Vignettes
March 2004
Page one of four (Courtesy: Geoff Pryor, Canberra Times) |
Hamer's Integrity; Howard's Iniquity A week after the death [of former Victorian Liberal Premier, Dick Hamer] Petro Georgiou was still the only federal MP to speak for him in the national Parliament.
He said, in part: "It is a tribute to him he is held in the highest regard by political allies and opponents alike. In the context of his generation he was quintessentially Australian. He undertook three tours of duty in World War II, including as a Rat of Tobruk and at El Alamein. After politics, he supported the Victorian State Opera, Save the Children, Greenhouse Australia and a more compassionate approach to refugees. A life well lived is a life worthwhile. Sir Rupert's life was well lived and he made this state in which we live more worthwhile."
No wonder our Prime Minister never warmed to him.
Alan Ramsey: And so farewell to a true liberal, a man not of the PM's ilk |
Georgie & Johnny, Falling From A Tree,
No More K-I-S-S-I-N-G Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin said, "This isn't America; the Government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack."
So even in Israel, George Bush's America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power. And the Administration's reaction to Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies provides more evidence of something rotten in the state of our government.
Paul Krugman: Deception is the game in Bush's US |
Downer : Five "Cut and Runs" in 38 seconds "We are in Iraq until the job is done. You see, we're not going to cut and run before we've done the job. It's as simple as that. We're not going to cut and run and leave our diplomats exposed there and therefore close our embassy. We're not going to cut and run and leave the new Iraqi army without the training that it deserves in order to provide security for the country.
"But there's another issue...but we are not going to cut and run from the other 34 countries that form the stabilisation force. If we were to do that, if we were to cut and run from the other countries, I think that would do Australia immense damage in the international community."
Wonder what that other issue was. Listen further to Downer stamping his high heels over the simply awful chaos striking "at the very heart of Mr Latham's integrity." Oh, and his is so smartly intact!
The World Today (Real Audio): Australians show popular support for Iraq troops to stay on |
Tragedy Strikes Lilliput Isn't it ironic that John Howard will comment to save one swimmer, Ian Thorpe, but was silent on hundreds who were at risk of drowning by being towed further out to sea. Maybe he should be running the AIS and not the country.
R. McGilton: Letter to The Age
Saturday's extremely unfortunate incident that resulted in Ian Thorpe's disqualification was just that. But, in the words of John Howard, "a tragedy" for the country (The Age, 29/3)? No.
The tragedy for Australia that we currently live with is that we have a Prime Minister and other ministers who tell us lies about reasons for going to war and refusing humanitarian treatment for refugees. And possibly even more of a tragedy is that so many of us appear to believe them.
Sincere best wishes to Thorpe in his other events - and in this one, should the decision be amazingly overruled. But let us keep a true perspective on life.
Patsy Crotty,: Letter to The Age |
The Caring Terrorist Will the tough new terror laws (29/3) allow police to detain Mick Keelty (described as an al-Qa'ida propagandist by Alexander Downer) and Mark Latham (an al-Qa'ida ally according to the Government) as terror suspects?
Martin Cobb: Letter to The Australian
Why does John Howard suddenly care about the welfare of the Iraqi people? He didn't care about them last year when the Coalition of the Willing was dropping bombs on them
Kirsty Chugg: Letter to The Age |
Never A Dull Moment With
Australia's Jumping Bean Of Wedge Politics John Howard came up with a terrific ploy yesterday to help educate Latham. The Prime Minister told question time he'd been preparing a motion on Iraq to be debated in the parliament today. As you can imagine, the PM's topic eschews party politics and populism. Just an entirely non-political expression of support, confidence and "deep appreciation" to the 850 troops stationed in Iraq and the Gulf.
Why a message of support, confidence and appreciation is deemed necessary remains a mystery. Beyond vigorous debate about troop withdrawal, there's been not a hint of criticism or disapproval of the nation's defence personnel. Doubtless Howard will explain this when introducing today's non-political motion.
Matt Price: From pool toppling to Santa's visit |
Little Digger Got Trumped Come July, an indigenous governing council in Iraq will take power, and the role and responsibilities of the occupying forces will change. A staged pull-out of military personnel will be possible. This is an election year in Australia and the pictures of Australian troops and advisers returning home, welcomed by tearful loved ones and the Prime Minister, perhaps only weeks before voters go to the polls, would be irresistible. You can back this in: John Howard would be unlikely to resist them as an electioneering tool.
If you are looking for reasons for the foaming overreaction by the Federal Government to Labor leader Mark Latham's desire to get most of Australia's 850-strong Iraq contingent back by Christmas, that's not a bad place to start. By beating Howard to the punch, Latham fouled up those picture opportunities and the capacity of the Prime Minister to portray the foray into Iraq, mid-election-campaign, as a job well done.
Anything the Government does not like anyone else saying now is characterised as "a win for the terrorists".
Rather than trying to get back some control of the situation, the Prime Minister seems to be enveloping himself deeper in Washington's embrace. So attached are the Howard and Bush governments that Howard can now count on US ambassador Tom Schieffer to regularly act as his advocate in domestic political debates - an extraordinary situation probably unparalleled anywhere else in the world.
Shaun Carney: Was Latham's mistake that bad? |
Howard The Professional Politician
Is An Amateur Human Being The risk Iraq represented to Australia was more than remote. It was nonexistent.
For god's sake, it's hard to conceive how it existed for the US. As Clarke told Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy Rich Armitage: "I thought I was missing something here. Having been attacked by al-Qa'ida, for us now to go bombing in Iraq in response would be like invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."
Everyone outside Washington understood this very well. The al-Qa'ida-Iraq argument was never accepted by anyone who could walk and chew gum at the same time. Hence the growing reliance on the WMD excuse.
If we were serious about nation-building, we would have gone in far more enthusiastically. As one of the occupying powers, we'd have done more than provide the most token of token presences.
It has all been politics for the PM. Bad politics. The worst sort of politics imaginable. Our involvement in Iraq eclipses the absurdity of our involvement in Vietnam.
Phillip Adams: Baghdad's no place for our boys |
The Mafia: Privatisation's Paragon Mounting piles of leaking and stinking rubbish in the Naples area are to be sent to Germany to avert an environmental and public health catastrophe.
Officials blame the Camorra, the local mafia, which largely controls the waste disposal system.
The magistrate leading an investigation into the scandal, Donato Ceglie, has accused officials of ignoring the fact firms linked to the Camorra have for years dumped rubbish, including toxic waste, in illegal tips, which are now overflowing.
Protesters blocked the Rome-Naples rail line for 48 hours last week in a bid to force authorities to take action before Easter and warmer weather. Mr Ceglie said the core problem remained the Camorra, which dumped rubbish in ravines, rivers, farmland and the sea and forged certificates to classify toxic waste as household rubbish.
The environmental pressure group Legambiente said the Camorra profited by 2.5billion euros a year, but society as a whole paid an even higher price. A law with penalties of up to eight years' jail for "trafficking in toxic waste" had had little effect.
From an article by Richard Owen: published in The Australian, 30 March 2004 |
Hold Your Mud, Mark Students of statecraft learn that prudence in international affairs is a virtue. Political leaders who act impulsively or rely on the triumph of hope over experience do not get far in the world. They overreach themselves and their enterprise unravels.
Napoleon's and Hitler's invasions of Russia are examples. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour is another. Iraq is in the same category.
John Howard stretched our imagination to the limit by making unsubstantiated claims about Iraq as a threat to Australia. He is now intent on showing his opponents to be anti-American. This is pettifoggery, not statesmanship.
Bruce Grant: Getting out of Iraq should be only a start |
Insatiable Labor would carefully consider a federal government plan to strengthen anti-terrorism laws, opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd said.
Prime Minister John Howard on Sunday announced Cabinet had approved a raft of changes to anti-terrorism laws, including allowing people suspected of terrorism offences to be questioned for up to 24 hours.
The laws also would make it an offence to train with banned terrorist organisations and groups such as the Taliban.
They would permit the prosecution of people who join groups which are not currently banned but could be proved to be terrorist organisations.
It also would become unlawful for a person to make money from selling books or memoirs about their experiences training with a terrorist group.
The Age: Labor to consider anti-terror bills |
Spinning Appeasement John Howard took this country to war in Iraq. He deserves a Doctorate in Spin if he convinces the electorate that it is Mark Latham who has turned the attention of terrorists towards Australia.
Anna O'Connor, Letter to The Australian
Oh dear. Appeasement, Chamberlain, Churchill and Curtin still keep popping up in connection with the invasion of Iraq. When will these letter writers twig that we are now the aggressors? Appeasement of George W. Bush is the paramount danger and it is high time we got back on the path of legality and decency.
Max Whisson: Letter to The Australian |
Despair As Latham Clarifies Strewth! That was quick! On Tuesday the Leader of the Opposition goes all bolshie and presumes to act as though this nation is not a sycophantic carbuncle on Uncle Sam's bottom and by Friday he is apologetic and recanting. And to think that we very nearly had a choice for the next prime minister between an agent of American imperialism and a leader who puts his own nation's interests first. Phew! Thank goodness it never came down to that.
Mark Latham may be a slow learner, but he must have got the message this week that it is wickedly presumptuous of any aspiring prime minister to speak as though our foreign, military and economic policy is not made in Washington.
Terry Lane: How Latham was Yanked back into line
What Latham Really Said Bring the troops home by Christmas. That cry resonates in every war, and now we are hearing it in this one. For the record, here is exactly what Mark Latham told me when I first raised the idea with him on radio on Tuesday
Mike Carlton: A question of timing
Has Latham Stuck A Wedgie Up the Wedger? Labor's Kevin Rudd looked at some of the excited newspaper headlines yesterday morning and said: "What crap!" He spoke to Mark Latham by phone. They agreed on the hysteria. Latham spoke to Laurie Brereton, too. Brereton, a Latham confidant, was unfazed by the Government's furious stoking of the story. Latham expected as much. John Howard needs an issue and thinks he's found one. It's keeping our troops in Iraq. Latham thinks he has one, too. It's bringing them home. Wonderful, isn't it? "Labor split," shrieked the Murdoch daily, The Australian. Most papers made a meal of the story but nobody else went that far. Despite some creative reporting the only people who have split are Howard and Latham.
Alan Ramsey: Handful of troops caught in crossfire
Aussies Fed Up Being Surrogate Yanks Howard a man of steel? A man of jelly, more likely, with his knee-jerk "yes, sir" to a president who forgot he was supposed to represent the American people, not his big business oil and armaments mates. That's the line Latham is beginning to run and if Australians feel forced to agree, they'll want Howard and his compliant MPs out big- time. It would be too late for a leadership challenge, so Howard would need to plead illness or whatever and step down.
Margo Kingston: End looks close for Howard, yes siree |
(Courtesy: Geoff Pryor, Canberra Times) |
Who's On First? How is it that having troops in Iraq doesn't make Australia a terrorist target -- but bringing them home does?
Greg Gilbert, Letter to The Age |
Right Wing's Terrorist Attack Against Democracy So sending our troops into Iraq did not increase our chance of a terrorist attack, but taking our troops out of Iraq will. Or have I taken this out of context?
Doug Steley, Letter to The Australian
Just last week the Government insisted that the presence of our troops in Iraq had not increased the likelihood of a terrorist act in Australia. Based on that logic, why should Mark Latham's proposal to bring our troops home be seen as a victory for the terrorists? If the terrorists do not take exception to the presence of our troops in Iraq, why would they care if they leave?
Nicholas Aberle, Letter to The Age
I trust the Australian ambassador in Washington hasn't the same temerity as Mr Schieffer, intruding into American politics and lecturing opposition Democrats - Senator John Kerry, for instance - on the failings of their foreign policy.
Peter Barnett, Letter to The Age
Since the tragic explosions that rocked Madrid there is an alarming voice coming from many commentators and governments that the election of a new government with a differing stance on foreign policy "sends the wrong message" and would be seen as some sort of justification for terrorists around the world. This is a dangerous chorus attacking the democratic processes that Western leaders appear to cherish so much.
Why is the Socialists' change in foreign policy in Spain an admission that the terrorists have won a battle - but the unlawful imprisonment of foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay is not regarded as a "win" for the terrorists?
What about the removal of a range of civil liberties here and in the US? Surely these actions have altered our society and are directly related to terrorist attacks?
At least the Spanish people were empowered by the electoral process to support or reject government and opposition policies. All the legislation amended or created by the US and Australia has occurred mid-term and has not been subject to the voters' scrutiny.
Mark Latham, too, has found over the past couple of days that in wanting our troops home from Iraq before Christmas, he is apparently giving terrorists great comfort.
But why should pulling Australian troops out of Iraq be seen as anything other than a military decision reflecting the current mood here and in Iraq?
Iraq and terrorism is a tenuous link created by US and Howard Government spin doctors; for Latham to challenge this assertion is purely Opposition policy and should be supported for being such.
The approaching elections in the Australia and the US will determine the worth of these policies as seen by the voters - and like it or not, it is their opinions that matter. We can damn John Howard and George Bush, the Spanish Socialists or Latham as much as we like, but their political future and the future of their policies will be determined by the vote - just the way they should be.
Justin Hanrahan, Letter to The Age |
|
