paid to shred blair?
in the telegraph, some news of potential conflicts in the diplomats letter story from a few days ago…
Diplomats failed to disclose their own Arab links [the daily telegraph]The letter failed to disclose, however, that several of the key signatories, including Oliver Miles, the former British ambassador to Libya who instigated the letter, are paid by pro-Arab organisations.
Some of the others hold positions in companies seeking lucrative Middle East contracts, while others have unpaid positions with pro-Arab organisations.
does this invalidate the points made? which came first? did these people take work at “pro-arab” organizations because of their positions on policy, or did they adopt positions on policy because they got paid?