Dunlop on WMD

Posted on July 19, 2003 by Ken Parish
Posted in Politics - international

I have been known to be critical of Tim Dunlop's obsessive ongoing focus on Iraq and WMD. However, this post is Tim at his finest; careful, coolly analytical and even-handed (qualities of which you'd seldom accuse the other Tim). It's well worth a read.

5 Comments

  1. Ron Mead
    July 19, 2003

    Yes, I'd given up on Tim because of his petty obsessiveness, but his approach on this is surprisingly even-handed. He certainly supports the view that the coalition acted in good faith in their belief in the presence of WMDs. You can still dispute whether or not they should have invaded when they did or at all, but this "lying" rhetoric ought to be put to bed.

    This piece in Friday's "The Australian" by Beazley former staffer, Michael Costello, is also well worth a read. He puts the strongest logical case for supporting the war as far as WMDs are concerned that I've encountered in the mainstream media so far, as well as places the nuclear kerfuffle into its proper perspective.

  2. Tim
    July 20, 2003

    Thanks for this. Eric Alterman put it well, I think, suggesting that "lying" is not the criteria but we need to know if we were deceived, even if it was in good faith. Having obssessed over it for a while I'm inclined to think that's what happened. But I would really like to hear the full come-clean speech. I just doubt we're going to get it, which is a tragedy as the obfuscation, shifting justifications and information-by-leak is not doing anyone any good.

  3. Rob Schaap
    July 20, 2003

    There are obsessions worth nurturing, Tim. Personally, I can not even begin to believe we were not knowingly lied to. Nor that mass murder has not been done in our name. I shall continue to obsess.

  4. Bill
    July 26, 2003

    Sure, but you dont tell anyone about your convict ancestry !

  5. Ken Parish
    July 26, 2003

    Hi Bill,

    Alright! Alright! I'll read the bloody thing!!! Welcome to Troppo Armadillo. Feel free to contribute comments. we've got lots of American lawyer participants, and lots of Australian economists, historians etc, but not all that many Australian lawyers (and no namesakes/distant relatives at all). Of course, it means I'll have to be more careful about telling libellous Darwin yarns on the blog (even heavily disguised), but that's probably a good thing anyway.