Blair Planned Iraq Invasion Nine Months Before War

link

Further evidence to the Chilcot report adds to that already existing that the decision to attack Iraq was made first and the pretext prepared afterwards.

This means that the war was a crime and the corporate media is a propaganda network. Hardly anyone would refute that these days, but it is not reported very much, not discussed, and no action is planned or taken.

Western culture has a blind spot on the reality: we have told big lies and committed major war crimes. One day civilization may advance to the point where this is no longer tolerated.

link

Further evidence to the Chilcot report adds to that already existing that the decision to attack Iraq was made first and the pretext prepared afterwards.

This means that the war was a crime and the corporate media is a propaganda network. Hardly anyone would refute that these days, but it is not reported very much, not discussed, and no action is planned or taken.

Western culture has a blind spot on the reality: we have told big lies and committed major war crimes. One day civilization may advance to the point where this is no longer tolerated.

Blair Planned Iraq Invasion Nine Months Before War

More boat people on the way

Pakistan faces biggest refugee crisis since 1947:

Aid groups have warned of a human tide of up to 500,000 people fleeing their homes. The UN said an estimated 200,000 have fled the Swat valley and its main town, Mingora, in the past few days alone, while another 300,000 are poised to flee if they get the chance. This would create a total of one million people forced from their homes by fighting in the past 12 months. It represents the biggest internal displacement of people in Pakistan since independence more than 60 years ago.

In addition to the refugees primarily from the ruined countries of Iraq and Afghanistan that have made the desperate journey by boat to our shores in recent years, it seems likely there will now be a bunch more.

If Howard were still in power we know what to expect: the ugly and racist demonization of regugees as terrorists, sleepers, child-drowners leading to the cruel abandonment at sea or imprisonment in concentration camps. With Rudd it is slightly more civilized, Rudd will only blame it on people-smugglers.

But Rudd just like Howard cannot dare speak the awful truth: that the direct cause of the massive refugee crises in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is the Whitepowers' military assault on those countries, an aggression in which Australia has shamefully taken and is taking a direct part.

Pakistan faces biggest refugee crisis since 1947:

Aid groups have warned of a human tide of up to 500,000 people fleeing their homes. The UN said an estimated 200,000 have fled the Swat valley and its main town, Mingora, in the past few days alone, while another 300,000 are poised to flee if they get the chance. This would create a total of one million people forced from their homes by fighting in the past 12 months. It represents the biggest internal displacement of people in Pakistan since independence more than 60 years ago.

In addition to the refugees primarily from the ruined countries of Iraq and Afghanistan that have made the desperate journey by boat to our shores in recent years, it seems likely there will now be a bunch more.

If Howard were still in power we know what to expect: the ugly and racist demonization of regugees as terrorists, sleepers, child-drowners leading to the cruel abandonment at sea or imprisonment in concentration camps. With Rudd it is slightly more civilized, Rudd will only blame it on people-smugglers.

But Rudd just like Howard cannot dare speak the awful truth: that the direct cause of the massive refugee crises in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is the Whitepowers' military assault on those countries, an aggression in which Australia has shamefully taken and is taking a direct part.

More boat people on the way

Ruddock: 'No One Told Me'

Former Attorney General takes a leaf out of Howard's book by claiming 'no one told me' when faced with embarrassing facts.

When referring to “the circumstances of [Habib's] rendition [and almost certain torture]”, Ruddock told The Australian, “We were never informed about where he was or what had happened to him”.

Toohey points out:

[Then ASIO chief Dennis] Richardson is a meticulous public servant. He would not tell the senate that ASIO had definitely established where Habib was merely on the basis of supposition. Nor would he tell the senate about something as important as Habib’s “rendition” by the CIA to Egypt, where he was almost certainly tortured, without first ensuring that his minister was informed.

Howard's 'no one told me' approach to awkward issues that he knew he didn't want to know about seems to have been transformed into a general method of administration.

Aggressive war, official propaganda, "state-sponsored lies pursued with a determination reminiscent of the worst regimes of the 20th Century", racism, concentration camps, extra-judicial killings, torture: Howard's government in obsequiously following the Bush regime in a lunge to nazism is more than embarrassing, it is damning and something that they will never be able to live down.

Former Attorney General takes a leaf out of Howard's book by claiming 'no one told me' when faced with embarrassing facts.

When referring to “the circumstances of [Habib's] rendition [and almost certain torture]”, Ruddock told The Australian, “We were never informed about where he was or what had happened to him”.

Toohey points out:

[Then ASIO chief Dennis] Richardson is a meticulous public servant. He would not tell the senate that ASIO had definitely established where Habib was merely on the basis of supposition. Nor would he tell the senate about something as important as Habib’s “rendition” by the CIA to Egypt, where he was almost certainly tortured, without first ensuring that his minister was informed.

Howard's 'no one told me' approach to awkward issues that he knew he didn't want to know about seems to have been transformed into a general method of administration.

Aggressive war, official propaganda, "state-sponsored lies pursued with a determination reminiscent of the worst regimes of the 20th Century", racism, concentration camps, extra-judicial killings, torture: Howard's government in obsequiously following the Bush regime in a lunge to nazism is more than embarrassing, it is damning and something that they will never be able to live down.

Ruddock: 'No One Told Me'

New PM a dud on climate change

The former Howard government's position on climate change was incredibly backward: it refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol and effectively denied that there was even a problem for ten long years. At least Rudd has ratified and talks of the need to tackle the issue. In reality, however, he is not that far removed from Howard or even the Bush administration.

Rudd will not even set a target, much less take the necessary steps to achieve the target.

WITH less than 24 hours to deadline, the crucial UN climate talks in Bali were deadlocked last night between the US and Europe - with Australia being drawn into the centre of the conflict.

The European Union demanded to know where Australia stood in the attempt by America to remove crucial wording in the draft Bali road map which calls for developed countries to make deep cuts to their greenhouse gas emissions.

Shortly before leaving Bali, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, signalled Australia would back moves by the US to remove the controversial wording from the draft. The Americans have refused to accept the phraseology, which refers to scientific advice that the developed world would need to cut its emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020 to avoid the most severe effects of climate change.

The EU's Environment Minister, Stavros Dimas, said last night that the wording was "indispensable" to the Bali road map.

"The Prime Minister lost an opportunity in his speech to commit to this range of 25 to 40 per cent," he told reporters, adding, "They still have time."

But in a thinly veiled criticism of Mr Rudd, he said that if Australia refused to back the European stand on the draft road map, the Prime Minister's signing of the Kyoto Protocol "will not have the substance we hoped for".

A spokeswoman for the main environmental groups at the conference, Jennifer Morgan, told reporters: "There is a wrecking crew here in Bali led by the Bush Administration and its minions. Those minions continue to be the governments of Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others, with unfortunately Australia shadowing that group of minions."

During the long election campaign just concluded with Rudd Labor's sweeping victory, Rudd tried to make a virtue of his conservatism, and how he was much like a younger Howard. It is no such virtue at all, and on issues such as climage change and International Law, I am sure we will see this again and again, unfortunately.

Al Gore stated plainly at Bali that "my own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress."

The United States is a rogue state that must be contained and must not be appeased. Rudd's (partial) alignment of Australia with the US position is a disservice to both the people of Australia and the world community.

The former Howard government's position on climate change was incredibly backward: it refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol and effectively denied that there was even a problem for ten long years. At least Rudd has ratified and talks of the need to tackle the issue. In reality, however, he is not that far removed from Howard or even the Bush administration.

Rudd will not even set a target, much less take the necessary steps to achieve the target.

WITH less than 24 hours to deadline, the crucial UN climate talks in Bali were deadlocked last night between the US and Europe - with Australia being drawn into the centre of the conflict.

The European Union demanded to know where Australia stood in the attempt by America to remove crucial wording in the draft Bali road map which calls for developed countries to make deep cuts to their greenhouse gas emissions.

Shortly before leaving Bali, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, signalled Australia would back moves by the US to remove the controversial wording from the draft. The Americans have refused to accept the phraseology, which refers to scientific advice that the developed world would need to cut its emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020 to avoid the most severe effects of climate change.

The EU's Environment Minister, Stavros Dimas, said last night that the wording was "indispensable" to the Bali road map.

"The Prime Minister lost an opportunity in his speech to commit to this range of 25 to 40 per cent," he told reporters, adding, "They still have time."

But in a thinly veiled criticism of Mr Rudd, he said that if Australia refused to back the European stand on the draft road map, the Prime Minister's signing of the Kyoto Protocol "will not have the substance we hoped for".

A spokeswoman for the main environmental groups at the conference, Jennifer Morgan, told reporters: "There is a wrecking crew here in Bali led by the Bush Administration and its minions. Those minions continue to be the governments of Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others, with unfortunately Australia shadowing that group of minions."

During the long election campaign just concluded with Rudd Labor's sweeping victory, Rudd tried to make a virtue of his conservatism, and how he was much like a younger Howard. It is no such virtue at all, and on issues such as climage change and International Law, I am sure we will see this again and again, unfortunately.

Al Gore stated plainly at Bali that "my own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress."

The United States is a rogue state that must be contained and must not be appeased. Rudd's (partial) alignment of Australia with the US position is a disservice to both the people of Australia and the world community.

New PM a dud on climate change

Howard Gone at Last

A nation of 20 million people and this was our leader? A blinkered, reactionary, unenlightened man. A scarcely reconstructed racist, colonialist, imperialist, militarist, monarchist, sycophant, bigot and bosses' man through and through.

A true man of the 50s who altogether escaped what could be called the 'Second Enlightenment'. Howard and his type learnt nothing from the Sixties. Hence issues like those mentioned above were incomprehensible to him and simply derided as 'political correctness' or a 'black armband' view of history.

He could not bring himself to make an apology to people whose children had been forcibly taken from them by Government policy. What is this other than rank racism combined with blinkered incomprehension? This impossibly foolish man could not understand that the Vietnam war was either a crime or a disaster (or of course both) - not even long after the event. One would think such folly and ignorance would disqualify him from public life, but on the contrary, he ascended the highest office to repeat the folly in Iraq.

His political success and career could be put down to two things: luck and persistence. He was, by his own admission, in the right time and place to become Fraser's treasurer, and thus in line to become leader. Following Fraser's defeat both the country and the Liberal party were (understandably) not very impressed and he thus spent a difficult decade in opposition and internal infighting. This however gave him invaluable experience and showed or developed his other key virtue: persistence. With another stroke of luck he managed to regain the Liberal leadership and then the Prime Ministership.

Narrowly winning again in 1998, his most infamous victory was the cynically crafted Tampa election of 2001. Another victory in 2004 over a weak rival makes up his much lauded decade-long rule. But it was nothing other than a decade of reactionary conservatism.

I'm not much impressed with his famed 'economic management'. He simply ruled in a decade of boom times. And the land bust and global financial crisis might actually make life difficult for the Rudd government. All the more notable, therefore, that Costello has thrown in the towel. Evidently Peter 'no ticker' Costello doesn't believe his own warnings about a 'financial tsunami' and the political opportunities that that might present the Liberal opposition in a relatively short period of time.

Jeff Kennett harshly condemns Costello: "Costello says he has withdrawn in the interests of renewal within the party. For goodness sake, he is only 50 years of age.... Well, one news conference today has destroyed that dream. This one announcement says more about the character of the man than his 11 years as Treasurer of this country."

Howard could be given credit for only two things: his gun law reform (a modest achievement); and his support for East Timorese independence. It was a confused story, but when the opportunity arose, Howard somehow was able to back independence. Perhaps he was just reacting against Keating and Labor?

David Williamson:

There are many reasons to wish Johnnie bon voyage, the most pressing being the thought of another eighteen months of television footage of his morning walks.

It’s time to say no to those daggy shorts, the horrible knees, the resolute stride towards a neo con past where Anglo man still rules the world, and the total lack of wit or spontaneity in his travelling badinage. Joy number two will be picturing the tears and foot stamping of the well paid hosts of Howard acolytes littering our press.

Any journalist who can turn a man his own party dubbed a “lying rodent”, into the Saint who saved Australia, has, like their idol, a superb grasp of slippery rhetoric which has hopefully earned them enough money to retire. These same scribes have falsely divided Australia into “Howard hating elites”, and “ordinary Australians,” without ever asking the question as to why many with the remnants of a conscience, including “ordinary Australians”, find it hard to stomach him.

The shameless exploitation of fear and hysteria over four hundred genuine and dehydrating refugees on Tampa might be a start. The ludicrous and hugely expensive “Pacific solution” might be another. The moral sleaze of the Saddam kickbacks, the lies of children overboard, the blatant and immoral pork barrelling of Coalition electorates, the attempt to deliver a cowed and cheap workforce to employers without a mandate, the constant and unrelenting grovelling to George Bush, the deathbed conversion to climate change and reconciliation lite - the list could go on.... Many would like a return to simple decency, and Rudd patently has more of it than Howard.

David Williamson again:

The Coalition over its years of rule has progressively abandoned any moral dimension in its quest to retain power. We saw racist dog whistling on every possible occasion, brutal treatment of genuine refugees, studied blindness over the Saddam bribes, shameless pork barrelling in Coalition electorates, obsequious deference to George Bush, and in what proved to be one ideological bridge too far, Howard indulging his lifelong hatred of unions by blatantly tipping the power balance towards employers, then calling it, in true Orwellian fashion, Work Choices....

Many commentators saw the election as a race between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Mark Latham called it the Seinfeld election, a poll about nothing. Rudd as a younger version of Howard. That's a very superficial assessment, one I think is wrong. As one commentator said last week, the same thing was said about the 2000 US presidential election between Bush and Al Gore. The world could have well been a very different and better place today if the conservative US Supreme Court hadn't halted the recount that had Gore on track to win....

Morality does count, in life and in politics. I think part of the Rudd vote was due to the fact that Howard, in his selfish and single-minded quest to retain power, had pushed the sleaze boundaries further than Australians wanted to go.

Rudd will be different. If he can tilt our culture's tone to one in which fear, greed, indifference, cynicism and prejudice are a little less prevalent in our national life, then many of us will feel a little prouder to be Australians than we have in the past 11½ years.

Antony Lowenstein condemns Howard and includes some commenters with the harshest views.

Louise Newman doesn't mince words: ‘What I’m describing here is State-sponsored torture and child abuse.’

Keating, predictably, has some harsh words:

Think about [Howard's] tacit endorsement of Hanson's racism during his first government, his WASP-divined jihad against refugees — those wretched individuals who had enough faith in us to try to reach us in old tubs, while his wicked detention policy was presided over by that other psalm singer, Philip Ruddock. This is the John Howard the press gallery in Canberra went out of its way to sell to the public during 1995. The new-made person on immigration, not the old suburban, picket-fence racist of the 1980s, no, the enlightened unifier who now accepted Australia's ethnic diversity; the opposition leader who was going to maintain Keating Labor's social policies on industrial relations, on superannuation at 15%, on reconciliation, on native title, and on the unique labour market programs for the unemployed.

These solemn commitments by Howard, which helped him win the 1996 election, bit the dust under that breathtaking blanket of hypocrisy he labelled "non-core promises". Even on Medicare, contrary to his commitment, he forced each of us into private health or carry the consequences.

[Howard] turned out to be the most divisive prime minister in Australia's history. Not simply a conservative maintaining the status quo, but a militant reactionary bent on turning the clock back against social inclusion, co-operation in the workplace, the alignment of our foreign policies towards Asia, providing a truthful and honourable basis for our reconciliation, accepting the notion that all prime ministers since Menzies had — Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and me — that our ethnic diversity had made us better and stronger and that the nation's leitmotif was tolerance....

He also trod on the reasonable constitutional progression to an Australian republic, even when the proposal I championed had everything about it that the Liberal Party could accept: a president appointed by both houses of parliament (meaning by both major parties), while leaving the reserve powers with the new head of state.

The price of Howard conniving in its defeat will probably mean we will ultimately end up with an elected head of state, completely changing the representative nature of power, of the prime ministership and of the cabinet.

Keating may well be correct in this view but he must share some of the blame. The Republic issue was pushed too soon and politicised, leading to failure instead of consensus.

Bob Hawke mauls Howard: "I will now demolish those arguments, not with opinions but with facts.... As to TV advertisements and the trade unions: what an insult to voters' intelligence is Howard's "union thug" scam.... In some ways the greatest Howard myth, is his claim about foreign relations and security. Again, look at the facts: joining with his pal, George Bush, in Iraq (described by Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, former commander of the US-led forces there, as "a catastrophic failure"). It is the unanimous view of the Australian, US and UK intelligence agencies that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of a terrorist attack in our country. Thank you, Prime Minister."

Surely over the years the Labor opposition could have used some more direct criticism of the Government in the Hawkie style.

Robert Manne condemns Howard's backward, reactionary and futile war against 'political correctness', multiculturalism and reconciliation: "Compared to the harm it has done to Australia, however, [Howard's achievements] will seem relatively trivial."

Manne is also vigourous on other issues:

[The] Howard Government imprisoned these refugees for indefinite periods in appalling desert camps.... Iraq was the worst foreign policy blunder of any Australian government....

Unprecedented international co-operation is the only chance humanity now has for avoiding real disaster. Just as Western governments of the 1930s are now judged over their response to the Nazi threat, so will today's be judged by whether they have risen to the challenge of global warming. Of all Western governments, Bush's America and Howard's Australia — both of which believe that climate change can be combated by voluntary national emissions targets and yet-to-be-discovered technological miracles — will be seen by history as the most blind, reckless and delinquent.

In July 2005, the Howard Government took control of the Senate. Getting what it most desired provided the foundation for impending defeat. The Government now introduced to an unsuspecting public, radical "WorkChoices" legislation. Even the name was offensive.

Howard's whole career has been dominated by his union-busting ideology ("flexible labour markets") so it is a fitting irony that this issue played such a major role in doing him in.

Alan Ramsay points out that Howard's legacy is to destroy the Liberal party. As a reactionary conservative, Howard spent years diminishing the presence of the Liberal 'wets' or 'small-l liberals' - in other words, the people with values, understandings, and principles that might be worth supporting. What's left is an unappealing collection of religious fundamentalists, neo-con extremists, neo-liberal economic fundamentalists, Hansonite racists and nearly every other kind of unaccceptable right-wing political formation.

A nation of 20 million people and this was our leader? A blinkered, reactionary, unenlightened man. A scarcely reconstructed racist, colonialist, imperialist, militarist, monarchist, sycophant, bigot and bosses' man through and through.

A true man of the 50s who altogether escaped what could be called the 'Second Enlightenment'. Howard and his type learnt nothing from the Sixties. Hence issues like those mentioned above were incomprehensible to him and simply derided as 'political correctness' or a 'black armband' view of history.

He could not bring himself to make an apology to people whose children had been forcibly taken from them by Government policy. What is this other than rank racism combined with blinkered incomprehension? This impossibly foolish man could not understand that the Vietnam war was either a crime or a disaster (or of course both) - not even long after the event. One would think such folly and ignorance would disqualify him from public life, but on the contrary, he ascended the highest office to repeat the folly in Iraq.

His political success and career could be put down to two things: luck and persistence. He was, by his own admission, in the right time and place to become Fraser's treasurer, and thus in line to become leader. Following Fraser's defeat both the country and the Liberal party were (understandably) not very impressed and he thus spent a difficult decade in opposition and internal infighting. This however gave him invaluable experience and showed or developed his other key virtue: persistence. With another stroke of luck he managed to regain the Liberal leadership and then the Prime Ministership.

Narrowly winning again in 1998, his most infamous victory was the cynically crafted Tampa election of 2001. Another victory in 2004 over a weak rival makes up his much lauded decade-long rule. But it was nothing other than a decade of reactionary conservatism.

I'm not much impressed with his famed 'economic management'. He simply ruled in a decade of boom times. And the land bust and global financial crisis might actually make life difficult for the Rudd government. All the more notable, therefore, that Costello has thrown in the towel. Evidently Peter 'no ticker' Costello doesn't believe his own warnings about a 'financial tsunami' and the political opportunities that that might present the Liberal opposition in a relatively short period of time.

Jeff Kennett harshly condemns Costello: "Costello says he has withdrawn in the interests of renewal within the party. For goodness sake, he is only 50 years of age.... Well, one news conference today has destroyed that dream. This one announcement says more about the character of the man than his 11 years as Treasurer of this country."

Howard could be given credit for only two things: his gun law reform (a modest achievement); and his support for East Timorese independence. It was a confused story, but when the opportunity arose, Howard somehow was able to back independence. Perhaps he was just reacting against Keating and Labor?

David Williamson:

There are many reasons to wish Johnnie bon voyage, the most pressing being the thought of another eighteen months of television footage of his morning walks.

It’s time to say no to those daggy shorts, the horrible knees, the resolute stride towards a neo con past where Anglo man still rules the world, and the total lack of wit or spontaneity in his travelling badinage. Joy number two will be picturing the tears and foot stamping of the well paid hosts of Howard acolytes littering our press.

Any journalist who can turn a man his own party dubbed a “lying rodent”, into the Saint who saved Australia, has, like their idol, a superb grasp of slippery rhetoric which has hopefully earned them enough money to retire. These same scribes have falsely divided Australia into “Howard hating elites”, and “ordinary Australians,” without ever asking the question as to why many with the remnants of a conscience, including “ordinary Australians”, find it hard to stomach him.

The shameless exploitation of fear and hysteria over four hundred genuine and dehydrating refugees on Tampa might be a start. The ludicrous and hugely expensive “Pacific solution” might be another. The moral sleaze of the Saddam kickbacks, the lies of children overboard, the blatant and immoral pork barrelling of Coalition electorates, the attempt to deliver a cowed and cheap workforce to employers without a mandate, the constant and unrelenting grovelling to George Bush, the deathbed conversion to climate change and reconciliation lite - the list could go on.... Many would like a return to simple decency, and Rudd patently has more of it than Howard.

David Williamson again:

The Coalition over its years of rule has progressively abandoned any moral dimension in its quest to retain power. We saw racist dog whistling on every possible occasion, brutal treatment of genuine refugees, studied blindness over the Saddam bribes, shameless pork barrelling in Coalition electorates, obsequious deference to George Bush, and in what proved to be one ideological bridge too far, Howard indulging his lifelong hatred of unions by blatantly tipping the power balance towards employers, then calling it, in true Orwellian fashion, Work Choices....

Many commentators saw the election as a race between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Mark Latham called it the Seinfeld election, a poll about nothing. Rudd as a younger version of Howard. That's a very superficial assessment, one I think is wrong. As one commentator said last week, the same thing was said about the 2000 US presidential election between Bush and Al Gore. The world could have well been a very different and better place today if the conservative US Supreme Court hadn't halted the recount that had Gore on track to win....

Morality does count, in life and in politics. I think part of the Rudd vote was due to the fact that Howard, in his selfish and single-minded quest to retain power, had pushed the sleaze boundaries further than Australians wanted to go.

Rudd will be different. If he can tilt our culture's tone to one in which fear, greed, indifference, cynicism and prejudice are a little less prevalent in our national life, then many of us will feel a little prouder to be Australians than we have in the past 11½ years.

Antony Lowenstein condemns Howard and includes some commenters with the harshest views.

Louise Newman doesn't mince words: ‘What I’m describing here is State-sponsored torture and child abuse.’

Keating, predictably, has some harsh words:

Think about [Howard's] tacit endorsement of Hanson's racism during his first government, his WASP-divined jihad against refugees — those wretched individuals who had enough faith in us to try to reach us in old tubs, while his wicked detention policy was presided over by that other psalm singer, Philip Ruddock. This is the John Howard the press gallery in Canberra went out of its way to sell to the public during 1995. The new-made person on immigration, not the old suburban, picket-fence racist of the 1980s, no, the enlightened unifier who now accepted Australia's ethnic diversity; the opposition leader who was going to maintain Keating Labor's social policies on industrial relations, on superannuation at 15%, on reconciliation, on native title, and on the unique labour market programs for the unemployed.

These solemn commitments by Howard, which helped him win the 1996 election, bit the dust under that breathtaking blanket of hypocrisy he labelled "non-core promises". Even on Medicare, contrary to his commitment, he forced each of us into private health or carry the consequences.

[Howard] turned out to be the most divisive prime minister in Australia's history. Not simply a conservative maintaining the status quo, but a militant reactionary bent on turning the clock back against social inclusion, co-operation in the workplace, the alignment of our foreign policies towards Asia, providing a truthful and honourable basis for our reconciliation, accepting the notion that all prime ministers since Menzies had — Holt, Gorton, McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and me — that our ethnic diversity had made us better and stronger and that the nation's leitmotif was tolerance....

He also trod on the reasonable constitutional progression to an Australian republic, even when the proposal I championed had everything about it that the Liberal Party could accept: a president appointed by both houses of parliament (meaning by both major parties), while leaving the reserve powers with the new head of state.

The price of Howard conniving in its defeat will probably mean we will ultimately end up with an elected head of state, completely changing the representative nature of power, of the prime ministership and of the cabinet.

Keating may well be correct in this view but he must share some of the blame. The Republic issue was pushed too soon and politicised, leading to failure instead of consensus.

Bob Hawke mauls Howard: "I will now demolish those arguments, not with opinions but with facts.... As to TV advertisements and the trade unions: what an insult to voters' intelligence is Howard's "union thug" scam.... In some ways the greatest Howard myth, is his claim about foreign relations and security. Again, look at the facts: joining with his pal, George Bush, in Iraq (described by Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, former commander of the US-led forces there, as "a catastrophic failure"). It is the unanimous view of the Australian, US and UK intelligence agencies that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of a terrorist attack in our country. Thank you, Prime Minister."

Surely over the years the Labor opposition could have used some more direct criticism of the Government in the Hawkie style.

Robert Manne condemns Howard's backward, reactionary and futile war against 'political correctness', multiculturalism and reconciliation: "Compared to the harm it has done to Australia, however, [Howard's achievements] will seem relatively trivial."

Manne is also vigourous on other issues:

[The] Howard Government imprisoned these refugees for indefinite periods in appalling desert camps.... Iraq was the worst foreign policy blunder of any Australian government....

Unprecedented international co-operation is the only chance humanity now has for avoiding real disaster. Just as Western governments of the 1930s are now judged over their response to the Nazi threat, so will today's be judged by whether they have risen to the challenge of global warming. Of all Western governments, Bush's America and Howard's Australia — both of which believe that climate change can be combated by voluntary national emissions targets and yet-to-be-discovered technological miracles — will be seen by history as the most blind, reckless and delinquent.

In July 2005, the Howard Government took control of the Senate. Getting what it most desired provided the foundation for impending defeat. The Government now introduced to an unsuspecting public, radical "WorkChoices" legislation. Even the name was offensive.

Howard's whole career has been dominated by his union-busting ideology ("flexible labour markets") so it is a fitting irony that this issue played such a major role in doing him in.

Alan Ramsay points out that Howard's legacy is to destroy the Liberal party. As a reactionary conservative, Howard spent years diminishing the presence of the Liberal 'wets' or 'small-l liberals' - in other words, the people with values, understandings, and principles that might be worth supporting. What's left is an unappealing collection of religious fundamentalists, neo-con extremists, neo-liberal economic fundamentalists, Hansonite racists and nearly every other kind of unaccceptable right-wing political formation.

Howard Gone at Last

Climate Change & Appeasement

A new WWF report illustrates the growing sense of crisis and urgency surrounding global warming, and contrasts with the fundamentally inadequate and insincere approach of the Howard Government.

There is now irrefutable scientific evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing an ongoing rise in global temperature and that this warming is having impacts on human society and the natural environment today. Of great concern is the fact that many impacts are emerging at the high end of past scientific projections. In other words, international scientific reports appear to have been underestimating the speed and seriousness with which impacts would be felt. As a result, scientists are increasingly concerned that we may be approaching a set of tipping points, thresholds where large-scale qualitative changes will occur and new processes will be triggered that further amplify global warming. The result of reaching these tipping points could be that climate change becomes unstoppable and irreversible.

A climate tipping point may occur with global warming of 2-3oC but if warming reaches 3-4oC then the thresholds for irreversible change will almost certainly be crossed.

A favourite idea of the warmongers and far right is that the war against Hitler is never over, every enemy is a 'new Hitler', and anyone who speaks against a new war is an 'appeaser'. Overlooking the fact that, as John Pilger has said, the US is the Third Reich of our time (a great power bent on military aggression that must not be appeased and must be stopped), Hitler is long dead and the great crisis of our time is not the threat of Nazi militarism but the threat of global warming.

Its not enough that Hitler got jailed for mounting a coup, that he published a long book revealing his whole repugnant philosophy, that he made any number of screaming anti-semite and anti-democratic speeches, that once in power he simply murdered opponents and established a dictatorship, that he marched into the Rheinland.....

What does it take for people to wake up?

With there being no real dispute in the scientific community for many years, the Howard government has simply sat on its hands for a full decade and watched this crisis relentlessly develop. Of course there are links between the Government and the polluting industries, and the whole idea of putting the common good or the environment ahead of profits and markets is ideologically foreign.

The steps taken now are essentially 'public relations' in response to bad polling results. The Howard Government can generate no conviction in what it does. If it in anyway grasped the seriousness of the problem, chimeras like nuclear energy or clean coal would be abandoned; a carbon tax immediately introduced; firm targets set; renewable energy mandated; and many other action, including of course, abandoning the mulish stubbornness of its refusal to sign Kyoto.

A new WWF report illustrates the growing sense of crisis and urgency surrounding global warming, and contrasts with the fundamentally inadequate and insincere approach of the Howard Government.

There is now irrefutable scientific evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing an ongoing rise in global temperature and that this warming is having impacts on human society and the natural environment today. Of great concern is the fact that many impacts are emerging at the high end of past scientific projections. In other words, international scientific reports appear to have been underestimating the speed and seriousness with which impacts would be felt. As a result, scientists are increasingly concerned that we may be approaching a set of tipping points, thresholds where large-scale qualitative changes will occur and new processes will be triggered that further amplify global warming. The result of reaching these tipping points could be that climate change becomes unstoppable and irreversible.

A climate tipping point may occur with global warming of 2-3oC but if warming reaches 3-4oC then the thresholds for irreversible change will almost certainly be crossed.

A favourite idea of the warmongers and far right is that the war against Hitler is never over, every enemy is a 'new Hitler', and anyone who speaks against a new war is an 'appeaser'. Overlooking the fact that, as John Pilger has said, the US is the Third Reich of our time (a great power bent on military aggression that must not be appeased and must be stopped), Hitler is long dead and the great crisis of our time is not the threat of Nazi militarism but the threat of global warming.

Its not enough that Hitler got jailed for mounting a coup, that he published a long book revealing his whole repugnant philosophy, that he made any number of screaming anti-semite and anti-democratic speeches, that once in power he simply murdered opponents and established a dictatorship, that he marched into the Rheinland.....

What does it take for people to wake up?

With there being no real dispute in the scientific community for many years, the Howard government has simply sat on its hands for a full decade and watched this crisis relentlessly develop. Of course there are links between the Government and the polluting industries, and the whole idea of putting the common good or the environment ahead of profits and markets is ideologically foreign.

The steps taken now are essentially 'public relations' in response to bad polling results. The Howard Government can generate no conviction in what it does. If it in anyway grasped the seriousness of the problem, chimeras like nuclear energy or clean coal would be abandoned; a carbon tax immediately introduced; firm targets set; renewable energy mandated; and many other action, including of course, abandoning the mulish stubbornness of its refusal to sign Kyoto.

Climate Change & Appeasement

'Aspirational' Voters Hurting

SYDNEY households most vulnerable to higher petrol prices and housing interest rates are concentrated in a large arc running through the city's greater western region, a study has found.

Griffith University researchers have concluded that financial stress in these areas will make it harder for the Liberal Party to retain the marginal seats of Lindsay and Macquarie.

The study also found that the Liberal Party's hold on safer seats like Hughes and Macarthur in the south-west may be jeopardised by the high levels of exposure of households in these areas to higher costs.

Conventional wisdom states rising property prices are good; low interest rates are good; Howard's government has successfully kept interest rates low, thus helping them to stay in office.

All this is questionable. It may be overstating it to say John Howard Has No Control Over Interest Rates in Australia but it is very true that Howard made that promise [Keeping Interest Rates Low] "foreseeing that citizens would focus all their attention on INTEREST RATES, rather than on PRICES. In a credit bubble, it’s a lot easier to keep interest rates low (which is partly what creates the bubble) than it is to lower bubble-prices."

It is doubtful how much control the federal government really has over the basic interest rate regime. It was Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve that reduced interest rates to an extremely low 1% following the dot.com crash. And such a low interest rate only fuelled the US housing bubble, which is bursting now with even more damaging consequences. Although not as severe as in the US, the bubble burst in Australia is also likely to be quite harmful.

SYDNEY households most vulnerable to higher petrol prices and housing interest rates are concentrated in a large arc running through the city's greater western region, a study has found.

Griffith University researchers have concluded that financial stress in these areas will make it harder for the Liberal Party to retain the marginal seats of Lindsay and Macquarie.

The study also found that the Liberal Party's hold on safer seats like Hughes and Macarthur in the south-west may be jeopardised by the high levels of exposure of households in these areas to higher costs.

Conventional wisdom states rising property prices are good; low interest rates are good; Howard's government has successfully kept interest rates low, thus helping them to stay in office.

All this is questionable. It may be overstating it to say John Howard Has No Control Over Interest Rates in Australia but it is very true that Howard made that promise [Keeping Interest Rates Low] "foreseeing that citizens would focus all their attention on INTEREST RATES, rather than on PRICES. In a credit bubble, it’s a lot easier to keep interest rates low (which is partly what creates the bubble) than it is to lower bubble-prices."

It is doubtful how much control the federal government really has over the basic interest rate regime. It was Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve that reduced interest rates to an extremely low 1% following the dot.com crash. And such a low interest rate only fuelled the US housing bubble, which is bursting now with even more damaging consequences. Although not as severe as in the US, the bubble burst in Australia is also likely to be quite harmful.

'Aspirational' Voters Hurting

Poets Offer Advice to Howard

Sums it up well enough:

He could take it on the chin
or learn to speak Mandarin
Howard's popularity would be a ripper
if he hung out with a stripper.

(The Bard?)


You'll win with your last roll of the dice
If you follow these words of advice
First, call the election late in the year
When we all feel that ol' yuletide cheer
(Menzies did and it worked quite a treat
A way to avoid a nasty defeat)
Ask for help from Bishop and Brough
And tell Downer he's talked quite enough.
Spend more in every single marginal electorate
And thank God there's no fair spending inspectorate
Remind the voters of Rudd's inexperience
And of the union bosses' interference.
Lastly pray for a terror alert
To a threat only you can avert.

(Rob Ashton)


John Howard could still win the race,
And see Kevin Rudd sink without trace
By appealing to all
That is petty, dumb, small
Racist, crass, greedy and base.

(Mark Demetrius)

Sums it up well enough:

He could take it on the chin
or learn to speak Mandarin
Howard's popularity would be a ripper
if he hung out with a stripper.

(The Bard?)


You'll win with your last roll of the dice
If you follow these words of advice
First, call the election late in the year
When we all feel that ol' yuletide cheer
(Menzies did and it worked quite a treat
A way to avoid a nasty defeat)
Ask for help from Bishop and Brough
And tell Downer he's talked quite enough.
Spend more in every single marginal electorate
And thank God there's no fair spending inspectorate
Remind the voters of Rudd's inexperience
And of the union bosses' interference.
Lastly pray for a terror alert
To a threat only you can avert.

(Rob Ashton)


John Howard could still win the race,
And see Kevin Rudd sink without trace
By appealing to all
That is petty, dumb, small
Racist, crass, greedy and base.

(Mark Demetrius)

Poets Offer Advice to Howard

Howard warns against 'overreaction' to soldier video

Soldiers preparing for new duty in Northern Territory: "Prime Minister John Howard has warned against an overreaction to a video showing Australian soldiers [in Darwin] binge drinking and one person dressed in a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) outfit."

Are these the fellows Howard is going to send in to aboriginal settlements to fix up alcohol and abuse problems?

As a desperate political stunt leading up to the election, Howard pressed again the militarism button by proposing that 'the army' be sent in to sort out alcohol and abuse problems among Northern Territory aboriginals. Binge drinking klansmen however, is not a good look, even for Howard. Let's hope these fellows and their unit have 'other duties'.

Soldiers preparing for new duty in Northern Territory: "Prime Minister John Howard has warned against an overreaction to a video showing Australian soldiers [in Darwin] binge drinking and one person dressed in a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) outfit."

Are these the fellows Howard is going to send in to aboriginal settlements to fix up alcohol and abuse problems?

As a desperate political stunt leading up to the election, Howard pressed again the militarism button by proposing that 'the army' be sent in to sort out alcohol and abuse problems among Northern Territory aboriginals. Binge drinking klansmen however, is not a good look, even for Howard. Let's hope these fellows and their unit have 'other duties'.

Howard warns against 'overreaction' to soldier video

Will Cheney Attack Iran?

Neverending game of speculation:

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel....

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

Militarism in Israel is practically out of control, as it is in the US, but, especially after the Lebanon debacle, one has to wonder whether even the Israelis would be up for this craziness.

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

Commenters chip in:

I'm not sure what to think. I've believed Cheney & Co. were determined to attack Iran for a long time. I expected it last October, and again this spring. They probably still do want to attack Iran, but the forces arrayed against them are organised and growing.

First, China has demonstrated that it could knock out all our military navigation and communication satellites in a number of hours. Ever since January you might have noticed that admirals and generals are a lot less keen on a war. Our ships would be blind sitting ducks. Our most advanced weapons systems would be useless.

Second, Saudi Arabia has got all stroppy and started cutting deals behind our backs in the Middle East, with China, with India and with Europe. Bush's buddies in Saudi now say that their marriage to America is Catholic - so no divorce - but because they are Muslim they can take another, younger wife - China. 75 percent of Gulf oil exports go to Asia.

Third, Europe has gotten real confusing for Bush. He doesn't know any of the new players. He hates what he does know about Gordon Brown, who will replace Blair within weeks. He can't count on anyone white to give him cover of legitmacy this time around.

Fourth, Russia is much more powerful and agile now than it was five years ago. Five years ago Russia watched us storm into Iraq and did nothing. Russia will allow us to storm into Iran, and then they will do to us what we did to them in Afghanistan. Now that they know it was Robert Gates who suckered them into the briar patch and then financed and armed Al Qaeda to destroy the Soviet military, they will be keen to return the favour.

Fifth, Iran has been more reasonable and very effective at diplomacy in the region and in Asia and Europe lately. That and it has the best value-for-money military on the planet (about $91 per capita), having prepared for defensive operations ever since we instigated Saddam's invasion of Khuzestan (90 percent of Iran's oil reserves). The proxy war in Lebanon last year was meant to prove the model for massive attacks on civilian infrastructure to destabilise response, and then combined air superiority with limited ground occupation to hold Khuzestan. It failed there and will fail in Iran. We won't hold Khuzestan long enough or peacefully enough to get any oil out, no matter how many millions of cluster bombs we drop on the surrounding mountains.

If the USA attacks Iran it will not only be the end of US hegemony in the world, it will probably be the end of the US as free and wealthy nation. I would expect economic collapse, dictatorship and civil war within 10 years. With the Bushies thrown off their game plan of one party rule by rigged voting machines, a politicised Justice Department and crony courts, few Republicans have the stomach for the aggressive march toward dictatorship that an open grab for power requires. Most GOP officials are inclined to skulk in the darkness and start plotting again rather than press ahead with the full PNAC plan for global domination.

There's a rumour going around Washington that Cheney has been a client of the notorious DC Madam:

"Apparently, there are rumors coming out of Washington that Vice President Dick Cheney, when he was the CEO of Halliburton, used to go visit prostitutes. This could explain why one girl was paid two billion dollars. I mean, I was thinking about this and Cheney ... I mean, going to a prostitute, that's ... I mean, I can't believe a good-looking guy like that would ever have to pay for sex, you know what I'm saying?"

Wonkette explained why its staffers were "underwhelmed by this rumor."

"Because even if it’s a fact, which it probably is, there’s no way it would have any impact on Cheney’s 'career,'" Wonkette continued. "This is a draft-dodging half-human war criminal [whose ratings are in the toilet where they started from] with a pregnant lesbian daughter who tells senators to fuck themselves and shoots his own friends in the face. Ordering an outcall hooker is positively innocent compared to the well-known things Cheney does every day."

Again:

"The White House must either shut Cheney and his team down . . . or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President."

Gee, what would give them THAT idea?

Fortunately, while Bush doesn't control Cheney, Cheney doesn't control the Pentagon any more through his fellow Sith Lord, Donald Rumfeld.

If Gates is on board with the realist strategy -- and he practicaly defines the type -- then Cheney would appear to be checkmated. The Vice President's office has no constitutional authority whatsoever over any of the cabinet departments. Sure, he can continue to plot with the AEI and tie the NSC up in knots. But he can't start a war, not without the Dauphin's signature. And, with luck, Condi and company are in a position to keep that from happening.

The fatuous and sycophantic Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer chips into the debate with the following:

the Prime Minister of Australia's decision on American soil immediately after September 11th ... invoked our defense alliance with the United States in effect to declare war on the terrorists that had attacked our friend and our ally.

So we invaded Iraq? It was Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda that attacked America on 9/11, not Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It's hard to find the words to express enough contempt for policy and public statements that are such transparent lies and manipulations. It's a time of lying, and a time of crimes, open and in your face, grinding on and on until these people are finally called to account. Downer again:

We believe that purposeful, determined, committed American leadership is equally indispensable to the peace and prosperity of the entire world. For us in Australia, these judgments are clear. There is a moral clarity about them. We fundamentally believe that the United States is a force for good in the world.

The attack on Iraq was an unprovoked act of aggression ('the supreme crime of aggressive war') accompanied by 'state-sponsored lies reminiscent of the worst regimes of the 20th Century'. It has destroyed the country in an incredible way, killing 650,000 people (heading towards one million) and creating four million refugees. And this is called 'good'.

But imperialism aint what it used to be. Last time we invaded a Muslim middle east nation 8,000 Australians were killed in the space of a few months, when the population was much smaller than it is now. Howard and Downer know that the public wouldn't stand for anything like such casualties today. In fact, the 'troops' are protected from harm, suffering virtually nil casualties, and are nothing more than a photo opportunity and political prop for a Prime Minister and a Government that loves the idea of a 'war leader'. A war hero without the deaths and casualties - you have to admit the 'tricky' John 'W' Howard has got one over Bush and Blair here.

Neverending game of speculation:

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel....

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

Militarism in Israel is practically out of control, as it is in the US, but, especially after the Lebanon debacle, one has to wonder whether even the Israelis would be up for this craziness.

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

Commenters chip in:

I'm not sure what to think. I've believed Cheney & Co. were determined to attack Iran for a long time. I expected it last October, and again this spring. They probably still do want to attack Iran, but the forces arrayed against them are organised and growing.

First, China has demonstrated that it could knock out all our military navigation and communication satellites in a number of hours. Ever since January you might have noticed that admirals and generals are a lot less keen on a war. Our ships would be blind sitting ducks. Our most advanced weapons systems would be useless.

Second, Saudi Arabia has got all stroppy and started cutting deals behind our backs in the Middle East, with China, with India and with Europe. Bush's buddies in Saudi now say that their marriage to America is Catholic - so no divorce - but because they are Muslim they can take another, younger wife - China. 75 percent of Gulf oil exports go to Asia.

Third, Europe has gotten real confusing for Bush. He doesn't know any of the new players. He hates what he does know about Gordon Brown, who will replace Blair within weeks. He can't count on anyone white to give him cover of legitmacy this time around.

Fourth, Russia is much more powerful and agile now than it was five years ago. Five years ago Russia watched us storm into Iraq and did nothing. Russia will allow us to storm into Iran, and then they will do to us what we did to them in Afghanistan. Now that they know it was Robert Gates who suckered them into the briar patch and then financed and armed Al Qaeda to destroy the Soviet military, they will be keen to return the favour.

Fifth, Iran has been more reasonable and very effective at diplomacy in the region and in Asia and Europe lately. That and it has the best value-for-money military on the planet (about $91 per capita), having prepared for defensive operations ever since we instigated Saddam's invasion of Khuzestan (90 percent of Iran's oil reserves). The proxy war in Lebanon last year was meant to prove the model for massive attacks on civilian infrastructure to destabilise response, and then combined air superiority with limited ground occupation to hold Khuzestan. It failed there and will fail in Iran. We won't hold Khuzestan long enough or peacefully enough to get any oil out, no matter how many millions of cluster bombs we drop on the surrounding mountains.

If the USA attacks Iran it will not only be the end of US hegemony in the world, it will probably be the end of the US as free and wealthy nation. I would expect economic collapse, dictatorship and civil war within 10 years. With the Bushies thrown off their game plan of one party rule by rigged voting machines, a politicised Justice Department and crony courts, few Republicans have the stomach for the aggressive march toward dictatorship that an open grab for power requires. Most GOP officials are inclined to skulk in the darkness and start plotting again rather than press ahead with the full PNAC plan for global domination.

There's a rumour going around Washington that Cheney has been a client of the notorious DC Madam:

"Apparently, there are rumors coming out of Washington that Vice President Dick Cheney, when he was the CEO of Halliburton, used to go visit prostitutes. This could explain why one girl was paid two billion dollars. I mean, I was thinking about this and Cheney ... I mean, going to a prostitute, that's ... I mean, I can't believe a good-looking guy like that would ever have to pay for sex, you know what I'm saying?"

Wonkette explained why its staffers were "underwhelmed by this rumor."

"Because even if it’s a fact, which it probably is, there’s no way it would have any impact on Cheney’s 'career,'" Wonkette continued. "This is a draft-dodging half-human war criminal [whose ratings are in the toilet where they started from] with a pregnant lesbian daughter who tells senators to fuck themselves and shoots his own friends in the face. Ordering an outcall hooker is positively innocent compared to the well-known things Cheney does every day."

Again:

"The White House must either shut Cheney and his team down . . . or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President."

Gee, what would give them THAT idea?

Fortunately, while Bush doesn't control Cheney, Cheney doesn't control the Pentagon any more through his fellow Sith Lord, Donald Rumfeld.

If Gates is on board with the realist strategy -- and he practicaly defines the type -- then Cheney would appear to be checkmated. The Vice President's office has no constitutional authority whatsoever over any of the cabinet departments. Sure, he can continue to plot with the AEI and tie the NSC up in knots. But he can't start a war, not without the Dauphin's signature. And, with luck, Condi and company are in a position to keep that from happening.

The fatuous and sycophantic Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer chips into the debate with the following:

the Prime Minister of Australia's decision on American soil immediately after September 11th ... invoked our defense alliance with the United States in effect to declare war on the terrorists that had attacked our friend and our ally.

So we invaded Iraq? It was Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda that attacked America on 9/11, not Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It's hard to find the words to express enough contempt for policy and public statements that are such transparent lies and manipulations. It's a time of lying, and a time of crimes, open and in your face, grinding on and on until these people are finally called to account. Downer again:

We believe that purposeful, determined, committed American leadership is equally indispensable to the peace and prosperity of the entire world. For us in Australia, these judgments are clear. There is a moral clarity about them. We fundamentally believe that the United States is a force for good in the world.

The attack on Iraq was an unprovoked act of aggression ('the supreme crime of aggressive war') accompanied by 'state-sponsored lies reminiscent of the worst regimes of the 20th Century'. It has destroyed the country in an incredible way, killing 650,000 people (heading towards one million) and creating four million refugees. And this is called 'good'.

But imperialism aint what it used to be. Last time we invaded a Muslim middle east nation 8,000 Australians were killed in the space of a few months, when the population was much smaller than it is now. Howard and Downer know that the public wouldn't stand for anything like such casualties today. In fact, the 'troops' are protected from harm, suffering virtually nil casualties, and are nothing more than a photo opportunity and political prop for a Prime Minister and a Government that loves the idea of a 'war leader'. A war hero without the deaths and casualties - you have to admit the 'tricky' John 'W' Howard has got one over Bush and Blair here.

Will Cheney Attack Iran?

Howard: Are you listening?

No more excuses for climate lethargy: "THERE is a simple message for the Federal Government from the final report of the United Nations' expert panel on climate change: get with the program. We have the technology and the means to arrest climate change. We can save the planet and the economy. We will not bankrupt the world or the nation."

"From the head of News Corp to the head of Greenpeace, there is a realisation the world is about to embark on an energy revolution, and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is pointing the way forward.

"Yes, it comes at a price, but it is not as steep as the Howard Government has repeatedly forecast. Australia's heavy dependence on coal, its resource-based economy and its wasteful energy use will mean the cost it bears may be twice the world average, according to CSIRO estimates. But it is unlikely to hack into our economic growth, as the Government's modelling has claimed."

No more excuses for climate lethargy: "THERE is a simple message for the Federal Government from the final report of the United Nations' expert panel on climate change: get with the program. We have the technology and the means to arrest climate change. We can save the planet and the economy. We will not bankrupt the world or the nation."

"From the head of News Corp to the head of Greenpeace, there is a realisation the world is about to embark on an energy revolution, and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is pointing the way forward.

"Yes, it comes at a price, but it is not as steep as the Howard Government has repeatedly forecast. Australia's heavy dependence on coal, its resource-based economy and its wasteful energy use will mean the cost it bears may be twice the world average, according to CSIRO estimates. But it is unlikely to hack into our economic growth, as the Government's modelling has claimed."

Howard: Are you listening?

Howard's Betrayal

Given that David Hicks was a former kangaroo skinner, perhaps the Howard Government thinks it is a kind of poetic justice that he should be tried by a kangaroo court. As it happens, the kangaroos were pressing for nothing less than a two-digit sentence, but many observers argue that political intervention got Hicks out and home early enough to neutralise an increasingly embarrassing issue for the Howard Government. A twelve month gag has been placed on Hicks. What possible point is there to that apart from concern about the upcoming election later this year?

In previous testimony when he tried to obtain British citizenship in the hope that Blair would show more backbone than Howard (how humiliating for Howard - to be more spineless than the proven liar, conman and poodle Blair), Hicks alleged that he was badly tortured including beatings and sodomisation. Now as part of the plea deal he must not make any such allegations or sue for damages. How convenient. The whole process is a farce.

Howard has made a direct denial that political pressure produced this convenient result in the case, but how much credibility does he have? It could just be an example of barefaced lying on TV at the highest level. That's how its done, kids.

For the rest of the civilised world, Guantanamo bay is a disgrace and a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. It is disturbing how many people in parliament, the media and elsewhere are apparently entirely willing to accept or even embrace this. I am reminded that in the Weimar republic, nearly a full third of the German population freely voted for an outright fascist. The mentality of such voters is that we need a strong leader, fix the economy, get the trains to run on time, restore pride in the nation, eliminate enemies. At the best of times all too many people wouldnt know whether habeas corpus was Latin or Greek, and would agree 'terrorists' should be tortured or executed. It is therefore breathtaking folly and irresponsibility to encourage the latent authoritarian tendencies. Democracy and the rule of law, as ever, hang by a thread. All the more responsibility, therefore, that we all have to oppose encroaching authoritarianism and defend the rule of law.

Habeas corpus and trial by jury are the most basic protections against tyrannical government. In fact, tyranny could be defined as the ability of the state security apparatus to seize a person at will, to be detained, tortured or executed without appeal or accountability. And the purpose of such seizure, torture, detention and execution, of course, is not to obtain information, but to terrorise the population, thereby suppressing dissent or rebellion against the current regime.

The enemies of freedom are not Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but our own governments. Bin Laden simply has no capability to end freedom in Australia, the United States, or any country (with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia, assuming Bin Laden overthrew the Saudis and he was less free than the current regime). All Bin Laden can do is murder people, and he should be treated like the criminal and murderer that he is. But our own treacherous governments have every capacity to threaten freedom and have been proceeding forthwith.

Given that David Hicks was a former kangaroo skinner, perhaps the Howard Government thinks it is a kind of poetic justice that he should be tried by a kangaroo court. As it happens, the kangaroos were pressing for nothing less than a two-digit sentence, but many observers argue that political intervention got Hicks out and home early enough to neutralise an increasingly embarrassing issue for the Howard Government. A twelve month gag has been placed on Hicks. What possible point is there to that apart from concern about the upcoming election later this year?

In previous testimony when he tried to obtain British citizenship in the hope that Blair would show more backbone than Howard (how humiliating for Howard - to be more spineless than the proven liar, conman and poodle Blair), Hicks alleged that he was badly tortured including beatings and sodomisation. Now as part of the plea deal he must not make any such allegations or sue for damages. How convenient. The whole process is a farce.

Howard has made a direct denial that political pressure produced this convenient result in the case, but how much credibility does he have? It could just be an example of barefaced lying on TV at the highest level. That's how its done, kids.

For the rest of the civilised world, Guantanamo bay is a disgrace and a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. It is disturbing how many people in parliament, the media and elsewhere are apparently entirely willing to accept or even embrace this. I am reminded that in the Weimar republic, nearly a full third of the German population freely voted for an outright fascist. The mentality of such voters is that we need a strong leader, fix the economy, get the trains to run on time, restore pride in the nation, eliminate enemies. At the best of times all too many people wouldnt know whether habeas corpus was Latin or Greek, and would agree 'terrorists' should be tortured or executed. It is therefore breathtaking folly and irresponsibility to encourage the latent authoritarian tendencies. Democracy and the rule of law, as ever, hang by a thread. All the more responsibility, therefore, that we all have to oppose encroaching authoritarianism and defend the rule of law.

Habeas corpus and trial by jury are the most basic protections against tyrannical government. In fact, tyranny could be defined as the ability of the state security apparatus to seize a person at will, to be detained, tortured or executed without appeal or accountability. And the purpose of such seizure, torture, detention and execution, of course, is not to obtain information, but to terrorise the population, thereby suppressing dissent or rebellion against the current regime.

The enemies of freedom are not Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but our own governments. Bin Laden simply has no capability to end freedom in Australia, the United States, or any country (with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia, assuming Bin Laden overthrew the Saudis and he was less free than the current regime). All Bin Laden can do is murder people, and he should be treated like the criminal and murderer that he is. But our own treacherous governments have every capacity to threaten freedom and have been proceeding forthwith.

Howard's Betrayal

At last, first Howard Minister sacked

AdelaideNow... Burke affair sparks ministry reshuffle: Stepping into action after an inspirational meeting with the toughest lawman in the West, Wyoming's Deadeye Dick Cheney, PM John Howard opened up and.... gunned down one of his own ministers.

Yes that's right. Howard gunned down one of his own ministers. Good job, PM. Do you need some more ammo?

After years of the most tremendous scandals, including 'children overboard', refugees in prisons and concentration camps, children in prisons and concentration camps, Australian citizens in prisons and concentration camps, Iraq war, $300m bribe to Saddam Hussein etc the Opposition had been unable to get a single scalp. But thanks to the PM's deadly blast now they have.

I guess you have to take your scalps anyway you can.

I can see Howard's loyal followers and heirs apparent Abbott, Costello and Turnbull quietly taking a further step backward from the Prime Minister. You wouldn't want another accident now, would you? Or maybe it wasnt an accident, from the 'cleverest politician of his generation.'

And as for Kevin Rudd, I imagine that right now he is trying to arrange meetings with all of the biggest crooks, spivs and lowlifes in the country in an effort to stimulate the PM into further action. In the words of John 'Dubya' Howard's hero, the Great Dubya himself, Bring it On!

AdelaideNow... Burke affair sparks ministry reshuffle: Stepping into action after an inspirational meeting with the toughest lawman in the West, Wyoming's Deadeye Dick Cheney, PM John Howard opened up and.... gunned down one of his own ministers.

Yes that's right. Howard gunned down one of his own ministers. Good job, PM. Do you need some more ammo?

After years of the most tremendous scandals, including 'children overboard', refugees in prisons and concentration camps, children in prisons and concentration camps, Australian citizens in prisons and concentration camps, Iraq war, $300m bribe to Saddam Hussein etc the Opposition had been unable to get a single scalp. But thanks to the PM's deadly blast now they have.

I guess you have to take your scalps anyway you can.

I can see Howard's loyal followers and heirs apparent Abbott, Costello and Turnbull quietly taking a further step backward from the Prime Minister. You wouldn't want another accident now, would you? Or maybe it wasnt an accident, from the 'cleverest politician of his generation.'

And as for Kevin Rudd, I imagine that right now he is trying to arrange meetings with all of the biggest crooks, spivs and lowlifes in the country in an effort to stimulate the PM into further action. In the words of John 'Dubya' Howard's hero, the Great Dubya himself, Bring it On!

At last, first Howard Minister sacked

Iraq War Causes Massive Increase in Terrorism

So much for the phony 'war on terror'.... The graph says it all but you can read Larry Johnson's article also. "No reasonable person can possibly deny that our intervention in Iraq has been an enormous stimulus to terrorist activity worldwide. Efforts by John McCain and others [John Howard?] to discount the significance of that factor by pointing out that the attacks on 9/11 occurred before our overthrow of Saddam Hussein is as trivial and irrelevant as they are disingenuous."

So much for the phony 'war on terror'.... The graph says it all but you can read Larry Johnson's article also. "No reasonable person can possibly deny that our intervention in Iraq has been an enormous stimulus to terrorist activity worldwide. Efforts by John McCain and others [John Howard?] to discount the significance of that factor by pointing out that the attacks on 9/11 occurred before our overthrow of Saddam Hussein is as trivial and irrelevant as they are disingenuous."

Iraq War Causes Massive Increase in Terrorism

'War on Terror' failing

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat: "A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."

This can be added to a seemingly endless series of expert reports pointing out the obvious that (predictably) the 'war on terror' is generating more terrorism. In fact of course, the 'war on terror' is an utter fraud, which is why the term should not be used (except for the purpose of deconstructing it). The reality is a classic imperialist/colonialist war against the Middle East for the overall strategic purpose of controlling the world's energy reserves. At present Afghanistan and Iraq have been attacked and occupied; Lebanon has been attacked; and Syria and especially Iran are in the firing line.

The Anglo-saxons governments maintain that they are attacking us because they 'hate our freedoms'. In reality, they are attacking us because we are killing and repressing them. It is a classic asymmetric (guerilla) war of resistance against imperial repression and occupation. The Anglo-saxon official line is transparently false, and is nothing other than the Nazi technique of the Big Lie: if the lie is big enough, and told confidently and frequently enough, people will not believe that their own Governments could be so corrupt as to tell such massive lies, and thus assume that it must be true.

Nevertheless it is an insult to the intelligence as well as a warcrime and crime against humanity; and Bush, Blair and Howard have earned the lasting contempt of all decent people. Liars, criminals - and in view of the immense strategic failure of the Iraq invasion - idiots.

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat: "A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."

This can be added to a seemingly endless series of expert reports pointing out the obvious that (predictably) the 'war on terror' is generating more terrorism. In fact of course, the 'war on terror' is an utter fraud, which is why the term should not be used (except for the purpose of deconstructing it). The reality is a classic imperialist/colonialist war against the Middle East for the overall strategic purpose of controlling the world's energy reserves. At present Afghanistan and Iraq have been attacked and occupied; Lebanon has been attacked; and Syria and especially Iran are in the firing line.

The Anglo-saxons governments maintain that they are attacking us because they 'hate our freedoms'. In reality, they are attacking us because we are killing and repressing them. It is a classic asymmetric (guerilla) war of resistance against imperial repression and occupation. The Anglo-saxon official line is transparently false, and is nothing other than the Nazi technique of the Big Lie: if the lie is big enough, and told confidently and frequently enough, people will not believe that their own Governments could be so corrupt as to tell such massive lies, and thus assume that it must be true.

Nevertheless it is an insult to the intelligence as well as a warcrime and crime against humanity; and Bush, Blair and Howard have earned the lasting contempt of all decent people. Liars, criminals - and in view of the immense strategic failure of the Iraq invasion - idiots.

'War on Terror' failing

Ahmadinejad, Chavez denounce Bush at UN General Assembly

"The Security Council must be overhauled because the current structure allows some “hegemonic powers” to impose their policies on others, undermining its credibility and fostering global mistrust, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the United Nations General Assembly."

"“It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said in an address to world leaders gathered for the Assembly’s annual general debate. He accused the United States and the United Kingdom, which are both permanent members of the Council, of being able to commit “aggression, occupation and violation of international law” with impunity.

"“Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened?” he asked. The Iranian President cited several examples of what he said were situations where “nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.”

"He listed Iran’s nuclear activities, which he described as “transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors”; the recent conflict between the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and Hizbollah in Lebanon; the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory; and the continuing violence and presence of foreign troops in Iraq. “In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfil its responsibilities?”

"Mr. Ahmadinejad called for the General Assembly, “as the highest organ of the UN,” to lead the task of reforming the UN system as a whole and the Security Council in particular. In the interim, he said, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Africa should each have a permanent, veto-wielding representative on the Council. “The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.”"

Sensible remarks that undoubtedly most world leaders would agree with. There is nothing that Bush can do to counter this, the man is just an embarassment for the United States, and a danger to the world.

Venuzuelan President Hugo Chavez also addressed the Assembly in similar terms, remarkably enough brandishing a copy of Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival in the process, which promptly shot to number one (from 26,000!) on the Amazon.com bestseller lists.

"The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads," Chavez said.

"I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

"They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons. What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

"What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

"The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

"Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up."

This is open, public ridicule of an Emperor who has no clothes, in the heart of the Great City of the Empire itself. No wonder 'Bonkers' Bolton wanted to blow off the top ten stories of the UN building.

Chavez entertained the General Assembly by remarking as he took the stand that "The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house. "And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today.

"Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world."

You could tell Bush was offended by Chavez calling him the devil, because his tail stopped wagging. But seriously, when pressed for comment, "I won't dignitify Chavez with an response," President Bush fumed. "I'm very busy right now trying to unite Congress behind my torture plan." hat tip: Big Gav.

We've already seen how British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been found to have the Mark of the Beast on his forehead. Where does our own little Johnny Howard stand in relation to these epochal events? John W Howard he likes to style himself, the W standing it is said for Winston, as in Churchill. But when the laughter dies down, we must remember that W also stand for 'Dubya' - the Beast. Howard has the Mark, no question.

UPDATE: More from the article linked above: "Hegemony or Survival dislodged the earlier number one by New York Times columnist Frank Rich The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina. "I hate the guy. Forget about geopolitics," Mr Rich joked overnight speaking on US television, when asked about being bumped from the top book sales spot.

"Mr Chomsky, 77, told to the New York Times last week that he would be "happy to meet" Mr Chavez. A linguistics scholar and longtime critic of US foreign policy, he told the daily he is "quite interested" in Mr Chavez's policies and finds many of his views "quite constructive."

There are some good reviews of Hegemony or Survival on the Amazon site as well as the usual ignorant, hateful, deranged attacks that people make on Chomsky. I agree with the main reviewer that the book gets a star knocked off for being a bit of a rehash and also as compared to some of Chomsky's very best and most important works such as Manufacturing Consent, the work in question does not merit five stars - but as the reviewer rightly said "to suggest that Chomsky is ever anything less than four stars is to betray one's ignorance and bias." The book in question is a must read for anyone concerned about the future of the planet.

Chomsky seems to evoke emotional reactions in some readers (and non-readers). For people new to him I would urge that it is important his books be read carefully, in full, including the notes, and that the content of his argument be properly understood before formulating an opinion. It can be seen on the Amazon site that certain misrepresentations or misunderstandings about Chomsky are repeated over and over again by 'critics', but if you have any knowledge of the subject at all these errors are quite obvious and have been refuted by Chomsky and others time and again.

For example, its said that Chomsky 'hates America and supports tyranny'. No, he despises all tyranny, and loves the freedom and prosperity of America, but as a true patriot criticises his country where it has done wrong. Or, it is said that he is totally negative but has nothing constructive to propose. Again, for those with any knowledge of the matter, he is full of positive suggestions, which basically fall along the lines of the country living up to its professed beliefs in freedom, democracy and human rights and thus ending involvement in crimes, violations and abuses.

"The Security Council must be overhauled because the current structure allows some “hegemonic powers” to impose their policies on others, undermining its credibility and fostering global mistrust, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the United Nations General Assembly."

"“It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said in an address to world leaders gathered for the Assembly’s annual general debate. He accused the United States and the United Kingdom, which are both permanent members of the Council, of being able to commit “aggression, occupation and violation of international law” with impunity.

"“Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened?” he asked. The Iranian President cited several examples of what he said were situations where “nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.”

"He listed Iran’s nuclear activities, which he described as “transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors”; the recent conflict between the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and Hizbollah in Lebanon; the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory; and the continuing violence and presence of foreign troops in Iraq. “In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfil its responsibilities?”

"Mr. Ahmadinejad called for the General Assembly, “as the highest organ of the UN,” to lead the task of reforming the UN system as a whole and the Security Council in particular. In the interim, he said, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Africa should each have a permanent, veto-wielding representative on the Council. “The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.”"

Sensible remarks that undoubtedly most world leaders would agree with. There is nothing that Bush can do to counter this, the man is just an embarassment for the United States, and a danger to the world.

Venuzuelan President Hugo Chavez also addressed the Assembly in similar terms, remarkably enough brandishing a copy of Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival in the process, which promptly shot to number one (from 26,000!) on the Amazon.com bestseller lists.

"The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads," Chavez said.

"I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

"They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons. What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

"What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

"The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

"Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up."

This is open, public ridicule of an Emperor who has no clothes, in the heart of the Great City of the Empire itself. No wonder 'Bonkers' Bolton wanted to blow off the top ten stories of the UN building.

Chavez entertained the General Assembly by remarking as he took the stand that "The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house. "And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today.

"Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world."

You could tell Bush was offended by Chavez calling him the devil, because his tail stopped wagging. But seriously, when pressed for comment, "I won't dignitify Chavez with an response," President Bush fumed. "I'm very busy right now trying to unite Congress behind my torture plan." hat tip: Big Gav.

We've already seen how British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been found to have the Mark of the Beast on his forehead. Where does our own little Johnny Howard stand in relation to these epochal events? John W Howard he likes to style himself, the W standing it is said for Winston, as in Churchill. But when the laughter dies down, we must remember that W also stand for 'Dubya' - the Beast. Howard has the Mark, no question.

UPDATE: More from the article linked above: "Hegemony or Survival dislodged the earlier number one by New York Times columnist Frank Rich The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina. "I hate the guy. Forget about geopolitics," Mr Rich joked overnight speaking on US television, when asked about being bumped from the top book sales spot.

"Mr Chomsky, 77, told to the New York Times last week that he would be "happy to meet" Mr Chavez. A linguistics scholar and longtime critic of US foreign policy, he told the daily he is "quite interested" in Mr Chavez's policies and finds many of his views "quite constructive."

There are some good reviews of Hegemony or Survival on the Amazon site as well as the usual ignorant, hateful, deranged attacks that people make on Chomsky. I agree with the main reviewer that the book gets a star knocked off for being a bit of a rehash and also as compared to some of Chomsky's very best and most important works such as Manufacturing Consent, the work in question does not merit five stars - but as the reviewer rightly said "to suggest that Chomsky is ever anything less than four stars is to betray one's ignorance and bias." The book in question is a must read for anyone concerned about the future of the planet.

Chomsky seems to evoke emotional reactions in some readers (and non-readers). For people new to him I would urge that it is important his books be read carefully, in full, including the notes, and that the content of his argument be properly understood before formulating an opinion. It can be seen on the Amazon site that certain misrepresentations or misunderstandings about Chomsky are repeated over and over again by 'critics', but if you have any knowledge of the subject at all these errors are quite obvious and have been refuted by Chomsky and others time and again.

For example, its said that Chomsky 'hates America and supports tyranny'. No, he despises all tyranny, and loves the freedom and prosperity of America, but as a true patriot criticises his country where it has done wrong. Or, it is said that he is totally negative but has nothing constructive to propose. Again, for those with any knowledge of the matter, he is full of positive suggestions, which basically fall along the lines of the country living up to its professed beliefs in freedom, democracy and human rights and thus ending involvement in crimes, violations and abuses.

Ahmadinejad, Chavez denounce Bush at UN General Assembly

The Great Equalizer: Lessons From Iraq and Lebanon: Gabriel Kolko reflects on the consequences of easily and cheaply available missiles and nuclear weapons. Its a changed world.

"American experts believe that the Iranians compelled [Hezbollah] to keep in reserve the far more powerful and longer range cruise missiles they already possess. Iran itself possesses large quantities of these missiles and American experts believe they may very well be capable of destroying aircraft carrier battle groups. All attempts to devise defenses against these rockets, even the most primitive, have been expensive failures, and anti-missile technology everywhere has remained, after decades of effort and billions of dollars, unreliable."

"The U.S. war in Iraq is a political disaster against the guerrillas -- a half trillion dollars spent there and in Afghanistan have left America on the verge of defeat in both places. The "shock and awe" military strategy has utterly failed save to produce contracts for weapons makers -- indeed, it has also contributed heavily to de facto U.S. economic bankruptcy.

"The Bush Administration has deeply alienated more of America's nominal allies than any government in modern times. The Iraq war and subsequent conflict in Lebanon have left its Middle East policy in shambles and made Iranian strategic predominance even more likely, all of which was predicted before the Iraq invasion. Its coalitions, as Thomas Ricks shows in his wordy but utterly convincing and critical book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, are finished. Its sublime confidence and reliance on the power of its awesome weaponry is a crucial cause of its failure, although we cannot minimize its preemptory hubris and nationalist myopia. The United States, whose costliest political and military adventures since 1950 have ended in failure, now must face the fact that the technology for confronting its power is rapidly becoming widespread and cheap. It is within the reach of not merely states but of relatively small groups of people. Destructive power is now virtually "democratized.""

Perhaps Mr Howard might be asked to comment on the contention that the 'coalition with the US' is finished, and why that is so? Or if is is not finished, does it go all the way to Iran?

The Great Equalizer: Lessons From Iraq and Lebanon: Gabriel Kolko reflects on the consequences of easily and cheaply available missiles and nuclear weapons. Its a changed world.

"American experts believe that the Iranians compelled [Hezbollah] to keep in reserve the far more powerful and longer range cruise missiles they already possess. Iran itself possesses large quantities of these missiles and American experts believe they may very well be capable of destroying aircraft carrier battle groups. All attempts to devise defenses against these rockets, even the most primitive, have been expensive failures, and anti-missile technology everywhere has remained, after decades of effort and billions of dollars, unreliable."

"The U.S. war in Iraq is a political disaster against the guerrillas -- a half trillion dollars spent there and in Afghanistan have left America on the verge of defeat in both places. The "shock and awe" military strategy has utterly failed save to produce contracts for weapons makers -- indeed, it has also contributed heavily to de facto U.S. economic bankruptcy.

"The Bush Administration has deeply alienated more of America's nominal allies than any government in modern times. The Iraq war and subsequent conflict in Lebanon have left its Middle East policy in shambles and made Iranian strategic predominance even more likely, all of which was predicted before the Iraq invasion. Its coalitions, as Thomas Ricks shows in his wordy but utterly convincing and critical book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, are finished. Its sublime confidence and reliance on the power of its awesome weaponry is a crucial cause of its failure, although we cannot minimize its preemptory hubris and nationalist myopia. The United States, whose costliest political and military adventures since 1950 have ended in failure, now must face the fact that the technology for confronting its power is rapidly becoming widespread and cheap. It is within the reach of not merely states but of relatively small groups of people. Destructive power is now virtually "democratized.""

Perhaps Mr Howard might be asked to comment on the contention that the 'coalition with the US' is finished, and why that is so? Or if is is not finished, does it go all the way to Iran?

Poll: Iraqi attitudes to US: "The percentage of Iraqis who said they would not want to have Americans as neighbors rose from 87 percent in 2004 to 90 percent in 2006. When asked what they thought were the three main reasons why the United States invaded Iraq, 76 percent gave 'to control Iraqi oil' as their first choice."

No, that could not be, surely? The US is in Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction, or get Saddam for 9/11, or build democracy, isnt it? That is what our leaders told us. Pm Howard told us the weapons were the 'single reason' for the war. Resign, Prime Minister. Your position is totally discredited. The war is a disaster.

Every day he remains in office now the Prime Minister has to live a lie: Iraq was attacked because of the weapons, oil had nothing to do with it, what we have done is moral and legal, terrorist attacks are because they 'hate our freedoms' not because of our wars and occupations of their lands.

"In 2004, 27 percent of the 2,325 Iraqi adults surveyed strongly agreed that Iraq would be a better place if religion and politics were separated. In 2006, 41 percent of 2,701 adults surveyed strongly agreed."

Poll: Iraqi attitudes to US: "The percentage of Iraqis who said they would not want to have Americans as neighbors rose from 87 percent in 2004 to 90 percent in 2006. When asked what they thought were the three main reasons why the United States invaded Iraq, 76 percent gave 'to control Iraqi oil' as their first choice."

No, that could not be, surely? The US is in Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction, or get Saddam for 9/11, or build democracy, isnt it? That is what our leaders told us. Pm Howard told us the weapons were the 'single reason' for the war. Resign, Prime Minister. Your position is totally discredited. The war is a disaster.

Every day he remains in office now the Prime Minister has to live a lie: Iraq was attacked because of the weapons, oil had nothing to do with it, what we have done is moral and legal, terrorist attacks are because they 'hate our freedoms' not because of our wars and occupations of their lands.

"In 2004, 27 percent of the 2,325 Iraqi adults surveyed strongly agreed that Iraq would be a better place if religion and politics were separated. In 2006, 41 percent of 2,701 adults surveyed strongly agreed."