Bob Brown has just announced his retirement from politics. It comes as a shock, but such announcements usually do. I can’t do justice to Bob’s thirty or more years of activism in a blog post, but there have been few people in political life who’ve achieved as much while not compromising their integrity to secure political support. The Green Party which Bob effectively founded and has largely embodied for many years, has made a big positive contribution to Australian political life
Given the rubbish in the comments threads recently, I’m going to be ruthless in moderating this one. There will be plenty of time for critical thoughts on Bob Brown’s political career and on the Green Party. If you can’t wait for a more appropriate occasion, take such comments to the sandpit. Anything in this post that crosses my subjective line will be deleted with prejudice.
John Quiggin 
You now know your wrong or you’re beyond hope either way Gerard your a waste of time and space, so no more.
You need a new psychiatrist Freelander, one that doesn’t push heroin
Just because you can OD on a substance doesn’t mean it isn’t safe. You can drink to much water at once and that OD will kill you. But water, like heroin is safe, unless you are silly. Same cannot be said for Ganja.
I didn’t say cannabis was “safe”. It’s not as safe as water but it’s quite obviously safer than heroin. You and your psychiatrist might be the only two people in the world to disagree with this.
You can OD on water by drinking too much to quickly and die as a result. In that way water holds the same OD risks as heroin.
But if you don’t OD with heroin or water you are fine. Not so with ganja.
Please take this to a sandpit
For those interested in facts rather than faith, Bob Brown’s actual motion in the Tasmanian Parliament on 4/4/91 re Gulf War I was both concise and clear. It read:
“That this House abhors the abandonment of the Kurd people by countries involved in the Gulf War. The House calls on the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to act immediately to put pressure on Australia’s allies to intervene immediately in Iraq to stop the slaughter of Kurds and establish their right to self-determination.”
On this occasion Bob didn’t suggest a delay until a U.N. resolution had authorised such intervention; and I agreed fully with his stand that decisive action was the only way to go. In 1975, while a member of the Victorian ALP Defence and Foreign Relations Committee, when the question of an independent Kurdish State arose, I’d moved that a sub-committee examine the issues and bring back a draft report to us for submission to State Conference. They never did come back with a proposal, but I wasn’t critical of them because I understood the difficulties involved in drafting it. In 1991 it seemed to me that finally Gulf War I provided a situation in which strong action to bring justice to not only the Kurds but also other ethnic groups victimised by Saddam might at last mean there was a chance of it being carried out, so I although I was now in NSW I had no reservations about arguing that Bob’s motion should be supported. From memory, in 1991 not one Tasmanian M.H.A. spoke against Bob’s motion, although one did tell Parliament, “It is somewhat ironic that (Bob Brown) and others who opposed United Nations intervention in the Middle East conflict are now seeking intervention in this matter”. Bob’s response in his reply to this criticism was [in light of what many posters have claimed on this and other sites] particularly interesting.
Bob told Parliament, “I supported the United Nations intervention and the sanctions against the Saddam Hussein invasion of Kuwait.” Isn’t it good to know that when he called for intervention in Iraq to give Kurds self-determination even though there was no U.N. resolution to cover it, he was being consistent in his belief that Saddam’s control of both Kuwait and Kurdish lands must be ended? Perhaps that’s why, whenever I’ve raised this issue on the internet, after greeting my comments with initial disbelief, his more literate faithful followers usually fold their tents and disappear into the night?
Exactly what we would have expected, and thought anyway , that Saint Bob would have said in the circumstances.
Many thanks for that, Norm.
@norman hanscombe
Of course most Greens worth their salt demonstrated against the first Gulf War.
Maybe if Bob Brown remained in Parliament he would have ended up calling for intervention in Tibet to help his mate the Dali Lama (maybe not).
Maybe now, with new arrangements, the Greens will be able to develop more consistent and progressive policies and political impetus.
Thanks, Norm. For your fond reminisces about what a fine international statesman, humanitarian, and parliamentarian, Bob Brown has been and how you have been honoured today have served at the same time as this Australian icon.
Your contribution
Your memories of Saint Bob’s great contributions is most appreciated!
Freelander et Chris Warren:
1. When I stated Bob had supported the First Gulf War (even calling for increased intervention without waiting for U.N. backing, I was told I was making it up. When it’s shown that not only did the wording of Bob’s motion unambiguously do exactly that, but in his right of reply that day he confirmed that he’d supported the original intervention, I’m told that that all I’d said was what would be expected from Bob. You were being ironic?
Then again, since Chris Warren adds, “Of course most Greens worth their salt demonstrated against the first Gulf War,” you have to assume he either simply hasn’t understood what Bob was saying or he doesn’t deem Bob a good green.
2. I in no way criticised Bob for changing his mind, per se. It’s his pretence that he didn’t make a dramatic switch from what his motion called for in 1991, to the very different stands he took once ensconced in the Federal Senate.
@norman hanscombe
I would not say that Bob Brown was not “a good green”. However there is a need for a different form of Green prescence now than under Brown’s watch. What may have been ‘good-green’ before may not be sufficinet now.
In general, society anoints particular interventions and upsurges as cause celebre, while ignoring others. Did Bob Brown make any statement over the recent violence against demonstrators in Bahrain? Did he oppose the intervention by Saudi Arabia?
So it is one thing to “understand” what politicians “say” – it is another to understand their real politics. I expect Green politics will now change somewhat – but this does not mean there is no understanding (!?).
In fact that accusation convicts the accuser.
@norman hanscombe
On the basis of the quotes above there can be no question Mr Hanscombe, that Bob Brown was certainly backing military intervention in Gulf War 1. I was out of the country at the time — in the UK — which was probably why I missed it. As history has shown, that was clearly a very serious error of judgement. Doubtless his reasons were sincere, unlike Bush Senior’s, but that doesn’t make it less of a mistake. Nor is it less of a mistake because Brown’s opinion at the time would not have been a factor in what occurred.
I’m especially glad that he didn’t repeat the error in 2003 because then it would have been an order of magnitude worse.
Interestingly, Tony Abbott paraphrased Richard Nixon when the former said, “We are all conservationists, now.”
It is a matter of debate as to who was less sincere.
Still no source documents.
Assuming that the wording of the motion is correct:
“That this House abhors the abandonment of the Kurd people by countries involved in the Gulf War. The House calls on the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to act immediately to put pressure on Australia’s allies to intervene immediately in Iraq to stop the slaughter of Kurds and establish their right to self-determination.”
And remembering that the First Gulf War ended in about February/March of 1991, it would be the abandonment of the Kurds by the “allies” that he is complaining of, apparently. By April 1991 the war had finished – so this does not prove the assertion that Brown was in favour of the war.
Then, we get an unattributed and unsourced quote:
‘…one did tell Parliament, “It is somewhat ironic that (Bob Brown) and others who opposed United Nations intervention in the Middle East conflict are now seeking intervention in this matter”.’
So Brown OPPOSED the war, apparently. That’s the WAR, remember. Prior to the war there was, in 1990, a UN resolution (661) sanctioning Iraq and imposing a trade embargo. If Brown supported that resolution but opposed the war, that would be consistent with this (alleged) quote:
‘Bob told Parliament, “I supported the United Nations intervention and the sanctions against the Saddam Hussein invasion of Kuwait.” ‘
If someone makes a claim that Brown supported the 1991 war, they bear the onus of proving that. They appear to have access to the full Hansard. They should provide the entire text of everything Brown said and in its correct context.
There is nothing in the above quotes to establish that Brown “supported the first Gulf War”, in fact in isolation it looks like he supported the UN resolution designed to avoid that war.
If someone has the Hansard, this should be very easily resolved.
Until then, I’m certainly not going to rush into accepting that Brown supported that war.
@Megan
That is a unfair call as norman hanscombe has provided a suitable citation for his quote re Brown’s advocacy of intervention on behalf of the Kurds [Tas. Parl. 4 April 1991].
I expect his other quotes to be competant.
Remember, Bob Brown was a politician just like any other, quite willing to use militray force in some circumstances but remaining surprising quiet in others.
But this is how many operate – full bottles on Tahir Square, but empty on Pearl Square where:
Which media outlet in Australia reported this in 2011?
I can only assume that America had different strategic interests in each arena.
Chris,
I didn’t read the provided quotes as proving at all the assertion that Brown “supported the first gulf war”.
The assertion stands without the requested (and promised) evidence.
@Megan
Quite right.
The quote simply shows that Bob Brown said what we knew he said and have come expect him to say, and that is, that the Kurds should be protected from Saddam’s homocidial intent.
Not clear what Norm is trying to get us to believe. Maybe he is inviting us to join him through the looking glass?
Gulf War I had come and gone and nothing in the quoted statement suggest’s Saint Bob supported that war.
All the Greens I know, and those on the Left of the ALP, and progressive independents and etc opposed the first Gulf War in 1991.
My guess is that Bob Brown supported the war, but as a means to resolve his angst over the Kurds. He may have changed his mind subsequently.
How can a 1991 Brown motion calling for:
“… Mr Hawke, to act immediately to put pressure on Australia’s allies to intervene immediately in Iraq…”
not prove the assertion that Brown supported this intervention?
What other standard of proof, presumably with greater authority than Parliamentary Hansard, is available??
Its hard to accept the label “assertion” if Hansard is the basis. Statements are assertions only if they lack an appropriate basis.
Chris,
The quotes are ASSERTED to be from Hansard, if they in fact are (and if the context isn’t missing) of course that would ‘prove’ they are a historically accurate record of what was said.
However, the quote is from April 1991 AFTER the war had finished a month or so earlier.
“You can’t just leave this mess” is not proof that the speaker “supported” the making of the mess and to assert otherwise is untenable. A quote along the lines of “I support the war” would constitute the proof needed here. Calling for the people who supported the war to stand up for the Kurds, after the war is over, is not support for the war.
Do you see the difference?
And, of course, the thing that Brown actually DID support – not abandoning the Kurds – didn’t end up happening.
This ‘evidence’ proves that Brown ‘supported’ an ‘intervention’ that never happened.
It does not prove that Brown supported the war in the first place.
The First Iraq War, which unlike the second was authorised by the UN, ended on 28 February 1991. Brown must have been really, really slow to react to events if he waited until after the war ended to declare his support for it.
@Megan
Most people are misunderstanding you. When you made the accusation of assertion you did not mention that you were only questioning Hansard.
The fact the quote was after the war nominally ended does not change matters as he was calling for the spread of intervention and he self-associated himself with the context – “Gulf War”. In fact real wars never end until the parties are exhausted.
Its very hard to call for intervention in one instance but oppose intervention in another. Bob Brown sought to re-ignite war in Iraq. Any military action against Saddam on behalf of the Kurds would have been a clear extension of the Gulf War.
When Bob Brown called for action against Saddam, he would not have known that it would never happen. His call was made in the context that it should happen.
A war is only over when the troops go home. If they were there to fight a war, and then the same deployment extends to another theatre, this extends the war. If Bob Brown had his way – the Gulf War could have reignited then and there. Any campaign on behalf of Kurds would have been a continuation of the Gulf War.
Anyone making statements about anyones views about earlier events needs to provide evidence. Whatever Bob Brown’s views may have been earlier – these appear to have changed by April 1991. Maybe he never made a statement either way.
The bottom line is that by April 1991, Bob Brown was calling for war against Saddam in the Gulf independently of UN processes. There’s the problem.
@Chris Warren
There is nothing in the quoted material that says anything about the UN. You would not necessarily expect Brown to mention it.
At the time no-one had invented so-called coalitions of the willing and international lawyers and everyone else generally assumed that UN sanction was needed. That remained the case until Clinton launched the bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999 with NATO, but not UN, approval.
Chris,
No, the “assertion” (by Norman) was that: “Bob Brown supported the first Gulf War”.
I said that the “assertion” would have to backed by proof.
You, later, seemed to be conflating my reading of the quotes Norman used with an “assertion” (presumably attributable to me) that Hansard was only an “assertion” that something was recorded – rather than a very authoritative account of what was said.
To be clear: The only “assertion” that is in issue is that “Brown supported the First Gulf War”.
Let’s go back a bit. You seemed to be saying that if Brown called for “intervention” on behalf of the Kurds after the war was declared won by the US etc.., that is equal to proof that “Brown supported the First Gulf War”.
I just don’t accept that as either factually correct or a fair interpretation of the quotes provided.
[The bottom line is that by April 1991, Bob Brown was calling for war against Saddam in the Gulf independently of UN processes. There’s the problem.]
Are you really saying that:
a) Bob Brown was calling for war against Iraq AFTER the war was over?
b) He was calling for a new war outside UN process?
c) Even though the war was over by then, and in the absence of any evidence that he “supported” the war that had already ended, that is enough to prove to you the truth of the assertion that “Brown supported the First Gulf War”?
I may be missing something, but I just don’t see that any of the ‘quotes’ do anything other than suggest Brown was actually “opposed” to the war.
Someone here must have access to a law library. Ours is closed for the semester break. If someone could find the Tasmanian House of Assembly Hansard from 4/4/91 and reproduce what Brown said in full somewhere (pastebin??), that would be the end of the matter.
Either Brown “supported” the First Gulf War or he didn’t.
IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER
Fran Barlow:
His motion received miniscule if any mention on the mainland. I heard about it from a startled friend in Tassie. I didn’t argue about whether he was right or wrong, merely raising it because I felt Bob’s acolytes should analyse their guru more carefully. Bob has never denied it.
Megan:
Read carefully and you’ll find the date for the Parliamentary Hansard; but it’s not electronic, so YOU may be unable to source it? The fact you find the motion’s wording doubtful confirms cognitive dissonance says about how True Believers deal with possible inconsistencies in their belief system, doesn’t it?
When a Liberal M.P., Barker, criticised Bob for not having supported the INITIAL Gulf War, Brown sought to make a ‘personal explanation’ but was told by the House Speaker to wait until his final reply. In that reply Bob actually SAID he’d supported it. That’s possibly why, despite my having raised this issue several times over the years, Bob has always remained understandably quiet — and I trust you don’t think it’s because he’s shy?
If you understand basic English and can keep your emotive wishes under a degree of control, get hold of a paper copy of Hansard, and you’ll realise Bob defended himself by saying he’d SUPPORTED the First Gulf War, even if he never repeated such heresy after he became a Senator.
Chris Warren:
I’d never criticise Bob or anyone else for saying sometimes military force is needed, sometimes it’s not. The criticism of Bob is about letting his gullible supporters remain unaware he’s made conflicting claims about the First Gulf War.
As for the media, how many readers of this blog are aware of what Jose Ramos Horta said immediately prior to Fretlin sparking the initial uprising in East Timor? That should be ‘findable’ by the Internet Dependent? Except, of course, that our species doesn’t tend to check anything too assiduously which fails to support our particular sacred cows. Megan is simply one more example of someone ‘unable’ to understand what she’s actually read because it doesn’t provide the warm inner glow the True Believer needs.
In 1965 I went through the records of Sydney Uni B.A. Honours Graduates who had failed ONE subject on the way through. It was interesting to find that basic Philosophy I was the biggest offender. Philosophy I then required students to keep their prejudices under control and master fairly straightforward logic exams. Some very bright students had difficulty doing this.
Freelander:
I accept you may always be, to use your term, “Not clear.” I can only recommend a course in basic English.
How can a 1991 Brown motion calling for:
“… Mr Hawke, to act immediately to put pressure on Australia’s allies to intervene immediately in Iraq…”
Megan:
I accept you’re unaware that you’ve conflated TWO issues; one about the intent of Bob’s motion for further action after Saddam had been defeated, the other about his comment in reply stating he HAD supported the initial intervention. Think about it, they are completely separate matters.
