From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 20:02:23 MST
Charles Hixon wrote:
> Brett Paatsch wrote:
>
> >...
> >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.
> Considering your arguments on how important it is to find the
> evidence, could you believe it if it were found?
Hi Charles,
I don't like the word believe Charles. I think it carries with it too
much religious and superstitious baggage, but yes, I could make
an assessment on the veracity of evidence and alledged evidence
as it is presented by a variety of disparate media sources and
journalists competing for an angle, a scoop, and a new piece of
data. I think the world's press does a pretty good job of making
enough data available to those who are willing to put the time in
to critically work through it.
> I'm certain that if they decide to invade that they will announce
> proofs.
I think its very very likely that they will. "The world" is in big
trouble if "they" (ie. Bush and his admin, Blair and his gov,
Howard (in little Oz) and his govt ) don't. And in that order.
The UN also needs to ensure it doesn't look irrelevant, so
they will make sure some "proof" is announced, or make a lot
of noise about it. And this Bush will factor.
> But I doubt whether
> the proofs will be checkable independant of sources that
> benefit from their being correct.
Some noise is being made by the UN weapons inspectors
along the lines of come on you guys (in the US agencies) give
us the data you claim to have on where to look so we can do
our job.
Jan 27, when the UN inspectors have to make the report sets
a key data in the political landscape. If I was Bush, and had
hard evidence, maybe I hold off on giving it to the UN
inspectors until quite close to Jan 27 too, this would give me
the chance to get my troops lined up, get my allies sorted out
and ready, and take away Hussein's chance of spinning and
game planning. I'd deprive him of propaganda material and
time as best I could. He (Hussein) is getting very good at it
IMO. With this approach Bush can also cut down on the
time for non-concurring countries to lobby within the UN.
So its troops in place. Best case presented *just before* Jan 27
so Saddam and those concerned about war don't get to look
too long at the case and equivocate. Then invade. Then win the
next Presidential election. If the US needs to do a bit of economic
pump priming to ensure Bush Jnr doesn't get ejected like Bush
Snr, then politically thats the way to go (for Bush).
I'm not surprised Daschle is announcing he will not run for
President currently, based on Bush's political strategy and
present popularity, in his (Daschle's) position I'd wait for
another day and more fortuitous times before taking a run too.
> This doesn't mean that the evidence is
> faked, it means that being certain that it isn't is... dubious.
I'm not too concerned that dubious evidence will be able to
be passed off as real for too long. I hope I'm not being too
optimistic here. If I am my optimism doesn't stem from a
pollyanna-ish view of human goodness but from an assessment
of how hard it is for groups of people in something as large as
say the Bush administration to keep secrets that are of strong
political (and therefore economic interest). I was reading in the
Australian newspaper just recently that the speachwriter for
Bush who coined the term "axis of evil" has since stopped
working with Bush and has published his take on what life in
the Bush administration was actually like. He's not particularly
flattering of the intellect of those Bush has surrounded himself
with. Personally I don't immediately warm to the guy who
coined the term axis of evil nor see him as evidencing a
particularly incisive mind either, so his views on the intellect or
otherwise of others, I have reservations about. For his part, he
thinks of me, not at all :-) But my point is that large organisations
and administrations leak. And because they leak its quite hard
to fool all the people all the time. Its not just the US govt, that's
involved here, its a lot of other democratic govts, that are going
to have to justify their own positions on Iraq to their constituents
in a climate where their oppositions will be keenly looking for
evidence of mistakes in judgement and failure to disclose facts
in order to make political capital from these things.
Hmm. Can anyone think of any stocks that are likely to do
better if Bush "wins" the next election?R
> In this way it is like most of history. Pravda, I am told,
> means "the official word", with a secondary meaning of
> "the truth". And in Egypt the Goddess Maat is called the
> goddess of Truth, but was actually the goddess of "the
> party line".
Interesting. I didn't know that.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST