Schizophrenic analysis?
One (and especially amusing) theme over at Sicilian Notes is the repeated attempts to conflate the long and honourable Irish tradition of UN service - intimately tied with our anti-colonial past - with imperial adventures of the United States - e.g., the second coming of the British Empire in many anglophile eyes. We don't think many are taken in by this, so we usually let it go without comment.
But while the usual strategy employed is a simple one of what Americans refer to as a 'bait and switch' (somehow, pieces on the Irish military always seem to segue into attempts to set up arguments to go to Iraq), recent days have seen one particularly dishonest element creep in:
29th May 2006:
(ii) Isn't it curious how ephemereal Richard's disdain for the United Nations becomes once the UN can be used (however dishonestly) to ginny up talking points favouring George W. Bush?
(ii) We're still waiting on Richard's comment as to whether he's siding with McDowell/the gay marriage campaigners, or the homophobic Catholic protestors who broke up that meeting; on tenterhooks, some might say.
But while the usual strategy employed is a simple one of what Americans refer to as a 'bait and switch' (somehow, pieces on the Irish military always seem to segue into attempts to set up arguments to go to Iraq), recent days have seen one particularly dishonest element creep in:
29th May 2006:
"Never mind that the US is there under a UN mandate, or at the express request of Iraqi leaders, or with the support of the Iraqi people as repeatedly voiced to pollsters"30th May 2006:
"The US is a good friend to Ireland, fighting in Iraq with a UN mandate and at the request of the democratically elected government there."i) The US didn't invade Iraq under "UN mandate", as political science research assistant Richard presumably knows to be the case;
(ii) Isn't it curious how ephemereal Richard's disdain for the United Nations becomes once the UN can be used (however dishonestly) to ginny up talking points favouring George W. Bush?
(ii) We're still waiting on Richard's comment as to whether he's siding with McDowell/the gay marriage campaigners, or the homophobic Catholic protestors who broke up that meeting; on tenterhooks, some might say.
| Permalink 
|
