Martin Pool's blog

Mail me RSS Bazaar distcc Canonical is hiring! flickr

Sly Cunning Bastards, addendum^2

aj replies to my post about the intelligence issue:

The only problem here is that it's not apparent that anyone lied (ie, deliberately uttered things they knew were untrue, and that they knew would lead others to come to a conclusion that was known to be false); it's merely alleged, and mostly by people who have a stated interest in attacking Mr Howard, Mr Bush, or Mr Blair. We have a fair degree of confidence that a number of the details were wrong, but it is far from immoral to merely be mistaken. I'm wrong quite frequently, and I don't like it, but I'm not ashamed of it — saying wrong things and getting corrected is how you learn to be right.

I'm sure making decisions based on the limited intelligence that can be gained about Iraq is difficult. (Australia presumably gets a second-hand and possibly filtered feed from the US and UK.) We might still accuse somebody being more than mistaken but in fact negligent or irresponsible in not properly using the information that is available.

But the problem for Howard goes beyond that: if one is *willfully* ignorant, then ignorance is no excuse. From a recent Lateline interview:

MAXINE McKEW: How do you see this? Dishonesty, a blunder or a storm in a tea cup?

JACK WATERFORD, EDITOR IN CHIEF, CANBERRA TIMES: No, I think it's much more important than that.

But dishonesty, not directly.

I believe John Howard when he says he wasn't told, but that's in part because 20 years ago somebody told the truth to John Howard and caused him deep shock and surprise and he's taken great care not to have it told to him ever since by insulating himself with a great stack of advisers, by insisting on oral briefings and by having layer upon layer, if you like, of plausible deniability about material.

MAXINE MCKEW: Are you saying the Prime Minister's Office is constructed in such a way so that unpalatable information doesn't get to him?

JACK WATERFORD: That's pretty well it. Nobody ever gets to surprise John Howard.

If they've got bad news to deliver, it's intercepted by members of his staff and whether or not John Howard is told, no documentary evidence will ever disclose.

MAXINE MCKEW: He's surprised now. Today he said on balance it would have been better had he been told.

JACK WATERFORD: He has conceded that, but he's busily reconstructing all the while on what his case was for going into Iraq in the first place.

True? I don't know. Certainly plausible, in a Yes Minister kind of way.

That said I think I still basically agree with AJ: if the US manages to establish some kind of functioning democracy it will have been worthwhile.

posted Wed 16 Jul 2003 in /issues/iraq | link

Sly, Cunning Bastards

aj talks about the trouble John Howard is in for apparently fudging the evidence about Iraq before the war.

Unlike politicians, the public has the luxury of deciding after the event whether it was a good idea or not. So far the answer is a cautious "Yes", although a final answer will depend on how soon and successfully Iraq can become a stable democracy. If it falls back into a dictatorship, or becomes a quagmire that consumes thousands of coalition troops, then we might reasonably criticize Howard for not considering the risk.

Is it ethical to lie or bend the truth, to achieve a morally desirable outcome? Is it worse for democratic politicians to do this than regular people, because they are not allowing the people to make their own decision on the facts? Stop projector, discuss film.

posted Tue 15 Jul 2003 in /issues/iraq | link

Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.