Thursday, May 11, 2006
Euan something evil mate?
Sometimes I wonder if the LibDems fib so much that they become delusional and don't even notice the glaring contradictions they are spouting.
The latest example is Euan Robson who contradicts himself in the same statement!
He starts off with this emphatic line: "It is worth stating at the outset that nuclear weapons are an evil of our time."
Evil? Well that must mean you would never use them then?
But he continues: "I am pleased today to set out the Liberal Democrat approach to nuclear disarmament."
Pleased? Why? It's contradictory fibbery. It's like saying I'm pleased to announce tonight's microwave meal...but I digress.
He goes on: "In the 2005 UK General Election, Liberal Democrats reaffirmed our long-standing commitment to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons on a multi-lateral basis, whilst retaining the UK's current minimum nuclear deterrent until progress has been made to this end."
Okay, these things are evil but they'll keep them as long as others have them and since they believe they are a deterrent that means they will use them. Isn't that evil Euan?
But it get's worse: "In conclusion the Liberal Democrat view is that the case still has to be made by the UK government for a replacement system."
A case still has to be made? I thought they were evil. Now he's saying that he could be convinced to replace the current evil system and have a new evil system.
Doesn't it all mean that along with their fibbing they are also evil? Or is it a case that they hope the anti-nuke lobby think they are anti-bomb because it's evil whilst they can tell the armchair generals that they are hard on defence?
The latest example is Euan Robson who contradicts himself in the same statement!
He starts off with this emphatic line: "It is worth stating at the outset that nuclear weapons are an evil of our time."
Evil? Well that must mean you would never use them then?
But he continues: "I am pleased today to set out the Liberal Democrat approach to nuclear disarmament."
Pleased? Why? It's contradictory fibbery. It's like saying I'm pleased to announce tonight's microwave meal...but I digress.
He goes on: "In the 2005 UK General Election, Liberal Democrats reaffirmed our long-standing commitment to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons on a multi-lateral basis, whilst retaining the UK's current minimum nuclear deterrent until progress has been made to this end."
Okay, these things are evil but they'll keep them as long as others have them and since they believe they are a deterrent that means they will use them. Isn't that evil Euan?
But it get's worse: "In conclusion the Liberal Democrat view is that the case still has to be made by the UK government for a replacement system."
A case still has to be made? I thought they were evil. Now he's saying that he could be convinced to replace the current evil system and have a new evil system.
Doesn't it all mean that along with their fibbing they are also evil? Or is it a case that they hope the anti-nuke lobby think they are anti-bomb because it's evil whilst they can tell the armchair generals that they are hard on defence?
"After Michael Brown the LibDems were
relieved to find a new sponsor."
