Morality, Muscles And Men

Was it "morale muscular" or "moral muscular"? Either way, Brendan Nelson makes no sense.

Defeat in Iraq for the United States of America will present my children with a vastly different, less secure world than they face today and under no circumstances should we allow ourselves, if you like, to lose morale muscular and to step back from this.

Actually, it sounded like a bit of a Freudian slip, didn't it? But why would the word "muscular" be flitting around our little Defence Minister's subconscious? Hmmn?

PM Trusts Big Dick

Howard has repeatedly asked George W. Bush to help with speeding up the David Hicks case. But things are still moving too slow for his election agenda, so now he is taking it all the way to the top:

The Prime Minister has hinted he is prepared to bring Mr Hicks home if the Americans do not move quickly but prefers he face a trial by military commission.

"I will put that position to the Vice-President when he is in Australia a little over a week from now and I'll be putting it very strongly because I do think this has taken too long," he said.

Meanwhile, Kiwi protestors give the PM a warm welcome in Wellington. Maybe it's because he called the USA "our most valuable ally" - that's gotta hurt, bro!

Oy! Did you hear the one about the Rabbi and the Australian Jewish News?

"Greeks or Italians or Jews don't use violence," he told Fairfax.

"When there are large Muslim populations who are prepared to use violence, you are in trouble.

"If there is only one or two per cent they don't dare to do it - they don't have the backing of big communities.

"They know they are drowned in the environment of non-Muslims and are better behaved."

Ok, the schmuck is not a rabbi, but why let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

Terrorism In Brisbane

The damned left-wing media doesn't seem set to make a big thing of it, but a suspiscious envelope caused the evacuation of Kevin Rudd's Brisbane office today. It turned out to contain aspirin.

What confuses me is why the terrrrsts are attacking Rudd's office. I thought he was on their side? I thought they were praying for a Rudd/Obama coalition every day? Must go read my Mark Steyn books again, this time even more carefully. It's tricky stuff.

What Australia really needs right now is a new US military base:

The United States will build a new communications base in Australia, the first since the Pine Gap spy base began operating in the Northern Territory more than 20 years ago.

The new communications base will be built at Geraldton, 370km north of Perth, and will provide a crucial link to two geostationary satellites enhancing US military capability in Asia and the Middle East, Fairfax newspapers reported.

Firm plans for the base come after three years of secret negotiations between Washington and Canberra, Fairfax said.

The base will be a key component of a system carrying orders and intelligence to US and allied troops in the field in some of the world's major trouble spots.

Construction could begin within months, the report said.

The deal further entrenches Australia's military relationship with the United States, an expert said.

A visiting fellow with the Australian Defence Force Academy, Philip Dorling, it would be almost impossible for Australia to be fully neutral or stand back from any war in which the US was involved, the Fairfax report said.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson confirmed talks with the US Defence Department about the base were continuing.

The new base would be built on defence land and the government would ensure it had full knowledge of the base's operations, Dr Nelson said.

More bases could be built at other Australian locations, he said.

Oh oh...

Sydney's lower income suburbs are home to some of fastest increases in bankruptcy rates as higher interest rates and a slowing state economy take their toll.

South West Sydney saw bankruptcies rise 27 per cent in the year ended June 30, 2006, compared with the previous year, according to data compiled from the Insolvency and Trustee Service of Australia.

West Sydney saw bankruptcies rise 19 per cent during the same period.

Meanwhile bankruptcies in the more affluent North Sydney rose four per cent.

The figures underline how lower income families saddled with record levels of debt are struggling to meet repayments even as unemployment hovers at 30-year lows, said Paul Leroy, who heads the personal insolvency division at Hall Chadwick.

"It is clear that ordinary working people and battlers are doing it the hardest," Mr Leroy said.

Is Bush's GOP Dictating John Howard Talking Points?

Wouldn't it be rather strange and even a little bit frightening if it turned out that a Leaked letter from Bush's GOP party was dictating talking points to our own PM John Howard? Well, here's the letter in question:

We are writing to urge you not to debate the Democratic Iraq resolution on their terms, but rather on ours.

Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.

We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all "unbelievers" by radical Islamists. We would further urge you to join us in educating the American people about the views of radical Islamists and the consequences of not defeating radical Islam in Iraq.

The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

Curiously, this is exactly what Australian PM Howard has been doing in the past few days: refusing to articulate a plan for "victory", or even an exit strategy, while relentlessly yabbering on about the threat of terrorists and the global repercussions of a US withdrawal.

Like TPM's Greg Sargeant says:

Never mind how all this might impact the troops who actually have to go to Iraq. Healthy priorities, huh?

And never mind how it impacts on the Iraqi people we are supposedly there to "liberate" either. Does Howard really think he can get away with another eight months of this? Or is he just stalling for time and probing for weaknesses in his Labour opponent?

The GOP letter is dated 13 February, 2007, presumably an early morning release, wheras Howard has already been using these same talking points for the past few days. But there is every reason to believe that Howard's office is in touch with the very people who produce such letters for GOP senators and congressional staff. Indeed, it prompts one to wonder exactly what VP Dick Cheney will be discussing with Howard when he visits Australian next week. Talking points for the looming attack on Iran? Or retirement plans with the Carlyle Group?

(As a final coup de grace, the GOP letter ends with a recommendation to read "America Alone" by Mark Steyn, a man whose work Alexander Downer is known to favours at bedtime).

Ad Hominem Attacks - 8 Months Out From An Election?

Here's what Mr Howard told Parliament yesterday:

"Over the last day and a half I have been attacked and lacerated by the Opposition for expressing my view, but the Leader of the Opposition does not have the guts to express his.

"He knows in his heart that I am right on the consequences of a coalition troop withdrawal. He knows that Iraq would descend into full-scale civil war. That is the central issue in this debate. It has got nothing to do with individuals in another election campaign."

So according to Howard, the Iraq War has nothing to do with individuals in the US Presidential campaign, but everything to do with individuals in this Australian campaign. Never mind that the discussion of international war should be beyond the scope of one man's ego. Never mind that US policies will actually determine the outcomes of this war, whatever Australia chooses to do.

Howard is trying to turn the Iraq War debate into a debate on Kevin Rudd's manhood, just as he has tried to turn the climate change and water debates into a discussion of nuclear energy. It's a cynical and desperate ploy. And this far out from the elections, it shows just how scared and nervous he is.

Your ABC, Courtesy Of Your Fear-Mongering Ass-kisser PM

Howard was on the ABC's 7.30 Report last night:

"My deep concern is that if America is defeated in Iraq a humiliated, enfeebled America might withdraw its interests in our part of the world," he said.

"And it would be a catastrophe for the West if America were defeated in Iraq."

It's 9 am AEDST and the 7.30 Report website still does not have the transcript up.

Howard spent much of his time attacking Rudd for not having the "courage" to articulate his own views, which (Howard is sure) are exactly the same as John Howard's views. Lateline also has a transcript of this waiting to be posted... sometime.

Thanks John Howard for those budget cuts! It's YOUR ABC, obviously.

John Howard is an Arselicker

Who's Got Your Back, Johnny?

US veteran joins chorus of outrage at Howard:

John Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran who is close to military commanders, and who galvanised leading Democrats into demanding a phased withdrawal from Iraq, said he appreciated that Australia had been a good ally, but that it was US soldiers whose lives were being sacrificed in Iraq and US taxpayers who were paying for the war.

"John Howard is trying to interfere in an election and that's uncalled for," he told CNN. "I agree with Barack Obama that if Mr Howard believes it is so vital for coalition forces to stay in Iraq, he should find a way to send more Australian forces." ...

Mr Murtha disputed Mr Howard's claim that a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would hand a victory to al-Qaeda.

"The Iraqis will deal with al-Qaeda as soon as we are gone," he said. "They don't want them in the country and al-Qaeda will be gone once we have withdrawn."

Never mind, Johnny. I'm sure your little mate George Dubya has got your back, right? I mean, mates always stand up for each other, right? Err...?

The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said Mr Howard was "free to say what he does", but made it clear that the Bush Administration did not want to get involved in the slanging match between Mr Howard and leading Democrats.

Mr Snow said President George Bush had not spoken to Mr Howard since January 9.

Why does the AFP need protection? What's the point of sending them overseas if they cannot defencd themselves? Top protection for AFP officers in Kabul:

One of the biggest private security firms operating in Iraq will protect Australian police officers being sent to help fight the opium trade in Afghanistan.

Australian Federal Police (AFP) Commissioner Mick Keelty revealed on Tuesday night that the Armor Group - one of the leading security contractors in Iraq - would provide protection for the four officers.

Australians working for the UK-based firm have been killed and injured on operations in Iraq, including a Brisbane man who died in December and a West Australian man who lost a leg in a bombing last month.

The AFP is preparing to send the four armed officers to Afghanistan to work alongside local police, with two to be based in the capital Kabul and two to work in Jalalabad, in the country's east.

Mr Keelty said the Armor Group would also provide security for British officers working in Afghanistan.

He did not have costings for the security contract, but said the Armor Group personnel would provide comprehensive protection for his officers.

"It will be in relation to perimeter security on the workplace, it will be close personal protection as they move around Jalalabad and Kabul," he told a Senate committee.

"Generally speaking they will be under full protection for the entire time that they are there."

Mr Keelty said talks were continuing with the Afghan government about finalising the deployment, but the AFP was still trying to find suitable accommodation for the officers.

He was also seeking guarantees the officers would have access to medical evacuation facilities operated by coalition forces in the country, as well as legal immunities from prosecution if the police were forced to defend themselves.

"Details of that are still being worked through," he said.

"We want to make sure we can evacuate them in case of emergency.

"These protections and immunities are not dissimilar from what we would have in relation to other United Nations deployments, for example."

Really? We use mercenaries for UN work too?

Peter Costello says everyone in Australia is enjoying boom times:

"We can say, on average, wages are higher and, of course, there are two million more jobs than there were 10 years ago."

Meanwhile, in Baghdad:

There was a curfew so they couldn’t take me to hospital. They called for an ambulance but were told it wasn’t safe to come to to our district, Amiriya.

For two hours I screamed with the pain as my family sobbed with me.

I was bleeding heavily by the time I felt my tiny baby slipping out of me. Suddenly there he was, lying on the sitting room floor at the end of the umbilical cord. He was blue and still.

“Please do something, please help him,” I cried. “I want him to grow up with me.”

Exactly:

"The Labor Party has been very critical of the US president's position on the war, that's true, but we've been proven right," Senator Michael Forshaw told reporters in Canberra.

Meanwhile, the conga line of suck-holes keeps dancing to the Howard beat...

How many F.U.'s in a Brendan Nelson?

Dr Nelson says it is impossible to know what the future will hold for the Baghdad security plan in Iraq.

"Only when we get through the next six, 12 months or whatever period of time it takes will we be in a position to make any reasonable and responsible judgement about whether the United States, Britain or anyone else is in a position to withdraw," he said.

No But Yeah But...

Spot the difference! Compare Gerard Henderson in the SMH:

Yet it is a fact that Howard's comment has had such a big impact outside of Australia precisely because he was essentially correct...

...with Greg Sheridan in the Murdoch Australian:

JOHN Howard made a serious mistake in the extravagance of his rhetorical outburst against US presidential candidate Barack Obama. The substance of what Howard said was right...

See the difference? No? Me neither.

Henderson actually takes it further than Sheridan, playing with numbers and ripping into Obama from various angles:

If Howard was undiplomatic in commenting on US domestic policies then the same can be said for Obama's response. Obama told reporters in Iowa that if Howard's comments were anything other than "empty rhetoric" he would commit 20,000 additional troops to the war. This is rhetoric in itself.

Australia has about 1500 men and women in Iraq. On a comparative population basis, an Australian force of 21,500 in Iraq would equate to some 320,000 Americans - almost double the US deployment.

It's a long time to the 2008 US presidential election. At the moment Obama is a high profile Democrat contender, as is Clinton. Yet it is not going to be an easy road for the African-American candidate. His government experience is confined to just two years in the US Senate, where he has not been associated with many prominent legislative initiatives.

Also, unlike Clinton, Americans as yet do not know much about Obama.

In his books The Audacity of Hope and Dreams from My Father, Obama indicates that he was brought up a Muslim and converted to Christianity. He is now a member of the United Church of Christ. There is no doubt that Obama will have a lot of appeal to the left of the Democratic Party.

Expect people like Sheridan and Henderson to do their bit to ensure that the road to the White House is as rocky as possible for Obama. Because we all need to hear that he was brought up as a Muslim as many times as possible, right?

Finally, there is this bit of "balance" from Henderson:

The verbal punch-up between Howard and Obama indicates just how important the issue that divides them is to each man. Obama has consistently opposed allied intervention in Iraq. He is on record as saying that Saddam Hussein should have been left alone in Iraq, since he believed that he was no threat to the US.

On the other hand, Howard sincerely believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he was a threat to the West and some Muslim nations alike.

"And some Muslim nations"? That a new field of retrospective justification! Of course, what Hendo fails to point out when comparing the two men's beliefs is that Obama was right, and Howard was wrong. But then, this is an opinion piece, and facts don't matter as much as conviction.

PM John Howard's Really Bad Day

Early Morning: Woke up for my early morning briefing. Bit groggy. Too much peach schnapps last night? Aides warned that latest poll results would not be good. Initial feedback from my anti-Obama comments on Channel Nine morning show yesterday also not positive. Tried hard to concentrate but could not shake overnight visions of a black man becoming President of the USA. What have we been fighting for, if not this?

Midday: International media storm over my Obama comments. Who would have guessed? At least Alex still has my back. I trained him well. The backbench is also standing firm. Unity is strength, lads! Where's that schnapps...?

Afternoon: The damned left-wing press will not relent. Forced to reiterate my stance. Try to paint it as more of a domestic Australian political spat. Don't want any more heat from Washington. These things can get out of hand.

Time for my nap. Wake up in a cold sweat after dreaming of handing the keys to the lodge over to David Gulpilil! Another shot of schnapps to cool my nerves... Switch on the TV and - horrors! - that bastard Keating is on screen:

"He's become an old desiccated coconut, hasn't he, and he stayed too long," Mr Keating said.

"He had a chance to get out, give it to Costello, but he wants to hang on.

"You know prime ministers have got araldite on their pants, most of them, they want to stick to their seat and you either put the sword through them or you let the public do it."

Schnapps, Janet! Now! ! Bring me the damned bottle!

Howard On Obama: The Real Game

Following US Democrat Barack Obama's rather extraordinary speech announcing his 2008 presidential candidacy (surely the most blatantly inspirational piece of US political rhetoric since JFK) Australia's diminutive PM John Howard launches an extraordinary pre-emptive attack on Obama:

"I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for (an) Obama victory," Mr Howard told the Nine Network.

"If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."

Labor described Mr Howard's attack against Senator Obama as unprecedented.

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland said Mr Howard was virtually telling people not to vote Democrat.

"It's the first time that I can recall that an Australian prime minister has engaged in US politics in such a partisan way... actually telling US citizens what side of politics they should vote for," he said.

Well, given how US politicians have meddled in Australian politics over the past decade, it is hardly unexpected. When you are behaving like the 52nd state of the USA, I guess it goes with the territory.

Here's Obama's spokesman rebuking Howard:

``If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home,'' he said. ``It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices.''

Ouch! Take that, bitch. While I am sorry to see Obama engaging in such obviously political games, it's a line of questioning that might go a long way on the 7:30 Report in Australia: if the war in Iraq really is as important as Howard pretends, why isn't he pouring tens of thousands of Aussie troops in there?

Howard likes to portray it as a US war. Here's how Howard views the prospect of a US pullout:

"If America pulls out of Iraq in March 2008 it can only be in circumstances of defeat," Mr Howard said.

"There's no way by March 2008, which is a little over a year from now, everything will have been stabilised so that America can get out.

"If America is defeated in Iraq, the hope of ever getting a Palestinian settlement will be gone, there will be enormous conflict between the Shia and the Sunnis throughout the whole of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Jordan will both be destabilised.

"Al-Qaeda will trumpet it as the greatest victory they've ever had, and that will have implications in our region because of the link ... between al-Qaeda and JI (Jemaah Islamiyah)."

Let's keep that on record for future reference, shall we?

And here's what Howard thinks of Labour's plan to withdraw Aussie forces:

"You either rat on the ally or you stay with the ally," he said.

"If it's all right for us to go, it's all right for the Americans and the British to go, and if everybody goes Iraq will descend into total civil war and there'll be a lot of blood shed."

Hmmn. Ally? Johnny should look that word up in a dictionary.

Have a think about what Howard has done here. Imagine (if you will) that Howard wins again at the end of 2007 and then Obama wins in the USA in 2008. How is our precious alliance with the USA looking then?

The truth is that national politics has become a globalized commodity, as Howard knows all too well. And that's the real game, right there.

I think you have to look at Howard's Obama comments in the context of a growing fusion of US, UK and Australian politics. Australian domestic politics is now just one more item on the corporatized globalisation menu. And of course Rupert would know all about that.

There has been high-level US political interference in the past two Aussie elections, there are now quite unprecedented levels of political connectivity between Washington, London and Canberrra (e.g. Australia has a team of full-time diplomats working within the US State Dept) and of course we have things like Howard's son working on Bush's election campaigns (or was it Blair's? or both?).

Mind you, I hope Kerry O'Brien picks up on the Obama camp's comeback line: "Mr Howard, if the war in Iraq really is as important as you say, why has Australia always maintained such a small deployment and confined them to relatively safe roles? You can't have it both ways, surely?"

See Talking Points Memo for some surprised US reaction, plus commentary from our own Tim Dunlop.

UPDATE: Response from Obama himself:

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Mr Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.

"Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

And from other US politicians:

Democrat senator Ron Wyden said it was hard to be polite about Mr Howard.

"The most charitable thing you can say about Mr Howard's comment is bizarre," Senator Wyden said.

"We'll make our own judgments in this country with respect to elections and Barack Obama is a terrific public servant."

Even Republicans have criticised Mr Howard for interfering in US domestic affairs.

"I would prefer that Mr Howard stay out of our domestic politics and we will stay out of his domestic politics," Texas Republican senator John Cornyn said.

Elsewhere, Atrios labels Howard "the mini-poodle".

UPDATE 2: Kindergarten politics at its best, courtesy Alex "Ass Kisser" Downer :

"I hate to disappoint people who don't agree with John Howard and me and the Australian Government but it's a free world and we are entitled to a point of view," he said.

"This is a very big issue, many governments around the world feel very strongly about it."

Liberal backbencher Cameron Thompson goes even further up-channel:

"I think John Howard is absolutely correct when he says that Barrack Obama's policy is not just wrong, it is I think fundamentally evil."

UPDATE 3: PM not sorry for Obama attack:

Mr Howard said the Labor Party had no right to attack him because it often criticised US President George Bush over the Iraq war and no one accused Labor of putting the US alliance in jeopardy.

Oh really? It seems like only yesterday that US Ambassador Tom Schieffer was criticising Mark Latham for his comments on withdrawal of troops from Iraq. And being loudly backed up by Mr Howard and his Liberal Party colleagues. Former Minister for Veterans Affairs, Bruce Scott said:

I think the international terrorism organisations, al-Qaeda, will say, well, we've got an ally in Australia, and that's Mark Latham.

And Howard government MP Ross Cameron said Osama bin Laden would be "celebrating the advent of Mark Latham", whose comments were an invitation to terrorists to "belt" Australia.

Five Years Later, The Church Gets Interested

Church-goers offer prayers for Hicks. Yeah, bravo. Stay tuned: any day now they will declare they were ALWAYS against the Iraq War.

Housing Bubble Set To Explode, Social Crisis Looms

Rental crisis to worsen:

Mr Raine said the historically low vacancy rates were pushing rents higher, with no quick fix in sight.

Renters in south west and western Sydney for example could face rent rises from $50 a week by the end of the year, he said, adding that tenants could be forced to find an extra $150 a week in areas closer to the CBD.

Personally, I think that the bubble is set to burst - or at least start bursting - by the end of this year, so I don't think these rent increases will happen.

But such warnings highlight how the less-well-off have become increasingly marginalized under Howard, while the richest of the rich have grown obscenely richer. And that cannot be a good thing for a healthy society.

You end up with a crime-ridden underclass, a black market, jails packed to the rafters... Scenes all too familiar in other countries, but seldom imagined for the "luck country".

Where's that damn bus?

Howard on Turnbull today:

"I think Malcolm's got a lot to contribute but I think anybody who thinks that Peter Costello is not the logical successor to me if I were to go under a bus in the very near future (is wrong)," he said.

"I haven't lost any of my caution when it comes to crossing roads," the prime minister added.

Heh.

Howard's Timetable For Hicks

In all the excitement about Howard's sudden interest in David Hicks, let's all be very clear one one thing. Howard's concern is totally dependent on his own election timetable, and driven by purely selfish political ambition.

"I want the charging process to be completed and I want the trial to happen strictly in accordance with first a 30-day period for the preliminary hearing and then 120 days after that."

In other words, Howard wants the whole thing completely out of the way before the election gets down to the final stages. His new-found concern for this Australian citizen, and for the due process of law, is totally bogus. There could be a dozen new Aussie detainees in Gitmo the day after the election and Howard won't give a shit. Not till the following election, anyway. And God help us all if the Rodent still rules by then.

Anal Penetration: No Re-opening

US document shows reported abuse of POWs:

Hicks's father Terry Hicks said last year the Australian "suffered beatings and anal penetration".

In 2004, Prime Minister John Howard cast doubt on the claims.

"I find it strange that these allegations of abuse against Mr Hicks ... have arisen only since the prisoner abuse scandal erupted," Mr Howard said at the time.

Terry Hicks says the officer's report proves US officials were sexually abusing prisoners of war.

"If it was the doctor doing it then that's part of the process these prisoners go through ... but this was a thug."

Mr Hicks said he held out little hope of a reopening of any investigation into the alleged abuse.

Send Hicks Home

Major Mori writes:

DAVID Hicks' situation can be drawn to a quick and fair close. If the US believes he violated US federal law, then Australia should demand that the US immediately try Hicks in a US federal court. Otherwise, he should be returned home and not subjected to a tribunal system that the US deems insufficiently fair to try its own citizens...

The stated rationale for leaving Hicks at Guantanamo to face trial by military commission has been the need to prosecute him for serious "war crimes". This rationale no longer applies. Indeed, it never did. Hicks desperately wants to return to his family and he is willing to do whatever the Australian Government asks of him on his return.

NewsPoll: 56 to 44 in Labor’s favour.

VIVA Kudelka!

In Retrospect

Good catch. The SMH points out that Howard - who once insisted Hicks could not be returned to Australia and tried under "retrospective laws" - is now happy for him to be tried by the US government under a retrospective law:

The Howard Government has refused to bring Mr Hicks back to Australia for trial on the basis it was unwilling to try him under retrospective laws - something it would need to do as there were no applicable terrorism laws in place at the time of his alleged offences.

Mr Howard repeated this yesterday, saying "we do not believe the passage of retrospective criminal law in this country is appropriate".

But he said "once somebody goes overseas they lose the protection of Australian law".

Pressed on the appropriateness of the US using retrospective laws to try Mr Hicks, Mr Howard then said: "I don't equate what the US is doing with the passage of a retrospective criminal law in Australia. I don't accept the analogy."

Make of it what you will, folks. I'm going outside to look for a bucket.

Down By The River

Hicks may take plea bargain says his Dad:

"He isn't well, he's not coping, he's suffering mental stresses at the moment.

"I believe what's happening is they'll catch David in that frame of mind where he desperately wants to come home and he'll possibly enter into a plea bargain," Mr Hicks said.

Look at if from the Howard perspective, if you will. Hicks shuts his gob till the elections are over, then gets (say) a ten year sentence with his over five years already done in Gitmo bringing it down to four and a bit years in a nice comfortable Australian jail. His guilty plea takes the issue of the table for the election. Perfect.

I would say "Don't do it, Hicks," but given what he has been through and how utterly he has been abandoned not just by politicians but (let's be honest) the general public, he can do whatever he likes.

I think Hicks might be getting a new lawyer soon, one who is better able to channel the between-the-line realities of his new situation, should he choose to accept it. There will, of course, be a strong emphasis on "rewards for good behaviour" (nod, nod, wink, wink).

Vanstone pens ode to Australia. The second half captures the Howard government in all its glory:

Free and Friendly Nation,

Born of our own hand,

Peace our greatest virtue,

Mighty Southern Land.

Valiant into Battle,

Courage to the end,

Standing firm for freedom,

Loyal southern friend.

Nature's earthly heaven,

Glory for our eyes,

Ours alone those treasures,

Under Southern Skies.

Shining light for Freedom

Under Southern Stars.

Bring a tear to the eye of G.W. Bush, that would.

TOP 10 Reasons Liberals Will Lose Big In 2007

John Howard is surrounded by sycophants and TOTALLY OUT OF TOUCH:

1. ON global warming

2. ON Industrial Relations

3. ON water

4. ON David Hicks

5. ON childcare

6. ON Fiji

7. ON religion

8. ON the sale of Qantas

9. ON nuclear power

10. ON climate change

11. Yeah, I didn't even mention the Iraq War and George W. Bush and the three interest rate hikes since the last election and ... ?

Antony Loewenstein gets censored by the Murdoch press:

The bottom line is this: every paper has a right to determine what appears in its pages, but once an article is commissioned, and spurious reasons are given for its removal (especially on a subject like Israel/Palestine), we know the real agenda at work. The Australian has often presented viewpoints on the Zionist lobby that no other local paper has touched, and for this it should be commended. But if it wants to be taken seriously (which is difficult, as it still defends the Iraq war, as it supported Indonesia’s Suharto all those years ago), ignoring the gross human rights abuses of Israeli oppression merely contributes to greater hatred of the West.