Where are the WMDs
Now that Chief US arms inspector Charles Duelfer has concluded that Iraq did not have WMDs, and completely undermining the principal justification for the invasion, you would think there would be a bit of sober reflection.
The report conclusions are here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
But no, John Howard, together with Bush, and Blair and Straw, deepen their moral failures by gloating that the "world is better off without Saddam Hussein". Hans Blix provides the best response. If the question is "is the world better off without Saddam Hussein?" then that is obviously true. But if the question is "is the world better off because of the invasion of Iraq" the answer is just as obviously no. "It is clear that the occupation of Iraq has fuelled terrorism and that illegitimate military action, in this case as in others, breeds further terrorist acts".
The ABC web site today reports that " Before the war, Mr Howard said if Iraq had genuinely disarmed, then military intervention to change the regime could not be justified." But today he says "I'm not in any way apologetic about the fact that we were involved in a campaign that removed Saddam Hussein." Not in *any* way? We are truly living in the Age of Dwarves, as noted by Bob Ellis in a different context, an age controlled by mental midgets.
Now that Chief US arms inspector Charles Duelfer has concluded that Iraq did not have WMDs, and completely undermining the principal justification for the invasion, you would think there would be a bit of sober reflection.
The report conclusions are here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
But no, John Howard, together with Bush, and Blair and Straw, deepen their moral failures by gloating that the "world is better off without Saddam Hussein". Hans Blix provides the best response. If the question is "is the world better off without Saddam Hussein?" then that is obviously true. But if the question is "is the world better off because of the invasion of Iraq" the answer is just as obviously no. "It is clear that the occupation of Iraq has fuelled terrorism and that illegitimate military action, in this case as in others, breeds further terrorist acts".
The ABC web site today reports that " Before the war, Mr Howard said if Iraq had genuinely disarmed, then military intervention to change the regime could not be justified." But today he says "I'm not in any way apologetic about the fact that we were involved in a campaign that removed Saddam Hussein." Not in *any* way? We are truly living in the Age of Dwarves, as noted by Bob Ellis in a different context, an age controlled by mental midgets.
2 Comments:
I think the term 'mental midgets' sums it up really. In the nature of things being cyclical, we need to perhaps hit 'rock bottom' before we can get something better happening.
I hope you are right!
Post a Comment
<< Home