Skip to content

At last a credible explanation for Winston Peters behaviour

06/09/2008

invisible hit counter

Scoopit!

The Saturday editorial in the Dominion Post Looking for Signs of Innocence is a good read, explaining the realities of the situation.

The paper notes the varying and quite different versions of events proffered by Mr Peters and Mr Glenn.

To the Government’s political rivals the pair’s differing accounts of how $100,000 of Mr Glenn’s money ended up in Mr Henry’s practice account are easily explained. Either Mr Glenn or Mr Peters is not telling the truth. No prizes for guessing which of them they blame.

But as the paper then points out:-

Prime Minister Helen Clark says both are honourable men and she assumes there must be some “innocent explanation”.

National and ACT have said, as the paper says, that this is yet another example of Ms Clark accepting ever lower standards in public life.

Referring to last weeks SST survey the paper notes:-

But, as NZ First’s supporters – 52 per cent of whom, according to a recent survey, believe the United States knew about or planned the September 11 terrorist attacks and 35 per cent of whom believe world governments are hiding evidence of alien visits – could have told them, things are not always what they seem.

The paper goes on to explain:-

There is a very simple explanation for the disparity between Mr Peters’ and Mr Glenn’s version of events. Mr Peters is the victim of an inter-galactic practical joke.

Elvis is not dead. His death was faked by aliens who held him captive for more than 30 years before returning him to Earth to impersonate New Zealand’s former foreign affairs and racing minister.

Could this really be? Has Elvis returned? The paper suggests that this explains incidents such as the following:-

In this guise he has gone about offering honorary consulships to people he bumps into at international sporting events, soliciting funds from wealthy expatriate businessmen and plying wealthy locals with alcohol before hitting them up for donations

Consequently:-

the real Mr Peters, who has stumped the country, telling supporters NZ First does not accept political donations from big business, has been made to look like a hypocrite and a charlatan because of the wayward activities of his malevolent doppelganger

This explanation of the ‘real’ Mr Peters complete absolution from the misdeeds of his doppelganger is obviously correct. After all it will have taken less than 3 minutes to read this blog post in which Adam has completely explained everything in a totally reasonable way. He has assiduously set out the complete and credible scenario.

This must be what has convinced our popular and competent Prime Minister:-

Miss Clark has not offered her “innocent explanation” of how she believes Mr Peters and Mr Glenn came to have such contrasting views of the transaction, that resulted in $100,000 being knocked off Mr Peters’ legal bill, but it would be a surprise if it differed greatly from that outlined above.

After all if this version of events is not the real one, should we dare to think, the unthinkable, namely:-

The only alternative would be that either the man on whom her party relies for its parliamentary majority, or the man who underwrote her party’s 2005 election campaign, is telling lies.

No never not Winston, and 500,000 times no, not Owen Glenn.

But, if, and a very big if, that should be the case, then the paper suggests:-

If that were the case, disinterested observers might be led to believe that the reason Miss Clark chose not to try to establish who was telling the truth, when Mr Glenn told her in February that Mr Peters had asked him for money, was that she did not want to do anything that might precipitate an early election at a time when her party was trailing National by almost 25 percentage points in public opinion polls.

No, Adam could not think such a thing.

After all as the editorial concludes:-

Surely the prime minister is not that cynical.

You might very well think that, but Adam could not possibly comment.

NOTICE TO READERS: The Saturday editorial in the Dominion Post is often somewhat quirky, with a tendency to humour, perhaps often of the tongue-in-cheek variety.

Adam found today’s offering on Looking for Signs of Innocence in the Peters saga an excellent example of the genre, though with a few barbs as well.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: