October 07, 2004
LATHAM'S SELECTIVE TRUTH
Apologise for removing a murderous dictator with a record of using weapons of mass destruction! Mark Latham insists:
Mark Latham has demanded Prime Minister John Howard apologise to the Australian people for leading the country to war in Iraq after US officials released a report concluding Saddam Hussein had no effective weapons of mass destruction since 1991.
The report by Charles Duelfer, the chief US weapons inspector who has been leading the search for Iraq's WMDs, has swept aside one of the key justifications for the coalition's justification for going to war.
"On the front of honesty and integrity in government he should today, at long last, 'fess up to the fact, the fundamental truth, that there were no WMD in Iraq," Mr Latham said on Sydney radio.
"You've got report after report, now you've got the inspectors in the United States saying that the stockpiles of weapons of destruction never existed.
"Surely an honest prime minister, someone big enough to handle the truth, would 'fess up to his responsibility today and just say straight to Australians: 'I made a mistake.'"
Latham ignores this Duelfer conclusion:
Pressed by Warner to say whether the world is better off with Saddam out of power and in U.S. custody, Duelfer responded that the deposed dictator "clearly had ambitions with respect to weapons of mass destruction. ... Analytically, the world is better off."
And let’s not forget this, from Mahdi Obeidi, former head of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear centifuge program:
Our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.
Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980s, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.
The world is better off.
UPDATE. Mark Latham -- who complains that the government "go negative, they go personal" -- goes negative and personal and wildly inaccurate:
"I tell you one thing I wasn't doing in the late 80s, I wasn't racing around Liverpool saying we should get rid of Asian migrants and run a racially discriminatory immigration policy," he told Sydney radio 2GB.
"I wasn't doing that.
"If you want to go back into Mr Howard's history that's what he was doing at that time."
UPDATE II. More from Duelfer:
Posted by Tim Blair at October 7, 2004 01:51 PMDuelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear that Saddam still wanted to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted.
"What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of use of force and had experiences that demonstrated the utility of WMD," Duelfer told Congress.
Yes, the world is better off...but the loony Left won't see it that way. Through the eyes of people like Michael Moore they see pre-war Iraq as a quiet, peaceful kind of place where children were alwayhs busy flying kites and the people were kept safe from harm under the protection of their benevolent leader Mr. Hussein.
Let's face it - for them it's soooo much easier to come up with excuses for geoncide, torture, rape, etc., when the bad guy ISN'T white.
Posted by: Richard at October 7, 2004 at 02:00 PMGo on Mark, go all the way and say you want Saddam Hussein released from jail and re-instated as Iraqi President! Failing that, maybe he can be Labor leader when you lose on Saturday??
Posted by: HippyHunter at October 7, 2004 at 02:00 PMWithdraw all Australian troops from Iraq by Christmas to "ease the squeeze" on Iraq, and stgrengthen the "ladder of opportunity" for Iraq's soldiers.
Posted by: Richard at October 7, 2004 at 02:02 PMFailing that, maybe he can be Labor leader when you lose on Saturday??
Or the other way around, maybe Latham can become Saddam's official spokesperson after his election defeat (Latham's, that is, not Saddam's).
Posted by: PW at October 7, 2004 at 03:10 PMWell, PW, if Ramsey Clark can represent Saddam in the US, why not Latham in Australia? One must be an internationalist to be in vogue, y'know!
Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 7, 2004 at 03:18 PMWhat is this 'squeeze the cheese' i am hearing about?
Posted by: Drago at October 7, 2004 at 03:32 PMYes the world is a better place.
So why don't the US invade Congo or Zimbabwe? They are pretty evil too. Probably more so.
So are Angola and Nigeria - and they've even got oil to boot! Lets make the world a better place by invading Africa. Yay.
Posted by: john at October 7, 2004 at 03:36 PMHey, it's the "if Iraq was worth invading, why don't you yanks invade [insert country here, usually Saudi-Arabia]" argument. John, I take it that you'd be wholly supportive of invading evil countries not named Iraq, then? Or are you just the type who whines about "wrong war" when he really means "war is wrong"?
Posted by: PW at October 7, 2004 at 03:42 PMTimbo is this the best reason you have for going to war.
The world would be better off without Mugabe, the Dear great Leader, almost anyone in the Arab world yet you aren't going to war with them.
you can't even bring yourself to admit on the two big reasons WMD and a connection with AQ, you and evall the rest of the Bush/howard apologists got completely and utterly wood-ducked.
and what about Pakistan who have been selling information about making nuclear bombs you know the only WMDS that threaten a country. Just is the reaction to them.
nothing be satisfied when they 'capture' some middle ranking AQ member but conventiently forget anthing about selling nuke secrets.
Posted by: Homer Paxton at October 7, 2004 at 03:52 PM"So why don't the US invade Congo or Zimbabwe? They are pretty evil too. Probably more so."
Yeah, why not...or better yet, why don't the morally superior Europeans make themselves useful for a change? No oil in Zimbabwe or Congo - surely French and Germans don't care about that - DO THEY??
Posted by: HippyHunter at October 7, 2004 at 03:54 PMSo Homer Paxton, I take it that you have some better ideas for fighting terrorism and nuclear proliferation, that you'd be so kind as to share with us all??
Posted by: HippyHunter at October 7, 2004 at 03:56 PMAnd if they were invading Zimbabwe, Homer, and john, you'd both be saying "If Zimbabwe is worth invading, why not invade Iraq"
Its the most dishonest argument the left uses because the left's affinity is for dictators.
As for WMD, unless you can PROVE that Saddam FULLY complied with all the relevant resolutions, and the 1991 ceasefire agreement (which he didn't, Duelfer concludes this, as does everyone else with an ounce of credibility), the war was justified on WMD grounds.
As for Saddam and AQ, they had an extensive relationship.
Read the following (if you dare to have your opinions challenged):
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DB23Ag02.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/22/111715.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/396hflxy.asp
Posted by: Sheriff at October 7, 2004 at 04:11 PM"the stockpiles of weapons of destruction never existed." Latham
Latham is the liar.
Saddam definitely had WMD in the past, he used them on Iran and his own people.
Posted by: Sheriff at October 7, 2004 at 04:13 PM"Just is the reaction to them." ??
"nothing be satisfied when they" ??
Homer, understand me nothing be.
Are you channelling Yoda?
Yep, the UN's doing a sterling job of fighting nuclear proliferation in Iran. Iran apparently showed off a missile today that has the range to reach Europe. What's the bet the French surrender soon?
Posted by: Art Vandelay at October 7, 2004 at 04:20 PMSweet sweet Bundy, Homer's not channeling Yoda, he's just hitting the hard booze too early in the day.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 7, 2004 at 04:25 PMIran apparently showed off a missile today that has the range to reach Europe. What's the bet the French surrender soon?
The Iranians just have to make sure not to hit the French factories that supply them with the parts for their next order of missiles...
Posted by: PW at October 7, 2004 at 04:28 PMHomer Paxton,
http://www.nationalreview.com/rosett/rosett200404182336.asp
AIDING AL QAEDA? Read from 2/3rds down the page.
On WMD, there is not one international body that thought that Saddam had disposed of his weapons. After all, he had used them on previous occasions and had kicked the UNSCOM team out of Iraq on numerous occasions prior to them completing even a rudimentary search of bunkers etc. Therefore no verification of destruction of such weapons could be verified and the UN was too busy raking money in from the Food-for-Oil operation to do its job.
On the subject of Pakistan, who knows what's
been going on behind the scenes.
Wish I could link Rossett's report but I'm piss poor at getting it right.
Posted by: Lofty at October 7, 2004 at 04:37 PMThe link between Al Qaeda and Hussein has been discredited by most creditable news organisations. In fact, Bin Laden could not stand Hussein, as he was a run of the mill dictator, not a Islamic fundamentalist.
Posted by: Andy at October 7, 2004 at 04:57 PMReal Jeffs, I need hard liquor just to read that stuff ...
Posted by: Sweet sweet Bundy at October 7, 2004 at 05:05 PMAndy, and can I just add that the link between Bush and a poor Air National Guard record has been credited by most discreditable news organisations? Ta.
Posted by: Sweet sweet Bundy at October 7, 2004 at 05:14 PMThere must be a two-for-one sale of tired lefty talking points somewhere today...now we're back to the "Saddam couldn't have had ties to al-Qaeda, he was a secular dictator!" meme? Gawd.
Posted by: PW at October 7, 2004 at 05:17 PMIn fact, Bin Laden could not stand Hussein, as he was a run of the mill dictator, not a Islamic fundamentalist.
...who built the largest mosque in the Middle East, and a copy of the Koran written in his own blood.
Secular!
Posted by: Quentin George at October 7, 2004 at 05:28 PMMark for the sake of sweet Jesu -take a Bex and go and lie down for a long, long time.
There is plenty written on movement of trucks into the Bekkar Valley in Syria on the eve of the LIBERATION of the Iraqi people.
Reminder Mark- the Iraqi people as with Lebanon were not Arabs nor Muslims until they had the treatment that Darfor is a present "enjoying' centuries ago and Saddam ethnicly' cleansed many regions supplanting the indigenous people with Arab Muslims.
Saddan like many monsters was a clever as well as evil & had plans aplenty to cause havoc, mayhem and confusion should Iraq be LIBERATED.
Mark and his co comrades and fellow travellers
know exactly the truth of Saddams monstrous regime and are no doubt some have been in the pay of Saddam as was that Scottish Parliamentarian 'Gorgeous' George Galloway who was on the take for millions of dollars US copurtesy of Saddam and don't forget Bill Hartly who had a very intimate realtionship with the Baghdad charmers.
Latham, Crean, 'Macklin Gillard,Fergusen Nettles Rudd and 'SWEET' Andrew Wilkie are all hard line commies pretending to be lambs.
Why do you think that the labour party tok on all these hard liners from the unions -Jenny George et al.
And to have as OUR leader who proudly admits to HATING the Liberals and any who do not fall down and lick his feet/ass fortells dark and dangerous times
I must congratulate people for ignoring what TYPES of WMDs they thought Iraq had but of course to support your argument you must ignore that.
Is the world safer with Hussein or Bin Laden in prison?
Should the over$200b been spent on eliminating AQ instead of dogging it in Afghanistan or getting rid of a despot who posed no thrreat to any of his neighbours.
Bin Laden must have been laughing when bush nade his decision. Zac the peg ( remember had a leg amputated in Baghdad!)is making hay there because of it.
If you wanted to get rid of Hussein without a US presence and thus AQ you could have done this.
Hint why did the Berlin wall come down!
Posted by: Homer Paxton at October 7, 2004 at 05:44 PMHomer P: Why did the Berlin Wall come down? Because people like me hammered away at it. I still have the hammer, chisel, and about 10 kilos of it.
And because of Ronnie Ray-Gun, remember him? And Bush Sr? And quite a few Cold Warriors like myself - I was fortunate to be in at the kill.
Should the over$200b been spent on eliminating AQ instead of dogging it in Afghanistan or getting rid of a despot who posed no thrreat to any of his neighbours.Apart from Iran (invaded by Iraq), Kuwait (invaded and conquered by Iraq), Saudi Arabia (invaded by Iraq), and Israel (missiles fired by Iraq), and Dubhai (missiles fired by Iraq) and Bahrein (Missiles fired by Iraq), Qatar (missiles fired by Iraq)...
Posted by: Alan E Brain at October 7, 2004 at 05:55 PM
Homer,
I doubt there's much left of Bin Laden to do any laughing after Tora Bora.
Of course if you have a new video of him providing a critique of Catwoman I'm prepared to be proved wrong.
If you wanted to get rid of Hussein without a US presence and thus AQ you could have done this.
Huh? Seriously, huh? Homer, please, some here are actually still trying to follow along with what you say. Please make an effort to be coherent. I've seen older posts of yours on other blogs, I know you can do it.
Posted by: PW at October 7, 2004 at 06:16 PMHomer, if you're going to put your head above the parapet here, you really should make it a smaller target. Even a pinhead will get shot down with a comment like "a despot who posed no thrreat to any of his neighbours". (i just LOVE your rational argument development skills by the way.. like a bricklayer trowelling yogurt)
Posted by: Sweet sweet Bundy at October 7, 2004 at 06:24 PM"Hint why did the Berlin wall come down!"
Errm the arms buildup by that "warmonger"/"idiot" Reagan sending the USSR broke had something to do with it, perhaps? And the quarter million US "imperialist" troops keeping West Germany free and prosperous for 40 years as well, perhaps?
Posted by: HippyHunter at October 7, 2004 at 06:28 PM"a despot who posed no thrreat to any of his neighbours."
Kuwaitis and Iranians don't count?
Posted by: HippyHunter at October 7, 2004 at 06:30 PMI feel a little dirty.. the fish is bigger than the barrel.
Posted by: Sweet sweet Bundy at October 7, 2004 at 06:35 PMThe 'Howard hates Asians' line from Latham is instructive. Desperation measures like that aren't the sort of thing a mentally balanced man resorts to if he's positioned for victory, or even level-pegging.
Leaves us with two possibilities, doesn't it?
Posted by: Grand Old Elephant at October 7, 2004 at 09:58 PMGOE, I think Latham is making a stretch and reaching to the mid-1980s, where Howard expressed concern about the level of east-asian immigration.
Well, he has since admitted he doesn't hold those views anymore, but I guess Howard has to be tainted with those words for life, unlike Gough "Fucking Balts" Whitlam, or Arthur "Two Wongs don't make a White" Calwell.
