I didn’t bother with Gail Walker last week, but in this week’s column Ulster’s answer to Amanda Platell is back to her daft best with a venture into foreign policy, and a swipe at the “liberal left” into the bargain. The “liberal left” in this instance being amiable Archbishop of Canterbury and John Peel lookalike Dr Rowan Williams.
Fresh from his fudge over gay clergy, Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams is trying to unite his flock by attacking another persecuted minority – Americans or, in its polite PC form, ‘neo-cons’.
The Archbishop has had a good hard look at the military/political situation in the Middle East and concluded that ‘neo-con’ suggestions of military action in Syria and Iran were “criminal, ignorant and potentially murderous folly”.
Don’t you love the way that Gail conflates the Washington neocons with the American people? Not to mention the delicacy of “military action”. Need I mention that I’m with the Archbish on this one?
If it is murderous folly to intervene against Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, it must have been murderous folly to intervene in Iraq to dismantle their presumed weapons of mass destruction.
Quite. By the way, is Gail one of the last people on earth assuming that Mr Tony Blair acted in good faith, and that Saddam’s WMD will yet be found? And again the euphemism of “intervene” when she means “invade”.
Bizarrely, Williams failed to mention Iran’s nuclear programme (which, let’s face it, might be a wee bit ‘destabilising’) or, more pertinently, the grandstanding of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Bizarrely, Gail fails to mention that there is a country in the Middle East which already has 200 nuclear missiles, not to mention containing lots of religious fundamentalists and being in a formal state of war with most of its neighbours. Its name escapes me for the moment.
Gail then goes on to update the late Philip Larkin’s slagging of CND, apparently on the assumption that the old racist curmudgeon has something to tell us about foreign policy today. You see, Gail feels that the Church of England isn’t sufficiently muscular to protect Britain from the deadly threat of Iranian nukes. Maybe they could even be launched in 45 minutes…
Elsewhere, Gail goes off on a ramble about the Diana inquest, and somehow brings that onto a discussion of William and Harry falling out of nightclubs. In an article that defies summary, this is tied in to both the paparazzi’s pursuit of Diana and the war in Iraq:
Don’t the princes and their advisors realise that images of them exiting nightclubs, flushed about the gills, jar with footage of their Army pals returning home from the frontline in coffins?
Perhaps this meditation on the horrors of Iraq wouldn’t jar quite so much if Gail wasn’t such a fervent supporter of the war. Just a suggestion.