I am a member of the UK Liberal Democratic party. Every week at Parliamentary Question Time my party leader
Sir Menzies (Ming) Campbell, gets to ask 3 questions of the grinning Cheshire cat smarmy tit that runs our country, who must answer without lying as lying to parliament is the greatest sin imaginable.
There are only 70,000 odd members of my party, of which 7,000 maybe are active enough to badger Ming with suggested questions and how many of them are going to do so any given week, so I reckon I have as good a chance as any of getting through to him.
However, I have been struggling to organise my thoughts coherently and as my thoughts are prompted by the relevations streaming out of DC at the moment and as you my fellow Kossacks are experts in the subject,as well as being handsome/beautiful/hung like an arab stallion, any help/ideas would be appreciated.
First a few rules.
The questions have to be polite. You can not call the PM a liar or anything remotely akin to lying. You have to be concise. You have to leave as little room for a non answer, at which TB excels, as possible. Questions 2 & 3 have to adapt to the PMs answers to the earlier questions.
The last question can be a peroration as Tony can say what he likes afterwards. The more inflammatory the better as it should make the evening news.
The Questions.
I have been trying to find quotes which I remember clearly of Tony Blair saying after the Niger documents were shown to be forgeries that he had other evidence that in fact the story was true. Anyone else remember them (and has a source)?
edit: found it he actually said it at PMQs on July 16th 2003
So I have been trying to work a series of questions along the lines of
Q1) Mr Speaker, in 2003 after the Niger documents of purchases of Uranium Ore by Iraq were shown to be forgeries the Prime Minister stated that he had other evidence to back up the claim. Given the trouble his friend George Bush is in for selectively leaking classified information to try and support the claim, could the Prime Minister now produce his evidence.
Possible responses from TB.
A1a) its all in the past we have to move forward
A1b)Obscuring whether he said it or not
A1c) Broad attack on liberal democrat policies on Iraq
A1d) Very unlikely but he may actually repeat the claim that he has the evidence.
Q2a) The topic is very much in the present in America. Surely the Prime Minister would like to help his friend. He is getting a very hostile press at last and the evidence that the Prime Minister said was there would help him greatly. So once more, will the Prime Minister confirm that he has evidence, other than the forged documents, to support the claim that Iraq was trying to buy Uranium from Niger.
Q2b) Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to be a bit hazy on what he said, so I'll repeat it on DATE at PLACE in response to a question from QUESTIONER the Prime Minister said "quote". Mr Speaker, The PM has had 3 years to produce that evidence, where is it?
Q2c) Mr Speaker, that was very Amusing/relevant to the question/informative especially seeing as American support for this disastrous invasion was underpinned by the "Smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud" rhetoric, which depended on forged Niger documents and stretched interpretations of aluminium tube usage. Now I'll ask the PM once more, can he produce the evidence that he claimed to have
Q2d) So unlikely not worth thinking about
Responses will probably be much the same as for Q1
Q3) The Prime Minister has yet to even acknowledge that he said those words let alone produce the evidence. The reason is that no such evidence exists. If it did George Bush would have it by now and if he had it he would have leaked it. Is this not just one more case of saying anything at the time to help push the case for the war regardless of the evidence?
What are your thoughts?
What would you ask?
I'll let you know how I get on with Ming once I've got it nailed down.
Thanks