Sunday, 13 September 2015

Saudi-apologist MP Kawczynski fails to earn his keep

Daniel Kawczynski was sent in to bat to defend the Saudi coalition's behaviour in Yemen, and duly made himself available for interview. When he faced James O'Brien on Newsnight, however, he performed like an utter prat. He has declared one £5k payment from his Saudi chums to Parliament, but any hopes of further rewards from that quarter must now have been dashed by his piss-poor performance in defence of the evil and autocratic regime.

Humiliated and belittled, Kawczynski is now seeking to blame everyone except himself. 


Anonymous said...

Pt i.

Never one to hold back on open criticism of the beeb, nay tis true.

I watched that report and thought long, it was fairly balanced reportage. Hence, I found myself cheering for the 'rebels'. The Mosque scene, the fresh evidence and bespattering of ball bearings but then bombing civilian areas - who can divine the lesser crime, between both evils?

The KSA, for far too long, do meddle in the affairs of smaller Arabian peninsula nations as if it is their birthright. KSA, are doing some bloody awful things in Yemen, but then, the KSA is a collection of tent dwellers who are training blood crazed zealots and dedicated to barbarism to conquer the west, why should we be thus surprised?

What does surprise, rather, vex me greatly is the twats in Westminster who can't tell which way is up. The halfwits [see above], that political elite to man and woman residing here in the west somehow believe that the KSA and 'our interests' dovetail - how mad can it get?

They, those sages, armchair generals in newspapers and in the chatteratti, the bars at Westminster and in in Dave's inner sanctum, still are fulminating at Vladimir Putin because he won't allow a gay pride event in front of St. Basils on May 1. All of which, they then use as some sort of excuse to preclude joining with Putin to rid Syria of the scourge of those lads who throw gay boys off buildings - shome priorities mixed up there Dave - eh? Notwithstanding the rather pertinent fact, that, just who supports, funds and succours the Daesh - if not the camel herders and tent dwellers down Riyadh way?

Finally, say it again - Dave wants to bomb the only bloke who could save Syria, Dave also wont talk to the only person in Euroasia who could do something positive in Syria.

Someone, tell me, please, who is the sane voice of reason here? To me, truly it could never emanate out of Westminster, Washington nor, Paris, Brussels and Berlin. FFS, let it be said: the loonies who are running the west lost the plot many moons ago.

Anonymous said...

Pt ii.

There is this, with this Daily Mail article from Jenks, quotes

"Rather, it was in part a messianic humanitarian mission of the kind described by the British diplomat and Blair adviser, Robert Cooper. In 2002, he advocated ‘a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values . . . which like all imperialism aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle’.

There were glaring flaws in Cooper’s theory — what is acceptable, what is order, what is voluntary? Despite this, his words sanctified the interventionist cause and cleansed it of the charge of cynical imperialism."

Then this:

In August 2013, Cameron was rebuffed by the House of Commons on his wish to intervene militarily in the Syrian civil war.

In private meetings, he was reportedly frantic for bombing, eager to repeat what he saw as his success in Libya. Though his advisers warned him about the absence of any tactical endgame, let alone a strategic plan, it was MPs who reflected public opinion and forced Cameron to back down.

His alarmist rhetoric — that Syria posed ‘a direct threat to this country’ — was so implausible it had lost its capacity to scare.

Meanwhile, the cost of the West’s ‘humanitarian’ excursions are awesome.

Over the past 15 years, the zest for wars of intervention has left an estimated 250,000 people dead, few of whom had any quarrel with the West. It left many more maimed, tortured, impoverished and driven into exile.

And it has been, as we have seen in the past few weeks, a major factor in the mass migrations of peoples across Europe.

The world is not safer or happier as a result — rather it is more distressed and dangerous". end quote.

Jenks uses the pejorative term "imperialism" which is to my mind not the case, I much prefer 'idiot - very ill conceived intervention'.

Why poke a hornets nest when you don't need to?

A. Because "we can!"

John M said...

That has to be right up there with Blair's evidence to Chilcot in terms of nefarious, self-interested dissembling of the English language.

Applause to James O'Brien for doing his research, holding his nerve and exposing the kind of pompous and arrogant behaviour which most people utterly hate in the British political class.

Anonymous said...

In some quarters everything is "going to plan". Yes there is evil in the world and its direction of travel has never been more obscure.


right_writes said...

The trouble with O'Brien is that he just likes to be contentious, I am in no doubt that the Saudis are up to no good in the Yemen, they have never been.

We all know that the British government, regardless of party (so far) has both sold arms to Saudi Arabia and supported it... Mainly because of oil I suspect, but isn't it also due to some sort agreement going back to the post WW1 era that set this scenario up? Sykes-Picot or something? Is this not a matter of loyalty amongst a bunch of criminal politicians?

Foreign policy is not something that can change with the wind... Even though the Saudis must be sorely trying the patience of western politicians... You can never pin the buggers down!

If you take a look at the way ordinary folk, that are relatively new to politics view Saudi Arabia... Like those in UKIP for instance... The attitude is much more sensible and in tune with 21st century mores... The UKIP attitude is similar in relation to such wonderful organisations as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and the EU (of course)... that is... deeply suspicious. When politicians get together against ordinary folk, you know that it isn't going to end well for the ordinary folk.

But apparently the prat known as James O'Brien does not agree with that organisation either.

Apart from that, he is one of the rudest bullies in the media, as his "interview" with that MP and his attack on Farage and others, usually innocent callers to his phone in (does he still do that?) more than adequately demonstrate. I wouldn't give him the time of day.

Who or what does he agree with...?

I know...

James O'Brien!