Jim Holstun, an English professor at the University of Buffalo, sends this along:
Tony Blair spoke at the University at Buffalo on Wednesday, October 7. As usual, the University prescreened and censored questions. But one questioner got through by submitting a fake question for review, then asking a real one.
Blair looks even more like a liar than usual here. I’m told that University at Buffalo Vice President and Chief Censor Dennis Black nearly burst a vein when he heard the unapproved question being asked.
Tony Blair, of course, refuses to affirm international law, as one would expect from the man who refused to call for a ceasefire during Israel’s war on Lebanon. But it takes a deft questioner to make him debase himself so openly.
Blessed is the university with students who have such moxy and smarts!
And an article from a University of Buffalo student newspaper gives more of the story:
The screening was put in place to prevent repeated questions, condense similar questions and displace irrelevant questions like that of Blair’s age, height, favorite color, and other questions that didn’t pertain to the speech, said Dennis Black, vice president of student affairs.
Despite the screening process, one student was able to slip in several uncensored questions.
Nick Kabat, a senior political science and psychology major, was chosen as one of the few students that would be able to ask Blair a question. His original question was approved, but Kabat says his intention was to get accepted and then ask Blair a much harder question.
“Most of the questions would be easy for Blair to respond to – questions that have been asked a million times,” Kabat said. “It made a statement to the crowd that this man is not as perfect and charming as they may believe.” . . .
Kabat did not receive any form of punishment for changing his question and says he would do it again if given the chance. He said that he could tell that Blair was not expecting the question and thinks the former prime minister was thrown off by it.
This is all SOP for world politics pretending to be democratic in nature. I too salute
Nick Kaba. We need more of his like.
What an annoying report! It says nothing about the question that was asked or Blair’s response to it.
Blair addressed the question well.
Typical response from Blankfurt.
Why am I totally unshocked that you’re cheerleading double speak and rampant apologism?
Richard is the representative of mainstream Western liberalism on this issue. Not a pretty sight–not at all. But there it is.
Western leaders like Blair and Obama can’t possibly favor a serious war crimes investigation into the crimes of both Israel and Hamas. If it was just Hamas that would be business as usual–investigating the crimes of the Other Side. But set up a precedent where a Western country is investigated and Blair and Obama have to start sweating. So in this case you get all the guff about the need for reconciliation, the romanticization and coverup of Fatah repressiveness (they are our puppets, so their human rights violations are good) and in general a lot of talk which basically tells Palestinians that crimes committed against them don’t matter at all. And as bonus points we are given a history of Gaza which goes like this–
Israel withdraws
Gazans fire rockets (clearly bad)
Israel responds (no clear condemnation by Blair)
Nothing about the blockade or Israeli violence during the period of rocket fire. Israeli violence only counts when it is 100 times more intense than Palestinian violence, and even then it is not as bad for someone like Blair.
Blair did not address the real questions at all, he covered them over with standard hasbara talking points. If you want to know where Witty stands, check it out.
Once again, Richard finds himself in agreement with a war criminal and pathological liar.
Sorry, that wasn’t Blankfort, but Adam Horowitz.
Blair addressed the issue in the sense that war is peace and we have always been at war with Eurasia.
The point is that Blair is full of it. He claims that there is a “second” view to consider. But, it’s starkly clear that the US and the UK (to name a few) including Blair constantly put Israel’s needs ahead of those of the Palestinians.
If there IS bias, it exists on the part of the pro-Israel camp. But you already know that so there’s no point in explaining this to you.
What did Barney Frank say to one angry protester at a town hall meeting recently?
Anyway, if the sky is a shady haze of brown in your world, then you might find Blair to have answered the question appropriately.
But, we on planet earth, disagree.
Blair echoes all the usual Hasbara talking points, treating the I-P situation as if the conflict is between two peoples with the same power supporters, and as if the true history of the region mirrors the Jewish narrative that Jews actually have at least as much right, if not more right
to hold the land than the Palestinians have dwelled on for many centuries. He is disgusting. The Brits have a leader who turns the light switch or or off on Jewish saturdays for his pay. Blair’s a disgrace to the goyhim–he’s not even some poor goy
who simply needs to pay his rent.
Blair’s New Clothes.
And where were the shoes, so needed to fly in situations like this?
“You never solve these conflicts by taking one side or the other.” Tell that to the Serbs.
That expression on the poodle’s face is just priceless.
off-topic link:
We can deliberately destroy thousands of Gazan homes, the Gazan parliament, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, courthouses, the only Gazan flour plant, the main poultry farm, a sewage treatment plant, water wells and God knows what else.
Deliberately.
After all, we’re acting in self-defense. By definition.
And what right do the Palestinians have to defend themselves against this?
None.
Rattling the Cage: Our exclusive right to self-defense, Larry Derfner, Jerusalem Post
That absolutely glows with truth! I’m astonished that JPost let it see the light of day.
I too am surprised. There must have been a computer glitch at the JPost for this to have slipped through.
