White House Ban
This story is pretty funny, but it has a darker side that is all too obvious.
Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein (The IRA's political wing) was welcome at the Bush White House, and that's fine - it's only appropriate that a peaceful dialogue is pursued over further brutalities. It is however completely at odds with the polemics of Bush after September 11: From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
However, Michael Howard dares publicly criticise the case for war, and for expressing his opinion and performing the duties required of an opposition leader (hey, better late than never), he is barred from meeting the president. William Hague and Iain Duncan-Smith both maintained very close and warm relations with the Bush white-house, but Michael Howard is the pariah for raising very legitimate questions about the way our country was misled into war.
It's pretty clear that the Bush rhetoric about freedom of speech is a convenience, when exercising that freedom of speech is a ticket to the political doghouse. Likewise, despite the obvious links to the IRA within certain elements of America, I don't see an awful lot of effort being spent in tracking down these particular supporters of terrorism... in fact, their political representative is recognised and welcomed by the Bush White House.
Nice to see that a man who represents terrorists is given preferential treatment over a man who disagrees with you. Good on you, George.
Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein (The IRA's political wing) was welcome at the Bush White House, and that's fine - it's only appropriate that a peaceful dialogue is pursued over further brutalities. It is however completely at odds with the polemics of Bush after September 11: From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
However, Michael Howard dares publicly criticise the case for war, and for expressing his opinion and performing the duties required of an opposition leader (hey, better late than never), he is barred from meeting the president. William Hague and Iain Duncan-Smith both maintained very close and warm relations with the Bush white-house, but Michael Howard is the pariah for raising very legitimate questions about the way our country was misled into war.
It's pretty clear that the Bush rhetoric about freedom of speech is a convenience, when exercising that freedom of speech is a ticket to the political doghouse. Likewise, despite the obvious links to the IRA within certain elements of America, I don't see an awful lot of effort being spent in tracking down these particular supporters of terrorism... in fact, their political representative is recognised and welcomed by the Bush White House.
Nice to see that a man who represents terrorists is given preferential treatment over a man who disagrees with you. Good on you, George.
2 Comments:
Wow, thats the problems I see. You call the IRA terrorists on what base? They only attack security officials in on a foreign government that doesn't have their best interests at hand. Research the LFV, the RUC, the UDA, and research about Collusion in Northern Ireland. The IRA have dropped much of their arms since the Good Friday Agreement, 3 times on record, while the Unionist death squads have only decommisioned once. The IRA attacks officials, the UDA\LFV\RUC attask officials but also attack Civil Rights Activists, Irish Language Activists, Social Workers, and Catholics in general.
What a phenomenally strange defence - the IRA aren't terrorists because the Ulster death squads are worse.
Should we discount the IRA bombing of the Manchester shopping centre? Or the bombing of Hyde Park in 1982? The bombing of Harrod's in 1983? The Carlton Club in 1990? Oxford Street in 1992? Hampsted Underground Station in 1992? Camden High Street? Finchley road? Bishopsgate?
Claiming that the IRA have only bombed security officials is ridiculously at odds with the historical record. It is on the basis of their long-standing involvement with murderous attacks on civilians that I call them terrorists.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home