June 20, 2003


Robert Shilkin on Australian anti-Americanism:

The members of Australia's anti-war set are now choked by such a thick fog of anti-Americanism that it prevents them from responding rationally to any issue with which America is even tangentially involved. Most on Australia's left display an unthinking knee-jerk reaction to all decisions or statements that emanate from the current US administration. In their narrow world, everything that President Bush and the "neo-cons" say, or do, must be wrong. It is simply not possible to reasonably engage in debate with Australians of this mindset.

Read whole thing.

Posted by Tim Blair at June 20, 2003 02:17 PM

I'm a neocon, and I support both the drinking of beer and the having of sex. Let them oppose that.

Posted by: Andrew at June 20, 2003 at 02:18 PM

This isn't original but substitute Anti for pro etc etc and it has the same impact.

Posted by: Homer Paxton at June 20, 2003 at 02:44 PM

"everything that President Bush and the 'neo-cons' say, or do, must be wrong". not true, for example, i consider myself part of "Australia's anti-war set", yet i think richard perle is 100% correct to call for the cancellation of iraq's odious debt to russia. but don't let the facts intrude on your little rant.

Posted by: adam at June 20, 2003 at 03:25 PM

Well, at least you have to give the anti-war brigade credit for taking to the streets in support of the Iranians trying to win their freedom from the Islamofascist mullahs. Oh wait, they aren't. I guess another regime change in that region, even one that didn't involve the American military, might make Bush look good. Musn't have that.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at June 20, 2003 at 03:25 PM

Silly article. The dispute is not one that can be resolved. The issue is one of simple integrity. If integrity is important to you, the lies about WMD will be a major concern. If integrity does not matter to you, then the lies are fine by you.

The viewpoints cannot be reconciled. The writer is clearly in the camp where integrity does not matter (he is a lawyer, after all) and therefore he cannot understand that this is an issue.

And as for his employer Clayton Utz (aren't they the tobacco mob?)- it is clearly a firm that should be looking hard at the standards it expects from its people.

Posted by: Mako at June 20, 2003 at 04:48 PM

Being a believer in the ends justifies the means I don't really care if Iraq had WMD or not! The war only ever served one purpose, and it has served it admirably, it has demonstrated the political will of the west to use military force to fight terrorism. First the Taliban, second Saddam, anyone else want a go?

Fact is the only time I want to board an airliner is at the airport, not when it makes an unscheduled stop on the 78th floor of my office building. Hit us, and we'll hit you back harder! IN my humble opinion its the only thing those lunatics will understand.

And by way, if the US are this big dishonest military jugernaut steamrolling the world with lies and deception to suit their own ends, why didn't they just plant the WMD and produce them on request to the waiting journo's?

Its because the US are fundamentally honest, and Saddam and his moon howling mates are the opposite. We play a straight hand with the info we have, believe it, I am more comfortable with that than the truth as told by Saddam and Co!

Posted by: chapster at June 20, 2003 at 05:17 PM

Homer Paxton

I'd say your irrational since you base you opinion month after month that WMD can only be delivered by ICBM's .As for lies then people have to include France,Russia,Germany and the UN inspectors because they all thought Iraq had WMD.

PS: The missing VX and other stuff can fit in two semitrailers easy to hide don't you think?

Posted by: Gary at June 20, 2003 at 05:48 PM

Maybe they already know where some the WMD are, but don't want to tip their hand in order to get them all and prevent some whack-job Saddam lover from setting some WMD off that are hidden in his basement in Baghdad. Nah, that makes too friggin' much sense. The left sure is giving itself a lot of rope to hang on if this is the case, pretty early on too.

I also support the drinking of beer and the having of sex. Sometimes at the same time.

Posted by: D2D at June 20, 2003 at 06:34 PM


Homer and most of his fellow Leftists wouldn't know one end of a rifle from the other, let alone understanding weapon delivery systems.

Posted by: AndyM at June 21, 2003 at 02:08 AM

I tend to be more concerned about the loose use of the word "lie."

Example, if you were to say that (insert favorite team name) will surely win (insert appropriate championship) due to its: superior talent; more cohesive teamwork; strategy; home-field advantage; or whatever, and it doesn't indeed win, then it does not follow that you lied. You were wrong. Period. Statements based on one's belief in the absence of fact are not lies.

On the other hand, if you say that (your team) has won the previous 10 championships in a row, when indeed it has won none, then either you are deluded and/or you are lying. Statements made deliberately in opposition to fact are lies.

Lying requires either the knowledge that one is mis-stating a fact or that the fact itself could be known with minimal effort and one is avoiding it.

Thus, Fisk, Chomsky, Pilger and their ilk frequently lie. Matters of dispute may frequently be subject to "exaggeration for effect" without being lying because we expect this to happen IN THE ABSENCE OF INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE.

Thus, Bush's statements on WMD are at worst argumentative. Efforts to paint them as otherwise merely expose the promulgators of such efforts as the asshats that they are. People with no actual relationship with fact and therefore unable to distinguish truth from lie and who probably don't really care all that much anyway.

The final nadir of postmodernism and deconstructionism is that finally the promoters of such reveal themselves as more concerned on properly spinning the meaning of the word "is" than with their proclaimed care for the unfortunate of the world.

Shabby, quite shabby.

Posted by: Prof Dave at June 21, 2003 at 06:06 AM

Hey Prof Dave,
You say: "On the other hand, if you say that (your team) has won the previous 10 championships in a row, when indeed it has won none, then either you are deluded and/or you are lying. Statements made deliberately in opposition to fact are lies".

Sure enough. And if you say they have WMD when they obviously frigging don't - it's a lie. A whopper! A tall tale! An out and out fib!

What part of that don't you understand, you honesty-impaired chimp?

Posted by: Nemesis at June 23, 2003 at 02:41 PM