Aaro interviews Blair, heads up
It's on tonight at 2215. Mark Lawson reckons it's petty dull, but we might not. Aaro believes that the Hutton Report proves Blair didn't lie, so Frost/Nixon this will not be. Consider this an open thread on the subject. I may "liveblog" it, but probably not.
posted by The Rioja Kid at 11/18/2007 06:26:00 PM
14 Comments:
There's a piece here about the interview (it doesn't contain much of Blair's words; it's mostly background. Blair (on not leaving the US to invade unilaterally): "Because I think this is the most fundamental struggle of our time and there is only one place to be which is in the thick of it and trying to sort it out." I, for one, am not sure what 'this' is. Islamic fundamentalism? Not in Iraq. Crazed military despots? Why then are we talking to Libya? Any ideas?
If its an interview by Aaro I can't imagine it is anymore than the regulation genuflection, he being one of Blair's court journalists. Blair wouldn't give the interview if Aaro wasn't, he wants reliable sycophants.
There was a piece in the South China Morning Post recently about how Blair did a lucrative bit of business while in China recently. Between speaking engagements in Hong Kong and Beijing, he was asked to visit "The World is Mine" lakeside luxury villa complex in Dongguan, by the boss of the Guangda Group (a property developer). Here, new homes are expected to fetch upwards of US$5 million each, and feature giant chandeliers, jacuzzi baths, gold taps, marble walls and private cinemas.
Blair happily payed a visit to the complex, was photographed for publicity material, made a speech and hosted a reception for 70 VIPs where US$10,000 worth of French wine was consumed. Blair was paid about US$500,000 for his three hour visit, and the company has also offered him one of the luxury properties.
Also in the Independent:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3172080.ece
Aaro's piece in The Times is a bit of damage-limitation, rewriting history. Jonathan Powell's piece in the Observer is similar. Probably a decision has been taken by Blair to create a new narrative (again) about the decision to join in the invasion of Iraq. There are so many loose ends in the narrative that it is hard to know where to begin, and it's fascinating to watch the way in which Aaro wriggles around the tricky bits.
My eye was caught by the section on the neeting with Chirac. If Aaro actually reported what Chirac said at that meeting it would suggest that it was Blair who didn;t get it.
"Because I think this is the most fundamental struggle of our time and there is only one place to be which is in the thick of it and trying to sort it out."
As Alice thought about the remarks of the Mad Hatter: it seemed to her to have no sort of meaning in it and yet it was certainly English.
You wouldn't get Blair for ten shillings and sixpence.
The program was stuffed with Blair loyalists all talking about the ways in which their bold and brave leader was continually thwarted by Brown. At one point someone criticised Brown for 'only caring about poor people'.
The whole thing was quite embarrassing.
See two observations from old New Left Reviewers:
a cheer and some intelligent analysis.
RK
Aaro's got a couple of issues with Barnett's analysis. See the comments. He also claims not to have scripted the programme, which I believe: on the other hand, did he have any input to the script?
By the way, please can I join the AW project? I want to put up a medium-sized post on the Third Camp, in order to have a go at Marko.
Chris Williams
I don't see why not (and if any other contributors do, email me in the next 24 hours or I'm going to send out the invite). Email the aarowatch address in the sidebar so we know where to send it to. Although it would be nice if we could make the relationship between Maryam Namazie (who I think is a very interesting person) and decent/interventionist politics more generally, as I am pretty sure that our blogwar with MAH is ratings death for both blogs.
You barely saw anything of Aaro. Most of his questions were cut, he appeared on screen for about ten seconds, and Blair's answers were mostly decontextualised snippets rather than full responses.
If Blair was only going to give bland non-answers to dull feeder questions, I wonder why they needed Aaro to do it. Perhaps he demanded a pliant interviewer and Aaro fitted the bill.
This type of courtier journalism reminds me of Nigel Molesworth's description of an assistant at Horridges stores apologising for the lack of Sopwith's sausages:-
"To my surprise he bow low until his nose almost go wam on the sossage counter"
If Blair was only going to give bland non-answers to dull feeder questions, I wonder why they needed Aaro to do it.
True enough. But I suppose Aaro is a "name" of sorts, who lends "credibility".
A nice piece of gossip from the Guardian's Media section:
Early reviews have criticised last night's first part of The Blair Years for failing to lay a glove on the ex-PM, but according to an insider ("we really had to get him to push Blair") even persuading Blairite interviewer David Aaronovitch to point a glove towards him took effort. Disappointingly, though, rumours that the pro-Iraq invasion Times pundit wears a "what would Tony say?" wristband seem to be merely wild speculation.
'Disappointingly, though, rumours that the pro-Iraq invasion Times pundit wears a "what would Tony say?" wristband seem to be merely wild speculation.'
I hear Brownie took the last box of these.
Post a Comment
<< Home