John Laws Is A Dirty Faggot

Yes, folks. John Laws is a pillow biter and pompous little pansy prig.

Feel The Purity

Malcolm Turnbull:

"What is Peter Garrett's vision of Australia, how poor is he going to make us in order for him to feel pure?"

GetUp! Calls For An Australian Withdrawal Plan

Sign the online petition at GetUp!

Dear Prime Minister,

For years your Government has adopted the Bush administration's Iraq policy as our own, even as that policy has repeatedly failed. With Australian troops still at risk and the situation in Iraq deteriorating, Australia urgently needs an independent Iraq policy.

We ask that you announce a plan for a new way forward, including a clearly defined exit strategy for Australia in Iraq.

Libs 2007 Campaign Slogan

Zimbabwe's unpopular dictator turned 83 this week:

Mr Mugabe waved a fist to loud cheers from supporters brandishing miniature flags as he walked into the stadium accompanied by his family.

Loyalists clad in multicoloured clothes with Mr Mugabe's portrait danced and cheered as the president took his place among ministers and senior government officials.

He listened to speeches of good wishes and and poems heaping praise on Mugabe as "our liberator" and "able leader." Supporters waved banners reading "ZANU-PF Youth League Says Mugabe for 2010," and "Mugabe is Right."

I saw those "Mugabe Is Right" banners on TV and I thought to myself, "This is the perfect election slogan for the Liberals!"

Can you picture it? A whole nation awash with "HOWARD IS RIGHT!" banners and TV adverts. Right about what? Who cares! He is right about everything! Don't question the man! He works in mysterious ways, you know.

It would certainly simplify TV interviews, wouldn't it?

O'BRIEN: But Mr Downer, how you can you reconcile what you've just said with International Law, or indeed the laws of this country? Surely this is just sheer nonsense?

DOWNER: No, Kerry it's not. Because Mr Howard said so and he is always right.

Howard to step up attack on Rudd - Breaking News - National - Breaking News

Still playing the man, but from a different angle: Howard to step up attack on Rudd's economic credentials.

Who Is Tim Howard Really Fucking?

Spot the important story:

Prime Minister John Howard's eldest son, Tim, has moved in with a former topless model.

Sarah Mackintosh, 28, moved in with Tim Howard at the end of last year, according to newspaper reports.

She was described as "having one of the best bodies in the southern hemisphere" by a French version of men's magazine, FHM.

Ms Mackintosh was 22 when she appeared in the men's magazine in a variety of poses. She is now studying child psychology.

"I was certainly aware of Sarah's past but I'm not going to offer any comment on it any further," Tim Howard, who works on strategy with Channel Seven, said yesterday.

USA Staying in Iraq

Says Newsweek's Michael Hirsh:

I’m merely a messenger for a coterie of counterinsurgency experts who have helped to design the Petraeus plan—his so-called “dream team”—and who have discussed it with NEWSWEEK, usually on condition of anonymity, owing to the sensitivity of the subject. To a degree little understood by the U.S. public, Petraeus is engaged in a giant “do-over.” It is a near-reversal of the approach taken by Petraeus’s predecessor as commander of multinational forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, until the latter was relieved in early February, and most other top U.S. commanders going back to Rick Sanchez and Tommy Franks. Casey sought to accelerate both the training of Iraqi forces and American withdrawal. By 2008, the remaining 60,000 or so U.S. troops were supposed to be hunkering down in four giant “superbases,” where they would be relatively safe. Under Petraeus’s plan, a U.S. military force of 160,000 or more is setting up hundreds of “mini-forts” all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, right in the middle of the action. The U.S. Army has also stopped pretending that Iraqis—who have failed to build a credible government, military or police force on their own—are in the lead when it comes to kicking down doors and keeping the peace. And that means the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago. “We’re putting down roots,” says Philip Carter, a former U.S. Army captain who returned last summer from a year of policing and training in the hot zone around Baquba. “The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.”

No doubt purely by coincidence, Newsweek's cover story is Men and Depression.

David Hicks supporters should take heart from today's outspoken NYT editorial:

In another low moment for American justice, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that detainees held at the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to be heard in court. The ruling relied on a shameful law that President Bush stampeded through Congress last fall that gives dangerously short shrift to the Constitution.

The right of prisoners to challenge their confinement — habeas corpus — is enshrined in the Constitution and is central to American liberty. Congress and the Supreme Court should act quickly and forcefully to undo the grievous damage that last fall’s law — and this week’s ruling — have done to this basic freedom.

