Tim Blair

The couple told me they had just been to a private meeting with Bush to discuss the loss of their son.

So instead of going to the funeral and showing how much he cares by making the family and friends of the deceased arrive three hours early to go through metal detectors and pat-downs, Bush quietly meets with grieving families.

This is why I can't imagine Howard "Job" Dean in the White House. Some doctors don't do humble.

Thanks for the link, Tim. A fine column. I sent an email to the Age as you suggested.

I have to carp about one line in the story:

At the time, it was already clear that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.

WTF? We still don't know what happened to the WMD that Saddam admitted that he had a few years ago, and somehow this reporter knew before Baghdad fell that it was clear that Saddam was clean as a whistle on the WMD front. Does anyone even try to be factually accurate in newspapers anymore?

What a fine piece.

"We still don't know what happened to the WMD that Saddam admitted that he had a few years ago, and somehow this reporter knew before Baghdad fell that it was clear that Saddam was clean as a whistle on the WMD front."

Good point R.C. I suppose that would be my only complaint in regards to the article. To be honest, we not find evidence of WMD (he had plenty of time to get rid of them). We have found evidence that he did have them, though, and you would think that would be good enough. Even if we find the WMD, liberals in the US will likely call it "convient" or have some other way to play it down.

All in all, it was a good article, and I did e-mail the Age with a thank you.

And please send a copy to Maureen Dowd at the NY Times. Not that she would read it. I'm sure she is too busy comparing the dress of the candidates in Iowa.

I know it's probably the 50th time i've posted this, but it's just so well put i've got to paste it again:

"...I never regarded WMD as the main reason to go to war. The real reason to go to war was (1) to establish a military and democratic presence in the Arab world (which we've done); (2) to make an example of Saddam to intimidate other Arab leaders (which we've done); and (3) to cut off Saddam as a source of support -- both existing and potential -- for terrorists, which we've also done. The WMD was a nontrivial issue, and required for playing the UN game (which I always regarded as a mistake) but not, to me, the most important issue.

The WMD was an alligator, but the point of the exercise is to drain the swamp."
Glenn Reynolds

PERIOD.

Very, very nice work. Short, succinct, and devastatingly on-point.

There are some blue-state Americans who could stand to read this article. Perhaps someone from outside America can reach them, because those of us inside clearly can't.

As a citizen in both USA and Australia, I found this peice to be extra special. Most of the stuff I read from down under(and all over most of the world) is anti-american at best.

I often wonder what this world would be like today if the USA was a pacifist country. This country is only 228 yrs old, and it is already many times stonger militarily and economically than countries that have been around for 1000's of years. We must be doing something right.

Good article, marred slightly by some poor use of statistics (20,000 bodies? 12 million Iraqis liberated?). That aside, I hope Age readers take in two aspects in the article:

"But the truth is, if Western nations have come to the point where 500 deaths is an unbearable war-time loss, then we should also say we are no longer prepared to fight wars ...."

and

“… America saved the Western world from communism. America saved Australia and, for that matter, France from a system that would stop you from reading this newspaper.”

Cool Tester: I recall before the war really started that several of the Rabid Left types I often hear blathering on were talking about how Bush was Totally Going To Plant WMDs to Fool The Sheeple.

Of course, if any are found between now and November, it'll be A Cleverly-Timed Plot To Hurt The Democrats At Whatever Critical Juncture We Can Come Up With To Describe This Week, And Obviously Faked To Support The Illegal Bush Junta (tm).

(These same people decided that the Kay report "proved" there were no WMDs, while ignoring the report saying that only about 10% of weapon bunkers had been searched at the time...)

My only complaint is that she forgot to mention that there are plenty of twenty year old Australians out there defending Western Civilization too.
This American won't ever forget that.

That'll test the Age letter page ragers.

hello Tim, after reading it here, I posted this on FR. Big response. Thanks for all you do, mate.

Hi.

Sorry, but I don't agree that the Age should be thanked for this piece.

It carries an emotional impact, but some numbers are wrong. That's sloppy writing. I would scorn if it was anti-war, I won't change my mind because I like the message.

I expect that even now the Spencer Street Soviet is recalling her for re-education through labor, probably two years covering the teacher unions

Agree with Kyle - it's awfully good to have the Aussies on our side.

Thank God we still have soldiers willing to fight for what is right. God bless those parents and their son.

A nice article.

Thanks, Aussies, for being on our side and heaven help anybody who finds Aussies on the other side.