Alan :@Chris Warren
Yes. Bob Brown’s April 1991 call for war was independent of the UN, and I would not necessarily expect Bob Brown to have mentioned the UN. However I would expect that modern Green’s would insist on UN sanction in the future or, if this is a problem, seek to develop a revamped or alternative international machinery of some sort.
The need for UN sanction to resolve these issues was abundantly clear. The UN never sanctioned the Gulf War and the types of action Bob Brown was attracted to. The UN Security Council only authorised action to ensure Iraq complied with previous resolutions – ie get out of Kuwait.
The Gulf War was more than this and Iraqis were massacred by the Americans as they were leaving Kuwait and were on Iraqi territory?
Alan
Yes. Bob Brown’s April 1991 call for war was independent of the UN, and I would not necessarily expect Bob Brown to have mentioned the UN. However I would expect that modern Green’s would insist on UN sanction in the future or, if this is a problem, seek to develop a revamped or alternative international machinery of some sort.
The need for UN sanction to resolve these issues was abundantly clear. The UN never sanctioned the Gulf War and the types of action Bob Brown was attracted to. The UN Security Council only authorised action to ensure Iraq complied with previous resolutions – ie get out of Kuwait.
The Gulf War was more than this and Iraqis were massacred by the Americans as they were complying with UN SC resolutions by leaving Kuwait and were on Iraqi territory.
I would want UN sanction, end of story. Within Australia I would want approval by both houses of the Parliament. The last attempt to develop a revamped or alternative international machinery was the coalition of the willing doctrine.
So, evidence to make out the assertion that:
“Bob Brown supported the First Gulf War”
That’s it?
@Megan
“that is equal to” is an exaggeration. However the provided quote:
proves that Bob Brown supported the United Nations “intervention” (ie what had occurred under this guise – war).
The proof fails only if the quote is false.
a) is a misrepresentation. Bob Brown called for a reignition of war into a further theatre after a cease-fire (and no more) had been arranged. His call was well outside any UN sanction.
b) so it would seem in at least one instance.
c) obviously. Everyone will see this – provided the quote (above) is not false.
The first I heard of this idea that “Bob Brown supported the First Gulf War”, was in this thread.
Looking into it, I see that Norman has been saying the same thing online since at least 2010 in a comment on a Crikey! piece – where he made the same assertion and, interestingly, told people to go and read the Tasmanian Hansard.
In all that time Norman hasn’t been able to actually go and do that?
OK, I’ll go and do it myself.
@Megan
That will help to clarify things.
If it was in Crikey in 2010, presumably Bob Brown would have objected to or corrected any misunderstanding.
Something very close to the first quotation appeared in 2004. If both quotations are genuine you’d wonder why the author of that piece omitted the much more damning second quote.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2406&page=1
just to be clear, i thought it went like this:-
(1) 1980-1988 – “the gulf war” – iran vs iraq
(2) 1990-1991 – “the liberation of kuwait” – united nations vs iraq
(3) 2003-? “the invasion of iraq” – coalition of the willing vs iraq
leaving aside the first as irrelevant to the discussion, the second was legal under international law: it was sanctioned by the united nations, in response to the unconscionable invasion of kuwait by iraq. the no fly zones that arose from that un operation, and were enforced by the usa uk & france, were of questionable legality and were not explicitly sanctioned in the un resolution that earlier had authorised the use of force as a last resort to effect the liberation of kuwait.
the third is arguably a war crime: the unprovoked invasion of a nation state in order to gain control of its resources is illegal in international law. the 2003 invasion of iraq by the coalition of the willing under false pretences & without sanction of the united nations is arguably a war crime, as indefensible in international law as saddam hussein’s earlier invasion of kuwait.
i wouldn’t be surprised if its shown bob brown opposed the second & i suspect if he did it would have been for the reason that, á la just war theory, he sincerely believed not enough honest effort had gone into peaceful resolution of the situation before resort was had to war.
