From a letter in the Sydney Morning Herald (03/01/07)

As always, Bob Ellis's compelling eloquence has attracted applause from many readers (Letters, January 2). But his original article oversimplified issues that are really quite complex.

Ellis asks whether George Bush, too, should be charged and hanged. All politicians have to make difficult decisions, often with far-reaching and unexpected results. Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser did nothing significant to prevent the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which ultimately led to horrific bloodshed. Bob Carr chose not to give a high priority to upgrading the Pacific Highway, and that resulted in many deaths. Were these men mass murderers? Of course not.

The trial of Saddam Hussein was a flawed process by any standard. His hasty execution, however, probably had little to do with a thirst for injustice, but can be seen as an attempt to demoralise those killing innocent citizens in his name. Critics of his execution have failed to suggest an appropriate punishment for such a tyrant, and where he could be jailed without bringing down waves of terrorism on the custodial authorities.

Even for those of us who have opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, the situation there now poses many excruciating moral issues. Our cause is not well served by imagining that Mr Bush embarked on this ill-conceived venture with the intention of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and 3000 of his servicemen. Nor should we ever appear to understate the evil of a man who cold-bloodedly oversaw the murder of a vast number of his citizens.

Richard Walsh Woollahra

-------------------

Gus: Is this person "The" Richard Walsh of OZ Magazine? Who knows...
Anyway it does not matter... this "Richard" is playing "give the pollies a break" because they have to make difficult decisions... WRONG! Holy mackerels!
One cannot give the pollies a break, especially those like Bush who think the sun shines out of their arse, and will make the wrong decision, willingly. Dear Richard, the acceptance of two wrongs do not make a right.

Before that Iraq war, many countries opposed Bush's plan. Only two others went with him, both from the English speaking Mafia where NO proper analysis of the situation was ever "studied" publicly in the media or in parliament, while the Europeans and the United Nations knew (and warned) of the trauma and drama ahead.

Bush went to war in Iraq:
A) knowing that Saddam did not have any WMDs but LYING about it to get the general gullible public on side. Our PM and Mr Blair did the same, all with the help of a complicit media in a proportion of 80/20 in favour/against.
B) knowing that the sectarian tension in a country that had been underfoot for many years would be unleashed. His father would have told him so: that's why after the First Gulf War, Bush the First let Saddam stay on as despot with a pat on the back and a few sanctions (which our AWB cleverly flaunted)... Bush the First knew Iraq would slide into civil war, should Saddam be removed. Every clever political analyst knew that. Even the UN knew that. The UN was working hard to find a solution other than war to solve the internal problems of Iraq.
C) bombing and fighting tends to kill people. During the illegal invasion of Iraq about 100,000 civilians and Iraqi army personnel died. Only 50 or so US personnel died, since they were fighting a 1970/80s outfit, with the latest gear and depleted uranium bullets that were blowing up Saddam's old tanks three miles away.
D) civil war tends to kill people. Revenge rules, especially in countries were "an eye for an eye" is the principal underlying philosophy. Civil unrest was predictable. That it has not gone full bore yet is a miracle... In March this year it will be four years since the start of the war, now a confused mess of insurgency, terrorism, revenge, sectarianism and the majority of people wishing peace, predictably.
E) on the "mission accomplished" self-pat on the back by a president absorbed in his own sunshine, most political realists knew this was only the beginning of crap.
F) George W Bush made sure there was NO official body count of Iraqi dead. That is unforgivable. Thus we have to rely on figures from hospitals and morgues (150,000 dead, but many bodies do not make it there) or proper statistical analysis with a margin of +or- 5 per cent (650,000 dead. high of 682.500, low of 620,000) or 2.4 per cent of the Iraqi adult population.
G) the claims by Bush that Saddam was harbouring Al Qaeda terrorists were BIG-BIG lies that the Europeans knew to be porkies. Saddam hated Al Qaeda and vice verso. Saddam was ruling over a country where 60 per cent of the people were leaning towards Iran — his arch enemy that WE (the Yanks and the West) helped him fight for a few years after their revolution that ousted our man in Tehran, the Shah...
F) the main goals for Bush and his gangsters were to take over the OIL and to prevent Saddam selling it in EUROS.
H) Saddam was only a tyrant because WE allowed him and needed him to be. WE gave him the weapons and the imprimatur. Same with the Taliban in Afghanistan: WE supplied these awful people (we are fighting them at the moment) with the means/support to defeat the rising Communist government in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
I) if we did not know that the situation in Iraq was going to be so bad as it is (it could be a lot worse and may become thus if Bush is allowed to carry on business as usual) we should just shut up... The whole lot was predictable, of course within a small margin of error, but we cannot play Lotto with people's lives. There are better lying ways, like diplomacy, that do not kill people. George bush may not be guilty of war crime under the guise of incompetence and dummy-dumbo brains but his army of gangsters and advisers should be hanged. But as the ultimate deciderer of imperial robbery of oil, he should be too.

And our Tony Abbott still believes in Santa Claus and wants you to join him... with an each-way bet. Oh brother... Are these people living on the same planet? Complex? rubbish!... Decidedly merdique for profit.