bonoman said:
But keep in mind the IRA are less dangerous with Gerry, Martin, Kelly at the head of republicanism then anyone else!
What do you mean, 'but'? That's also the position the author is taking. He's not suggesting that Adams approved the bank heist
to spite the peace process; rather, he's suggesting Adams did so to keep it alive, by putting the IRA in such a bad PR position that even its hardliners might finally agree to make some concessions to the DUP's demands for hard evidence of disarmament.
Like I said, I don't find this argument convincing, but it
is the argument he's making. And I must admit that McGuinness' rhetoric at Westminster on Tuesday reflected a strange mixture of self-distancing (from the IRA) with gestures of goodwill (towards the DUP) that could be used to support Moloney's scenario:
<< Asked whether he was certain the IRA had nothing to do with the raid, Mr McGuinness said: “In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, we have asked both the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister to give us some indication of why Hugh Orde believes what he believes and thus far nothing has been produced.
“All I can say is that in the aftermath of the robbery at the Northern Bank, I went to the IRA and asked the IRA were they responsible and was there a possibility that any of their membership was responsible and they gave me a very categorical answer. They said No.
“I have been working on the basis that that position hasn’t changed. All of us can speculate as much as we like, but the fact is that if you live in a democracy and espouse democracy, you have to work on the basis that people are innocent until proven guilty.”
Mr McGuinness said he was “intrigued” by recent comments by Dr Paisley, who told Irish broadcaster RTE on Sunday that he was ready to share power with Sinn Fein if there was “no arms and no crime”.
“Clearly, he acknowledges and recognises that if there are to be institutions established in the future ... that at some stage in the future he is going to have to go into government with the representatives of Sinn Fein,” said Mr McGuinness.
“If Ian Paisley is indicating that he is still interested in concluding an agreement with Sinn Fein – and that was the import of his remarks to RTE – then the work to begin that dialogue and resolution should begin as soon as possible.
“Ian Paisley is, I think, in many ways acknowledging that the template of the Good Friday Agreement is the only way forward for us all, including himself.
“I think it would be sensible for us to have a conversation with Ian Paisley about these matters and to do that as quickly as possible.” >>
Of course, the Irish Times has already chipped away a bit at the 'evidence' question by revealing that the discovery of stolen banknotes at Dundonald was a hoax generated by the PSNI so they could track and record IRA communications reacting to said 'discovery.' According to the Times, it was on the basis of the resulting recordings that Orde made his '99.9% certain' statement. (Though even Orde pointed out that this was intelligence, rather than evidence. To
prove money laundering--which is very difficult--you must be able to
directly link specific individuals to an unbroken chain of evidence leading back to the original crime.)
Still, I personally regard Gerry Adams as both too smart and too prudent to take the kind of risks Moloney attributes to him. But the real truth of the matter is shrouded in so many layers of secrecy that I won't ever presume to know.
What alot of people dont reliese and maybe the media is missing it as well. Sinn Fein is now not only the Republican party of Catholics in the north but the biggest challange to FF, FG, Labour!
A lot of which people? No one who follows Irish politics could possibly avoid realising this fact! Certainly the Irish press aren't missing it; they acknowledge it constantly, and Moloney's article is no exception.
With regards to McCartney. That was a crime a crime the people will go to jail for. It was in the heat of the moment and couldnt have been sanctioned by AC. The IRA did the right thing in naming and expelling them. But even there Sinn Fein was critized. Its the cool thing to do nowadays, i guess.
That's a disingenuous summary at best. The IRA stopped trying to cover up the murder (and threaten the many witnesses) only after McCartney's family had the courage to go public with their demands that the men who killed him be brought to justice. And it's not like the IRA reported those three men to the police, nor did Sinn Fein encourage them to--in fact, SF refused to publicly encourage anyone to go to the police, because God forbid anyone get the impression that they were legitimating the police. Anyways, no-one on either side believes those three men were the only ones involved in the murder, let alone the cover-up.