Comments on: Small election in Australia, not many hurt

By: kyan gadac

kyan gadac — Sun, 10 Oct 2004 05:33:47 +0000

The Rodent won, thousands of green lemmings suicided.

By: lms

lms — Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:32:42 +0000

“I expect it will be treated in the international press as something of a referendum on the Iraq war” Oh, I do hope so!

By: Zak Catem

Zak Catem — Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:45:00 +0000

I’m hoping that Howard wins and is quickly succeeded by Tony Abbott when he hands over the reins. I’m just tickled by the idea that we might someday be governed by Abbott and Costello.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:32:12 +0000

“That makes Australia sound like one-horse client state” On the contrary, we have lots of horses. The rest of the characterization is, unfortunately, pretty much appropriate. You’ll be happy to know that the SMH is (with the Melbourne Age) the most left-wing of the leading Australian papers. The other main papers, Murdoch’s Australian and the Financial Review is pretty much appropriate.

By: No Preference

No Preference — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:47:17 +0000

I was a little depressed to see the lead editorial in today’s Sydney Morning Herald saying the Government’s handling of the postwar situation has been more helpful than has Mr Latham’s contribution, which more damaged our critical relationship with the United States than assisted any prospect of lasting peace in the Middle East. This makes it Australia sound like a one-horse client state like Palau, Estonia, and other members of the “Coalition of the Willing”. I think the SMH is Australia’s leading newspaper, which makes it even more depressing.

By: Giles

Giles — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:12:35 +0000

If Latham looses you’d have to see him as a sho in next time as Howard seems virtually devoid of new ideas (and as is his likely successor of Charisma)

By: Derek

Derek — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 18:08:51 +0000

Long story short: It wouldn’t have been a lie to say “we think Saddam has WMDs”; it was a lie to say “we know Saddam has WMDs”.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:23:17 +0000

As a pure partisan right now, I have to say I like the election coming after tonight’s Bush-Kerry debate. By the 3rd debate it will be oldish news.

By: ChrisDA

ChrisDA — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:54:00 +0000

It seems beyond doubt now that B&B took the decision to attack Saddam before any evidence was before them; the “intelligence”-gathering was an afterthought, a means to the end of convincing the UN/Congress/Parliament. And, as others point out, inconclusive evidence was described as conclusive. Jet – do you disagree with this? And if so, do you still call it “slander” to characterise this as misrepresentation? People – any idea why “true believers” are even reading this post? Baffling.

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:42:19 +0000

Which part of the story about the aluminum tubes wasn’t a lie? Perhaps the part that they were tubes, though frankly I wouldn’t trust Cheney, Rice et al on even that much. Go Latham!

By: Nathan McDonald

Nathan McDonald — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:08:19 +0000

Jet, while I agree that Howard, Bush and Blair can easily use the excuse that they relied on bad intel, there are many other lies that surround the whole mess. One of the obvious ones is the alleged ‘connection’ between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. As for the obvious failure of the war, if you can point out anything apart from the removal of Saddam that can be deemed success, please do so. Slander? I think not.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:07:58 +0000

But since every international intelligence agency with an opinion sided with the conclusion that Saddam had WMD’s, the word lie doesn’t fit with the reality. That’s unmitigated nonsense. Various intelligence agencies around the world had varying degrees of suspicion about Saddam & WMD’s, because Saddam’s regime was not fully forthcoming in accounting for stocks of WMD’s that he claimed to have destroyed. The Bush administration chose to take those suspicions and turn them into “irrefutable evidence” that there were, in fact, large stocks of WMD’s in Iraq, and Saddam was just rarin’ to use them. This was, in fact, a lie. The evidence was far from “irrefutable,” it was sketchy and vague and much of it came from sources that have since been utterly discredited. Then they used this “irrefutable evidence” as justification to launch a unilateral war. Jet, the “yeah, well the French thought he had WMDs too” argument is utterly unconvincing. “The French” didn’t invade Iraq; the United States did. That’s not a trivial point—it’s the essential point.

By: Sandriana

Sandriana — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:05:43 +0000

Oh dear, oh dear, Jet. Yes, you can be wrong and not be a liar. But the Bush administration hasn’t been just wrong, it has also lied about being wrong. Even given the best interpretation, Bush has been incompetent, and he’s lied about being incompetent too. The lies have been so blatant, so egregious, that you’d’ve had to’ve had your head stuck very deep in the sand not to notice. You may just as well have posted ‘lalalala, I’m not listening’. To ignore the opposing facts on clear display and hold to an opinion anyway is the mark of a true believer, who will stick the point despite all evidence to the contrary and with whom there is no point engaging in argument.

By: jet

jet — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:50:12 +0000

“The obvious failure of the war, and the lies that led up to it” Completely unfounded and unsupported. I respected your opinion until you made that remark and unless you know something the rest of us don’t, that seems like slander. I can only assume you are referring to the WMD’s and since no WMD’s were found, I assume that is why you are calling Howard and Bush liars. But since every international intelligence agency with an opinion sided with the conclusion that Saddam had WMD’s, the word lie doesn’t fit with the reality. You can be wrong and not a liar. But calling someone wrong doesn’t have the same rhetorical propoganda value. And while that might have some place in changing the minds of the politically ignorant, it certainly turns my ears deaf to the rest of your arguement.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:20:06 +0000

My hope (for both US and Aussie elections) is that the fear of “changing the horses in mid-stream”, or blind trust in the incumbent on defense policy, that comes from a sort of paternal instinct, will disappear on the actual day of the election. When an actual choice is concretely present, then maybe people will see things differently…