Talk:Richard Butler (diplomat)

Untitled
questions: -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * States and territories of Australia puts the letters "AC" after his name. If this is correct, I figure we should use this in the "long style" (bold) in the article, and (if necessary) explain it
 * am I correct in saying that Butler didn't swear allegiance to HMQE2, and if so, wouldn't this be an issue for his governership?


 * He is a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC).
 * I don't see how he could have been sworn in as Gov without taking an oath of allegience to HM, but I don't have any information on that. Adam 15:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The wording of this loyalty oath is normally that one "swears allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her rightful heirs and successors", or similar. It is quite possible to make this oath while having republican opinions, as any Presidency of Australia that came about through legimate amendments of the Constitution would be a legally-constituted successor to the current monarch.  2006-07-29.

I just wanted to point out what a great job Adam Carr, JackofOz and Finlay McWalter have done in this article. A huge amount of edits by all of them have turned this from a non-existant to fully fledged article in less than a day! -- Chuq 01:51, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. JackofOz 03:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At the moment, I think the article is somewhat biased in support of Butler. It basically suggests that he was ousted because of the efforts of the Mercury (and others, such as Eric Abetz), without also discussing the allegations against him. Most of those are listed here, if anyone's interested, and there's a decent discussion of the saga here also, that might give some ideas as to what could be added. Ambi 08:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this needs to be kept in perspective. What is important about Butler's career is the work he did at UNSCOM. The petty details of what he may or may not have done in a minor provincial ceremonial post will soon be forgotten and deservedly so. I am not opposed making the section on his resignation clearer when the full story is available, but too much space devoted to this kind of piffle would distort the article. Adam 09:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm ... "minor provincial ceremonial post"?
 * ceremonial? yes, mostly - until such as time as a governor refuses to sign a writ for an election, refuses to give vice-regal assent to a law, or sacks a government with the confidence of the lower house. All of these actions have been taken by previous state governors, so these powers demonstrate that these offices are crucial to the constitutional arrangements under which this country operates, and are in no sense "minor" (whether one agrees with the system or not).  Do you think the Aussie people are so stupid as to be happy about such enormous salaries being paid from public funds to holders of "minor" offices?  I don't think so.
 * provincial - this appears to say more about the writer's superior attitude than about the matter of which he was speaking. Since when was any state or territory of Australia a "province"?  This sort of language is more redolent of a 19th century English aristocrat than a modern-day Australian, and reminds me of the tosser who once said "Colonies do not cease to be colonies merely because they achieve independence".
 * piffle - well, we all know that what's big news today may well become fish and chip wrappers tomorrow. But that doesn't make currently emerging and evolving events "piffle".  Serious questions have arisen out of the Butler affair so far, and more may yet emerge, about constitutional arrangements.  If nothing else, the matter can only add fuel to the republican cause.  So, "piffle"? - I don't think so.  (Oops, just realised I omitted to sign my entry JackofOz 02:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC))


 * This is a characteristic antipattern of publically editable wikis. As long as the affair is in the news, people will continue to arrive and drop in small "he said, she did, they rumoured, we denied..." nuggets.  The only solution is to return here every week or so (until things entirely settle) and summarise mercilessly. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 11:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * While there were many stories on Mr Butler During his short stay as the Governor I don't recall the Mercury being any harder on him than any other media source which includes two commercial and one PUBLIC TV news service, none of which is owned by Murdoch. Not mentioned in any of the comment here is the Sports Award ceremony were he appeared, presenting to a young girl, he was plainly drunk this was played on all three TV stations and was one of the major reason that lead to the public attitude toward him and his resignation. ** HobartResident 19 Sep 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.216.31 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

1998 departure from Iraq
Currently, this article says:
 * In 1998 Iraq accused Butler and other UNSCOM officials of acting as spies for the United States, and expelled the UNSCOM weapons inspectors from Iraq.

There appears to be some controversy regarding the characterization that the inspectors were "expelled". From the organization FAIR: There They Go Again: The Washington Post's Iraq Tall Tale. It in turn cites a Washington Post article, saying:
 * The story centers on the Iraq crisis that broke out on December 16, 1998. Richard Butler, head of the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq, had just released a report accusing the Iraqi regime of obstructing U.N. weapons checks. On the basis of that report, President Clinton announced he would launch airstrikes against Iraqi targets. Out of concern for their safety, Butler withdrew his inspectors from Iraq, and the U.S.-British bombing proceeded.


 * The Washington Post reported all these facts correctly at the time: A December 18 article by national security correspondent Barton Gellman reported that "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night."

I'm aware that many sources, including the Washington Post itself, have subsequently asserted that the weapons inspectors under Butler were "expelled" by Iraq. But the FAIR statement that that characterization is inaccurate bothers me. It's a relatively minor point, but I wonder if anyone has some better sourcing on the question that would help establish conclusively what happened. Or, if such conclusive evidence can't be found, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to mention the controversy in the Wikipedia article. John Callender 15:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not a a relatively minor point at all and it shows the appalling prevailing bias of the article as it now stands. Butler was not expelled by Saddam Hussein at all. Butler wrote in 'Saddam Defiant' (2000), "I received a telephone call from US Ambassador Peter Burleigh inviting me for a private conversation at the US mission ... Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be 'prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.' I told him that I would act on his advice and remove my staff from Iraq." Butler was thereafter a firm opponent of the invasion of Iraq and marched in the February 2003 peace march in Sydney, in the media virtually calling Australia's PM a liar about WMDs and reasons for invasion. Anyone working on this article is advised to see and follow the trail of evidence, and if anyone has the time, which I regret I do not, a rewrite of this atrocious political revisionism is called for. (Alpheus 02:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

Just thought I'd add a bit for the discussion. I had always been under the impression that then US president Bill Clinton told the inspectors to get out of Iraq because he was going to bomb. After all with the documented spying and all at the time. Either way, it is definitely not the case the Iraq kicked the inspectors out. They did not. Here is a bit comparing press coverage from 1998 and 2002. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123 67.53.78.15 21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Spouse (in infobox)
It reads: Dr Jennifer Grey (formerly married to Senator Susan Ryan). These days, this could easily be read to mean that Dr Grey was formerly married (same-sex) to Senator Susan Ryan. I was just going to remove it, but realised this is the only mention anywhere in the article of Butler's marriage to Ryan. It needs to go somewhere appropriate, with dates. -- JackofOz 15:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)