Berties Apology

R

Redbhoy

Guest
What did Bertie Apologise to Dr. Ian Paisley for! Expressing an opinion or what??
 
At a guess I'd say it's just politics. Its something that needed to be done to keep the man sweet.
 
Bertie Ahern apologized because he knew he made a disgrace of himself by insulting the memory of those killed by the Provisional IRA over the years. The US administration, the UK administration, as well as all political parties here except Sinn Fein/IRA, want photos at the very least as proof of at least some decommissioning.
 
Bertie is way, way out of his depth (ok I know he won EU statesman of the year).

Here is the sequence:

The Doctor insists that this foto thing should be on the table.

Tony Bliar insists that the two Governments include the foto bit. "Sure masser", says Bertie.

Grizzly calls in for a morning chat and tells Bertie no way his boys are having their foto taken - wasn't it the Red Indians thought it stole the spirit.

Just after his chat with Grizzly, Bertie announces to the world that fotos just ain't on.

The Doctor completely blows his beano.

Bertie says it wasn't him talking. He was only repeating what Grizzly said.

The Doctor still threatens to throw the toys out of the pram.

Bertie grovels.
 
Dr. Paisley has already stated that the photos should be published to 'humilitate' the IRA, no solely as proof of decomissioning.
 
I feel sorry for Bertie, having to deal with a madman like Paisley.

I also think most Irish people would take offence at the Taoiseach - the leader and representative of the nation - having to grovel to him, and then having his/OUR noses rubbed in it by Paisley.

Bertie has a lot on his plate these days and I respect him for keeping his committment to the NI peace process throughout.
 
That's twice that Bertie has gaffed and admitted that
some negotiating demand of republicans would need to be
conceded by the rest of us. (The Releases and the lack of Photos).

I notice there was no groveling apology and retraction after the first Gaff.

Can anyone explain why either the IRA or Ian Paisley are more deserving of respect from the Taoiseach than the Widow of a Garda Killed in Action?

It confuses the hell out of me.

-Rd
 
As far I know the 'photos' are actaully part of the initial peace process.


'Can anyone explain why either the IRA or Ian Paisley are more deserving of respect from the Taoiseach than the Widow of a Garda Killed in Action'

The IRA deserve no respect... Ian Paisley might be a big mouth but he's no terrorist.
 
Didn't Paisley cut off all ties with the Irish government for a short period of time?

That's what makes me believe that it was merely Bertie taking the bigger picture into consideration. In order to keep Paisley sweet for the long haul of a peace deal it was necessary to make a public apology to him.
 
Ah Jayz piggy! You think Bertie's bumbling gaffs are part of a cunning plan. Just listen to the buffoon trying to speak. He's a lovely cuddly fella but he is totally completely out of his league.
 
The IRA deserve no respect... Ian Paisley might be a big mouth but he's no terrorist.
Sorry mate, but you've got your facts way wrong here.

A few details about Paisleys history:


There's terrorism...and there's terrorism.
Not all terrorism requires you to personally pick up a gun.
Osama Bin Laden didn't personally crash a/c into the WTC, he merely inspired the perpetrators to HATE.
 
Can anyone explain why either the IRA or Ian Paisley are more deserving of respect from the Taoiseach than the Widow of a Garda Killed in Action?
Can't say they are more deserving, but the reason they get it? Because he can't walk all over them the way he does Mrs. McCabe.
 
Dr.I.Paisley

I am sick and tired of, at best, contempt for Dr.paisley and at worst, unadulterated hatred. Let me ask this: If there was a public figure who was as anti-protestant as Dr.Paisley is allegedly anti-catholic, would there be such loathing? I think not! This is all wrapped up in the overwhelming catholic domination of the Republic of Ireland and betide any potential usurper.

In the current politically-correct-surgically-attached-to-the-fence era where nobody says anything through fear of offending somebody[/i, it is a refreshing change to hear someone stand up for his convictions, be them right or wrong.At least he is unafraid to make his true feelings known unlike all the rest of them who are nothing but smug hypocri
 
Re: Dr.I.Paisley

Well said GeeGee. I know catholics who have met Mr. Paisley and who said he was a gentleman. I do not vote for his party myself, but I have a certain amount of respect for him. He did not say much of what he is quoted as having said, and he is not all bad. I do not agree with some things he has said over the years, but it is understandable given than there were so many atrocities / Gerry McCabe type killings over the years. Those who condemn Paisley the most do not condemn the killers of Jean McConville as quick.
 
As someone who is not a nationalist, doesn't hold any religious beliefs and doesn't give a toss about getting a united Ireland (in fact eh, I don't want any of those tribal madmen in my country) I think Paisley is as much of a cancer as the IRA are. There are almost no redeeming qualities that I can see in the man. I agree with Asimov's view of the man.
Those who condemn Paisley the most do not condemn the killers of Jean McConville as quick.
not true and quite offensive. One side is as bad as the other.
 
The last poster says I think Paisley is as much of a cancer as the IRA are. There are almost no redeeming qualities that I can see in the man. I agree with Asimov's view of the man.

Paisley never planted bombs, kneecaped anyone, or shot anyone. The IRA did. As regards Asinovs view of Paisley versus the IRA, Asinov praises the IRA and shouts and raves about how evil Paisley is, and makes false allegations about him. Paisley has condemned atrocities by the UVF / LVF just as he condemned atrocities by the IRA / INLA.

Those who condemn Paisley the most do not condemn the killers of Jean McConville as quick.[/b
not true and quite offensive. One side is as bad as the ot


I agree there are good and evil people on both sides. However, I have found that those who condemn Paisley the most are also Sinn Fein / IRA sympathisers. South of the border, we usually hear / are taught one side of the story more than the other, from school up ( the famine, 1916, the auld enemy etc ). Take the Late Late show the other week -there was Gerry Adams on by himself for half an hour, and nobody to oppose him. That would not be allowed in N.I. or anywhere else in the UK.
 
Oaks from little acorns grow.....

Did anyone see a short news-clip (Monday evening t.v. news). George Bush being interviewed on the Northern Ireland Peace Process after Paisley's outburst. The journalist asks Bush's views on the development. George says: "I've spoken with Tony Blair of the UK and he is still on board. I've spoken with Bert Acorn of Ireland and he is still on board. The process is on schedule". Such a pity George isn't but he does cheer me up!
 
George Bush and the US administration is still on course. Yesterday the US ambassador welcomed the long sentences that the 3 Sinn Fein / IRA men deservedly received in Columbia. The world must stand up to terrorism, whither it be from the IRA, UVF or FARC.
 
Its amazing, maybe even neccessary, that we should examine the past and attempt to interpret it in new ways.However, for someone like me, older but not neccessarily wiser, its disturbing to hear the new revisionism.
Down south, memory of Occupation is fading.The concept of killing to escape bondage is puzzling and unpleasant.None of us passing the myriad ex British Army barracks in Dublin ponders to think why they spent such huge sums and what use they were put.The fact is what you take by force, then day by day, has to be kept by the threat of force.
On one of my rare visits to the North, years ago, passing a checkpoint of british soldiers carrying automatic rifles and hearing the distinct twang of English accents gave an insight into why our forebears and some in the North took up arms.