Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 258 ..
MRS CROSS (continuing):
But neither Brereton nor Crean has offered any real analysis of the alternatives to regime change. It's almost as if the British Labour Government's detailed dossiers showing the horrors Hussein has inflicted on Iraqis and the build-up of weapons of mass destruction never existed.
A few strident voices on the Left overseas have not been afraid to stake out a position in favour of regime change. Leftist UK journalist Johann Hari writing in The Independent earlier this month, asked: "What has become of the Left which argued that we had a moral responsibility to defend our fellow humans from fascist dictators?"And Washington-based English Leftist Christopher Hitchens has coined a new term for the prevarications of the Left on Iraq-"subject change". The embarrassment created by too close exposure to and concentration upon, the true facts of the Iraqi regime is avoided by always changing the subject to familiar anti-Americanism. "Regime change"is avoided by "subject change".
And so it was with Brereton's article on this page two weeks ago ("Keep us out of Bush's War"Opinion January 7). Instead of pointing his finger at the true culprit (the Iraqi dictator) the Labor Backbencher engaged in undergraduate anti-Americanism, even implying that a war was somehow George W. Bush's way of finishing off daddy's business.
Mr Nolan continued:
What appears to be beyond the grasp of many of my comrades in the Left is the scale and scope of a modern totalitarian regime such as Hussein's.
It goes on and on. Further on, it reads:
Regrettably, a visceral knee-jerk anti-Americanism pervades the debate.
I think this is what it all comes down to. Love or hate America, this is not the issue. There are atrocious human rights abuses occurring in that country. This man has had 12 years to comply with 17 resolutions.
I have been involved in diplomatic negotiations with a number of countries. I saw my father and my husband do it, and I was involved in it. I know that these actions are not taken lightly. I know that, in order for us to go to war, we would have exhausted every possible avenue.
MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (10.43): I have another amendment that I might hold until we work out which ones get up and which ones do not. I may even choose not to move it, but the point is, where do you draw the line? After you have drawn the line, what is it that prompts you to then cross the line? I have sat and listened to most of the speeches here tonight-either in the office or down here. I am yet to hear anybody offer an alternative. There are a few things we can put on the record with which I think we all agree.
The first thing is that nobody wants a war. From most of what I have heard, most people would agree that the regime of Saddam Hussein is evil in the way it has carried out atrocities against its own people. Most of us would agree that, for decades-and certainly across 17 UN resolutions-he has avoided the requirement of the world for him to disarm and remove his weapons of mass destruction.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .