seer-suckers

Listening to John Howard again last night smugly repeating that line that he and his ilk obviously believe to be an absolute, unassailable trump card, that "Saddam Hussein...would still be running Iraq" if it weren't for him, it struck me that even this statement itself is debatable. I mean, how can Howard & Co. be so sure that Saddam would still be in power if we hadn't invaded Iraq? There are other possible outcomes. Why should we trust Howard's "strength of conviction" on this issue any more than we should trust it on the myriad other "convictions" he's had that have turned out to be completely wrong? Even if he doesn't lie, which nobody believes, he still gets it wrong an awful lot, more than we should tolerate from a prime minister. The world is in "safer hands", my ass.
And listen to how Downer spins the WMD issue:

"History shows that we were absolutely right to get rid of somebody who used chemicals against his own people and his neighbours and who, once the UN sanctions were lifted, was going to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs". (my emphasis)

"Was going to". This he knows. He didn't know it then, mind, or he would've told us. Then, he thought Saddam was ready to attack us with chemical and biological weapons any minute now. He was sure about that.
But don't quibble. History will judge them. They're visionary guys.