From today's Mail who are serialising Gordon Brown's wife's diaries (Heaven only knows why) I spot this sentence:
Yes "Obama" was in the speech very close to "Omaha", yes "Obama" and "Omaha" have only two letters different but for Sarah Brown to claim that 'it sounds as though he has said Obama Beach' is a straightforward misrepresentation of the facts. Gordon Brown might have meant to say Omaha, he might have read Obama from the next line but he did say "Obama" so why claim he didn't? Sarah Brown might even have managed to play for sympathy by blaming her husband's poor eyesight. Why do so many Labour party leaders, ministers, members and spouses think that they can rewrite history just like that and that people will believe them?
'Gordon gives a soaring speech, and both Carla and Michelle nudge me to say how good it is. At one point, he mentions Omaha Beach and it sounds as though he has said Obama Beach — bound to be a comment or two on that.'Leaving aside the fact that this speech of Gordon Brown's soared like a f***ing dodo, he didn't sound as if he said "Obama Beach", he said "Obama Beach". Here's the video, see what you think, it's at 0:17...
Yes "Obama" was in the speech very close to "Omaha", yes "Obama" and "Omaha" have only two letters different but for Sarah Brown to claim that 'it sounds as though he has said Obama Beach' is a straightforward misrepresentation of the facts. Gordon Brown might have meant to say Omaha, he might have read Obama from the next line but he did say "Obama" so why claim he didn't? Sarah Brown might even have managed to play for sympathy by blaming her husband's poor eyesight. Why do so many Labour party leaders, ministers, members and spouses think that they can rewrite history just like that and that people will believe them?
No comments:
Post a Comment
By clicking "Publish your comment" you indemnify NotaSheepMaybeAGoat and accept full legal responsibility for your comments