|
May 30, 2003
The saga of the missing weapons of mass destruction continues to unfold. Remember the allegation?
The US, UK and Australian Governments claimed that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had both spent billions of dollars developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and that he was poised to hand them over to terrorists or fire them at US troops or neighbouring countries. The national security of all three countries was threated. A pre-emptive strike was necessary to deal with the threat because the UN inspectors were unlikely to find them in time. Iraq was too tricky to allow that.
It looks more and more like a good old smoke and mirrors job. It was what many thought at the time because the argument just did not stake up. That was why the UN was not convinced to take the adopt a resolution authorizing war on a sovereign country. Not enough evidence to substantiate the claim.
It's all a bit ho hum in Australia. But they take the issue a bit more seriously in Britain than we do in Australia, judging by this report. It has to do with the credibility of the Blair case for attacking Iraq. Has the British public been conned?
Meanwhile The Sydney Morning Herald reports that back in the USA, Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, has said that:
'... the US decision to stress the threat posed by Iraq's supposed banned weapons above all others was taken for "bureaucratic" reasons to justify the war. "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Apparently this was said in Vanity Fair but there is nothing online. Its all subscription only. But it indicates that the Americans don't really care about questions of legitimacy. It was all spin and power from the beginning.
Meanwhile, back in Australia we find Coalition ministers singing different tunes. For instance, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, continues to insist that the legal basis for Australia's role in the invasion is Iraq's alleged failure to comply with United Nations resolutions on weapons of mass destruction. Apparently the justification is solid because of the recent discovery of the two trailers.
It is soooo compelling. The minister always appears to be pulling rabbits out of a hat. He seems to have forgotten that John Howard had hummed the liberation from oppression tune. He plays the magician because he won't publicly say what he knows privately: the evidence is not there. Can we put the poor performance by the Adelaide hills boy down to jetlag? He is looking more and more like an old trouper who can't perform the old theatre tricks any more.
The Defence Minister, Robert Hill hums a different tune. He dutifully follows the Rumsfeld script. He says that that no banned weapons may ever be found. Then he echoes Rumsfeld. It might be the case that Iraq may have destroyed more than we believed he says. A good criticism of this line is given by Tim Dunlop at Road To Surfdom
Presumably that destruction was before the war started? Why would Saddam disarm himself? And only believed? And what has happened to the hard evidence? Never there? Just a few facts and lots of interpretation?
These guys in Canberra are so predictable. They just echo Washington. Some are just more up to date than others. But their act does not work. They are not working as a unit on stage. Not enough in the way of rehearsals? Its a bit embarrasing watching these old tricks go through their tricks. Too many mistakes.
They are not very good with the rhetoric. I thought that the purpose of rhetoric was meant to be one of persuasion. They are undercutting themselves. The threads of the government's script are unravelling on this one. But they don't seem to care. They know they have a stranglehold on power. Thats all that matters. But you can see the arrogance creeping in.
And us? Well we have a choice. We s can say that we have been conned yet again, or that the Coalition lives in cloud cuckoo land. Take your pick. You can choose both if you so desire.
|
Nah, Alexander Mogadom is just plain stupid.
The reality is probably that the government cares little about the exposure of these blatant lies because they know they won't be questioned very hard on them. The swinging voters basically don't give a stuff about this, just like they didn't about the lies around the children overboard lies.