For the last time; Wikileaks do not hack and are not hackers. The Guardian are (at least) third-hand recipients of this data, all of which is in the public domain.
On the phone hacking:
The Guardian are NOT making this a party political issue; in fact I've seen more accord between them and The Telegraph and the BBC on this than any other issue, including MPs expenses.
The House of Commons are also not playing this as a party political issue. I'd have thought that was clear from the insistence in the House of Commons debates and PMQs from the last week. All parties have been quite clear that they are all culpable to a greater or lesser extent (about the relationship between politicians and the media) and the only way to deal with this effectively is to find a cross-party solution.
The Guardian have not only reported that, but have commented on it. Everyday the Guardian live blog links to and presents information from other news sources. If they were so partisan, do you really think any of this would be happening?
Alan Rusbridger was not the only one to warn Cameron. So did the Lib Dems and other people. Please go and read Hansard if you want evidence of this.
The reason they all warned Cameron was because they knew that Coulson was involved in or had direct knowledge of illegal activities connected to his time at News International. That makes it very important to any future employer, Prime Minister or not.
"This story itself has been hijacked, for the convenience of the transgressors. The important story is not slimeball hacks and bent rozzers. Nor is it about Milly Dowler and a little boy with Cystic Fibrosis. This is about the way in which our politicians have bought public opinion through a lazy and no longer independent media (not just NI). If Murdoch built his empire on dirty deals with our politicians, that tells us as much about our politicians as it does about Murdoch."
The above is all nonsense. You say that it's been hijacked, but then go on to damn Murdoch and politicians. You say it's not about "bent rozzers" and "slimeball hacks", but it is. These are the people that have skewed public opinion through their activities for themselves, their masters and the politicians they favour.
However, the cross-party judicial enquiry that has been launched is going to cover all of these aspects: political, legal and media and the inter-relationships between all three to ascertain if they were proper and if not, how to address it so it can't happen again and to bring charges against those found to have broken the law.
Furthermore, the CUlture, Media and Sport Select Committee has representatives from all three of the major parties sitting and hearing evidence.
How much more does the OP want, or did she not read/listen to the news and political debates of the last week?
And finally, I think all parties have agreed, (in fact I know they have because I listened to the debate in the Commons yesterday) that there will be significantly more transparency about the relations between the media and politicians and the police. The terms have yet to be agreed, but there is an end to private, covert meetings.
However, Cameron said yesterday at the same discussion that he thought that it would be unreasonable for people to be told who they could and couldn't be friends with and that there had to be limits to the informaiton that should be in the public domain.
I agree with sprogger's conclusion to your posts swedes*: "
I'm afraid that your OP is so uninformed and partisan it completely undermines your subsequent posts, Swedes. "