A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall (2006 mix)
This from the Prime Minister’s monthly press conference in April:
Question: On Iran, Prime Minister, last week at Prime Minister’s Questions you refused to rule out the possibility of military action, including targeted nuclear strikes against Iran. Can we therefore assume that should the diplomatic process fail to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programmes, and the US decided to pursue a military option, you would consider lending British support to that? And also given that the Foreign Secretary has described military action as inconceivable and unjustifiable, is there a split at the heart of government over this issue?
Prime Minister: No, there is just a very, very obvious thing, which is Iran is not Iraq. Nobody is talking about military invasion, people do however want to send a very strong signal to Iran because some of the comments made by the President of Iran are totally unjustifiable, Iran is supporting terrorism in the region to the detriment of democratic governments, it is in breach of its nuclear obligations and people want it to comply. And so the real issue for me in respect of Iran is well what are you going to do about it? And all I am saying, as I said at Prime Minister’s Questions last week, is that it is not very sensible at this moment in time to send a signal of weakness, we want to send a signal of strength. But I repeat, Iran is not Iraq and people are very, very well aware of that here and over the water.
Notice how Blair changes the “military action” in the question to “military invasion” in his answer. The thing is, I don’t recall hearing anybody seriously talking about an invasion of Iran. “Nobody is talking about military invasion,” seems about right. The topic of conversation, rather, is of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities with (nuclear or not) bunker buster weapons.
So far, so weak case. Flimsy evidence of the Prime Minister trying to distract observers away from a bombing campaign by denying something completely different, that is, an invasion. (Although it is classic New Labour to deny something of which they aren’t being accused in order to deflect from the question being asked.)
The thing is, he did it again today at his May press conference:
Question: Why has Jack Straw gone? Is it because he ruled out bombing Iran and you want to keep that option on the table? What did he do wrong?
Tony Blair: He was my campaign manager to become Leader of the Labour Party, and what he will do as Leader of the House is far more than the traditional Leader of the House role. He will effectively oversee what is a difficult programme being carried through Parliament (party political content) and any notion that it is linked to a decision about invading Iran – which incidentally we are not going to do – any notion that it is linked to a such a decision is utterly absurd.
Who asked about invading Iran? The question was about bombing.
Anyway, it’s an interesting evasion but it’s doubtful we’ll ever see him pinned down on it. “Has bombing Iranian nuclear facilities with conventional weapons been discussed?”, for instance (the use of nuclear weapons in such an attack having been ruled out as “absolutely absurd” by the Prime Minister). We’ll all get to read that plans to bomb Iran were well advanced in early 2006 when the top secret briefing papers are leaked in a few years time anyway. No point in asking about it now.
Posted on May 8th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
| See also • Chain of fools • More questions than answers • IRANWATCH: Here we go… |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Blair, Iran, T.W.A.T., UK politics |
• 9 Comments |
Whilst Guido and his ilk orgasm at the demise of NuLab, Blair still has the power to nuke Iran. But fuck that is just secondary…………
[...] One of the changes in the Cabinet reshuffle that has drawn the most speculation has been that of Jack Straw from the Foreign Office to the position of Leader of House of Commons, as Justin of Chicken Yoghurt fame notes here: [...]
“Absurd”
He’s fond of that word, isn’t he? One of the times he used it was back in April 2005 when The Independent “put it to him that some voters are withdrawing their support from Labour because they worry that he would regard a substantial election victory as an endorsement of the war.”
His response, The Indy (of April 21, 2005) tells us, “is unequivocal.”
Blair is quoted: “Of course, I can’t say that if we win this election that means everyone who supports us approved of Iraq. That would be absurd.”
“Absurd”.
Flash forward to May 8, 2006. PM’s monthly press conference. Blair is asked: “Isn’t Iraq your poll tax?”
Absurdly, Blair replies: “No. I think if that had been the case, at the last election, we would not have been returned to power. And, I mean, we can go into Iraq again and the reasons and so on. But I think that, em, the last election, in a sense, dealt with that really.”
So. In future. When the slippery bible-fondler tells us that a suggestion is “absurd”, we can take it to mean that is precisely what he is going to do.
Q. What did he do wrong?
A. He was my campaign manager to become Leader of the Labour Party…
‘Nuff said.
Iran is nothing like Iraq? It is exactly the same as Iraq. The mantra has started, with Iraq it was weapons of W.M.D., Iran, it’s the bomb. Then the years of sanctions and British and U.S. patrolling the no fly zone weakened Iraq sufficiently for an unopposed invasion.
What do the Americans and Tony Blair want from the security council?
Invading and bombing Iran…
Chick Yog makes an interesting observation about the Prime Minister’s position on Iran. Every time he is asked about bombing Iran he moves the question onto invading Iran – two very different things….
Is there not a person from segefield who can present this questoion in a normal constituency surgery:
Are you willing to bomb a sovreign country for no reason?
New Backing Blair video – The Roses of Success…
The Roses of Success (3.5MB w/sound) 4 days late nights work. Driven by anxious mind. Mouse hand hurts. Back sometime use words proper soon. Promise. Sleep now. PS – We have to sort these bastards out… and soon. (I love……
[...] performs an interesting analysis on some of the Dear Leader’s answers to questions on Iran. – # – 2006-05-18 12:17:32BarcelonaApparently there was a big important football match last night andwho are Spanish. Just something I heard on the train this morning and thought you should know. – # – 2006-05-18 08:17:48BarcelonaApparently there was a big important football match last night andwho are Spanish. Just something I heard on the train this morning and thought you should know. – # – 2006-05-18 08:17:48Getting thereOk, so I’ve got the theme working how I want it; I’ve finally,too… Now all I need to sort out is how the theme handles images and we’ll be hunky dory. – # – 2006-05-17 21:21:34Splitting woodSo Heather Mills McCartney and Macca are to split. Apparently hebefore they married. I guess that means she won’t be chasing a sizeable lump of it now, then. – # – 2006-05-17 13:41:58Splitting woodSo Heather Mills McCartney and Macca are to split. Apparently hebefore they married. I guess that means she won’t be chasing a sizeable lump of it now, then. – # – 2006-05-17 13:41:58PooterGeek on TopThe Pootergeek is experiencing increasingly sweaty fantasiesthe lovely Nigella. – # – 2006-05-16 20:17:46No more guns for HugoPresident Bush has slapped an arms trade ban on- not selling weapons to a country where the leader characterises you as ‘most likely to invade’. – # – 2006-05-16 10:11:31SuccessI have now completed installing and adapting the plaintxtBlog theme bythe new look, I want to concentrate on adding more content, which I’ve been neglecting recently. – # – 2006-05-15 21:25:18And introducing…The super new sideblog. An extra column for quickies andoff-the cuff nonsense. – # – 2006-05-1514:36:42 [...]