The threat of a good example
The same tired, old, and thoroughly debunked turds still trip from the Prime Minister’s trap. And to think he kisses his wife and children with that mouth. Here he is at his monthly press conference yesterday:
Question: Putting aside your answer to Colin Brown about Christopher Meyer, can I ask you, just not specifically in relation to the book, but the charge is, and it has been put by others, that you didn’t use your influence on the timing of the war and over post-war planning, and in particular that if you had asked for a delay in the war for about six months, this would have given you more time to find out whether there were weapons of mass destruction. It is a serious charge put by a number of people, not just by Sir Christopher Meyer.
Tony Blair: If you go back and look at what happened in March 2003 I think you will see that I made the most strenuous efforts to get a second UN resolution, and to end up with a second resolution that would have given us more time. The fact is we couldn’t get one, and we couldn’t get one for a very simple reason, the French made it clear they would veto any such resolution. That is the reason why in the end you had to make a choice, and there was no other way.
Question: He specifically said that the French subsequently said that you and the Americans have exaggerated the degree to which they were saying no.
Tony Blair: Go back and have a look at what was said at the time - whatever are the circumstances. I don’t know what those words imply to you, but they rather imply to me whatever are the circumstances.
He either really believes it which makes him deranged or he’s continuing to foster the misrepresentation which makes him liar. If he was in an Uzbeki jail they’d already be boiling the water to ascertain which it is. He’s lucky he’s not one of these johnnies he wants to deport back to Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere - being so very fuzzy on the facts over there can get you killed.
A second resolution was sought to authorise force against Iraq not give “us more time”. And this misrepresentation of the French position has been repeated so much by Blair in his attempt to smear them and ride the wave of latent anti-French sentiment lying just below the surface of the British psyche that’s it’s beginning to play like his personal equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
For the bajillionth time, Chirac did not threaten to use his veto “whatever are the circumstances”. This from Panorama’s Iraq, Tony and the Truth:
CHIRAC: My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote no because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves to disarm Iraq.
WARE (presenter): In his interview the French President mentioned “this evening” no fewer than four times to stress he didn’t think war was justified as of that moment. But Mr Blair seized on only the first half of President Chirac’s statement.
It’s a delightful ruse for those of us protected by whatever the convention that keeps Prime Ministers out of jail. If only it would serve the rest of us so well:
Me: Hello Mr Securicor Man, delivering cash to the bank. I’d quite like to take one of your bags of lovely money.
Mr Securicor Man: Well, you can take one if you like but you’ll end up being arrested if you do.
Me: I’ll have one then.
Mr Policeman: Hello, hello, hello. You’re nicked, you tea leaf.
Me: Hang about officer, Mr Securicor Man said “you can take one if you like”.
(Sound of cell door clanging shut and large cellmate unzipping his fly.)
Me: Curse me and my failure to grasp the concept of moral relativism.
Posted on November 8th, 2005 at 11:17 am
| See also • The chips are down • Tim Ireland: I refuse to surrender • Like a monkey with a miniature cymbal |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under Uncategorized |
Memo : TB is a lawyer.
It all depends what you mean by “this evening” … today say 5- 10pm ..the evening of empire …. the evening of my life…
I was taken by his remarks …
“I believe that they (Police) have put forward a compelling case, making it crystal clear that the need for a maximum of 90 days to hold suspects prior to charge is necessary. Why? - to track complex trails of evidence through highly coded computer records, to piece together terrorist networks spanning continents, languages, dialects, to break through the cover provided by false identities, and to secure and analyse sites requiring often the most extensive forensic examination. All this work is required by them for the reasons they give, to marshal the strongest evidence to be used in interview, and crucially it has to be achieved with the police preventing attacks first, even though that means gathering more detailed evidence after an arrest than they would otherwise do.”
On this basis 90 days is nowhere near long enough - make it 900 years.
After all as my Nanny used to say , “they must be bad men, otherwise the Policeman wouldn’t have arrested them”.
Tony Blair is a shitball of slime, from this link:
Senior French sources accused Mr Blair of a faulty memory. “Only four out of the 15 members of the Security Council supported a new resolution and Britain needed nine to win approval. It is completely wrong to blame it on France,” said one official.