Aznar - modern revisionist?

HalloweenJack

I was watching David Frost on Al-Jazeera the other night and he interviewed former Spanish prime minister José María Aznar.

What really struck me about the interview was how Aznar seems to have his own ideas about what has happened over the last fifteen years, even though the truth has been out there for a while.

Firstly, he claimed he backed the Iraq war because the goal was to topple Saddam Hussein. When Frost asked him about the WMD's, Aznar denied it as ever being a reason. He insisted it was all about removing Hussein.

While it is possible that this was the case, why were we told that the Iraq war was justified because of the WMD's they did(n't) have? Why didn't they publicly tell us they wanted rid of Saddam before the war began?

Secondly, he claimed that an assassination attempt made on him in 1995 was carried out by people linked to the PSOE (the Spanish socialist party who were in Government at the time). This attack was more than likely carried out by ETA. He said he was targeted because he was leading the opposition and those in Government didn't like him.

Thirdly, he claimed that Spain voted in the PSOE in 2004 because the electorate knew Aznar was not going to be Prime Minister anymore. He had announced in January 2004 that he wouldn't serve a third term as PM.

He did not mention anything about the 11 March bombings and how he tried to pin it on ETA before it came out that Islamic terrorists had actually done it. This is probably the biggest reason why the PP lost the election but he wouldn't acknowledge it.

While Aznar is a tool of the highest order, is this a pattern of the ignorance and arrogance and disrespect that modern politicians have for the electorate? Do they really believe that they can rewrite recent history and expect us to believe it?

dresden8

HalloweenJack wrote: »

While Aznar is a tool of the highest order, is this a pattern of the ignorance and arrogance and disrespect that modern politicians have for the electorate? Do they really believe that they can rewrite recent history and expect us to believe it?

Of course, have you not been paying attention?

Lisbon, yes to jobs. Never happened. What are you talking about? Nobody mentioned jobs.

Sand

The cruel nature of Saddams regime and the liberation of the Iraqi people from that regime were cited as justification for the Iraq war at the time - Bush himself referenced it in the address he made on the eve of the war in March 2003.

No one remembers it, because it wasnt controversial. Only a few crazies disagreed and thought Saddam was a Lion, like that crazy Labour MP who went in Big Brother and made a fool of himself.

What was controversial was the WMD claim - this was argued over furiously. Hence it is the only justification that is remembered. It is quite possible that Aznar supported the Iraq war for all manner of reasons: from idealistic ones like toppling a dictatorship like he claims, to merely supporting an ally and raising Spains prestige and profile internationally by participating in the war. And maybe he did consider it possible that a regime that had already used WMD on its own people might be developing more WMD to use on its neighbours.

meglome

dresden8 wrote: »

Of course, have you not been paying attention?

Lisbon, yes to jobs. Never happened. What are you talking about? Nobody mentioned jobs.

Christ can we let this go. There were plenty of mentions of jobs however this fixation by the anti-Lisbon crowd with a fantasy promise of jobs is just ridiculous at this point.

dresden8

meglome wrote: »

Christ can we let this go. There were plenty of mentions of jobs however this fixation by the anti-Lisbon crowd with a fantasy promise of jobs is just ridiculous at this point.

See what I mean?