Blair says would have quit if BBC report true

Reuters story here. Story too short to snip.

...is a whole lot worse than just lying to get into a war. He's a Rhodesian colonialist like Disraeli. Slaughtering the wogs for plunder and profit is what his government and our regime are all about. Kelly was murdered because he lifted the curtain on the truth.

He is making this all about whether he "sexed up" a document instead of about missing WMDs, missing 45-minute threats, and intimidating Kelly.

n/t

he should have been gone last week

and you lied about WMD..

But Bush has taught you well. You are not responsible for anything.

There's still time !

This is right out of the Rove spinbook.

-snip-
"This was an allegation that we had behaved in a way which...if true would have merited my resignation."
-snip-

Well, if it's proven true today would he resign? No way. Because he kept
it a secret for six months means it's no longer a crime???

Rovian total!

I don't read Blair's statement as saying he would have resigned, I read it as saying his actions "if true" would have merited his resignation. There IS a difference! The headline speaks of what he would have done, whereas Blairs words speak of what he should have done.

Without the full context of his answer, it is hard to know for sure what he meant, but from that statement by itself it seems that Blair is defending his involvement in the outing of Kelly by saying that the accusations were so serious that there would have been calls for his resignation, and he had to head off those calls by whatever means necessary - including putting enough pressure on Kelly to force his apparent suicide (if that is in fact what happened).

He is NOT saying that Kelly's are allegations are untrue, only that his involvement with the outing of Kelly was based on the need to protect his position.

Well that is what it sounds like to me.

If such divergent interpretations can be put on what he said by reasonable DUers. The formulation is not by accident, but the upshot becomes, "If these allegations were true, I'd have resigned, but because I haven't resigned, the allegations must not be true." This presumes, of course, that the speaker is being truthful, and it avoids the unpleasantness of actually engaging the substance of the allegations.

If the accusations were true (which we all know they are) then he says he would/should have resigned.

Therefore, he is lying today when he says he would/should have resigned, because he lied back then, but hasn't resigned.

:wtf: am I saying? Even trying to parse these people's words gives one a migraine.

Sometimes I wonder why I care enough to be informed, because the extra work of just staying informed raises the blood pressure.