The Supreme Court ruled last year on the jerry-built system of military tribunals that the Bush Administration established to try the Guantánamo detainees, finding it illegal. Mr. Bush responded by driving through Congress the Military Commissions Act, which presumed to deny the right of habeas corpus to any noncitizen designated as an “enemy combatant.” This frightening law raises insurmountable obstacles for prisoners to challenge their detentions. And it gives the government the power to take away habeas rights from any noncitizen living in the United States who is unfortunate enough to be labeled an enemy combatant.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which rejected the detainees’ claims by a vote of 2 to 1, should have permitted the detainees to be heard in court — and it should have ruled that the law is unconstitutional.

As Judge Judith Rogers argued in a strong dissent, the Supreme Court has already rejected the argument that detainees do not have habeas rights because Guantánamo is located outside the United States. Judge Rogers also rightly noted that the Constitution limits the circumstances under which Congress can suspend habeas to “cases of Rebellion or invasion,” which is hardly the situation today. Moreover, she said, the act’s alternative provisions for review of cases are constitutionally inadequate. The Supreme Court should add this case to its docket right away and reverse it before this term ends.

Congress should not wait for the Supreme Court to act. With the Democrats now in charge, it is in a good position to pass a new law that fixes the dangerous mess it has made. Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, have introduced a bill that would repeal the provision in the Military Commissions Act that purports to obliterate the habeas corpus rights of detainees.

The Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties does not end with habeas corpus. Congress should also move quickly to pass another crucial bill, introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, that, among other steps, would once and for all outlaw the use of evidence obtained through torture.

When the Founding Fathers put habeas corpus in Article I of the Constitution, they were underscoring the vital importance to a democracy of allowing prisoners to challenge their confinement in a court of law. Much has changed since Sept. 11, but the bedrock principles of American freedom must remain.

The Blotter

I all the excitment about Cheney visiting Australia in the midst of a heated debate about Hicks and the IRaq War, let's not forget the main reason Dick is here. Not to thank John Howard, who he won't even see till the weekend, but to stay as far away from the Libby Trial fallout as possible. And as The Blotter points out, he could still be facing big problems when he gets home.

I just wonder, if he gets charged, will he pardon himself?

The Oz Politics Blog » Australian politics blog feeds

Heh indeed.

The Orstrahyun

For some front-line blogging on Dick Cheney's trip to Sydney, check out Darryl Mason at The Orstrahyun.

PM pledges shorter jail term for Hicks if convicted - World - smh.com.au

Is The PM Above The Law?

WTF? PM pledges shorter jail term for Hicks if convicted:

John Howard made the pledge yesterday as he sought to portray the Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, as too indecisive to be prime minister because Mr Rudd had been reluctant to say what he would do with Mr Hicks...

"I'm expected to know the answer to every single thing, which is fair enough," he said.

"But [Rudd] is asked what would happen in relation to a pardon if [Mr Hicks] came back, well surely Mr Rudd's got a view on that. You don't need the advice of the attorney-general's department to know whether you should think somebody should have a pardon."

I wonder what legal experts will make of all this? Rudd said he would seek the Attorney General's opinion before making any judgement on a pardon, whereas Howard rules out a pardon but makes a unilateral decision to write off Hick's five years already served. Does the PM actually have the power to do that? Are there not legal principles involved here?

Cheney flies in to a war of words - National - smh.com.au

Brendan Neslon repeats his nonsense about "moral musculature":

"Where is our moral musculature in 2007? In 1942 no Australian needed convincing Australia had a problem in terms of the threat to our own security."

I tooked the bait and looked up the word, which - surprisingly - does exist. Is Nelson deliberately trying to raise his media profile? Or is he trying to put his own branding on a new meme so that, when and if it ever makes it into a Bush speech (who would have thought "Islamofascists" would ever make it?), he can claim the credit?

And perhaps people like Nelson should be explaining this little fact:

The Chief of Army, Lieutenant-General Peter Leahy, told the Herald recently that the Australian battle group in southern Iraq was yet to come to the aid of the Iraqi forces it had been backing up for almost 12 months.

So we are there to support the Iraqis, even if we are not actually supporting the Iraqis (presumably because it is too dangerous). So why are we there again?

Costello aims to make protesters pay for boycotts - National - smh.com.au

Another Small Step Towards Fascism

Costello aims to make protesters pay for boycotts:

The federal Treasurer yesterday announced changes that would leave groups that organise boycotts against companies for moral or ethical reasons at greater risk of prosecution. The changes, described as "McCarthyist" by the Greens, will give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission powers to initiate legal action and seek compensation on behalf of companies targeted by boycotts.

Mr Costello said the changes were aimed at protecting farmers against groups such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which has called for a global boycott of Australian wool over sheep mulesing. It is targeting designers in Milan during its fashion shows this week.

The Greens leader, Bob Brown, said the move was "a cynical exercise that seeks to turn a well-respected watchdog into a political attack dog".

Taxpayers could end up footing the legal bill for companies acting in an ethically questionable manner, Senator Brown said, and efforts by indigenous groups to protect their land from mining companies could also be stymied.

Where The Bloody Hell Is Australian Anyway?

Two important stories for John Howard:

1. Seven Saudi nationals held at Guantanamo were released by US authorities and have returned to Saudi Arabia.

Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz, the Saudi interior minister, said he hoped the remaining Saudis in Guanatanamo would also be freed soon, Saudi's official news agency reported on Wednesday.

Around 50 of the 400 remaining detainees at the camp are thought to be Saudi. Two Saudi prisoners hanged themselves in protest last June. Public anger has grown in the desert kingdom over the treatment of its citizens in Guantanamo.

2. Meanwhile, Iraqis welcome British and Danish pullout:

Sami al-Askari, a Shiite lawmaker and political adviser to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said: "The withdrawal is the wish of the Iraqi government and all the political powers in the country."

"We welcome any withdrawal of British forces from inside the centre of the city," said Hakim al-Mayahi, head of the Basra provincial security council, which has had a fractious relationship with the British...

On Monday, hundreds of Basrawis marched to the British consulate to demand the release of local detainees.

"We want to see British forces leaving as soon as possible. Security is in place in Basra thanks to the Iraqi police and army," said 27-year-old Ali Abdullah, who works at the city's electricity firm.

Law student Muthanna Ihsan, 20, agreed.

"Iraqi forces in Basra are ready and able to ensure security. Every Basrawi wishes to see all British forces leaving at one time not gradually," he said.

And Razzaq Nasir, a 58-year-old oil worker, was categoric: "There is no need for them. The British forces in Basra are a big problem for the Iraqi forces and for ordinary Basrawis."

Australia's position on both Gitmo and Iraq is looking increasingly ridiculous. And John Howard is looking increasingly ridiculous and more like a War Criminal every day. Somebody better call off the attack dogs:

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has warned that coalition forces will not achieve victory in Iraq...

"There is no such thing as victory in Iraq," he said.

"And the Iraqis who've shown enormous courage to vote on three occasions to elect their own government, they should be the inspiration for what we do, but there'll be no such thing as victory.

"The most important thing that we do is to make sure the Iraqis have control of their own destiny, and have the moral fortitude and courage to see the job through until they're in a position to do it."

Well, sir, it is time to give the Iraqis control over their own destiny. And they have made it abundantly clear that they would welcome an Australian withdrawal, followed as soon as possible by a complete US withdrawal. Isn't it about time we listened to them?

An Australian withdrawal at Iraq's request is actually a godsend proposition for Howard, if only he has the sense to realise it. And if the Saudis, who were heavily involved in 9/11, are able to get their citizens home from Gitmo, there is no reason why David Hicks should not also come home asap. Indeed, I suspect the US authorities would loudly welcome any such application from the Australian government.

The endgame is upon us. A bright, clear and shining path has opened up before John Howard. Will he take it? Or is he just too bloody obstinate?

Glenn Greenwald - Salon

Glenn Greenwald digs up a choice quote:

"For us to set an arbitrary timetable . . . would send the most disastrous signal to the people whom we are fighting in Iraq," he said. "It is a policy that, whatever its superficial attractions may be, is deeply irresponsible."
- Blair, January 24, 2007

A commenter suggests that Blair's decision may be grounded in an expectation of some sort of imminent conflict between the U.S. and Iran. I wonder if anyone has asked Howard about that?

I am also wondering if a decrease in British forces down South, coupled with a "surge" in US forces around Baghdad, might not inevitably draw more violence away from Baghdad and into Basra? A spike in violence around Basra would quickly disprove Blair's argument that things are getting better. Would he re-commit UK troops, or is the matter now out of his hands?

ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Cheney Says Pelosi Strategy Would Validate Al Qaeda

Here's the centrepiece of Dick Cheney's logic:

The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people. In fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.

Al Quaeda never invited the USA into Iraq. In fact, Al Quaeda never had anything to with Iraq until the USA invasion provided an opportunity for the to spread their fanatical militancy there. Iraq was never part of the Al Quaeda "strategy" until the USA's illegal oil-grabbing invasion made it so. Indeed, the Iraq War was a major distraction from the pursuit of Al Quaeda and a new survey proves that it has only increased terrorism around the world and boosted the popularity of Al Quaeda.

Besides, Al Quaeda represents only the tiniest fraction of anti-US forces in Iraq. What Cheney is describing is actually the broader Iraqi resistance "strategy". If Al Quaeda have a "strategy" that is different to that, it hardly matters.

Someone called "Henrietta" at The Sydney Morning Herald News Blog asks:

If you bang your head on a wall do you desist and move on, or, do you keep banging your head as blood trickles from your ears?

The thing is, Henrietta, that it is not Cheney's blood that is being spilt. It is not Howard's blood. It is Iraqi blood, or the blood of nameless, young, uneducated US cannon fodder, and it means nothing to them.

Downer paid columnist $11,300 - National - smh.com.au

Downer paid News Ltd columnist $11,300 in taxpayer funds:

THE Howard Government has paid $11,364 in taxpayer funds to the conservative News Ltd columnist Christopher Pearson to write speeches for the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, including an address to the Hillsong Church.

Despite having more than 2000 public servants and 14 staff in Mr Downer's office, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade last week told a Senate estimates hearing it had outsourced several ministerial speeches between 2004 and 2006 to a recruitment firm, which in turn engaged Pearson.

The speeches included a July 2005 address by Mr Downer at a Hillsong service, for which Pearson was paid $4550. Other Government ministers including the Treasurer, Peter Costello, the Communications Minister, Helen Coonan, and the Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, attended the service.

The topics of other speeches written for Mr Downer by Pearson include interfaith dialogue, terrorism, regional foreign policy challenges, and economic and environmental issues.

But the department refused to pay for one speech written by Pearson for Mr Downer because it contained material that did not meet the public service's apolitical guidelines. The speech was Mr Downer's controversial Earl Page lecture in May 2005, in which he accused the Labor Party of having a history of appeasing Nazi Germany, communist Russia and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

Pearson, a speechwriter for Mr Howard in the 1990s, writes on politics in The Weekend Australian. His speechwriting service for Mr Downer is not disclosed.

Expect to hear more of this one!

More Good News!

Denmark Also Withdrawing Troops From Iraq:

The prime minister said Wednesday that his country will withdraw its 460-member contingent from southern Iraq by August and transfer security responsibilities to Iraqi forces, and that the decision had been made in conjunction with the Iraqi government and Britain, under whose command the Danish forces are serving near Basra.

Lithuania also said it was considering withdrawing its 53 troops.

Howard, Downer, Bush and Cheney will all be delighted at this excellent news - what progress is being made!

Or maybe not. Here's Juan Cole's analysis of the situation around Basra today:

This is a rout, there should be no mistake. The fractious Shiite militias and tribes of Iraq's South have made it impossible for the British to stay. They already left Sadr-controlled Maysan province, as well as sleepy Muthanna. They moved the British consulate to the airport because they couldn't protect it in Basra. They are taking mortar and rocket fire at their bases every night. Raiding militia HQs has not resulted in any permanent change in the situation. Basra is dominated by 4 paramilitaries, who are fighting turf wars with one another and with the Iraqi government over oil smuggling rights.

Blair is not leaving Basra because the British mission has been accomplished. He is leaving because he has concluded that it cannot be, and that if he tries any further it will completely sink the Labor Party, perhaps for decades to come.

Shorter Alexander Downer

Shorter Alexander Downer:

It is entirely appropriate for the British to reduce their forces in Iraq because they are based in the South, where conditions are relatively stable. But it would sending the wrong signal to terrorists if Australia reduced troop bumbers in Iraq, even though our combat troops are also in the South, where it is relatively stable.

Australia cannot cut and run now because you don't let down your mates when they are in a fix. And we cannot set arbitrary timetable for withdrawal because that would send the wrong signals to terrorists. But it's OK for the British to stage a withdrawal on a fixed timetable because Australia, Britain and the USA all have different exit strategies. And of course I cannot tell you what they are, because that sort of thing is Top Secret. And the Poms are not letting down their mates because, well, let's face it, we never liked Tony Blair anyway.

Anyway, the British are not really withdrawing. They are not even cutting their troops by one third (how dare you insinuate such a thing, Kerry!), they are only reducing their forces from around 7,000 to around 5,000, which is hardly the same thing. And anyway we knew they were going to pull out some troops and it's going to require some reorganisation among the Coalition partners, if there are still any left, and that's why we are sending an extra 70 troops. Not to plug the gap left by the British (that's drawing a pretty long bow!) but basically just to save the civilized world from extinction.

Kevin Rudd's plan to withdraw Aussie troops would place the entire country of Iraq in jeopardy, and the whole country could collapse into bloodshed and sectarian violence after all our excellent progress to date. The violence is currently only happening in some very small parts of the country where the biased media just happen to be providing coverage.

And even if the Iraqi Foreign Minister says a staged Australian withdrawal would present no problem, that is not true. I mean, come on! Who's running the country, the Iraqis or us?

Some good stuff in this Age Editorial:

Although No. 1's close personal friend, Prime Minister John Howard, will undoubtedly show Mr Cheney a good time at the weekend, he cannot meet him beforehand as he will be in WA tomorrow and at Friday's water summit in Canberra. It was wise for Mr Howard to stick to his original arrangements.

The author says Cheney's rumoured CIA nickname is Edgar, which "comes from the late ventriloquist Edgar Bergen, and George W. Bush is seen as his doll, Charlie McCarthy". Apparently Cheney has "a preordained interview with a Bush-friendly paper", which I guess would be a reference to the The Murdoch Australian.

Success!

Blair tells Bush of Iraq pullout plans:

"We view this as a success," Mr Johndroe said, suggesting the British move was a sign of increasing stabilisation in Iraq.

Meanwhile, at the Lodge, Johnny is still sitting by the phone.

This is all you need to know about the latest court ruling on Gitmo detainees:

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they planned to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court, which has previously handed setbacks to the Bush administration over handling of its war on terrorism.

You might also want to know that this 2-1 majority ruling for the Bush junta was delivered by Judge A Raymond Randolph. What kind of guy is he?

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit that sought details about Vice President Dick Cheney's 2001 energy policy task force that critics say secretly formed policy favorable to the industry.
The unanimous ruling ordered a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit by the Sierra Club environmental group and the watchdog group Judicial Watch that sought to learn about contacts between task force members and industry executives.
"We hold that plaintiffs have failed to establish any duty, let alone a clear and indisputable duty, owed to them by the federal government" under the law in question, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote in the 13-page ruling...

Judge Raymond Randolph, appointed by George [H.W.] Bush in 1990, ruled that Microsoft did not illegally "tie" the browser to its market-dominant operating system.

...And SAY! what do you know?

He is with the George Mason University Law and Economics Center - funded by Exxon!

George Mason University, Law and Economics Center has received $115,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

You only have to scratch any of these Bush cronies and oil comes gushing out. All this while the Bush administration is busy replacing U.S. Attorneys throughout the country. What was that corny old line? Truth, justice or the American Way?

UPDATE: Hicks' Aussie lawyer supports a Supreme Court challenge but warns it could delay the case even further:

"It's time now for the Prime Minister to pick up the phone to the President of the United States and say, 'George clearly this isn't going to be overcome in the next year, David's going to be caught up in the process, enough's enough, the Australian public is demanding his return, please release him'."

George? Hello? George? ....?

Howard dumps on Bush. Bush dumps on Howard. Too beautiful! Thank you God!!!

I have been waiting a very, very long time for this. Rest assured, Australian PM John W. Howard is scraping the bottom of the barrel right here:

Prime Minister John Howard says he told the US President this morning there should be no more significant delays in the process of bringing David Hicks to trial.

Mr Howard says Mr Bush rang this morning for a lengthy discussion about North Korea.

The Prime Minister says Mr Bush acknowledged that there is an intense feeling in Australia that it has taken too long to bring Hicks to trial.

"Well his assurance was - and it was a very direct assurance - that he would again reinforce to the authorities in the United States the need for the matter to be dealt with with all possible expedition," Mr Howard said.

"And I left him in no doubt during our discussion that this was an issue of great concern to the Australian people."

Ooooohhh, yeah baby!!! Where to start, where to start?

How about that word "again"? This implies that Howard has previously asked Bush for assistance, which has not been forth-coming. So Bush has to go back and ask AGAIN for action in support of a major Coalition ally. Which raises the question, did he even make the effort last time, and if so, why was he ignored? Could it have something to do with the fact that he is a lame duck president polling at Nixon levels? Hmmn?

Or what about Howard's earnest plea that this was "an issue of great concern to the Australian people"? How about, "this was an issue that might save my sorry ass"?

Or what about the "North Korea" angle? Bush rang Howard (not vice versa, please note) pleading for help with North Korea. What's that all about? I thought a deal had been struck. Is Bush trying to undermine the diplomatic deal with a renewed threat of violence? It basically sounds like Howard told him to go stuff his head up his arse if he cannot provide a little "wiggle room" on David Hicks.

Here we have two political dinosaurs turning on one another after all other available food sources have been exhausted. It's not a pretty sight, but it is a fascinating one. Stay tuned for more.

Australia's Own Independent Jewish Voices

Time to make a stand!

Dear Friend,

As you may be aware, a group of British Jews, including prominent figures, recently expressed their concern publicly that independent views on the Middle East were not adequately represented by official Jewish bodies. Their group, called ‘Independent Jewish Voices,’ issued a declaration that was published in the media and is available on their website: http://www.ijv.org.uk. This British group has received hundreds of signatures expressing support.

We are a group of Australian Jews who share their concerns and aims and we are now also seeking public support from fellow Jews. Our group, ‘Independent Australian Jewish Voices,’ has been established and our declaration of principles is in the message below and also on our website: http://iajv.org

We are seeking signatures and plan to publish our statement in mainstream newspapers such as The Melbourne Age, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian and The Australian Jewish News within the next few weeks.

Via Antony Loewenstein.

Iraqi FM: No Problem With Aussie Pullout

So will an Australian withdrawal from Iraq be as calamitous as John Howard predicts? Let's ask the Iraqis:

Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abbawi was asked about the consequences of Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd's plan to withdraw troops if Labor won the next election.

"As far as the combat forces, if they decide to withdraw ... if this can be done through an agreed program with the Iraqis with the timing, I think then we can manage," Mr Abbawi told ABC television...

Asked if the withdrawal would send a negative signal to the US and Britain, Mr Abbawi said: "No ... if it is done with an agreement and consultation, I don't think it will create much problem."

No doubt he will be getting a phone call from Mr Howard's office very soon.

No Denying the Propaganda

More unadulterated crap from Gerard Henderson in the SMH today.

This staunchly militant apologist for Bush, Howard and their illegal Iraq War now declares that generations of Australian Conservative leaders have been guilty of "too much fawning" to the USA. He coyly suggests "the relationship" is now working more in the USA's interests than ours: Bush gave Howard a gala dinner last year for his own sake, not Howard's, and Darth Cheney is only coming over here to get some good PR shots. Oh, really?

Hendo insists that Australian public support for the alliance remains high.

This has shown up in polls conducted by the Lowy Institute in 2005 and last year, which indicate that more than 90 per cent of Australians regard the alliance as of significance to Australia's security.

Well, let's take a good look at that Lowy poll from last year, shall we? Respondents trusted China, India and Japan to "act responsibly in the world" moreso than the United States. Over two thirds felt that "Australia takes too much notice of the United States in its foreign policy". Respondents preferred a powerful EU over US influence, and loudly decried the USA's role as "world policeman". Does that really sound like a "healthy alliance"?

Hendo is choosing his facts selectively, focussing on a single question from the poll:

How important is our alliance relationship with the United States for Australia’s security?

Only 42% said it was "very important", down from 45% in 2005. Another 28% said it was "fairly important", hardly a ringing endorsement. Another 22% said it was "somewhat important" (yawn). And of course, recognising the "importance" of something is surely not the same as "supporting" it.

Then there's this:

Older respondents were more likely than younger respondents to think the alliance ‘very important’ for Australia’s security. Of those aged 18-29, 32% thought the alliance was very important, compared with 36% of 30-39 year olds, 39% of 40-49 year olds, 55% of 50-59 year olds and 50% of those aged 60 or more.

Again, not really indicative of a "healthy alliance", is it? But Hendo is not one to let mere facts get in the way of a good story. Here is the guts of his argument:

Surveys aside, majority support for the alliance is shown in the relative lack of opposition to the Australia-US joint defence and intelligence facilities in Australia. Last week the Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, said the Government had agreed to host a ground station for a US military satellite communications system at Geraldton in Western Australia. This will be in addition to the joint facilities in operation - Pine Gap in the Northern Territory, the naval communications station at Exmouth and the joint geological and geophysical research station near Alice Springs.

Last week the ALP backbencher Daryl Melham was the only prominent Labor Party figure to speak out against the Geraldton proposal. Joel Fitzgibbon, Labor's spokesman on defence, committed the Opposition to support the joint facility.

Henderson is deliberately confusing political support with general public support. The fact that both major political parties fawningly welcome expanded US military facilities on Australian soil does not prove that we, the Australian people, support such facilities. Maybe Hendo should dig up a poll looking at public support for Pine Gap?

What's happening here is that we have a paid lackey for the US military-industrial complex, spouting pro-US propaganda in an attempt to stifle growing debate about the real value of this alliance.

The sooner the Fairfax press dumps his ridiculous columns, the better.

Take Your US$ And Shove It!

The Road to Surfdom blog has been questioning the value of Australia's ’special relationship’ with the USA:

[T]he security benefits Australia enjoys as a result of its ’special relationship’ with the USA are illusory, in that the only serious threats that we face wouldn’t exist in the first place if it weren’t for the nature of that very relationship.

People say the military threat is worthwhile because of the increased accessed to "intelligence" (no matter how bad it is?) and of course the blessed economic benefits. But is that true? This comment stands out:

I was involved in AUSFTA negotiations for a major industry group, and I can say with some certainty that it has not paid off and never will. All of the serious agricultural measures, for example, are on the never-never. Phased reduction of beef barriers over 18 years? Forget it!

The few ‘benefits’ that have been realised do not make up for the long list of possible and actual downsides, and some of those benefits - the visas, especially, which have some merits - could have been realised without making them part of a package which is definitely not in Australia’s interests.

Just take a look at what it is doing to our copyright laws: activities that used to be regarded as minor covil infringements are now, under pressure from the US entertainment conglomerates, being turned into criminal offences with excessive penalties. Even the few upsides here - the belated amendments to the Copyright Act that make the use of MP3 players and VCRs legal, for example - are more complicated than they need to be, and still expose consumers to significant risk. All this in the name of ‘harmonising’ US and Australian copyright laws.

Frankly, if some protectionist Democrats in Congress decided to overturn the agreement, we should be grateful. I doubt any Australian Government will have the spibe to trash it themselves.

Meanwhile: enhanced relationship = being forced to buy outdated or substandard defence equipment completely unsuited to our actual needs - the rationale being this equipment will allow closer cooperation between Australian and US forces.

Sigh.

Pretty As A Peacock

The Australian business world's much-cherished Liberal Party connections:

Financial services group MFS Ltd says former federal Liberal Party leader Andrew Peacock will be appointed its new chairman next month.

The announcement by came as the Brisbane-based group posted a record interim net profit of $33.35 million, up 32 per cent on the previous corresponding period.

A Disturbance In The Force

Darth Cheney goes Down Under:

Mr Cheney arrives in Sydney on Thursday after a two-day visit to Japan.

He will have breakfast on Friday with members of the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue and then give a speech to about 300 guests on the US-Australia Alliance. Later that afternoon, he will meet Mr Rudd. Most of Saturday will be spent with Mr Howard and some of his senior ministers.

This is going to be another interesting week in Australian politics. What's the Big Dick's agenda?

I would be more concerned about what sort of deals Darth Cheney is offering Rudd. Put on your tin foil hats, folks.

UPDATE: The Stop The War coalition are planning some "Chain Up Cheney" protests on Thursday night and Friday morning. Why not get out there and support them?

RALLY: 5.30PM THURSDAY FEBRUARY 22, SYDNEY TOWN HALL

PROTEST: 8AM FRIDAY FEBRUARY 23 @ SHANGRI-LA HOTEL, CNR ESSEX ST & GEORGE ST THE ROCKS
(Cheney will be giving a speech inside the hotel at approx 9.30am)

INFO: Simon 0438 297 552 / Paddy 0415 800 586

The STW website includes some interesting reading. This article by Mike Carlton last Saturday was a good read.