Those who brought us Britain's role in Iraq plan a fresh war of illusion.
The drumbeats are sounding and excitement is mounting as the boys anticipated playing again with the toys.
Even Tony Blair is back, eager to repeat his 2003 'triumph'. He could not have stopped the Iraq War but he could have done a Harold Wilson and kept British soldiers safe at home. Blair bullied, bribed and bamboozled 80 reluctant Labour MPs to abstain or vote for war.
The Commons majority for war was 179 - exactly the same number of British soldiers who were killed in pursuit of non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. 422 soldiers died in Afghanistan protecting the UK from a non-existent Taliban terrorist threat to Britain. How many will be in deadly peril to defend us from non-existent long-range Iranian missiles carrying non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons?
The Daily Telegraph is scaremongering by repeating the US/Israel nuclear scare.
It has replaced the Russian war threat that kept Western fear levels simmering and the arms trade prospering for half a century. The Iran lie was the pretext for locating US missiles in the Czech Republic. Putin was rightly outraged with a transparent lie. The war was on the brink of rebuilding a new cold war.
Beyond the world of propaganda the facts demand a hearing. Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead. Mossad and the CIA agree
The November 2011 report of the IAEA did not claim that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme. Iran is not in breach of any obligations under the NPT : Israel is. Iran's nuclear facilities are open to IAEA inspection: Israel's are not Israel, which has many of 400 nuclear bombs and the ability to deliver them to any capital in the Middle East.
As the UK plan unaffordable new nuclear power stations. Iran is being denied the uranium enrichment that is their "inalienable right" under the NPT.
The Daily Telegraph cannot manage a blush of embarrassment at the double standards that could propel us towards war.
The US, Israel and others, who are threatening military action against Iran, are in breach of Article 2.4 of the UN Charter It requires that all UN member states "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".
The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, has said that the possession of nuclear weapons is a "grave sin" and Iran has never invaded another country. Are we doomed to repeat the madness of the Iraq War and the Helmand incursion? In both lands vast sacrifices of blood and treasure will result in one rotten government being replaced by another rotten government. The consequences of an attack on Iran are incalculable.
The weakest link in the belligerent posture is the absences of an answer to the question, in what circumstances would it serve Iran's interests to attack with a nuclear. To all nations and to the planet, mutual assured annihilation is not a plausible choice.
Why do they claim it is?
Follow Paul Flynn on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Paulflynnmp
MPs say all lobbyists should be on new register
All lobbyists, including charities, think tanks and unions, should be subject to new lobbying regulation, a group of MPs have said.
They criticised government plans to bring in a statutory register for third-party lobbyists, such as PR firms, only.
They said the plan would "do nothing to improve transparency".
Instead, the MPs said, regulation should be brought in to cover all those who lobby professionally.
Action on lobbying was promised in the coalition agreement to deal with what David Cameron has called "the next big scandal waiting to happen" at Westminster
In January this year, the government set out plans to register only those "who undertake lobby activities on behalf of a third party client".
In a report, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said they had seen "no evidence to suggest that third party lobbyists are a particular problem within the lobbying community - indeed the Government's own records of ministerial meetings suggest that third party lobbyists make up less than 1% of all meetings with ministers".
The Committee said that whilst it was not in favour of having no regulation of lobbyists, this would be preferable to current government proposals.
They added: "The proposals single out third party lobbyists in an attempt to create a narrow focus for a register that will meet a coalition pledge, but do little to improve transparency about lobbying.
"The committee recommends that the government scraps its plans to introduce a statutory register of third party lobbyists, and instead introduce regulation to cover all those who lobby professionally, in a paid role, including those who lobby on behalf, of charities, trade unions, and think tanks."
Labour committee member Paul Flynn told the BBC's Daily Politics that the government's plan "only scratches the surface and let's 95% of lobbyists off the hook".
He said policies were "being corrupted by the influence of lobbyists" and there was support from all parties for a more wide-ranging register.
"The lobbyists who gave evidence to us, as well as the people interested in transparency all said the same thing: That we must have a root and branch of lobbying or we'll continue to have a government that's up for sale," he added.
A Cabinet Office spokesman said the government would provide a detailed response to the committee's report "in due course".
The spokesman added: "Lobbying has an important role in the policy-making process, ensuring that ministers and senior officials hear a full range of views from those who will be affected by government decisions. But it must be conducted in a transparent and open way.
"The coalition government is committed to introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. We will publish a draft bill and White Paper during this session of Parliament, and the committee's work will be important as we consider our approach, alongside the responses we received to the consultation that ended in April."
TUC head of campaigns and communications Nigel Stanley said: "Ministers and others should be far more open about who they meet, what was discussed and the purpose of the meeting.
"While we have no principled objection to registers that include everyone seeking to influence government, we still doubt how practical it will be to divide the staff of organisations such as the TUC into those who lobby and those who don't.
"But, as we support openness, we are happy to work on ways to take the committee's suggestions further.