People have asked: "Why is Lord Blairimort SO into the War on Terra?"
Obviously the answer is because Darth Cheney and the Monkey won't give him the spaceships to take part in the "War on Luna!"
(That joke works better when you say it out loud!)
Kirsty Waaaaark and the Newsnight programme did an update on the "War on Adjective" and how we are doing with that so far. Kirsty had several guests in the studio to discuss this afterwards, a bit like Gary Linnekar's bit in the World Cup programmes except that the waffle was not allowed to overrun into DOCTOR WHO.
Kirsty's guests did not include Alan Hanson OR Ian Wright, but did include left wing apologist commentator David Aaranovitch and a lady professor live via satellite from a picture of the White House.
Mr David said "it is not about won or lost, this war is a process and we have to judge whether we are safer at any stage of the process…"
This is all fairly standard GUFF.
If you want to take the idea of a "War on Terror" seriously (no, I said IF) then it is pretty OBVIOUS where the WINNING line is: we WIN when we are SAFE. Or if you prefer, we are SAFE when we WIN.
It is ALSO pretty obvious that this is actually IMPOSSIBLE.
Okay, well not ACTUALLY impossible, but really much more complicated than is being made out and certainly not DOABLE by force of arms.
The thing about you people is your ASTONISHING ability to harbour RESENTMENTS whether it is who had the last sticky bun or whose bestest friend gave them the Middle East in the first place. If you really want to deal with the main cause of "TERROR" you are going to have to sort out the fact that really most of you people are teed off most of the time about something, especially when, quite frankly, really rather a lot of people in the world have a good reason to be teed off about the West getting ALL the sticky buns and everyone else being stuck with mud pies made of REAL MUD.
Shooting their next door NEIGHBOURS and blowing up their GRANNIES (even when you DO get the BAD GUYS along with them) is only going to INCREASE the resentment. You would be much better off selling them a whole load of televisions and DVDs, you really would.
Anyway, given that getting to the WIN square is looking very unlikely, what with there being all snakes and no ladders on the way, people in FAVOUR of the "War on Adjective" have to change the terms of the debate.
If you can't WIN you can say well at least we're WINNING.
Which is where Mr David's line about "process" and "safer" comes back in. Sure, we haven't got all the BAD GUYS yet, but look you aren't actually DEAD so you must be safer than you were!
The interesting, or possibly TERRIFYING, thing was that after Mr David said this, he was interrupted by the American lady from the picture of the Washington Zoo Ape-a-torium.
If you want to know where she was coming from, she had already started REWRITING HISTORY by telling everyone how Mr Cheney's monkey had been warning about the threat of TERROR back in his first campaign to (not, actually) be elected back in 1999. Funny that, because if he was SO concerned then, how come he ignored the warnings about an attack on America and went on a long holiday in August 2001?
So she interrupted Mr David to say: "no, no, no, it's NOT about safer and less safe AT ALL".
If not being able to win means you change the language to "safer" rather than "safe", just HOW BADLY do you have to be doing to want to change the language AGAIN!
News just in: raise the ALERT LEVEL to BANANAS!