There's been a lot of speculation that the United States wants to use information from Saddam to blackmail France, Germany, Russia, and others into being a bit more amenable to American foreign policy. The idea being that those nations wouldn't want it widely known that they were in bed with Saddam and actively working to help him.
It sounds like a good theory, but if it's true then why is President Bush undercutting Saddam's credibility?
But many, including President Bush (search), are doubtful Saddam will spew forth much truth.One possibility is that this statement was made as part of blackmail deal in exchange for cooperation from the Weasels, but I don't think that's likely since the statement also reduces the power of future accusations based on Saddam's knowledge."I wouldn't trust a word he said," Bush said in an interview with ABC News this week. "He's deceived and lied to the world in the past. He's not going to change his stripes. And I wouldn't hold much account to the word of Saddam Hussein."
Given Bush's religious character, I seriously doubt that the thought of blackmail even crossed his mind. (Rove, well, he's a different story.) Thus, I don't find the President's remarks out of character for him at all. He's simply speaking truth as he sees it.
Uh, what's immoral about blackmail?
You threaten to tell the truth unless you get what you want.
So it would be morally okay for me to blackmail you if I had some juicy tidbit on you that you didn't want made public? How about legally? But I know that's not what you meant.
Personally, all I've seen and heard is just that -- speculation. Everyone has turned into armchair pundits, trying to second-guess every move the government makes in any direction. Just how important is it to "prove" what is already basically accepted as truth or could probably be proven in other ways if anyone wanted to take the time to research? What would be more important than ties to France and Germany would be information about ties to anti-American factions currently bringing disorder to Iraq.
Heather: Yes, that is what I meant. The way to protect yourself from blackmail is to not do bad things.
In fact, one could argue that you'd be wrong to offer to help me cover up my transgressions, if you knew them to be illegal or dangerous to others. The safest moral route is to simply butt out of other people's business, but I don't generally see anything wrong with blackmail, as long as you aren't trying to coerce me into doing something that's immoral.
So would you blackmail somebody if the opportunity arose and you were positive you would never get caught? If it's not immoral and you stand to benefit greatly, why not?
I've been thinking more about this, and I think a lot depends on the blackmailer's motivations.
If someone did something wrong, I don't think I'd be ok with blackmailing them for money. Although really, it's hard to say. They've always got the option of just saying no and coming clean, which is what they should do anyway. Hm.
It's totally different between nations, though. If it's ok to use military force to get our way, it's certainly ok to use blackmail.