Grovelled to Jakarta! Howard must have ripped whole chapters out of the Hawke/Keating playbook. It was Paul Keating who called Soeharto ‘father’. Gary must also remember that Mr Hawke and Mr Keating had to have their names emblazoned on the souls of their shoes because they were so far up Soeharto’s anus we had no other way of identifying them.

Yeah...you're right.... Howard should ignore the international and Australian intelligence community when it tells him there is something dangerous that needs to be dealt with.

What a great idea.....

Brilliant....

Of course, then if something bad happens, the author can bash Howard for ignoring the expert advice.

Heads you win, tails I lose.

Damn John Howard for not being omniscient!

"Howard should ignore the international and Australian intelligence community when it tells him there is something dangerous that needs to be dealt with."

What incredible revisionism. Contrary to what is claimed here, it was only the politicised intelligence of the Cheney-Feith kabal running the Office of Special Plans which added an imprimatur to the threats alleged by Bush and Howard. The threat didn't consist of decaying and largely inert stockpiles from the 80s either, (which there was consensus about), but rather the hundreds of tonnes of chemical weapons, mobile labs, aluminium tubes for centrifuge, and acquisition of uranium from Niger. Those were the specific allegations made before the Security Council and the world at large, to claim a Casus Belli to invade. Those were the capabilities against which Rice and Cheney hysterically claimed we could not afford to wait for the "mushroom cloud" smoking gun.

But none of those claims had consensus in the intelligence community. Indeed, the whole reason the OSP was invented to filter intelligence is because of the severe misgivings so many officers had about the basis for the war in the CIA...

To turn around now and say that the specific WMD used as the basis for the invasion had unequivocal support in the intelligence community is the therefore complete nonsense.

The pulverisation of Iraq. One million souls "shock and awed". Two million are refugees. The awful contamination of depleted uranium ordnance. The theft of Iraq's oil revenues by the CPA and chums. The ongoing theft of Iraq's still unmetered oil. The deliberate fomenting, arming and juxtaposing of rival insurgencies. The looting of the US Treasury. The Rovian theft of two US elections. The shredding of the US Constitution. A main course of Afghan heroin, with a side-salad of state-sponsored torture.

And on, and on -

Yes indeed My Government - don't get in their way. They are the new rulers of the world. You have to go along to get along.

No jet fuel fire ever melted a stick of the Trade Towers, but it withered your obsequious backbones. It was also YOU who collapsed in free-fall on 9-11. Grovelling, lying, servile - demolished. Spinning your own country, in order to yield to the myth that Bush and Cheney are of sound mind.

Deputy Sheriffs in the Great War on Truth, I salute you!

- and never use that word "intelligence" in polite company again. It's been forever corrupted.

Ah, SEDITION. Drink some today. It's a tonic.

An excellent article Gary.

You provide praise where its warranted. Hopefully Labor will genuinely extract Australia from Howard’s Iraq mess.

Note that the Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) that you refer to as being “US-designed” were actually designed in Spain – being of the Álvaro de Bazán class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_de_Baz%C3%A1n_class_frigate. But I agree that their key trait – the Aegis combat system – is US designed.

BBOY - my Australian and American contacts in the area you refer agree that the intelligence push on Iraq was used to justify oil and other strategic objectives of Rumsfeld and Cheney. These objectives were developed long before 9/11 and terrorism were highlighted – and long before President Bush could point to the Middle East on a map.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

It seems that Rudd is being condemned for not favouring Bush like a bosom friend, as Howard has gone close to making a fool of himself over. In fact, going by global opinion at the time regarding the unlawful attack on Iraq, and right now an action becoming even more unpopular, Howard and Blair backing Bush is proving not only even more irrational, but Rudd’s recent comments about the Iraqi campaign having proven another Vietnam, has proven very rational with most academic historians.

Furthermore, while Rudd has been condemned after Apec for keeping shy of joining in discussions with world leaders about global warming and such, the fact that he was not there as a world leader, his role there should have been only one of guided politeness, using his fluency of Mandarin as part of it, and not as some suggest as a show-off.

It could be said that Rudd’s showing of Curtin’s role in WW2, was not a show-off either, but an effort to show how Curtin and Macarthur talked together as equal tacticians, Curtin at times offering advice, not like Howard with Bush, Howard seemingly overdoing the role of a yes-man, not fitting between two national leaders.

Great summary. Love your description of Howard's Australia as a fawning satellite state. Excellent.

Timor. Was Howard's "help" anything other than stealing natural resources (Ring a bell)?
You've missed a few wars Howard is involved in on our behalf. NOT.

War on drugs of course. Total failure so he's consistent.

Second and this is the big one. Bigger than Iraq. It's his war against the Australian worker and the poorer rungs of our rather lop sided wealth ladder. Plenty of people at the bottom and in the middle. Just a few at the top. That's his biggest war and he nearly won it too. Except he went too far with No Work Choices. That broke the camel's back.

Third. The war on crime. Again, failure. Perhaps if they removed criminals from the Parliament we'd have a chance on that one.

As usual barrackers try and raise Labor's faults, of which there are many, just like the Coalition.

Why do they do that? Why can't they just read what is written and consider that? Instead they automatically reach for their anti whichever Party clipboard and cut and paste. What's wrong with these people? Don't they have a brain? Any independent thought?

These people dummies both sides of politics count on. They are stuck in their mindless barracking. Waving flags and cheering everything one side does.

BBoy and Grey ignore the obvious re "intelligence". That is the reports provided to prove Iraq had WMD were doctored, particlarly by Bush and Blair. Don't tell me Howard didn't know that as our intelligence services did also tell him. But they too were told to rewrite those reports. Remember?

Yes the bulk of us thought there were WMD pre invasion. But certainly not Bush, Blair or Howard? If Howard didn't know he's a fool as he was given that advice. Remember those many countries who wanted to wait and check for WMD befoe deciding that were there? Too logical?

Regardles of the first excuse for going there though, Howard lied at every change of "excuse" for remaining. And still does.

Pete, you will (I hope) love this. It's conjectural, but it sure does join some dots:

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Iraq%20and%20Saudi%20Arabia.html

I always thought the 911-Saudi connection hung out there on a limb, as it were. We know about the very strong Saudi connections to the Bush cabal, the plane "hijackers" and so-on. But there the trail seems to go cold.

We now know, thanks to Matt Simmons, that all has not been well (no pun) with the world's biggest oil patch - and maybe for some time (shhhhh!).

So the theory is that huge quantities of un-metered Iraqi oil are going to supplement Saudi oil in some way, and help to hide the real state of the world's most important swing-producer. That's not so easy, because oils have a fingerprint, or genetic code that can be used to reveal their origins. But put that on the back-burner for now. Let's just say it's a possibility.

The means is the Iraq-Saudi high capacity pipeline which runs from Basra, around the Kuwaiti border to join the huge Saudi complex. It was completed before Gulf War 1, reported to be ready for re-use in 2003, then buried in the news as being "unserviceable". Google "IPSA pipeline" for heaps of info, including from the belly of the beast - the Baker Institute itself.

I used Google Earth to find the Basra end, where it passes through Rumayla South, then followed it through to it's juncture with the Saudi system (near 25 10' N, 47 30' E). It's there all right. I spent the rest of last night following the Saudi pipelines east to the gulf, and west all the way out to the Red Sea facilities. Along the way, the pumping stations are clearly visible. The pipes are buried for protection, but their footprint is clear. The possibilities are endless.

Mate, I was fairly parched from spending all that time in the desert.

Means, method and motive, Pete. Means, method and motive.

Check it out. If you need a tinfoil hat, you can have one from my extensive winter collection.

Cheers -

Thanks Chris ,

Come to think of it isn't there a Doctor in Howard's Government that agreed with you for one of those rare special moments of genuine Honesty, before he was told to shut up about oil .

Chris

Thats quite a find. Your efforts deserve a late night knock on the door from DIGO ( http://www.defence.gov.au/digo/ ) with an offer you can't refuse ;)

The info you've located responds to the question why would the US be in Iraq if its costing them so much? Answer - the Saudis and the US are splitting the proceeds of the stolen Iraqi oil which offsets some off the cost. This would also help maintain the stability not only of the Saudi regime but also neigbouring oil rich UAE and Kuwait.

Naturally much more checking needs to be done to validate the theory. But America is certainly in Iraq for more than just building democracy and keeping a country articificially created around 1920 together.

Regards

Pete

CHRIS and PLANTA :)

... and the alternative is..... ?

yep..that's right. There would be equally diabolical consequences from any government of any flavor in the US.. they would be different...but just as diabolical.

and you blokes wonder why I continually chirp out my 'religious nutter' stuff :)

The thing I find surprising with you blokes is that you find all this stuff so "SHOCKING" assss if it has not been 'par for the course' of all secular and even 'religious' government since Adam was a pup...

Its all about shifting alliances, mutual deterrance, balances of power.. becoming filthy rich...'national' interest...etc

AAAh..the freedom of these words "My kingdom is not of this world" and.."Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" and "If the Lord does not build the house, those who build it, labor in vain"...

As Solomon said in Ecclesiastes. "Nothing is new, what is now has already been, and will be again tomorrow its all chasing the wind...futility"

But the best is:

And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Phil 4:7)

Boaz , You continually take us back to darker times where we could always have an excuse for going to war .

If you want to foist religion on us - why not use the the Lord's Commandment that "thou should not Kill" in your posts a bit more .

We may then all see a bit more to cheer about .

Gary, I'd take the argument further.

The US alliance is dangerous to Australia, no amount of greasing to America will ever guarantee our safety,it will just make more enemies, the Americans will abandon us, if it suits them, as the British did. Howard is a populist politician, he knows there are many voters in the country who have a naive faith in the US alliance, it saves doing the hard work and developing a real foreign policy.

It is about time that the Howard economics were fully realised.

The best direction[ie direct responsibility] is the AEC/Nuclear Corporations.

Nuclear generation HAS NEVER BEEN cost-effective since its inception.

Decommissioning alone vetoes the whole benefit claim.

If we wonder why Howard has never been held responsible for such "doctoring" of the honesty books-then perhaps the majority of mum's and dad's who subscribed to the Telstra float, based upon an illegal prospectus could explain quite a bit regards why such ruses succeed.

Unfortunately-- the opposition also dearly desire the illusion to continue--guess how much one may increase their salary by in the ongoing Star War bribe approach to Defence?

Must we remain Conservatives of either denomination when business as usual is based upon your duplicity and willingness to have your children killed.

The real economy--while under Blair in the UK and Labour in Australia increased exports through arm manufacture sales such that
UK increased from 20 to 31% growth;Australia under Labour reached 20% of export income].

Would anyone sincerely believe that these goons in "nuclear-speak" have really cleaned their acts up?

Asa german ambassador[bulow]stated regards his understanding re Sept 11, he said "these things dont just happen..."

Recall the CSIRO shrapnel in our first terrorist sorty [the Hilton bombing];well now we have Spanish terror-bombs destroying steel train chassis's from underneath, when we sit onboard with a back-pack.

never mind--we dont require a "shred of living evidence" we just have to manufacture interventions so taiwan casinos get built in Honiara.

Its time indeed..

Keep it up, lads and lassies, could say that going by most of the commentaries, you are a credit to OLO and the Internet, and which is becoming living proof of the old saying that the truth will out.

It is interesting that when I first became a member of OlO, I was shocked to find Howard had a personal website in it.

But it didn't last long, and in fact, could wish that all party politico's should be disallowed, because it is said in the bush that though they start with good intentions, it is Big Biz that usually takes them over, proving that in the end it is money that does the talking.

Cheers - BB, WA.

Salaam to you too, Bushy and all.

Well, the neo-cons were right when they said that they were history's actors - and the rest of us were left to just observe their works. It's a Dr Who moment in time alright. Still, never forget Ozymandias. Even neo-cons are subordinate to the slow but deliberate turn of the mills of time. The tortoise WILL outrun the hare. See if it doesn't!

Marlene and I listened to Cynthia McKinney today, in an audio podcast from London (parts 1 and 2):

http://www.radio4all.net/pub/files/londonsoundposse@googlemail.com/2704-1-20070911-cynthia_mckinney_in_london_part_1.mp3

http://www.radio4all.net/pub/files/londonsoundposse@googlemail.com/2704-1-20070911-cynthia_mckinney_in_london_part_2.mp3

Cynthia is a feisty ex-congressperson who famously stood toe-to-toe with Rumsfeld over the corruption in the Pentagon (Youtube):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU

Unfortunately, Cyn got a bit too close to the Saudi-911 connection in 2004, as you can see in these Google videos:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4861158466699324733

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-368745798563225089&hl=en

The fact that AIPAC influence and money were used to get rid of her, is telling. Successive Zionist Israeli governments, the Saudis, and the US Military Industrial Complex - now there's the real Axis of Evil for you!

I rest my case - (for now) -

(ps Bushy - I hope you have enough Internet speed to watch these seditious videos)

In the above videos, Indira Singh mentions a website - CitizenWatch.org - which seems to have fizzled out.

Her story is being pursued here at The American Monitor:

http://www.theamericanmonitor.com/

- tons of handy info, annotated, linked etc. Plus items on the US/Iran caper that I have not found elsewhere. Boy, the Iranians are really copping it from the sly-boys. I wonder how Ahmadinejad manages to keep that famous grin going. Maybe it's painted on.

Enjoy!

Bushbred

As a self professed student of history I can only assume you are being duplicitous when you compare Howard to Curtin. Curtin was not a show off but he was way out of his depth. Curtin left virtually all decisions to McArthur, ably (NOT) supported by the ‘Bataan Gang’, to the exclusion of his supposed primary military adviser General Blamey.

McArthur should have been dealing with Blamey as equals. This never happened and McArthur was famously Anti Australian. Where almost all other combined headquarters during ww2 were international affairs, Mc Arthur ensured virtually all of his key commanders were his ‘Bataan boys’ who were with him in the Philippines. Blamey was given Land Forces command but McArthur successfully subverted his authority by working through task forces instead.

That Curtin would consider such an arrogant and substantially lower ranked man his equal, shows how out of his depth he was.

Plantagenet,

Bush was only inaugurated in Jan 2001. The idea that he already had in place huge plans for world conquest by September don’t ring true.

Chris,

Yes it is us in the west who are truly evil. We are responsible for all the terrorist atrocities. Its really the dictatorships and religious theocracies who are the true searchers of truth and the guiding light for morality and goodness in the world. The west never acts in good faith. It only ever uses this as a cover to enrich the handful of elites who get them elected. No one in politics actually wants to make the world a better place, all they want to do is enrich themselves. No one walked on the moon, JFK was killed by the CIA, Timoth McVeigh and Terry Nichols were FBI patsy’s. The Americans demolished the twin towers with explosives so that they could wage war on the whole world. The US invaded Somalia to steal their camels. Nato carpet bombed the Serbs to suppress the communist Milosevic and drive up the price of oil. Iran is merely trying to help the Iraqis by providing them with advisers and bomb making equipment. They want nuclear weapons but they won’t use them, they just need these weapons to protect them from the Israelis who are continually attacking them. North Korea doesn’t really have 10% of its population in prison camps or regularly threaten its neighbours with nuclear attack. China isn’t interested in militarily overthrowing the democratically elected gov’t in Taiwan. We didn’t go Timor to prevent genocide, that would never have happened. We went there to steal their resources.

The US gov’t/ Nato doesn’t declare wars, it’s the military industrial complex, who are hell bent on world domination through financial conquest. The western democracies are the source of all that’s wrong with the world. Oh and this is a fair and balanced assessment.

The extreme left have taken leave of their senses. There are conspiracies everywhere.

Apart from everything else, the left have pointed out – and I agree, George Bush isn’t very intelligent. The idea that THEY could keep anything like this a secret is so far fetched it has to be a joke

My thanks to Gary as an expert in the field of defence and security for providing credible support for views which I formed as a gut reaction to John Howard's foreign policy and border security initiatives. It's good to know that when one's principles are challenged there are sound practical reasons for following them. If only people like Peter Costello ("My mother taught me that if you tell the truth you have nothing to worry about.") remembered his mother's advice in the national arena too! It may well be members of the Coalition of the Willing really did believe U.S. "intelligence" about weapons of mass destruction, but there was plenty of other dissenting intelligence closer to home which they chose to ignore. They certainly ignored that of the UN inspectors who were later vindicated, and acted without the sanction of the United Nations in invading Iraq, a major trading partner of ours with whom we continued to trade clandestinely. In this and other instances, truthfulness apart, our government has acted in ways that are repugnant to our sense of right and wrong. For Howard to claim that he doesn't lie is an insult to our intelligence when we know he chooses his words so carefully that when challenged he can retrospectively claim to have "told the truth" or acted "honestly". Australians now listen to every his word and nuance with distrust. "Core" and "non-core" promises are now part of our political lexicon. But politics and strategic defence issues apart we are a straight forward people and know that actions speak louder than words. Locking up refugees for years, supporting the bombing of thousands of innocent civilians, and demonising sections of our community are all immoral acts. The 'truth' will always be another casualty when a nation accepts that these things are acceptable for its national security. If Kevin Rudd disappoints on ethical issues like these I will be among the first to criticise.

Gary,

One aspect of Howard's government has really "turned my guts" and that is his government's use of alcohol taxes to fund their coffers while Australians suffer with it's non published addictive affects ..

Watching a program on a Sunday comercial TV today [16th] I was surprised to hear of the few paltry millions [About 10 million dollars ] put into alcohol education programes compared to the BILLIONS of dollars raised through alcohol taxes .

Time and again the doctors, police and those who do the economics on drug abuse said ALCOHOL is the WORST DRUG problem .

I refuse to believe ANYTHING Tony Abbott and Howard says on how to improve Aussis' health unless they place graphic health warnings on alcohol containers and have a program in schools that explains to young people the affects of alcohol .

They are a socially irresponsible ,big business government .

Oh dear, Paul - it was only a matter of time before someone conflated moon landings with our inconvenient speculations. The green cheese gambit has been done to death before, and we were all enjoying a bit of a rest from it.

As for taking leave of one's senses, anyone who can remember what life felt like only ten years ago, would have to admit that the world has gone barking mad - and not, I remind you, under the influence of any government which could be considered even remotely left wing. That especially includes Blair's "New Labor" pantomime.

As for the machinations of my government and it's cohorts, of course it is my responsibility to point out their delusions and their sloppy crimes. What else would you expect me to do?

Now, tomorrow's news today. Alan Greenspan sez Iraq largely about oil, as flagged in this morning's Times:

http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

Rewind to April - Richard Gage gives the lie to the conspiracy theory that architects are a bunch of boring tits (Google video):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3673080104421876809&q=Richard+gage+how+the+towers+fell&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Which fits really neatly into this new discovery:

http://www.nymegaphone.com/node/24

- in which Eliot Spitzer, as Attorney General of NY, quietly gives Larry and financiers a helping hand in their ploy to get a double insurance payout for the WTC demolition.

Mesothelioma? It makes Hardie look like a bunch of milksops. Count your meagre blessings.

Dunno about you, but I really enjoyed this thread. Cheers all

Gary Brown and his sympathisers are bereft of any notions of survival.The Middle East supplies 65% of the world oil and 40% of natural gas.Without the US in the Middle East controlling all these feral groups the whole World would be in total crisis of WW3.Why do you think Japan agreed to send troops to Iraq?They went to war in 1941 for fear of energy starvation and a loss of export markets.

Apparently the lefties in western societies do not use energy or plastics from oil products in their daily lives.Perhaps we should give China free reign in the Middle East,then they could murder all the Muslims and take the oil for themselves and sell it back to us for 5 times the price.Cheap energy underpins our living standards more than any new technologies in IT.That is the reality.

Will Gary Brown and his followers ever move from their simplistic, tunnelled,visioned gestalt of an evil business world waiting to prey upon them,when they in fact live off the fruits of an highly competitive private enterprise system without actually suffering the pain?

It is the ultimate in hypocracy when we have so many in our society who will gladly reap the benefits of free enterprise and denegrate the very system that sustains them.

FIRST NELSON NOW GREENSPAN - ITS MAINLY ABOUT OIL

Paul take notes please.

Well spotted CHRIS

That lefty Alan Greenspan in that lefty rag, London’s Sunday Times, states the obvious that centrists, the Left and other people of integrity have being saying for years.

Mr Greenspan was THE Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve [Bank] of the US from 1987 to 2006. So he is one of the most senior analysts of US Government activity with many conservative sources.

He can no longer be bought unlike some regime fellow travellers…and brainwashed Aussie “patriots”.

So I quote Mr Greenspan's Times article in full:

The (London) Sunday Times September 16, 2007:

“AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.”

But Mr Greenspan’s advice is out of step with the US/Israeli neocon worldview and derivative brain-tarts cannot imagine why the US is still in Iraq other than fighting terrorism where there was none before “democracy and stability”. Well the Middle East has always been undemocratic and unstable and full of tribal/sectarian/insurgents - now called terrorists but hey IT HAS OIL ;-)

Pete
(Teaching stout patriots about current affairs is a necessary duty :)

The subtitle of the article is:

"During Howard’s tenure he has gone to war by 'mistake', overseen a shambles in the Solomons, grovelled to Jakarta, slavishly followed Bush and much more."

How's this for slavishly following Bush. Kids being indoctrinated at 'Jesus Camp' in the US.. last part of the video shows one Church leader gloating how the evangelical movement in the US has determined the outcome of elections:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PUQATCcQ0A&mode=related&search=

Come on Plantagenet,

Alan Greenspan was the head of the FED Reserve. An independent body. He was first nominated by Regan, someone he was much closer to in terms of economic outlook.

Greenspan had no role in formulating the plan to invade Iraq. He is an ECONOMIST. He is also a paid public speaker these days. I wonder if this will bump up his appearance fees?

His quote is an incredible swipe at the Bush white house. Especially considering he didn’t bother to provide any evidence of this assertion. Maybe if he had the courage to name some names or conversations, or produce a memo, I would look more favorably on his claims. As it stands he is asking us to rely on his opinion. And that is what he calls it ‘ his opinion’

I have never denied oil played an important role in the decision to go to war in Iraq. The Middle East’s strategic importance stems from the preponderance of oil in that area.

Even were I to accept the proposition that we went to war for oil, I don’t see any real evidence that this is why we are still there. Petraues has said that if there is no concrete political settlement within six months he would recommend withdrawal. That recommendation would almost certainly lead the US to begin immediate troop withdrawals.
America is beginning to make solid gains in reducing the level of violence in the country. Is now the time to abandon the Iraqis to total civil war?

We are fighting AL QAEDA in Iraq and we are winning, at least in that portion of the conflict. Without doubt leaving Iraq without fulfilling the goal of a central gov’t able to protect itself, gives a massive boost to Al Qaeda everywhere. This will undoubtedly mean we will have to fight them somewhere else OR stand by and watch them take-over most of the Middle East.

I don’t support Bush and I am glad he is not allowed a third term. Maybe John McCain can provide the solutions we need.

"We are fighting AL QAEDA in Iraq and we are winning, at least in that portion of the conflict..." (Quote:Paul L)

We are? Should we send them a postcard and tell them we are winning?

Ginx

No need for postcards. Just send a comparison of the Wests news highlights from before the surge and now.

The terrorist sympathic and anti-Bush media played up the car-bombings and troops deaths for months on end. Recall the hundreds killed on a daily basis and our stupid media highlighted them with the obvious intent to show Bush's failure and the US losing.

Well just look at the media today. It highlights any carbombing or action it can...and they are thankfully infrequent. Now if there were as many deaths and terror actions as six months ago, or even half as many, you could bet your bottom dollar the fawning and stupid buggars, in the media, would be in hysterics and wetting thenselves like a bunch of over-excited schoolgirls, in their rush to show the surge, Bush and the US is failing.

Get real, the Yanks are getting on top and the dopey bloody Iraqi politicians will soon realise the US won't go and will assist them if they show some guts and get on with what their people voted them to do.

Hi Paul

I'm glad that you are becoming more openminded on the subject of oil.

General Petraues is paid to talk about miltary issues. He is not permitted to talk about oil.

Bush and his Republicans are politicians. It would be diplomatic and electoral suicide to talk of oil.

You can’t tell American parents that their sons are still dying because America values “energy security” like everyone else. You can't also tell them that the US needs to remain in Iraq to extract more oil while fending off Russian and Chinese energy competitors....(a hint ;).

Energy Security was a respectable concept before President Bush recognised the political sensitivity of his past “OPEC” associations before encouraging “Austrian” troops to join the Coalition of the Willing. http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/08/2027414.htm?section=australia

Returning to Mr Greenspan’s admissions, he can’t be dismissed as a non-specialist observer outside of the defacto Cheney Cabinet. Rather Mr Greenspan was a powerful representative of an interest group just prior to the Iraq invasion that flagged the importance of eliminating Saddam because Saddam threatened oil supplies.

Pray have a gander at the following (authoritative) WashPost article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html?nav=hcmodule

Juicy bits include:

His [Greenspan’s] main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.

Same article "a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

Pete

Gary Brown holds that Howard made a “mistake” which is defined as being an error in judgment or opinion, whereas I hold it was not a mistake at all but criminal conduct.
I happen to have published on my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH at 11.44PM a copy of a e-mail forwarded to Kevin rudd and other parliamentarians headed as follows; “Kevin07 versus DEAD DUCK HOWARD, two faced Turnbull & why not voting”.

It sets out some background details and that the Federal government was well aware that I pursued to prevent the unconstitutional armed and murderous invasion by Australian troops into Iraq but time and again the High Court of Australia, even on the day of the armed invasion commencing to hear and determine my Section 75(v) of the Constitution for writs of mandamus/prohibition.
Also, that the County Court of Victoria on 19-7-2006 upheld my appeals including that the 10 November 2001 and the 9 October 2004 purported federal elections were unconstitutional and so not a single candidate was validly elected. Not even John Howard!

I do not therefore accept there was a “mistake” as John Howard had no prerogative power in the first place to authorise the armed invasion! To me it is no less then criminal conduct!

Gerrit - you're the man.

I have ventured to say things about the role of the GG before, but lack the knowledge to join the dots properly.

Before the invasion, Marlene and I downloaded the Australian Constitution and plodded through it, but it was hard going. I have to admit that Marlene made a much better fist of it, because she is without a doubt the most devious and EVIL woman I ever met!

But I digress -

Question: Was GG Hollingworth in a position to halt or even impede the dispatching of our forces to the Gulf? From our reading of the Constitution, the GG is titular head of our armed forces - essentially their commander-in-chief. In which case he might be a voice for sanity if the PM and Security Council go troppo.

Somehow, I can't imagine GG William Dean being such a pushover - but then, he was terminated early wasn't he?

We wrote letters to Hollingworth, but no reply - stony silence. We pointed out as politely as possible that Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was an absolute CROCK (you only needed an Internet connection and a teeny bit of technical knowlege to know that). We tried the gentle approach, the impassioned approach - zilch!

Maybe I'm being unfair. After all, the GG's staff handle this stuff. Hollingworth's 2IC was a bloke by the name of Guy Green, and who knows how many other layers our mail has to penetrate.

But what say you Gerrit?

Could a properly informed (and willing) GG have stalled the proceedings? After all, we now realise that Operation Iraqi Theft has been on the books for at least a decade. The robbers were caught with the plans of the bank.

Pete

This is not your smoking gun and I’m sure you know it.

“(Greenspan) …said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have NEVER heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html?nav=hcmodule

“In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "NOT THE ADMINISTRATION'S MOTIVE," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html?nav=hcmodule

"a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as ONE OF MANY objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html?nav=hcmodule

He clearly has no concrete evidence of the administrations motives for going to war in 2003, otherwise he would have produced it.

I have never denied that oil played a role in this conflict. Go over my previous posts if you don’t believe me. I have only ever denied it was the SOLE motivating factor.

Fostering a democracy in the centre of the Middle East would be a significant strategic blow for dictatorships across the region. Such a democracy would be a massive boost to the reformers in Iran. It would also be an incredible stroke of luck for the Iraqi people, especially after the brutal suppression of the uprising which WE encouraged but never supported.

As an aside, what do you make of the claims that Saddams functioning weapons programs were shipped to Syria, another Ba’athist State

Paul

Good reply. You're becoming not a bad debating opponent.

But I've just been writing a better reply ;) which I'll submit to OLO as an article in a couple of days.

Regards

Pete

Gary Brown wrote 14 September 2007: "... Howard has ordered the so-called Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD), three advanced US-designed warships that can be fitted with radars and weapons which turn them into part of a US “missile defence” system. These expensive capabilities are unnecessary for Australia, and they come at the cost of more relevant capabilities that have to be deferred or not acquired at all. ..."

The Spanish designed Alvaro de Bazan class destroyers being purchased are slightly cheaper than the US option considered and were purchased despite strong lobbying from the USA: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2007/03/hitech-spanish-warship-in-sydney-for.html

They come equipped with US built radars and missiles for air defence (using Australian designed antennas). The ships are about as cheap as you can get and still shoot down the type of sophisticated attack aircraft now being deployed by other nations in our region of the world. The ships can be also used for ballistic missile defence with little more than a change to the software (no new radars needed).

At the same time Australia is also buying two "Landing Helicopter Dock" (LHD) ships from the same Spanish company. These are essentially small aircraft carriers, although the RAN will not yet admit that. They will be very useful for humanitarian operations as well as military use. Australia will likely get a lower price by buying all the ships from the one supplier: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/transport/amphibious.shtml

ps: I should declare my interest. Tenix, the winning tenderer for the LHDs, advertised them on my web site. I got about 10 cents for the web ad and they got $3B. ;-(

Thanks for those details Tom. All is grist.

- sorry about the 10c though -

Did you ever think of working for Halliburton in Iraq?

Chris, as indicated my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and see also website; http://schorel-hlavka.com and set out matters. Also my e-mail address and you can contact me by e-mail.

As for the Governor-General, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that albeit he is the Commander-in-Chief, he could do nothing with the armed forces unless Parliament provided for it. On the other hand, the Minister of Defence could do nothing unless so authorised by the Governor-General.

It is not relevant if the governor-General personally reads correspondence or he leave this over to his staff, as in the end he can run his office as he desire and he is ultimately accountable for it. While John Howard in the past sought to excuse himself he wasn’t told by his staff, that is no excuse as he is the one who has them employed on his terms!

At the time of the build-up of the armed forces Hollingworth should have made clear to the Minister of Defence that either he withdrew Australian troops or he would simply withdraw his commission and appoint another person as Minister of Defence. Likewise so he should have withdrawn the commission of John Howard for authorising an unconstitutional invasion!
I suspected all along that Hollingworth would not do so because of then, so to say, needing Howard to try to stay in office because of the sex-abuse scandals then going about. Hollignworth by this I view was just a puppet for Howard. I view that Holligworth was a disgrace to the office of Governor-General and so likewise Jeffrey now!

Keith, I have 'got real', real enough to know that your view is no longer held by the majority. When Republicans start to question the Iraq situation, you can bet your bucks it's because they know that the invasion has achieved nothing except casualties Iraq and American.

When 'your own side' start to question, I reckon that's a sign that thinks are not going well; don't you?

Chris Shaw wrote 18 September 2007: "Did you ever think of working for Halliburton in Iraq?".

Not Halliburton, but I did register my company online with the interim Iraq reconstruction authority, shortly after the invasion. My thought was that I could provide consulting advice on rebuilding the government infrastructure online. This would provide a system which would make auditing easier and corruption more difficult. I guess neither the old or new regimes liked the idea, as they never took me up on the offer. Instead I got a lot of invitations to Iraq reconstruction conferences in London and special offers for flack jackets.

But the idea was not a complete loss and I have proposed it for the Australian Government's intervention in Aboriginal communities in the NT: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2007/06/internet-to-empower-indigenous.html

The idea is to keep the governments, and their staff, honest, by allowing easy remote auditing. Also by providing remote services over the web, the local community is less disrupted if they have a computer based system they can use for running their community themselves, than if they have a whole lot of bureaucrats from the city telling them what to do.

I presented a version of this, modified to appeal to bureaucrats, to a Government web conference in Canberra on Monday: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/regional_web.shtml

Gerrit and Tom.

OLO just keeps getting better. Bless you both. There is much to read, enjoy and think about in the stuff you have linked me to.

M and I will spend the next days digesting it.

If this thread goes stale, I'll meet you on another - and one could always submit an article to liven it all up again.

Good luck Tom. Thankyou Gerrit. I'm outta here ..... (pop!)

Paul

On second thoughts no article will appear from me at present.

Due to pressure on the cracking rack of Republican sentiment Greenspan has been forced to recant (Galileo like) his oil sentence, though its truth is self evident.

I need to draw together more information on major powers (other than the US) who might potentially use force to access the Middle Eastern oil market. I'll then write.

Pete