|
Letter regarding failure, by the ABC, to properly
scrutinize of PM's case for the war against Iraq
The following letter was printed on 3 May 2003 in the Canberra Times. On
that morning, two complete strangers 'phoned me to congratulate me for writing
the letter. Those kind and supportive words made it easily worth the
effort.
This letter was written in order to raise the issue of way our media,
including the ABC, fails to properly scrutinise our governments,
particularly the current Howard Government.
For all the accusations of 'left wing bias' levelled against the ABC, the
Federal Govenment has got off remarkable lightly since 1996, considering its
record of lies, broken promises, ministerial misconduct, destruction of
services, fiscal irresponsibility, selling off the family silver,
pork-barrelling, electoral bribery, environmental neglect, militarism,
war-mongering, attacks on the weak and vulnerable, etc, etc. - JS,
25 Dec 04
Sir/Madam,
Last night's interview of
the Prime Minister by
Australia's supposedly
toughest TV journalist,
Kerry O'Brien, is
illustrative of how, thus
far, the PM has been able
to weather, with relative
ease, the consequences of
what should have otherwise
been political suicide,
that is participation in
the unprovoked invasion of
a country, that has posed
no significant threat to
either ourselves or its
neighbours since 1991.
During the interview,
O'Brien left unchallenged
Howard's central arguments.
The first was that the
threat posed by the WMD's
allegedly held by Saddam
was too great, and the
second was the human rights
record. At one point
O'Brien even volunteered
that he believed it was an
'ethical war'. To be sure,
he did ask the PM some
telling questions about the
human consequences of this
war, but if you accept what
was said by the PM, as
O'Brien apparently did,
then you would have to
conclude that the PM was
right.
O'Brien never asked Howard
what what he said and did
when Hussein was carrying
out his most Heinous crimes
against his people back in
the 1980s. My guess is
about as much as the US
said, that is practically
nothing. Also if the
regime of Hussein is now so
unbelievably demonic, how
is it that the West in the
past found his regime
preferable to the Iranian
regime?
The most pertinent point
that should have been asked
of the PM was what could
possibly have happened in
the immediate and
foreseeable future that
could possibly been worse
than what is happening
right now?
Of course there is much
more that could be said,
but it should be Kerry
O'Brien's job, and not mine
to point out such obvious
and glaring contradictions
in the PM's case.
Sincerely,
James Sinnamon
|