i wouldn’t be surprised if it is shown bob brown urged the usa uk & france be pressed to extend their self-appointed no-fly zones to the point effectively of intervening on behalf of the kurds in their uprising. and i expect again this would have been motivated by humanitarian concerns. concerns shared by many people at the time, who felt strongly for the insurgents in the uprisings. uprisings that kurds & marsh arabs (remember them?) were encouraged into by the george hw bush administration, that had neither the legal authority nor the military means to adequately support them and which ultimately were crushed by saddam’s land forces. calls to intervene in the uprisings, understandable as humanitarian impulse, were arguably calls to extend an illegal mission into an unsanctioned intervention in a civil war.
foreign policy is the green’s weak suite at present and they need to address this if they’re to present as a credible alternative government in future.
a.v.
Norman Hanscombe April 15th, 2012 at 18:18:
Norman, that Gulf War ended on Feb28, 1991 and so far you’ve only quoted what Brown said on April 4, 1991 – a quote which I found independently and quoted here before you, and which hasn’t shocked me, not one little bit.
In the absence of any quote (shocking or not) from the Tasmanian Hansard of what Brown argued during the First Gulf War I must assume you are beating the bejesus out of a straw man.
Note to self: that’s the last morsel I’m feeding this particular troll.
Norman’s position all along has been that:
“Bob Brown supported the First Gulf War”.
He has been saying for years, apparently, that we could prove this to ourselves by checking Hansard.
He provided selective “quotes” from Hansard to “prove” that “Bob Brown supported the First Gulf War”.
I can’t be the only person who finds this, latest, from Norman:
[When a Liberal M.P., Barker, criticised Bob for not having supported the INITIAL Gulf War…]
rather blows his entire premise to pieces?
Doesn’t that destroy Chris’s concept that arguing for the people who made the mess to take responsibility for the mess equates to support for the making of the mess in the first place? Especially now that Norman seems to have found a quote (remarkable that he can do this but can’t show us the entire Hansard) which appears to show that “Bob Brown DID NOT support the First Gulf War” after all.
Anyway, since Norman is only going to bleed out the bits he feels he wants to, I’ll go to all the trouble of getting a hard copy of the Tasmanian House of Assembly Hansard from both before and after the First Gulf War.
Chris @ 34,
Please re-read: it was a “Norman” COMMENT on a Crikey piece in 2010.
Bob Brown is supposed to Hoover around the internet and correct errors made by commenters?
Norman (pg 2 @ 49):
“Bob urged the Australian Government to back moves to remove Sadam without expressing any of the concerns Bob showed later in the Federal parliament for a UN resolution backing it.”
That’s the kind of license Norman takes.
Norm is well and truly through the looking glass.
Dementia perhaps?
@Megan
Thanks for your efforts Megan. It seems I was too hasty in conceding Hanscombe’s quote as salient. I should have applied the general rule that all things submitted by trolls should be regarded as nonsense until carefully examined for context. Cherrypicking is the most popular strategy amongst denier trolls.
This one was pretty clever because the flaw was in a subtle detail that qualitatively changes the meaning of the quote.
Well done you for picking it up.
@Alan
So the April Brown quote is in fact:
Of course Bob Brown has the right to change his mind, without being subject to the nonsense in your link.
Megan
Huh? What’s the point. No one has said otherwise?
As the same point has now been cited from Crikey and from OnlineOpinion, and apparently even here (earlier ??) I would expect some clarification if these sources contain errors of concern. He only needs to state that:
Yes – he supports war in some instances, but not in all instances and Yes he supported war in Iraq against Hussein to defend the northern Kurds, without reference to the UN, and that this was after the cease-fire associated with southern Kuwait and with UN resolutions.
It is not clear that Bob Brown supported a military removal of Hussein if the Kurds could otherwise be protected. This is a Hanscombe extrapolation and is arguable. However if protecting Kurds required removal of Hussein, it is consistent that Brown would have supported this in April. At least Browns usage of “full weight” suggests a maximum approach which includes military force.
