"His condemnation of Cameron and Osborne earlier this year for showing more interest in winning an election than in detailed economic policy is more a reflection of him than the ambitious duo. Who can blame them? They did have an election to fight"
Probably the saddest words I have read in some time.
Not that politicians think winning an elections is more important than actually helping the electorate with a well-thought-out policy - we all knew that. But that a serious commentator thinks this is acceptable, normal and right. Worse; the quite accurate implication that if they HAD come up with a detailed economic policy, it would have cost them at the polls.
When Wikileaks starts lifting the veil a little, to reveal the arrogance, criminality, corruption, lies, and towering hypocracy, at the heart of the Russian, Chinese and Iranian ruling classes in an attempt to combat their massive production of lies with a little bit of truth... I will start to believe. Until then, it is just another vulture attracted by success and bent on whacking down the tall poppies in its own field.
I bought it all except the suicide bombers - it doesn't explain the women. Ooops, wait, given the way women are treated in some fundamentalist Muslim societies/families: yes it does. Female suicide bombers are afraid they WILL get enough sex.
When Assange starts hacking into and releasing the diplomatic correspondence of the nations of the EU, CIS, SEATO and the Arab League, we will know that his enterprise is a journalistic rather than a propagandistic one.
You've heard of "Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells"? Well, I live in Holland Park and I've Had It. Up to here! An old curmudgeon, I rant and rave about things I read, see or hear in the News. Frequently sarcastic, irreverent and libertarian; often wrong - but never uncertain.