Well, even if you do not believe it, he really said that in yesterday's session at Spanish Senate. Afterwards, he tried to mend what he had said and stated "this is the 1st time a political party accusses the Government of caving into ETA's blackmail".
The problem here is: Zapatero knew -as we all know now- that De Juana was not in the bad state he has told these last days. Someone who can maintain sexual relations in a shower is not in such a poor state as we have been told. Moreover, the act of exiting the ambulance on foot contradicts again that bad state.
Zapatero said that he was giving the 2nd grade (not excarcelation) because of humanitary reasons, that is, to prevent him from dying. So if it has been proofed De Juana was not dying, what is the blackmail about?
[Note: this is just a question. A worrying question. And I am not referring exclusively or mainly to March 11th bombings. There are other themes of interest here: his own talkings with the ETA terrorists before being president, or if he agreed with Carod Rovira in his meeting with ETA in Perpignan. But people should realise that if the Government is being blackmailes, we are all blackmailed. And the consequences of that blackmail are not know in the present and perhaps all them will be never considered].
But even if we consider that he thought De Juana was so frail as to die, he is totally contradicting himself his own words. In 1990, Zapatero stated about the hunger strike of ETA terrorists:
El blog de las Zetapolleces has the video about yesterday's session (in Spanish).The problem here is: Zapatero knew -as we all know now- that De Juana was not in the bad state he has told these last days. Someone who can maintain sexual relations in a shower is not in such a poor state as we have been told. Moreover, the act of exiting the ambulance on foot contradicts again that bad state.
Zapatero said that he was giving the 2nd grade (not excarcelation) because of humanitary reasons, that is, to prevent him from dying. So if it has been proofed De Juana was not dying, what is the blackmail about?
[Note: this is just a question. A worrying question. And I am not referring exclusively or mainly to March 11th bombings. There are other themes of interest here: his own talkings with the ETA terrorists before being president, or if he agreed with Carod Rovira in his meeting with ETA in Perpignan. But people should realise that if the Government is being blackmailes, we are all blackmailed. And the consequences of that blackmail are not know in the present and perhaps all them will be never considered].
But even if we consider that he thought De Juana was so frail as to die, he is totally contradicting himself his own words. In 1990, Zapatero stated about the hunger strike of ETA terrorists:
The Socialist Group shares the firm decision of the Government (Aznar) in front of an attack to democratic system as the colective hunger strike of imprisoned ETA terrorists, whose only final objective is not to fulfill the more accurate way to reinsertion policy inside the penitentiary system. This intent justifies in the political ground the firmness of the Government's position.This is marvellous, isn't it? And very coherent with his present political assertions about the Aznar's Government (that had also its flaws, as every human-made thing but nothing compared with this...) making concessions to ETA terrorist, eh?? The firmness of the Government's position. My goodness...
Thanks to Prevost I know that PP from Tres Cantos (situated near Madrid) has been receiving terrorist menaces for some time. They are calling them "Fascists", "Hipocrytes" and are announcing "they will be taken to the same place as Franco and Miguel Ángel Blanco". While Franco was a dictator so unwholly separated and different from any democratic ruler -as all dictators-, this is a great disrespect for Miguel ángel Blanco, murdered by ETA terrorists, when Aznar's Government did not cave into ETA's blackmail. A very wrong and wholly undemocratic behaviour.
Maya focuses on leftists' reaction to these news: they simply consider these menaces made by PP.
Related posts:Demonstration next Saturday.
ABC.es: nacional - terrorismo - Lapsus de seductor
Desde que calificó de «accidente» el atentado de la T-4, Zapatero no había tenido un «lapsus» o error dialéctico de tal calibre. «No es la primera vez que un Gobierno cede al chantaje de ETA», dijo el presidente del Gobierno en un arranque de frase desafortunado de por sí, que, con la consiguiente interrupción de los senadores del PP, pareció una confesión en toda regla. Luego lo intentó enmendar con la misma frase, pero con el añadido de que «es la primera vez que un partido se atreve a decir que un Gobierno ha cedido al chantaje de ETA».
Zapatero en 1990 sobre la huelga de hambre y el derecho a la vida (Internet Política)
El Grupo Socialista comparte la firme decisión del Gobierno ante un método de ataque al sistema democrático como es la huelga de hambre colectiva de los reclusos cuyo fin único es desatender lo que es, a nuestro juicio, la vía más acertada para una política de reinserción dentro del sistema penitenciario. Ese intento justifica que en el terreno político la posición del Gobierno sea firme.
Technorati Tags: Zapatero, PP, PSOE,
powered by performancing firefox
Entradas