But then we should ask all our politicians who made all manner of bully-boy calls for war in various theatres in the Middle East – what have they said about Bahrain?
@Alan
So the April Brown quote is in fact:
Of course Bob Brown has the right to change his mind, without being subject to the nonsense in your link.
Megan
Huh? What’s the point. No one has said otherwise?
As the same point has now been cited from Crikey and from OnlineOpinion, and apparently even here (earlier ??) I would expect some clarification if these sources contain errors of concern. He only needs to state that:
Yes – he supports war in some instances, but not in all instances and Yes he supported war in Iraq against Hussein to defend the northern Kurds, without reference to the UN, and that this was after the cease-fire associated with southern Kuwait and with UN resolutions.
It is not clear that Bob Brown supported a military removal of Hussein if the Kurds could otherwise be protected. This is a Hanscombe extrapolation and is arguable. However if protecting Kurds required removal of Hussein, it is consistent that Brown would have supported this in April. At least Browns April usage of “full weight” suggests a maximum approach, which includes military force.
But then we should ask all our politicians who made all manner of bully-boy calls for war in various theatres in the Middle East – what have they said about Bahrain?
Anyone with reasonable ability in written English will understand that:
1. Bob Brown’s motion in 91 called for intervention in Iraq without requiring prior U.N. endorsement. It’s a concise motion with no verbiage to cloud that issue. I happen to think he was right in moving this; but that’s NOT the relevant issue, so re-read the actual motion without asking whether or not you believe it should have been moved. Not too difficult?
2. During the debate when Barker claimed Bob hadn’t supported the earlier invasion, Bob said he’d been misrepresented, and sought to make a personal explanation; but the Speaker told him to do that in his right of reply. In Bob’s final reply, he made it clear he HAD supported the initial invasion. This is not, of course, the same issue as Bob’s 91 motion. The two are logically quite separate issues, so they shouldn’t be conflated as so many posters (unwittingly?) seem to want to do.
Hopefully now Bob’s in retirement he may come clean, and tell his emotively blinkered faithful what they have [and have had for years] experienced so much trouble grasping?
I’ve enjoyed considerable success helping students needing remedial English at all levels from school to post-grad; but the hurdle here in many cases is emotive blinkers; and that’s a far more difficult hurdle for many to overcome, which is why we really do need Dr Bob to explain WHY he did what he did in his pre-Canberra past.
So it’s adios to this intellectual quagmire, and good luck to all those who continue to want to believe the X Files is a documentary.
P.S. — Megan:
Your last post popped up after I’d posted mine. I shan’t attempt to help you understand you’ve not understood what extrapolation means because I have to head off now and feed a friend’s cat; but your last sentence [in relation to every point I’ve made] is as delightful an example of a non sequitur one could wish, so I suggest you consider finding out why as it MIGHT help you construct more logically consistent ‘arguments’.
Best wishes in your search to find what’s really ‘out there’.
@Norman Hanscombe
You need to be clearer and fairer to Bob Brown. By ommitting reference to the Kurds in your point 1) you are exploiting Hansard for your own war-mongering agenda.
2) You provide no source for this. The key aspect is whether he was, at this stage, supporting UN decisions or back-filling support after the UN had stated its position.
People can and should support (or oppose) interventions covered by UN sanctions.
However we should be very concerned when politicians call for interventions for favoured causes and outside UN mechanisms.
@ChrisWarren
Of course, that *if* is a substantial leap. One can imagine many ways in which Kurds might have been protected in the circumstances of April 1991 short of removing Saddam. In fact Operation Provide Comfort which purported to create a no-fly zone controlled by the UK/US was on paper such a scheme. That it was a failure reflected not breaches by the Ba’athists but by NATO ally Turkey which was given a free pass to bomb Kurdish villages ostensibly in “hot pursuit” of Kurdish separatists attacking Turkey. The more likely reason of course was the animus of Turkey towards the establishment of an independent and oil rich Kurdish state on its frontier.
Words will mean exactly what Norm wants them to mean in Norm’s world!
Fortunately we live in the real world.