houdini in action?

I have been retracing back over the posts on this. It is after all one of the major issues facing the country. lol. Anyway seeing as games are being played, this matter has not yet run it's course. The run of events have been such that Mr. Abbott has escaped a full examination as to what he actually meant in his statement. This is required especially so seeing as he has asked for a police investigation. A mere statement to the effect that he did not mean what would, to any clear thinker, appear to be is simply not good enough. In making his claim of innocence he must address the wording of his statement. He needs to be cross examined.

As a reader of his statement and despite my not having seen the doorstop interview I believe that this bloke (despite claims by him and sundry that he didn't) may have called for the demolishment of the embassy. I could be wrong. Have a read again of what he said and reach your own conclusion. I have struck out the superfluous* nonsense from what he said and got down to the guts of the matter so all is clear.

"Look, I can understand why the Tent Embassy was established all those years ago. I think a lot has changed for the better since then," he said in a doorstop interview in Sydney.
''I think a lot has changed for the better since then.
''We had the historic apology just a few years ago, one of the genuine achievements of Kevin Rudd as prime minister.
''We had the proposal which is currently for national consideration to recognize indigenous people in the Constitution.
''I think the indigenous people of Australia can be very proud of the respect in which they are held by every Australian and yes, I think a lot has changed since then and I think it probably is time to move on from that.''


"So, now we have: "Look, I can understand why the Tent Embassy was established all those years ago. I think a lot has changed since then and I think it probably is time to move on from that.'' Clearly a call for the embassy to go.

Now, is he houdini?

I take it that the "Look" at the beginning of Mr. Abbott's statement signals that he was asked a question. If there was a question, what was it that was posed? To be fair to the man, if he was responding to a question which would place his response out of context of the embassy question then he is free to explain himself. If however it would set the context such that the embassy was being discussed then it is clear that Abbott was out to have the embassy removed.

* superflorous to the matter at question only as long as it was not an argument in favour of demollishing the embassy.