So, the arguments for the Iraq war seem to be: (a) Hussein was a nasty man; (b) we need oil. What bearing this has on the undisputable fact that Bush & co lied through their teeth to get us into the war, or on the undisputable fact that Bush & co. have created an horrific mess of things, I fail to see.

Iraq is a failure.

Admission to this failure has to be the first step if any solution is ever to be found.

Bush and Co remind me of gambling addicts. Put $100 in a machine, lose it so put another $100 in try to recover loss. Lose again so throw in another hundred....until one day maybe you get the jackpot.

We need some laws in this country that holds a higher level of accountability from our leaders during war time.

Once again an excellent and succinct article but when is Gary going to start writing in the mainstream press again? And why has he cancelled both private numbers so I cannot bend his ear to do so? I know someone running a security firm in Iraq and two and a half year ago he was adamant that Iraq would soon be in a state of civil war. If he could get it right then so why could not our so called intelligence agencies. Two points Gary missed about Indyk is that he is a Jew, which gives on this occasion greater credibility to his analysis and two he lost his security clearance while in Israel, the only American Ambassador to do so.

while the middle east reality is depressing, the 'discussions' are even worse. this is an illustration of the fundamental law of political science: "you get the government you deserve".

the remaining supporters of the war are foaming rabid nongs, while the attackers are angry at bush/blair/howard/anyorall, as though national leaders are supposed to be saints and these three are somehow atypical.

not so, never true, and feeling betrayed merely makes you a different variety of nong. human history is largely the result of leaving national policy in the hands of one or a few arrogant old men. the ordinary people who suffer from these decisions, particularly in war, are pitiable, but- if you let john howard join this mad war without convincing the nation of it's necessity, either you are political cattle or equally guilty.

the fact is, australia is no democracy, and ozzies are not citizen quality people. they are content to be ruled by a group of people who would fail the entrance exam of the property developer's guild, on character deficiencies. ozzies are political cattle, and consequently, are ruled by political hyenas.

so get over the outrage at the current military adventure- you don't deserve any better.

Yes, Demos - all true but that doesn't prevent those of us who voted against Howard's regime, and protested in the streets prior to this unwinnable and immoral war, from saying "we told you so".

Admittedly that doesn't help the warmongers or their Iraqi victims very much, but it might just ensure that the Howards, Bushes and Blairs of the so-called democratic world are deservedly booted out at the next electoral opportunity.

Let's play the game of guilt by association, as we are so fond of doing with Hicks. Note the article in The Age first:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/shoebomb-ally-may-be-witness/2007/02/24/1171734073832.html

- in which Hicks' supposed association with Richard Reed may be used as evidence against him. Richard Reed, unlike Hicks, has succumbed to the sly-boy's techniques, and graduated with honours from the Confessions-R-Us Academy. Does anyone believe this stuff anymore?

Now let's turn the tables:

Prime Minister John Howard was staying at the Washington Ritz-Carlton both on the eve of, and during the events of 9-11. Also present were Shafiq bin Laden, Daddy Bush, Frank Carlucci, perhaps John Major, and other important players in the Carlyle Group. The Carlyle Group made a fortune out of the subsequent armanents picnic known as "the war on terror".

Question 1. Is it true that on the 10th September 2001, Mr Howard's plane travel was cancelled for the following day?

Question 2. To whom or what does Mr Howard owe his good fortune on that day?

Question 3. Did Mr Howard meet any members of the Carlyle Group during his stay at the Ritz-Carlton?

Question 4. What exactly is the relationship between Mr Howard and John Major? They are frequently seen sitting side-by-side at Lords during the test cricket. Do they only talk about cricket? Does John Major talk about his work at the Carlyle Group?

Question 5. Has Mr Howard been "sounded out" for membership of the Carlyle Group?

*

So you see, we can play "guilt by association" all day long. When it involves David Hicks, that's a headline in the papers. But when it involves the War-For-Profit gang, we call that "conspiracy theory".


*