Australian Foreign Minister Senator Bob Carr - senile or a liar?
Yesterday the Australian Foreign Minister, Senator Bob Carr was asked by a reporter if he still thought that US Presidential candidate Mitt Romney was "bloodless". The question was prompted by a blog by Senator Carr from January this year entitled, "Bloodless Romney Misses Great Counter Attack". As of today (1st November) it is still online.
How did he respond to the question? Well for starters he said, "That's ancient history". Really, January is ancient history is it?
The fact that the blog post is still online did not stop him from saying to the reporter, "I rather suspect you're now inventing things on my blog to throw at me". No Bob, not inventing things, quoting things. Do you understand the difference? By the way Bob, if you're going to deny something, perhaps deleting it from your blog would be a good start because if you don't, everyone can see that the reporter wasn't inventing anything.
Not content with that patently false accusation he then went on to say, "Any view I held at the time has been overtaken by the views I've now got to express on behalf of Australia." The only possible logical interpretation of that statement is that you did hold that view but now are forced to (that's what "got to" means) express views which you don't believe because you are the Foreign Minister.
Of course he also resorted to the standard cornered-rat defence (otherwise known as the Alan Bond defence, or since the Leveson enquiry, the Rupert Murdoch defence) of saying "I can't recall making those remarks". Really? It was only 10 months ago Bob, and you thought it important enough to blog about. Unless you don't actually write (or at least read) what goes on your blog, which I seriously doubt, that leaves only two options - either you really can't remember it, in which case you are senile, or you are a liar. Which is it Bob?
This is where it turned completely surreal. Senator Carr said that since writing the blog post he has met Romney, and stated that he "certainly wasn't bloodless". OK, that statement is fine I guess, for someone trying to be diplomatic. The bizarre bit was the very next thing he uttered which was, "And I deprecate anyone like you using an adjective about someone who could be president of the United States." What? The reporter wasn't using that adjective about Romney. The reporter was quoting something you said about Romney. Can you seriously not see the difference? Of course you can; you were just saying that to try to deflect the valid criticism away from yourself. Unless of course you really are senile, which would be the only explanation for you saying that truthfully.
I'm certainly no fan of Mitt Romney - I think he would be a disastrous US President. I just think with Romney and Carr we are dealing with a case of Tweedledum and Tweedle-even-dumber.
How did he respond to the question? Well for starters he said, "That's ancient history". Really, January is ancient history is it?
The fact that the blog post is still online did not stop him from saying to the reporter, "I rather suspect you're now inventing things on my blog to throw at me". No Bob, not inventing things, quoting things. Do you understand the difference? By the way Bob, if you're going to deny something, perhaps deleting it from your blog would be a good start because if you don't, everyone can see that the reporter wasn't inventing anything.
Not content with that patently false accusation he then went on to say, "Any view I held at the time has been overtaken by the views I've now got to express on behalf of Australia." The only possible logical interpretation of that statement is that you did hold that view but now are forced to (that's what "got to" means) express views which you don't believe because you are the Foreign Minister.
Of course he also resorted to the standard cornered-rat defence (otherwise known as the Alan Bond defence, or since the Leveson enquiry, the Rupert Murdoch defence) of saying "I can't recall making those remarks". Really? It was only 10 months ago Bob, and you thought it important enough to blog about. Unless you don't actually write (or at least read) what goes on your blog, which I seriously doubt, that leaves only two options - either you really can't remember it, in which case you are senile, or you are a liar. Which is it Bob?
This is where it turned completely surreal. Senator Carr said that since writing the blog post he has met Romney, and stated that he "certainly wasn't bloodless". OK, that statement is fine I guess, for someone trying to be diplomatic. The bizarre bit was the very next thing he uttered which was, "And I deprecate anyone like you using an adjective about someone who could be president of the United States." What? The reporter wasn't using that adjective about Romney. The reporter was quoting something you said about Romney. Can you seriously not see the difference? Of course you can; you were just saying that to try to deflect the valid criticism away from yourself. Unless of course you really are senile, which would be the only explanation for you saying that truthfully.
I'm certainly no fan of Mitt Romney - I think he would be a disastrous US President. I just think with Romney and Carr we are dealing with a case of Tweedledum and Tweedle-even-dumber.
posted by Alan at 3:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home