"I don’t bother to engage much with her specific arguments, because I don’t respect them enough. However, many others like David G, Arjay, James O’Neill, Geoff of Perth and Rhrosty are prepared to do so, and in an informed manner."

Excellent joke, very tongue in cheek, what with the variations of "lickspittle" that can be directed to the US and anyone who remotely supports the US that have been used by the memebers of the above list of considered commentators.

Anyway, none of them know what they are talking about, at least in respect of Iran and nuclear:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/tehran-ramping-up-nuclear-efforts-un-says/story-fnb64oi6-1226461947859

I agree with the general view that nuclear weapons are a blight but if push comes to shove, then in a choice between an Iran which wants to create planet Islam, and the US I know which nation I want to have the things and which nation I do not want to have them, under any circumstances.

Well yes, cohenite,

It's not as if the US is a warmonger or anything.

What I want to know, and which so far as remained unreported, is whether the Australian delegates to NAM carried out their promise to walk out if there was any anti-Israeli rhetoric - which there was.

http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/61294

and

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=283276

If not, why not?

If they can waste money on salary and expenses on a politician clearly not worth feeding, why on earth not diplomats in Iran, an international flashpoint.
What does Bishop think will really be going on there?

Hi Killarney. I noted your comment "Compared to the grotesque levels of misogynist abuse thrown at the much better informed feminist-oriented writers on the OLO gender threads, I believe the critics of Ms Bishop here are paragons of restraint"

Care to give me some examples? I'd also be interested to know why you didn't complain about them before so I could at least make a decision as to whether they should be moderated or not. If they are truly "grotesque" and "abuse" then there is no doubt they ought to be moderated.

Graham
Julie Bishop has form for not writing her own stuff. And she has staff who are expected to do that sort of leg work for her - as do other politicians. I'm not saying she doesn't agree with what is published in her name, but neither of us knows exactly who writes it. Most of what is published by politicians should probably be described as 'from the office of....'.