealed major provisions of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act.

This wasn’t exactly the beginning of the wild ride on Wall Street, but most likely the beginning of the mortgage derivative schemes, the irresponsible lending practices and so forth – all leading to our present economic quagmire.

It appears that Paul Volcker has the right idea – to roll back some of the deregulatory schemes, which have turned the financial mills into legalized gambling houses.

One thing we wonder about, though… Why wasn’t he allowed to speak publicly before Scott Brown won the Massachusetts senatorial race?

Technorati Tags: banks, gambling, las vegas, regulations, Volcker, wall street