" The Sunday Times said the secure rooms encased in 18-inch-thick steel walls would provide shelter for the royal family from bombings, gas attacks, assassination attempts -- and even a direct hit by a light aircraft.

The rooms, which the paper said were ordered after a security review after last year's Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, would be equipped with secure communications, and everything needed to survive for at least a week."

Oh goody! (Sarcasm.) At least Londoners will know she's safe when they're all dead.

713 Also posted to: Home page . At: 10:16:45 PM  . .
Permalink  Top  Search Google  Technorati
Other title(s) for this story: Yahoo! News - Panic Rooms to Protect British Royals -- and Dogs

"Only later did it become clear that the president already had made up his mind. In July 2002, the State Department's director of policy planning, Richard N. Haass, held a regular meeting with Rice and asked whether they should talk about the pros and cons of confronting Iraq.

Don't bother, Rice replied: The president has made a decision."

A good background of the history of the ouster for Iraq. But looking further back than 9/11 is pointless.

Good thing about warblogging, is that I can look back into July 2002, into what was being released (I called it then 'testing public reaction') into the news UK: we will use nukes first:

"Mr Hoon said then: "There has been no change in the essential rules we follow on the use of nuclear weapons. They would be used in only what are described as extreme conditions of self-defence ... proportionately and consistently with our obligations in international law."
Mr Hoon caused anger this year when he said Britain would be ready to use its long range nuclear weapons against Iraq."

Not a lot was said against it, possibly because most thought it would never happen.

712 Also posted to: Home page . At: 9:08:48 PM  . .
Permalink  Top  Search Google  Technorati
Other title(s) for this story: Washington Post: U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past