From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 22:56:00 MST
Seems "the world" is still awaiting proof on two propositions
both of which have commanded worldwide media attention and
both of which seem to be increasingly doubtful.
Perhaps it is still too soon in both cases to conclude that
because no proof has been provided so far that no proof
with be provided.
Notable, in the Clonaid case, is that around 11 days have passed
since the birth of the alleged clone and no proof has been presented.
Rael has been in the media making clear Clonaid and the Raelians
are two separate organisations, and the independent journalist Michael
Guillen who's task it was to arrange for scientists to do DNA testing
is being reported as having "suspended his efforts" to "verify claims" and
"that it is still entirely possible Clonaid's announcement is part of an
elaborate hoax intended to bring publicity to the Raelian movement".
In fairness to Clonaid, it does seem that there are some legitimate
difficulties in getting a test done in the US, with several US agencies
looking to find the mother and possibly take legal action to protect the
baby.
Still, there is allegedly another clone, now in Europe, and it should
not take long to get a DNA test done there. The clock is ticking.
-----
Meanwhile despite having 25,000 US troops in the Gulf and another
75,000 on the way, despite Britain and now apparently France preparing
to send troops as well, the weapons inspectors have still not found
any evidence of WMD, no evidence (at least that I have heard of)
has been presented linking Hussein to terrorist acts since the last Gulf
war.
It seems that a whole lot of people are getting dressed up who are
going to be very disappointed to have no place to go.
Seriously, if the weapons inspection team find no evidence of
weapons of mass destruction and no evidence is presented linking
Hussein's regime with recent terrorist activities, can there be a
justification for invading a sovereign country? I don't doubt it will
happen but is it justified?
Yet can anyone conceive of *any* means by which George Bush
could *not* remove Hussein now (given the givens, the rhetoric,
the build up of troops and expectations, AND the US economic
difficulties) AND still manage to win a second term as President?
Seems to me Bush now must go to war or look weak and be
booted out of office (his current popularity not withstanding).
Seems to me that Bush's power really only cuts one way at this
point. Its hard to see how he could pull back regardless of whether
this particular war turns out to be justified or not and not loss the
next Presidential election taking the Republican's down with him.
I wonder whether evidence will be provided to the public before
(or even after the invasion) or how flimsy the pretext (assuming no
WMD are found) will actually be able to be before public opinion
would turn against an invasion aimed at removing a sovereign head
of state. Without Iraq getting rolled (and the war on terror) the
biggest issue would become the economy and Bush would have
spent heaps of money on a troop build-up that didn't do anything.
I may be overlooking evidence that has been presented, there may
be evidence that is being sat on until the troops are in place. Perhaps
their will be one final summation sent out via the media as a last
minute PR flourish. But if neither of these are true it will be an
interesting case study in global gullibility to see how flimsy the pretext
can be. How far, I wonder, will the Bush Administration along with
Blair and Australia PM John Howard be prepared or bother to go
*if* they have no "smoking gun" to give their respective citizens even
the illusion "that justice is being done". How much would the principle
of not invading a sovereign country and not launching a pre-emptive
strike (read aggressive strike if its not justified) be worth in the
private offices of these decision makers. Would polls or principles
predominate in their deliberations?R.
For the record I still have an open mind on Hussein being shown
to have weapons of mass destruction or to have significantly lied
about a weapons program recently. But I don't like to see even
a felon and career villain hung for a crime he didn't commit. The
specific case still needs to be made if justice is to be seen to be
done. Its dangerous to the US that injustice rather than justice
gets seen to be done.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST