rssNo role for Australia post-Saddam: Downer
:Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says he does not believe Australian military forces will play a role in post-war Iraq.
Mr Downer is flying out of Sydney today to meet Bush administration and United Nations figures in the United States.
He says the Australian forces' role in Iraq will finish with the end of fighting and there are no plans to increase the size of the Australian contingent.
So with first mad-dog Rumsfeld, and now Powell looking to bring Syria and Iran into the fight, will we be joining in the endless war on Islam? Or will we also be tricked into it, one little step at a time?
Powell threatened Iran, said "Tehran must stop pursuing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them". Given the extreme bad faith involved in the US's handling of the Iraqi inspectors, why on earth does he think that this will do anything other than provoke Iran to go nuclear as fast as possible. I mean, it's not like they've not already got connections with Pakistan and North Korea to make it easy. Jeez.
Some interesting (and fairly damaging) stuff in this report:
President Bush's aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials.
Instead, Bush embraced predictions of top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators and that the entire conflict might be over in a matter of weeks, the officials said.
The thing that got me: later on in the same piece:
In southern Iraq on Friday, persistent hit-and-run attacks on U.S. supply lines and positions seemed to substantiate the view of Army Lt. Gen. William Wallace, who told The New York Times and The Washington Post on Thursday that the enemy has proven more stubborn -- and the war more complex -- than expected.
"The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against," he said.
Though Wallace's comment reportedly angered many administration officials, Rumsfeld said he had not read it. "People see what they see and say what they say," he said.
Why am I not suprised that Rumsfeld said "he didn't see it". I think the basic theme underlying this piece (and the now online, Seymour Hersh latest, among many many others) is that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush haven't been seeing what they didn't want to see. In fact, they've been going out of their way to avoid seeing anything that might disagree with their existing notions.
On the subject of the Hersh piece, my favourite paragraph:
Scott Ritter, the former marine and United Nations weapons inspector, who has warned for months that the American shock and awe strategy would not work, noted that much of the bombing has had little effect or has been counterproductive. For example, the bombing of Saddams palaces has freed up a brigade of special guards who had been assigned to protect them, and who have now been sent home to await further deployment. Every one of their homes--and they are scattered throughout Baghdad--is stacked with ammunition and supplies, Ritter told me.
The piece also closes by noting that the Iranians are now backing Iraq against the US. How fucking hopeless are you when you lose a popularity contest to someone that spent most of the 1980s in a bitter bitter war (using, let's not forget, chemical weapons) against Tehran? Jeeesus.
From the age, last week saw the passing of Dr. John Birrell, former police surgeon of Victoria, 1957-1977. Among the campaigns he was responsible for:
- the breathalyser
- the 0.05 drink-driving limit
- motorcyclist helmets
- compulsory seatbelts
That's quite an impressive list of achievements. I know when I was in the US last year the attitude against seatbelts there was quite confusing to me. Yeah, that's right, wearing seatbelts is just part of the UN-blackhelicopter-oneworldguvmint conspiracy.
Digby's done an amazing job collecting a whole pile of information on the work that noted chickenhawk Newt Gingrich has been doing on the Defense Policy Board. Tom Clancy has a lot to answer for.
Goddammit, don't you hate it when you've got a lovely little war planned, and the other side won't just march out in orderly lines to be slaughtered:
Meanwhile, noted terrorist Sy Hersh points to Rumsfeld as being the one responsible for the US going in under-strength, and plenty of others are also helping with the assignment of appropriate blame. Meanwhile, Rumsfeld is attempting to pin the blame on General Tommy Franks:
The military geniuses at the top of the civilian leadership are now pushing for Franks to attack now, now, now. This really is starting to seem awfully familiar.
Meanwhile, Fred Kaplan points out that the "unconventional warfare" that the Pentagon's complaining about is the same stuff that General Paul van Riper used in war games last year to great effect. (A recap: leading the opposing "red forces", Van Riper managed to use unconventional tactics to great effect, sinking a large number of the US ships, and generally wreaking havoc. The folks running the war game made him stop doing what he was doing, and to behave as they'd like the enemy to behave. Van Riper eventually resigned and went public with his criticisms) I don't doubt that Van Riper is not at all comforted to be shown how correct his criticisms were (update: this piece quotes Van Riper: "Look at the big picture," said Paul Van Riper, a retired Marine lieutenant general who helped review the war plan. "Three hundred miles, relatively few casualties, and almost no armored vehicles lost.") I also don't doubt that the responsible folks will dodge all real blame and claim that their theories were validated.
Meanwhile, Rumsfeld, who really does need a muzzle, has decided that well, hey, this war's going to plan, so let's also take on Syria and Iran at the same time. This is obviously continuing on the traditional Bushie path of bouncing from obscenity to obscenity - leave the opposition struggling to keep up.
But, at the end of the day, we all know who's really responsible. The same folks who "lost" the Vietnam war: the media. The British and the Americans both think so. From the second piece:
Jeez, it's a terrible thing, isn't it. You lie, deceive, manipulate, obfuscate, blur, and how do the press repay you? They actually doubt what you say! The nerve. Short, sharp hint: if you want people to believe you, don't fucking lie, all the time, in every possible way.
"Please Engage Brain Before Invading Country". Via Hesiod, this piece from the NYT:
The subtleties surrounding the sensitive role oil plays in the Iraqi war may have eluded the United States Army. Deep in some newspaper coverage yesterday was a report that the 101st Airborne Division had named one central Iraq outpost Forward Operating Base Shell and another Forward Operating Base Exxon.
The Pentagon shrugged off concerns that now might not be the time to mention the names of foreign oil companies on Iraqi soil. "The forward bases are normally refueling points -- they're basically gas stations in the desert," a Pentagon spokeswoman said. "Whether or not we're going to lecture everyone that, due to political sensitivities, you should be careful what you call your gas stations, I don't know if that's something that should be done or would be done."
What a kind way to phrase it. Here's a different way: ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE??? I know, why don't you go and make it fucking more difficult for yourself? Why not just go and call it "Operation Let My Petrochemicals Run Free"? Oh, and nice attempt to pass it off as "political sensitivities". Well, duh. Clausewitz: "War a continuation of politics by other means".
This piece from the Guardian is headlined "Blair pleads for US and Europe to end rift over Iraq". In fact, reading the article, he is only calling for the Europeans to modify their position. It should really be titled "Blair pleads for Europe to just shut up and drink the Kool-Aid".
Nowhere is there any indication that Blair might think that, oo, maybe some of the current problems are due to the US acting like power-mad loons. Of course, if he said that, it would result in the end of Blair's "special relationship" with Bush. The "special relationship", after all, only remains special so long as Blair doesn't dare vary from the script he is given.
A bunch of recent news on the US leadership's bullying thuglike behaviour (many previous examples, e.g. the US ambassador to Australia trying to shut down democratic debate in this country). Josh Marshall points to a case where someone from the Pentagon suggested to the Turkish political leadership that they (the Pentagon) could just go straight to the Tuskish military to get their troops allowed in. Given the somewhat ambiguous nature of the Turkish military's role in Turkey, this was, not to put too fine a point on it, fucking idiotic. No wonder the Turkish parliament told the americans to piss off.
Dana Milbank in the WashPost has more on the white house demands for absolute obedience. I'm actually quite suprised - Milbank's been producing multiple pieces recently that I'm sure the White House isn't pleased by. For instance:
- Bush Administration Using War to Justify Its Tax Cut:
Fleischer suggested during Monday's briefing that a tax cut, because it would boost the economy, was needed to keep the military strong. "The stronger the economy, the stronger we are as a country," he said. "The stronger we are as a country, the stronger our military." Fleischer argues regularly that the tax cuts are needed so that "when the war is over, our military has jobs to come home to."
The argument has flaws. Those who serve in the military full time need not worry about having jobs when they come home. And under a 1994 law, employers must reinstate reservists in similar positions when they return from service, unless the company can document severe hardship.
Note the "the argument has flaws" - none of the back-n-forth nonsense that most writers seem to love, instead actually pointing out that the argument is crap.
- White House Notebook: Many Willing, But Few Are Able:
There must have been shock in Baghdad and awe in Paris last week when the White House announced the news that Palau had joined the "coalition of the willing."
Palau is one of six unarmed nations in the coalition, along with Costa Rica, Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and the Solomon Islands. Then there's Afghanistan.
After initially including Angola in the coalition of the willing last week, the White House removed the country without explanation, as first noted by Agence France-Presse. Angolan embassy officials didn't respond yesterday to phone calls. With luck, Angola can be replaced by Morocco, if a report yesterday by UPI is to be believed. According to the wire service, Morocco's weekly al Usbu' al-Siyassi claimed that Morocco has offered 2,000 monkeys to help detonate land mines.
An official at the Moroccan Embassy could not confirm the presence of monkeys in the coalition of the willing. - Even With a War, Business as Usual :
Bush's aides, jittery throughout the day, grew tense as the Oval Office speech approached. A young aide gave a stern lecture to cameramen who were about to photograph Bush, warning them not even to whisper and said that if they made noise, "You'll never shoot in the White House again."
(Nice. The boy-king must not be disturbed by the noise of the humble courtiers, on pain of banishment from the court of the boy-king. Has this guy got an attitude problem, or what?)
- Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq:
As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged -- and in some cases disproved -- by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.
Of course, these pieces have all been buried in the paper - so maybe the White House's Office of Petty Vendettas hasn't noticed them. I wonder when Milbank will start getting the Helen Thomas treatment?
Via PRWatch's Spin of the Day, apparently the Business Council of Australia's feeling underappreciated:
Big business could stop making large donations to charity if the public did not start appreciating corporate generosity, the Business Council of Australia warned yesterday.
Corporate collapses such as HIH had drained trust in big business, and people were cynical of claims that corporate money was ever given away philanthropically, said the council's chief executive, Katie Lahey.
Ms Lahey, speaking at the inaugural Philanthropy Australia conference in Sydney, said there was almost a "perverse relationship" between the amount some companies contributed to the community and the level of negative feedback they received.
Go read the whole piece. It's hysterical. So, let's recap: companies make token efforts at "philanthropy" to attempt to buy good PR. Community (note: not the media, but the community) sees through blatant attempt to buy affection. Business gets huffy and says "since nobody loves me, I'm going home". I'm visualising the Business Council of Australia as a collection of Mr Burns-type figures.
Oh, and the reason I put "philanthropy" in quotes is that, well, it's not real philanthropy, is it? It's being given with the expectation of buying good PR. That makes it a PR spend, nothing else. My OED gives the following definition:
Since, by their own admission, the BCA members are acting in a cynical affection-buying way, it's kinda rich for them to be trying to claim some sort of moral high ground. It cheapens the value of their own donations. It's actually similar to some US commentators who've been saying "gee, why are we being so generous with foreign aid when all those countries out there still hate us?" (never mind that the US is actually incredibly mean with aid, by international standards). If you're getting into the philanthropy business, don't try and add strings to the money, after the fact. And don't expect token donations to buy off a bunch of awful, unethical corporate behaviour.
Go see The Agonist for all your war news. Gods only know how Sean-Paul's managing to do what he's doing...
Crikey's Hillary Bray on the NSW election:
(Hillary's also one of the few others to notice that the awful ASIO bill got re-introduced to Parliament last week, as I noted last week.)
(and I just noticed that permalinks are broken. crap.)
From the ABC, the Federal government's got a bunch of double-dissolution triggers via the Senate now. It'd be a bloody brave (actually, "stupid") move by Howard to act on them any time soon, tho - the Australian public usually reacts pretty harshly to opportunistic early elections. Unless he can manage to call one with a ridiculously short lead-time, there's going to be who-knows-what going to happen between now and then. Going to a double-dissolution election on a package of screw-the-unions bills would probably also be seen as a bit of complete right-wing lunacy, too...
InstaSlur and Sullivan have both been busily slagging the BBC as being a "pro-Saddam" mouthpiece because the Beeb declines to drink the Kool-Aid served up by the lovely folks at the Pentagon. Sullivan, in his typical so-dull-he's-almost-an-american wit, has taken to referring to them as the "Bagdhad Broadcasting Corporation". Stop it, Andy, my sides may split. Yet, as Liberal Oasis shows in a review of the news footage about Umm Qasr, it's the US media that's been uncritically accepting (American) propaganda. Sorry, why should we be trusting CNN, Fox, or the other mainstream US media? The networks will happily push the "showing american POWs on TV is a war crime" meme, while also gleefully re-broadcasting footage of captured Iraqi soldiers and footage of the non-persons that have been "interned" without any trace of appropriate justice in Cuba.
On a related note, I assume that once, somewhere, Andrew Sullivan must have once written something that was a) well written, b) researched, c) not just a cheap piece of axe-grinding -- or has he always been an unreadable priggish tool? If so, how is it that he's managed to get a reputation as a journalist? The first thing I can recall ever reading by him was a piece in Slate where he was defending drug companies profit margins for things such as government-developed HIV drugs in a discussion about (amongst other things) allowing poor third-world countries the right to manufacture generic versions of the drugs. As he is a well-off HIV-positive male in a prosperous country, I remember thinking that his position (which could largely be summed up as "we must defend our poor beleagured pharmaceutical multinationals") was somewhat offensive. The subject of adequate reimbursement for pharmaceutical companies is a complex one - particularly when much of the research is done by, e.g. the US N.I.H. and then handed to the big pharma corporations for very little, and much of the money claimed as "research" by big pharma is either just marketing or producing slight variations on an existing drug to extend useful patent lifetimes. But you'd not know it was a complex problem from Sullivan's pieces. His is a black-and-white, all-against-all world view. He's also quite fond of, well, let's say "misleading" argumentation. "Deliberately blurring and obscuring" might be another word.
I guess the Libs can take a small comfort from the election yesterday - their vote only fell slightly, there wasn't a huge wipeout. Still, the Libs and Nats are going to end up with just 30 seats, compared to 56 seats for the ALP (and 7 independents). That's not as bad as, say, Victoria (ALP: 61, Lib/Nat 25) or Queensland (ALP: 66, Lib/Nat: 15), but it's still a hell of a big majority to try and overcome in 4 years time.
Winning against Carr in the current environment was always going to be impossible, but their complete failure to make any headway against him shows again just how useless the Liberal party is, outside Canberra. Those people in the Liberal party agitating for Howard to step down in favour of Costello must have rocks in their head - Howard may be a complete cum-stain of a human being, but he's the only leader the Libs have got that actually knows how to campaign. (Although I noticed that he didn't try to get too involved in the NSW election - not suprisingly, he didn't want to get associated with the losers).
On the plus side, the One Nation vote fell from 7.5% to 1.2%, and the Democrat vote also collapsed - from 3.3% to just 0.9%. I'm waiting for both One Nation and the Democrats to just die DIE DIE, or at least be reduced to a historical oddity like the DLP. From the vote results, most of the ONP vote went to the Independants and, to a lesser extent, the Nationals, while the Democrat vote went to the Greens, who doubled their vote to 8%.
I switched the weblog software over to simpleTAL, which forced me to remove a bunch of the TALES crocks where I was using python: path expressions for no real good reason (simpleTAL doesn't support python: expressions). On the plus side, rss generation is working properly again - the little rss icon near the top of the gutter. Anyway, I don't think I broke anything, but who can tell. Let me know if you spot something broken.
I should find a decent RSS reader for Linux. Some time. Too many other things to do first.
Nathan Newman points to some new criticism of the IMF's policies on capital liberalization from an unlikely source:
"Theoretical models" show that financial integration can increase economic growth in developing countries, the research found, but in practice it is difficult to prove this link.
"In other words, if financial integration has a positive effect on growth, there is as yet no clear and robust empirical proof that the effect is quantitatively significant," the new report said.
[...]
"Indeed, the process of capital account liberalization appears to have been accompanied in some cases by increased vulnerability to crises," the report said.
"Globalization has heightened these risks since cross-country financial linkages amplify the effects of various shocks and transmit them more quickly across national borders."
"The evidence presented in this paper suggests that financial integration should be approached cautiously, with good institutions and macroeconomic frameworks viewed as important"
Nothing really new here, except the source of the criticisms... the IMF.
Spinsanity has put out this FAQ list (or perhaps FUM - Frequently Uttered Mistruths) on Iraq.
As war begins in Iraq, this column is intended to serve as a resource. It highlights major fallacies and disproven and highly debatable claims from the debate over US policy toward Iraq.
...
On the subject of those 30 countries, a quote from the washington post:
Officials said Bush was not trying to expand the group of nations supporting the United States. Even some of those on the list released by the State Department, however, were surprised to be included.
A senior diplomat at Colombia's embassy in Washington seemed unaware that his nation had been listed. Asked what support Colombia would contribute, the diplomat referred to a statement issued by his government Monday expressing support for stopping "the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction" and prevention of all forms of terrorism "in a timely manner."
The (US) ABC News "The Note" announced a week ago that they'd be ceasing publication for the war. Fortunately, though, they're back.
I thought it would be an interesting exercise to actually read Hansard to find out what our MPs have to say for themselves. This potted summary is based on the PDF available here
ALP's Arch Bevis opened the batting for the day with a nice roundup of many of the prominent folks that have come out against the war, much quoting from former Chief of the Air Force Ray Furnell. Pointed out that the Government's newfound concern for Iraqi wellbeing obviously post-dates the arrival of the Tampa.
The Lib's Peter King (hint: "what's new" from may 2002 makes your website look lamelamelame) used Resolution 678 as the legal basis for this invasion. Plenty of folks have pointed out that 687 ended this, and you can't go picking and choosing from past resolutions. Apparently it's Hawke's fault that Iraq wasn't properly defeated at the end of the '91 Gulf War. This must be somewhat suprising to Hawke, as it was the US that didn't want to continue on to Baghdad. Obviously this time, if the US decides to stop, the Liberals will insist that we continue on, alone. Much blather attacking the ALP and the vast conspiracy of the postmaterialist left (don't ask me, his words). Finally noted that oo, ah, actually there's heaps of nations supporting this invasion. Although those of you who've checked the list will note a) the lack of troops on the ground and b) the somewhat... pissant... nature of many of these countries.
Leonie Burke (ALP) points out that the US didn't seem to mind SC vetoes when it was the US doing the vetoing. It's only when they don't get their way that the UNSC is deemed to have failed.
Petro Georgiou, who's a member of the tiny sliver of the Liberal Party that used to be called "the Wets" (or "the human beings"), also tries to claim that non-compliance with UNSC 1441 magically woke up the UNSC 678 magic pixies. Hint for those playing along at home: UNSC 678 called for "all necessary means" to get Iraq out of Kuwait. UNSC 687 called for disarmament of Iraq as part of the cease-fire, and "switched off" 678. Neither of them, nor 1441, called for a change of leadership. Sometimes watching the conservatives case for war is like watching the cups and ball magic trick - you have to pay attention to see the sleight of hand. Overall, though, his speech is relatively sane - I disagree with him, but he's actually attempting to make a case, rather than just mindless abuse. He also admits that he's received feedback from his constituents that indicates that some don't agree with him. This is suprising, as most of the Libs try all-too-hard to pretend that everyone supports them.
Darryl Melham is next up. Warns that the media coverage from the Pentagon will show a war very different to the actual reality (no really?) He cites a leaked UN document "that's on the internet" (some googling shows that it's probably this document.) The US emphasis on air power to protect their troops will probably result in far more civilian casualties. The likely assaults on civilian infrastructure will result in ugly disease problems.
Next up, ah Bronnie. Good old Bronwyn Bishop, member for bad hair and self-promotion. The crowd has high hopes for this speech - the Liberal side's been falling down on the gratuitous Nazi/WW2/appeasement front so far-- is Bronnie the one to rectify this shameful oversight? A brief foray into the tried and true 687/1441 three card shuffle has us all worried, before, huzzah! the first World War II / Nazi / appeasement reference of the day. Followed, of course, by the Pol Pot reference. As expected, no actual historical knowledge is demonstrated by the Member for Mackellar, but then, the crowd was expecting none. We then get the "chemical weapons usage" trotted out, without of course any mention of, say, the US and European governments who supplied and supported him at the time. Fortunately for the ex-Minister for Aged Care, dunking old folks in Kero doesn't actually count as "chemical weapons". Oh dear, she brought up the support of "the founder and president of Medicins Sans Frontiers" for the war. Pity about the letter in the Australian this morning:
Whoops. Ah well, what's a little misleading Parliment between friends?
Next up, Tasmania's Michelle O'Byrne for the ALP. A nice zinger on Bronnie to start
She's mostly concerned about the numbers of civilians and children that will be bombed to be free. She notes that lying cockhead and neo-fascist Eric Abetz tried to claim "there are a lot of indications" of an Iraq - 9/11 link. After citing a few people (Douglas Hurd, Robert Higgs) on what a mess this is going to make of the Middle East, she becomes the first member of the day to raise the O word. Finishes with a (well deserved) slap at the idiot "senior white house official" who made the "sit by your TV and watch the fireworks" crack.
Branch-stacker Michael Johnson tries the whole "big picture" thing - see if you can spot the point where he skillfully leaps logic: post cold war ... terrorism ... september 11 ... bali bombing ... weapons of mass destruction .. saddam hussein has used these before ...
The usual 678/1441/twelve years canard, followed by the assertion that
"diplomacy has failed" (without the obvious addition that "but that's fine, as the US didn't really want to bother with it anyway". Jeez. For
someone who spent so much time and effort arranging a safe seat, you
think he'd have something original or interesting to say.
Sharryn Jackson of the ALP, next. She raises the issue of how this will play in the neighbourhood - there's rather a lot of Muslims living next door, as well as covering the moral issues.
Teresa Gambaro next. Apparently the UNSC "failed to disarm Iraq". Must make sure to let the US military that the massively weakened Iraqi military that they face is all thanks to magic pixies that were working in Iraq from 91-98. They should probably put a bowl of milk out for them or something. Apparently if Iraq's not confronted now, other "rogue states" will learn from it. Yep, they'll learn "don't sit on top of a whole shitload of oil" and "for fucks sake go nuclear as quick as possible". Possibly not the lesson they were hoping to teach.
At this point the sheer tedium is starting to wear me down, and it's only 10.37am according to the timer in the Hansard. Will be skipping people who are, well, boring as bat-shit.
Phil Barresi of the Libs been getting lots of positive feedback from his constituents, but lots of nasty email messages from non-constituents. We see once again that statistical miracle that only war supporters apparently live in Liberal-held seats. Reading his no-doubt deeply felt arguments, though, I have to ask where is the action against Zimbabwe? Why is the Australian government pushing so hard for a diplomatic solution to North Korea?Hardgrave (Minister for Multicultural Affairs) urges everyone to get behind Harmony Day on March 21st. How unfortunately timed.
Patrick Secker uses the ALP's actually having thoughts and debates on the issue as an example of how bad they'd be at government. Yep, you sure as heck don't want your government MPs thinking, and Secker gives us a perfect example of this in this speech.
Laurie Brereton brings up Ming's lying about Vietnam, Reagan's support of Iraq in the 80s, and the UK's assistance in building Iraq's chemical weapons factories in the 80s. All dreadfully unsporting of him.
Kelvin Thompson raises Howard's 97 pledge to make us feel "relaxed and comfortable". Obviously this was another one of those non-core promises.
Alby Schultz tries the whole "30 countries" schtick again. Yep. And with the support that Latvia's providing, and $2.50, I can get a cup of coffee.
Anthony Albanese points out that Howard didn't even get an invite to the Azores. He thrashes the US/Israel defiance of the UNSC to within an inch of it's life.
Joe Hockey brings up the mad concept of the PNAC's James Woolsey that we're in the middle of the "fourth world war", which started September 11th 2001. This is apparently the war of eeeevil versus the people who like democracy and puppies and stuff. I'm waiting for the twelfth world war, where we go get the teletubbies and give them a disarming they won't forget.
At about this time, the speeches descend into mostly slagging off the previous speaker. My enthusiasm for this task failed at this point.
Later in the day, though, the Libs re-introduced the spectacularly awful ASIO bill. I will attempt to see how many of the utterly idiotic "holding 12 year olds without legal advice, for national security" type pieces remain in it. I suspect all of them, and it wouldn't suprise me in the slightest if they've bolted on a couple more. And how utterly predictable that they'd introduce it the day that the war starts.
Instapundit (no link, if you want cheap innuendo you can go there yourself) links approvingly to this piece by an Australian blogger who's post is about how unfortunate it is that the US can't use chemical weapons like tear gas to "protect civilians". Jesus. What a tool. Of course Rumsfeld only wants to use chemical weapons to protect civilians, no other reason, like, oo, less chance of blowing up an oil well. But if Saddam had any, well, that's a war crime! And after all the crap about supposed Iraqi chemical weapons we've been hearing for the last 6 months, if there was an actual media in the US, this should have been blared from the front page.
Or is it one of those things where Good People (ie, the US) are allowed to have and use chemical weapons, while Bad People, such as whoever's the enemy of the month, aren't allowed them? I must have missed that bit in the Chemical Weapons Convention.
A short piece in the Australian today (which doesn't seem to be on their website -- well, not in a way that I or news.google.com could find it) reported that Howard said yesterday that a conclusion to an Iraq war would allow the Australian government to send Iraqi refugees back to Iraq. They did this with the Afghans, as I recall - of course, they didn't bother to check whether things were actually better in Afghanistan first.
Hm. As an alternate to "follow the money", "follow the easiest approach to kick out refugees" might be a easy way to predict the federal government's actions.
Digby on following the money, via Iraqi reconstruction contracts.
Cowboy Kahlil's wrap up of how we ended up here.
The Project for the New American Century (the ones pushing for American hegemony over the world, who're largely responsible for this damn war) have issued their statement on Post-War Iraq. This is advance notice on what US policy will be.
Robert Wright at Slate on some of the fears about Iraq. (Hey, Slate guys - how about giving Wright a daily blog, and dumping the pointless and unreadable Kaus?)
Howard would probably love to be getting compared to Menzies. Ming's up there with Thatcher in his own personal list of heroes. Hm, maybe not:
John Howard was acting like former PM Bob Menzies in lying to the public about a possible war, Opposition Leader Simon Crean said yesterday.
"This is Bob Menzies over again," Mr Crean said.
"It was Bob Menzies that committed the last set of troops to the war in Vietnam on the basis of a lie."
Former PM Bob Hawke gives us the opinions of the heads of the Australian Defense Force, the Air Force and the Navy from 1991, the time of the original gulf war:
Peter Gration, army, Chief of the Australian Defence Force from 1987 to 1993. What has he to say about the judgement of this Prime Minister? "My fundamental judgement is that it is wrong."
Ray Funnell, Chief of the Air Staff from 1987 to 1992. What is his statement about the Prime Minister's decision? "It's strategic stupidity on a monumental scale."
Mike Hudson, Chief of Navy Staff from 1985 to 1991. What did he say? He said it was not entirely legal in international law, it was almost immoral.
Hawke has some fairly harsh words of his own for the Kirribilli Kid in the piece. Worth a read.