RE: “Univ. of Buffalo student forces Tony Blair to respond to (and dodge) the Goldstone report”
SOMEWHAT RELATED: ” Blair snubbed for having ‘blood on his hands’ “, By Agence France-Presse, 10/09/09
(excerpt) LONDON — Former British prime minister Tony Blair was told he had “blood on his hands” by the father of a dead soldier Friday, after a memorial for the fallen of the Iraq war in London…
…The snub came at a reception held after the memorial in St. Paul’s Cathedral, where the archbishop of Canterbury criticised policymakers for failing to properly consider the human cost of the Iraq war.
Peter Brierley, whose 28-year-old son Shaun died in March 2003, refused to shake Blair’s hand when he offered it, telling the ex premier: “I’m not shaking your hand, you’ve got blood on it.”…
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to rawstory.com
Pingback: Arab News Blog » Nonsense from Blair
Make no mistake. Blair is Israel’s man to push their agenda in the European Union. He’s owned wholly.
Yep, he’s that kind of whore.
Mondoweiss, or in this case mondohorowitz, your website rocks. Where else can we see so clearly through all the layers of deceit? Blair is a high priest in that regard. His basic response is: “International law seems to favor the Palestinians, and that’s just not fair.”
Pingback: Univ. of Buffalo student forces Tony Blair to respond to (and … | Student credit card live today.
evasive….. he is saying everyone is responsible including the international community, but it is hot air that he is unwilling to back up…
His wife has more balls when it comes to the Palestinian issue.
His wife did not get a $1M reward from Israel, for doing so much as peace envoy in these very peaceful times.
This is what Cherie Blair’s been up to lately:
link to reuters.com
Regarding this talk about Israel responding to attacks…its the other way round….As we saw with events leading to the Gaza massacre, and more clearly the 2006 Gaza beach shelling, when Hamas was observing ceasefires…which Israael deliberatly broke:
Beach strike shakes Hamas cease-fire
Seven Palestinians die while picnicking on beach
‘JERUSALEM (CNN) — An Israeli navy gunboat fired shells onto a northern Gaza beach Friday, killing at least seven people and prompting the military wing of Hamas to call off a 16-month-old cease-fire with Israel.
etc
link to edition.cnn.com
So Blairs bull about Israel responding ignoresm recent history! Its in israels interest to be seen as the victim, defending itself….So dont be fooled…Blair was lying during his speech.
it is about who gets to write the history… blair and company are working hard to present a history at odds with reality…. they mostly have the same lines down… stories like the one you are sharing are not included in the history as they would mean complete dishonesty on the part of these same bullshit history purveyors…
Truth is of little value these days, especially in the mainstream.
Pingback: A question from Nick Kabat, a student at… « Talk Islam
I am not a big fan of the Goldstone report on the war in GAZA and the findings that both Hamas and Israel committed war crimes and BLAIR is one of the reasons for my disapproval.
When the Presdident of Sudan was cited for crimes against humanity, he was named specifically and the court clearly identified who they were after and why. They didn’t name Sudan. Here, the report is general and a bit defensive on Israel and I think they threw Hamas in there as a measure to apphease critics, the results as we see, western countries are falling over each other trying to protect Israel. Would there have been the same reaction if Barak was named as principal?
I would have liked to see more direct charges and accusations against people like Ehud Barak and Livni for prosecuting the war with little concern for civilian casualties. Several of the field commanders should have been named specifically and specific crimes charged against them. Then maybe you’re not really attacking a whole country but the individuals who were responsible for the crimes.
Blair himself, along with George Bush, Romsfeld, Rice, and a whole slew of neocons in the Bush white house along with Perle, Wolfowitz and Bill Clinton all deserve to be named for war crimes for their role in the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq. But who is going to pursue that action.
The best you can hope from the Goldstone report will be the same fate as the Kahan Commission on Ariel Sharon and his role in the massacres in Sabra and Shatila, a wrap on the knuckles and later elect him as Prime Minister, reward for his war crimes ?
If you want to prosecute people for their war crimes, win the war, then charge the losing side with everything you can think of, case in point, Nuremberg. Notice no one was charged in the US for the crimes committed in Vietnam.
Hypocrisy still rules our world and justice leans towards those who win and can write history with their own words. This is exactly what Blair is saying.
Well, the USA did charge Lt Calley and a few US Army privates guarding the arabs
in US Army jail cells. Blair is only echoing Goering at Nuremburg in 1945–he actually banks on the ignorance of the democratic masses.
Typical Blair.
Ducks the question.
Not once has he called on a settlement freeze and he is happy to see more land stolen whilst ‘institutions’ are created. Ex-president Abbas is the latest Middle East stooge. How long before he goes the way of the former Iraqi president?
Footnote: Blair was a major player in getting Hamas’ political wing banned in the EU and also scuuppered plans for Gaza’s gas to be brought ashore in Egypt.
Poodle Blair has never had to face the equivalent of the American Freedom Of Information Act, weak a it is with its easy exemptions:
link to mail.google.com