I support the removal of Saddam and his regime by the only means that would work - force, but this sort of triumphalism is disturbing. The war on terror must also be a global effort to overcome many of the ills of the world which undoubtedly contribute to the instability and conflict we are all so worried about. Why is the US able to use force but is so unwilling to help the world through multilateral trade liberalisation, addressing environment issues, pushing for a recognition of the rights of women and minorities and so much more. Where is the leadership on that front coming from, certainly not this administration. The mawkish sentimentality in the Age piece may provide some temporary diversion as does all the razzamatazz of military engagement but the problems of global poverty and extreme inequalities continue

Trevor, have you been sleeping?
See Iraq and Afghanistan for pushing for rights, of women and everybody else (certain taliban, al Q and Baath exceptions).
Environment? Can you separate environmental issues from bogus crap like Kyoto (heavy impact on our economy, zilch on the environment)? Inequality? Inequality is a function of kleptocracies and tyrannical theocracies. We're trying to do something about that.
You think the terrorists were upset about Kyoto? Angry that we don't allow women rights? Minorities don't catch a break here?
Trevor, forget it.
Go back to sleep.

Trevor, have you been sleeping?
See Iraq and Afghanistan for pushing for rights, of women and everybody else (certain taliban, al Q and Baath exceptions).
Environment? Can you separate environmental issues from bogus crap like Kyoto (heavy impact on our economy, zilch on the environment)? Inequality? Inequality is a function of kleptocracies and tyrannical theocracies. We're trying to do something about that.
You think the terrorists were upset about Kyoto? Angry that we don't allow women rights? Minorities don't catch a break here?
Trevor, forget it.
Go back to sleep.

Richard, does this mean that you believe that America's approach to leadership should be to be the world's least worst nation and then only when it doesn't hurt your 'economy'. And that its sufficient to just criticise other people's proposals without putting forward anything positive. I wish Americans would wake up.

I'm not sure what you want us to do about the "ills of the world" Trevor. From your post I kind of get the idea that you want us to force people at gunpoint to be less poor and oppressed, but I'm not sure that that will work out the way you want it to. Personally I think that our current idea of killing terrorists thugs is really the most workable plan for helping the world's oppressed, but I could be wrong! Maybe we just need to enroll Al Qaeda members into an environmental studies program. Once they study the harp seals and listen to whale songs they'll feel all those urges to kill the infidel just melt away in the warmth of a new love for the human race...

Andrea, so what will the US do to reconstruct Iraq and Afghanistan? Or will it all just sort of happen now those poor folks are part of the free market? If so, that's a big change from the approach taken in post-war Europe and Japan. Should be interesting to watch, are there any shining examples of war-savaged countries pulling themselves up from the bootstraps to enjoy first world living standards. Hey, but not our problem right we just 'liberated' them.

Trevor you fool! An example of a previously war-ravaged country doing well? How about South Korea? Japan? Western Europe? And what is the US doing in Iraq? Pumping in money equivalent to something like half its GDP - it will be the fastest-growing economy in the world this year on that basis alone!

Should be interesting to watch, are there any shining examples of war-savaged countries pulling themselves up from the bootstraps to "enjoy first world living standards."

unless you're a mormon sneaking into an internet cafe, i'm assuming you have some electronics in your home. gee, i wonder which country is kicking our ass in the electronics department.

Grahame, I think you've missed the last half century. South Korea and Japan and Western Europe (remember the Marshall Plan) benefited from long-term financial assistance from the US but moreover the secret of the success of South Korea and Japan is market access to the US and with the US going through its current protectionist phase who knows. I really don't think you can count short-term military expenditures as economic reconstruction. Meanwhile we wait to see all economic miracles arising from the liberation of communist countries by ronnie reagan. The point here is - why don't you get it -is that liberation requires economic and political reconstruction and that requires long-term involvement and support including investment and a willingness to buy stuff even if some US farmers and inefficient steel producers miss out.

I sent an email to The Age, and they printed an edited version of it today. It followed an anti-Bush letter. Although I also thought the statistics were wrong, I thought it provided a balanced account of Americans' views. The following was my complete email:

Dear Editor,
Thank you for printing Caroline Overington's article which perfectly captured Americans' beliefs regarding President Bush and the Iraq war. As she noted, the publishing center of the US, New York, does not reflect mainstream views, and often provides only a caricature of the President, and of the average American. I am proud that my father was part of our great army confronting Hitler, that my father-in-law served in the South Pacific, including the Solomon Islands, in WWII, that two of my three sons (ages 18 and 21) are on active duty today in our Air Force.

America does not want to lose its sons and daughters in wars brought without good cause, and we debate and agonize over decisions to use our power. No human, or country, is infallible, but as Ms. Overington said, history has shown that America is a friend to those who seek liberty. May it always be so.

Thank you for a fine, fair, article.