Posted by: Quentin George at October 7, 2004 at 11:19 PMWhat about Latho's mate Whitlam saying that he didn't want any Vietnamese refugees coming to Australia because he didn't want "any f---ing Vietnamese balts coming to this country". Mad Mark should be reminded about that.
Posted by: doolo at October 7, 2004 at 11:41 PMHomer, read the URLs I supplied above, and again:
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DB23Ag02.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/22/111715.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/396hflxy.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf [WARNING: pdf file]
http://www.davidstuff.com/incorrect/crespo1.htm
http://www.yaf.org/speakers/op-ed/murdock_terror_acts.html
Saddam was the sugar daddy of terror. ANYONE who says different. is ignorant, or lying.
"Should the over$200b been spent on eliminating AQ instead of dogging it in Afghanistan or getting rid of a despot who posed no thrreat to any of his neighbours."
Have you any evidence that all the US had to do to find bin Laden was throw more money and troops at it.
Afghanistan is one of those places where an abundance of money and troops doesn't necessarily get you closer to your goals. The Soviets sank massive military and financial resources into Afghanistan, and lost. The US threw massive military and financial resources into Vietnam and lost.
"If you wanted to get rid of Hussein without a US presence and thus AQ you could have done this."
Statements like this are the most profound dishonesty. Lefties point to US support for dictators during the Cold War (often taking the form of replacing a Communist dictator with a dictator more pliant) as a bad point, then you turn around and suggest it!
Has it ever occured to you that terrorists tend to come from, be sympathetic to, or be supported by DICTATORSHIPS. Dictatorship is the problem, not the solution. The last 5 decades should have taught people that.
Posted by: Sheriff at October 8, 2004 at 12:45 AMIraq never complied with the cease fire of the 1st gulf war, 17 UN sanctions later we (the coalition) get rid of him. Maybe if we can get one UN resolution for the Sudan, we can take care of that problem, but I'm getting off track.
We are still after the terrorist in Afghanistan, but going into Iraq gives us many advantages. Iran is boxed in. As Kery ridicules Allawi for saying that the terrorist are pouring across the Iraqi border, we are fighting them in an enviroment that is more to our liking, notice the kill ratios. We don't have to fight an enemy that is at full strength in the most inhospitable area of the world, which also happens to be their home turf. And finally, a free Iraq, gives The ME a chance to crawl out of the 16th century. All in all, not to bad thing.
Wilky, if only your namesake was as smart (Andrew "lying traitorous Greenie bastard" Wilkie)
Posted by: Sheriff at October 8, 2004 at 02:38 AMYears ago my friend in a lift in WA when Bob Hawke entered with his minders- his language about a group of visiting Japanese with whom he was to speak "f----ing slanty eyed little gits". She was about to vote for him and did a rapid u-turn.
Mental exhaustion listening to Latham on ABC and John Laws-credit to Jon Faine whom I do critisise much,he has been pretty even and also John Laws- but that voice of Latham what a whining irritating little man- would not know truth if it smacked him in the face.
Keeps ranting on about John Howard finishing the term if elected- well Mark some of us vote for the LIBERAL PARTY and are very happy with JWH but should he hand over to Peter Costello we still will be in good hands- but if Marky succombs- VERY possible for a man of 43 with history of testicular Cancer(sorry about that) and pancreatitis- Wecome to Autralia's first woman PM -JENNY MACKLIN.
Read Terry McCrann today in Herald Sun and Andrew Bolt- another great and insightful Journalist.WALL TO WALL SOCIALISM- AND VERY VERY DANGEROUS - TAXES AND GST WILL RISE TO PAY FOR DEBTS INCURRED AND THEY WILL UNITE WITH OTHER SOCIALIST REGIMES who will influence on our security-Mark wants his security on the home front to contain the Australians who will turn on him when they awaken from their coma
It worries me very much that the balance of power is in the hands of misguided and ignorant people who have done no research nor any understanding of world affairs and will vote 'to give the 'young fellow a chanc'e- for G-ds sake- its like saying the CBA has looked after my money long enough time to give it to the TAB to look after it.
Any one over 35 and votes Labor must be brain dead or have a very short memory- When Hawke came into power my friends voted for him despite saying that they would never vote Labor again after Gough- I argued until blue in the gills and got great comfort reminding them when interest rate hit 18%.
FOR HEAVENS SAKE DON'T trust the fate of this great country into Mark Lathams and his communist union controllers hands. The ship is sailing well
and is not leaking so don't jump into a leaking rust bucket