Tim Blair


New Criterion



Wednesday, January 29, 2003

We have it from Max-weird McCutcheon, via Gastropod Adams, who was talking to Robert Fisk this afternoon. Saddam became the bogeyman the very day the Enron story broke.

This explanation didn't entirely satisfy Max's stroke-pal for this evening, Michael McKinlay, Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Strategy at the Australian National University, who still thinks it's really all about oil.

"It's so blatantly obvious" Max replies to another of his callers, that it really is all about oil.

Oil and Enron. Surely they can improve on that tally of US evils.

Later: Yes, Max can! He's read the Blix report carefully, and its perfectly clear to him that all of the Australian media who think that there is evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction are spinning the news. "Why" he asks a caller, who is unable to link Bush to the Henny Herald. Understandably.

Question: If a war against Iraq is an "atrocity" against the innocent population of Iraq, as Max thinks, how would a vote of the Security Council change the situation? If acting under the US umbrella is so immoral, why do the communards still support the Australian action in East Timor, which would have been impossible without US endorsement?

Uncle is offering a free blog on this site to any reader who finds an example of a recorded anti-war commentator, now crying for a Security Council endorsement, who supports a strike against Saddam if and when that Security Council endorsement comes. I'm not holding much space for it.

"Australians will all be war-criminals if we go to war in support of this berserk state" froths the last caller tonight, completing a 100% vote against war this evening. And, unlike Saddam, Auntie didn't have to pull any fingernails out to achieve it.

Sorry to say, if you wanted to check this supermarket of loony middle-class leftism, Auntie doesn't transcribe Max or the Gastropod.