Tim Blair


New Criterion



Sunday, July 13, 2003
IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE that the opposition parties in Australia and the US, and the Tories and Labour left in the UK, should pursue this question of the quality of the intelligence advice on Iraq's nuclear weapon program. That's politics.

There's a Presidential election in the US next year, and Australian Labor, and the UK left, are chronically desperate.

The emphasis that Auntie gives to the matter is another questionIt constantly leads the news bulletins, as in the case of last night's national television news, although it is clear that it was a minor component of concerns about Saddam's WMD capacity, and what he might do with it.

Just how far the ABC has lost its mind on this became clear last night in the news item that followed the latest on Iraqi nuclear ambitions.

It was reported that the situation in Iraq was "extremely brittle". The evidence that followed this headline judgment was a report of one - or a few - mortar shells landing on - or near - US military positions in Baghdad.

Now the word "brittle" means 'liable to break'. This definition is not problematic.

If the US occupation of Iraq is liable to break, it must follow that the level of violence on the part of the Baathists, or any other political force, has reached a very high pitch of intensity, such that the US government is unlikely to sustain the effort of opposing it.

Is this true? It seems to Uncle that one or a few mortar shells are unlikely to make the US occupation 'brittle'.

Has there been other news that would make the ABC doctrine credible?

Haven't seen it.

Is it just wishful thinking?