Doctor Easychair settles in
Typically, now Andrew Bolt has ‘discovered’ Egypt he’s the instant authority.
Last December, Rudd visited Egypt, just after President Hosni Mubarak rigged another election and just before these huge protests to topple him.
Good time to talk about democratic reform in the Middle East, right? But clueless and hungry for the Muslim bloc’s votes for his United Nations ambitions, Rudd talked instead about nasty Israel, nice Egypt and scary Iran.
(Yep, it’s simply a disgrace Rudd didn’t see these huge protests coming, as did Bolt.)
In June 1998, then Foreign Minister Alexander Downer visited Egypt, where Hosni Mubarak had never contested a presidential election in over a decade and a half as president.
That would have been a good time as any to talk about democratic reform in the Middle East, right?
But Magic Alex talked instead about the great importance of the Australia-Egypt trade relationship, and signed a Memorandum of Understanding to develop further cooperation and mutual understanding between the two countries.
“Clueless”, Andrew? There’s been plenty of that all ’round for decades.
POSTSCRIPT: Alexander Downer’s United Nations ambitions were fulfilled when, after resigning from Parliament in 2008, he accepted the post of UN envoy to Cyprus, a role he discharged with not unqualified success.
Labels: Alexander Downer, Australia, Middle East, politics
posted by Jacob A. Stam at 2/02/2011 01:20:00 PM
5 Comments:
Snap!
Well, actually, you beat me to it. Was about to send you a link to Bolt's glorious efforts in turning himself and history into pretzels to make some weird case for the vindication of Dubya, with or without WMD.
And let's never forget that Bolt was one of the total tools who not only believed the WMD pap in the first place, but then wouldn't let it go no matter how many times his nose was rubbed in shit.
Still, his effort today is magnificent! Bravo Bolt!
//end sarcasm
Oh Caz, it's so difficult to choose from the buffet of buffoonery Bolt serves up day after day after day. Or even to know where to begin with the piece you've referred to.
What's striking is the utter lack of integrity, which seems completely driven by Bolt's manic hatred particularly for Rudd, who he slams for not supporting the protests and condemning the monster Mubarak (while, conveniently ignored by Bolt, Rudd has made it clear he's been concerned for Aussie nationals still in Egypt).
Having sunk the boot into Rudd, Bolt hedges his bets saying "change in Egypt may well end in tears... There are also great risks in siding with protesters against a government that’s a key ally in a dangerous neighbourhood..." etc. etc. etc.
Maybe Bolt thinks he's covered all his bases with all that wending and weaseling: He gets to knife Rudd (again, oh and Obama, another Bolt 'favourite') while portraying himself as a champion of people power, and then plays the sober and cautious analyst who sees risks in championing people power (i.e., protesters can go to hell if it means crossing "a key ally").
I could go on to review Bolt's misrepresentations (e.g., of Obama's Cairo speech) and ignorance (e.g., all Arab leaders in the ME seem to Bolt homogenously Islamist in outlook) and lazy assumptions (where to begin!) and so on and on.
But at the end of the day, who has the time or energy to deal with all this crap?
In today's blog, Bolt has finally caught up with the Bligh vs Nixon analogy Jacob, although I think I put the case better early in the week. (Bolt takes a spin on the sexism-defense trotted out by Nixon, but to be honest, I don't recall seeing much or any of that at the time.)
"Having sunk the boot into Rudd, Bolt hedges his bets saying "change in Egypt may well end in tears... There are also great risks in siding with protesters against a government that’s a key ally in a dangerous neighbourhood..." etc. etc. etc.
Maybe Bolt thinks he's covered all his bases with all that wending and weaseling: ..."
Jeez Louise, I didn't notice how he'd covered all bases there - friggin' hell, he's good.
Wonder if he stands for anything at all?
Yes, in due course, he'll be able to say that he's been proven 100% right ... about, err, something.
I thought you put the case better too.
I seem to recall Bolt has an in-principle objection to female police officers out in the field catching villains. The principle being that females just can't cut the mustard like we blokes, and tend to get hurt more when push comes to shove, etc. I think somewhere he trotted out some stats which support his position - or as he'd prefer, proves it.
Bolt's problem with Nixon may in part be related to that. His dislike of Nixon, however, predates her Black Saturday failures, and I can only think that, aside from the gender thing, it's because she's a Labor appointee.
And who knows, maybe there's even been some petty incident in which he imagines she slighted him or didn't accord him due deference.
"Andrew Who? - Blot?"
Yes, you're right Jacob. Bolt was quite obsessive about the feminisation of Vic Police, so his particular take on the Bligh comparison was coloured by that baggage.
He can twist and turn any circumstance to push his vast array of barrows. I hadn't realised how much so, since I mostly don't read his column, maybe a couple of times a year. Read several in a row, or a dozen blog posts, and it's enough to give a girl severe indigestion.
Post a Comment
<< Home