So, what's Don Brash's response to the allegation that his party asked the US to conduct a covert propaganda campaign against the New Zealand people? Neither confirm nor deny, of course. In case anyone needs reminding, this is exactly how he responded to the revelation of his own "gone by lunchtime" comments - comments that he later admitted when faced with the transcript from MFAT. In this case, we already have the transcript, and in the face of that, Brash's equivocation simply seems duplicitous.
Brash has recognised that it would be "inappropriate" to seek such assistance. In that case, he should be demanding that Dr Smith resign - not just from his position as foreign affairs spokesperson, but as a National Party candidate. People who would sell us out in this way and activiely solicit foreign powers to influence the New Zealand electorate are not fit to sit in Parliament.
6 comments:
No, the whole claim is bullshit.
In legal terms, at best, what Lockwood Smith supposedly said would be hearsay. What he is alleged to have said is preposterous. There is no solid evidence that he said any such thing.
Very keen for Phil Goff to release the MFAT comments of all the private discussions he has had with foreign leaders over the past six years.
Posted by Insolent Prick : 8/03/2005 11:35:00 AM
How much credibility is National shedding by refusing to give straight answers to reporters on these fundamental issues?
When even National's refusals to comment are wrapped in American rhetoric it doesn't leave much to the imagination though does it.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/03/2005 11:58:00 AM
how much credibility is LABOUR losing by not giving a straight answer to ANY question?
(see yesterday's hansard)
Posted by Anonymous : 8/03/2005 12:19:00 PM
On Just Left, Blu suggests that, by admitting he'd been out-manoeuvred by Clark, Brash maintains his credibility by ensuring that "people don’t tar him with the same brush as the other politicians". I wasn't convinced then, and I'm even less convinced now :)
His response to Goff's claims, which can be paraphrased as
Um, well, I don't remember what was said, I didn't remember a year ago and I don't understand why you'd expect me to remember now. So yeah, I dunno what was said, but I'm sure neither of us said anything really bad.
don't exactly reinforce a sense of competence and credibility. The fact that his answers are so consistently cringe-inducing is bad.
The fact that he has, once again, reminded us that his memory is poor and that he doesn't have the good sense/professionalism to take meeting notes not only undermines his statements about his decades of experience as a CEO, but it also makes him look like a real disaster waiting to happen as a PM.
He responds to any impromptu (and many scripted) questions by saying that he'll need to consult with officials after the election.
He seems to be painting himself as a politically-naive man who expects to be surrounded by officials who'll tell him what to think, remind him what he said, and make sure all the Is are dotted and the Ts crossed.
Why he thinks that is a good strategy is beyond me. Tho I guess that National's long-term strategy may be to use Brash to wipe out Act this time around (losing the election, but possibly forcing Labour to coalesce with Winston First), and replace him with a competent candidate in 2008.
Posted by Anita : 8/03/2005 12:29:00 PM
Anita - maybe he's just being honest, which would in some circumstances be refreshing.
But in this job interview, I'll keep hoping Joe Public will select the better qualified applicant...
Posted by Anonymous : 8/03/2005 01:58:00 PM
It would be nice if politicians jsut fronted up and said the truth but really that is more than you can expect from any of them
Posted by Genius : 8/03/2005 07:14:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).