Sniggid: I think your claim that the left dominates the pages is a bit over the top - but I guess yours and mine are only opinions after all.

If the posts on religion for example are any measure of left and right - and those posts out weigh the next nearest topic (environment) based on post numbers by a factor of 3:1 - the right dominates.

And again I am befuddled about accusations of the "left" not showing others respect on this site - Quite a grand generalisation; how is this respect demonstrated I would like to know - like not referring to their contributions as "bleating" perhaps? - I would not know

You are right Austrlains dont care too much about the AWB fiasco - and that fact speaks volumes.

It's rather a paradox dont you think that a demonstrably conservative community like ours likes nothing better than a bit of a Law and Order campaign turns a deaf ear to sound of wheat funded missiles screeching over the head of our brave boys and girls in the trenches - now there's an act of criminality if ever I heard one.

Sniggid, when you say, "It is a shame that this site is dominated by left wing people who treat anyone who does not agree with them as if he or she was a fool" and then conclude that these bleaters should "display some respect to people who have a different view of the world to you", you
(a) simply demonstrate that the left wingers are telling the truth in your case and
(b) provide a classic example of right wing hypocrisy.

Well said FrankGol. The pendulum will eventually swing back as it always does. I just hope that when it does the left can be a little more gracious than the right tend to be at the moment.

Surely the Prime Minister will enforce some degree of responsibility on his Federal Cabinet, or is he as much to blame in the whole sordid AWB scandal?
It seems this Government has operated on the "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink" principle. Discussions between the Federal Government and the AWB directors may even have included the lines: "If you don't tell us, we'll never know," or even "Know whatahmean, say no more, say no more."
The most likely scenario is that the AWB was told to ensure that wheat sales to Iraq went ahead, regardless. Technically not criminal, but taking into consideration the loss of lives in Iraq on all sides, absolutely scandalous.

The point is that there is a culture in DFAT and in the Australian Government that allowed an Australian national company, under its very noses, to pay large sums of money to the Saddam regime in breach of UN Resolution 661 and in breach of the Australian customs regulations. If you had a firm government policy on a position, then this would never have happened. If the Australian Government policy is no cash to Saddam, then the policy is no cash to Saddam! Why wasn't this policy known by DFAT? If it was known, why wasn't it implemented? What I am saying is that if Australia had a clear policy on this issue (which it clearly didn't), then the money would never have been paid. Why was the policy position of selling wheat stronger than the policy of stopping Saddam getting hard cash to buy weapons? It just shows that the Howard Government was never serious when it put the case of going to war against that regime. If it WAS serious, it would have enforced the sanctions.

Some posters suggest that voters are dumb because they don't care that they have been lied to. They don't care, because they EXPECT politicians to lie. The Cole inquiry merely reinforces the prejudices they already hold. We need ministerial accountability and "nobody told me" should not be an adequate defence. Until that time, the public can't expect better.