Add new comment

When I first heard Bush (and Australian PM, John Howard) dismiss the report out of hand as "not credible", simply on the grounds that it <em>couldn't</em> be true, surely, (because it didn't <em>feel</em> right?), I remembered the textbook on how to discredit a report and it was in the BBC-TV comedy, <em>Yes Minister</em>'s "The Greasy Pole" episode. <a href="http://www.yes-minister.com/polterms.htm" target="blank">The strategy to suppress a document</a> was explained by Sir Humphrey: <blockquote>- Stage One: You list reasons in terms of the public interest: •Security considerations; •Results could be misinterpreted; •Better to wait for a wider and more detailed study over a longer timescale. - Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing (using press leaks): •The evidence leaves some important questions unanswered (presumably the ones that were not asked); •Much of the evidence in inconclusive; •The figures are open to other interpretations; •Certain findings are contradictory; •Some of the main conclusions have been questioned (if not, then question them and then they have). - Stage Three: You undermine the recommendations: •Not really a basis for long-term decisions; •Not enough information on which to base a valid assessment; •Not really a need for a rethink of existing policies; •Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice. - Stage Four: Discredit the writer of the report (of course off the record): •The writer is harbouring a grudge against the government; •The writer is a publicity seeker; •The writer used to be (or wants to be) a consultant for a multinational company; •The writer is trying to get a knighthood, chairmanship, vice-chancellorship, etc. </blockquote> It's not only that it couldn't be true "surely", but that it <em>mustn't</em> be true because what Prime Minister or President could live with themselves if it were proved they were responsible for the deaths of so many innocent civilians. The "unavoidable" casualties must be moderate for the action to be defensible as "collateral" and the numbers in the Lancet report were very immoderate indeed. I <a href="http://www.valuesaustralia.com/blog/" target=blank">refer</a> to casualty numbers from time to time and even I understate the probable numbers because, frankly, I fear that readers will discount everything else I say because they think I am an exaggerator. So I think Sheldon is right. There ought to be another survey done as soon as possible.