Which officials, I wonder. He is, after all, an official.
As for his ridiculous point that we're not in control of our foreign policy because we don't want to invite disaster on our own heads, perhaps he could have made that a few weeks ago when he was seeking his mandate from the people.
Is it really lying if you don't even know what the truth is, and just make shit up about it, the way Key does on a daily basis?
Warning: Contains a dolt's concepts!
They could at least say of Hide and Jones "This writer was once the head of a major political party, and has never received any journalistic training whatsoever".
For example, many people
Thread crosspollination. Graeme fisks Key.
Nice work Graeme.
I think I’m hearing a baited hook being waved in front of my nose I really shouldn’t rise to, but I’m certain I should take my own advice and presume good faith on your part.
I think the self-metaphor of you being some kind of slippery fish is quite apt. Yes, landing you on any point is as difficult as it is with a skilled politician. Instead of answering the question, you call the question bad faith or baiting or whatever, and then you respond with a question of your own. So I come away with no answer to my question, and an implication that somehow I'm the one with questions to answer. And that's bad faith on my part somehow.
In answer to your question posed to Mark and me: No, no one is suggesting that John Key should be restricting the freedom of people who willfully put themselves at risk of being caught by ISIL. Brave journalists should be allowed to do their thing. That would be completed unwarranted use of extraordinary powers that no one has suggested would be a good idea (and it's probably entirely outside of his power anyway), and it's also completely beside the point of whether John Key should be gearing up to send NZ troops to this conflict.
Is this particular line in bed yet or should I be even more unequivocal about it? No one suggested that. But it's now asked and answered so can we get an answer to my question? How on earth can you maintain that engaging in a military conflict with a group of people who openly use terrorist tactics constantly isn't going to increase our chances of having those tactics used on us?
Or are you saying that it's beside the point, and we shouldn't even consider it, because that's "giving in to terrorists", and that they will be doing it anyway? Very confused about your point.
How bizarre, how bizarre, I’d say.
Wanna know the rest? Hey, <you know the rest>
How can military policy ever be based on anything but death threats? It’s the death threat business.
ETA: And that's when it's being nice. Usually it's just the death business.
There are plenty of argument to be made against military engagement, but that’s not a terribly good one and I really hope we’re not going to be basing our foreign policy on death threats. I’m not sure that ends up places New Zealand really wants to go.
I think I hear a no in there. I still can't be sure. It reads like you're saying that if you get a bunch of NZ soldiers to go into Iraq and start killing people, like what militaries do for their job, that somehow you don't think that it will make a lick of difference to whether NZers will now become targets for retaliation. But then again, maybe you're saying you don't give a fuck. I still can't be sure.