Eine Kleine Nichtmusik

Witty and pertinent observations on matters of great significance OR Incoherent jottings on total irrelevancies OR Something else altogether OR All of the above

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Blair criticises Ahmadinejad's speech without bothering to read it. How scholarly. How statesmanlike. How utterly Blair

You may have noticed this in the news. Yes, in Washington they have so little idea of what either a statesman or a scholar looks like that a bunch of imbecles has declared Tony Blair (who was never remotely close to being either) as a "scholar-statesman". Well, you can imagine how the Monstrous Ego preened and puffed at such an honour. You can also imagine the kind of twaddle he came out with when making his acceptance speech. (If you have the least desire to do anything but imagine, there are plenty of video clips around: Uncle Jimmy's site has them all. For some reason he thinks that Blair's acceptance of a phoney award in Washington means that "he's back" on the British political scene. Dream on, Jim: Failed, Fired, Forgotten, that's Tony Blair's epitaph in British politics.)

Anyway, buried in "scholar-statesman" Blair's (you'll just have to imagine my shoulders heaving with mirth as I typed that) same-old-same-old Islamophobic tosh was this:

"We should make it crystal clear to Iran: acquiring a nuclear weapon is unacceptable not just to America but to the civilised world. And if people say, why should India or France have a nuclear bomb but not Iran, I say go and read the speech of Iran’s President to the United Nations just days ago here in New York, and tell me that is someone you want with a nuclear bomb."


Well, OK, yes, let's. Here's Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN.

OK, first up, the guy is clearly a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. but there are plenty of people in the US government, in congress and governing states, who buy into equally whacked-out conspiracy theories regarding the "myths" of climate change and evolution, or regarding their own President's birthplace and religion. Blair doesn't seem to have any problem with these people's holding power in a country with nuclear weapons.

Then, if you actually read Prime Miniuster Ahmadinejad's speech, apart from the 9/11 nonsense it's perfectly reasonable. Most importantly, Ahmadinejad calls for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. He points out that Iran has gone beyond its commitments in honouring the Non-Proliferation Treaty (a treaty to which Israel has never been a party, BTW, though it has nuclear weapons - which it tried to sell to apartheid South Africa - and Iran hasn't). So whether I would trust Ahmadinejad with a nuclear bomb is irrelevant: he doesn't want one, as Blair might have spotted if he (a) read the papers now and then and (b) read the bloody speech he criticises so freely. Would I trust Prime Minister Netanyahu with one (and he has hundreds of them)? Absolutely not. Is Blair bothered about illegal nuclear weapons? Is he bothered about non-proliferation? Evidently not. Is he repeating the same tired old lies that have made him a laughing-stock everywhere except Israel and right-wing circles in the USA? Sadly, he is.

Personally, I'm just glad that our own nuclear deterrent is no longer within reach (whatever happens in elections) of someone who believes that Islamic extremism is the greatest threat facing the world today, who led us into the futile wars we lost and are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who is now itching for someone to attack Iran so he can cheer then on and claim it was all his idea in the first place.

Still, for all Ahmadinejad's clumsy rhetoric and 9/11 lunacy, his speech is worth ten of Toe-Nibbler's (and can be had for a tenth of the price). Now if he could just get round to sorting out the little matter of the rigged election back home, we might get somewhere. (Funny how Blair didn't mention that in all his Iran-bashing: mind you, he praised the state of democracy in Afghanistan FGS, so flagrant election-rigging is clearly OK with him).

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home