As the AWB schemozzle rolls on, the most intriguing question for the defenders of the government’s head in the desert sands attitude is whether columnists in the Australian will attack the Australian’s leader writer for being a “Howard hater”?
Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop also wonders about the impact of friendly fire. Who knows with Rupert? Perhaps fragging might be the more apt term. But then, that rather begs the question of who the officer actually is in this scenario.
There is no mention of “Howard hater” in the article but Greg Sheriden comes out swinging in today’s Oz. I’m too angry to post about it… It’s fair to say that he has just re-iterated the talking points that one could muster from the various RWDB that are on the net.
He mainly tries to play down the scandal (c’mon guys, they were only selling wheat) but at the end of the article he takes a swipe at the “wheat for weapons” angle that Labor have taken. Funny how some people like to overlook that the US congress wanted to examine the AWB because the CIA linked them to the weapons cash for the current insurgency.
Oh, and finally he mentions that one of the reasons for going to war was the unsustainability of the UN sanctions. Did anyone catch that it Howard’s address to parliament?
I should also point out that Howard and his minions are frantically trying to shift the terms of reference for accountability. They want the public to believe that if there is no evidence linking a minister to the payments then they have done nothing wrong. That way the Sgt Shultz defence will work.
They are being very, very careful not to mention anything in the ballpark of the word “negligence”. Surely in 2002-2003 any government document with the word “Iraq” appearing in it should have sent up a bloody huge red flare, especially anything also involving money! If it didn’t, why didn’t it? That’s the issue.
“I’m too angry to post about it… It’s fair to say that he has just re-iterated the talking points that one could muster from the various RWDB that are on the net.”
Let’s pull this one apart.
“I’m too angry to post about it…”
You just did post about it. And what you really meant is you had no argument against what Sheridan was saying and decided that instead of refuting him you’d throw a bit of mud.
“… It’s fair to say that he has just re-iterated the talking points that one could muster from the various RWDB that are on the net….”
No that’s wrong. It is most UNFAIR to say that. To categorise people as RIGHT-WING DEATH BEASTS and then to use this slur to have a go at Sheridan sans any argument of your own.
The left has their talking points. Its almost like the old days. Since they still act like “Godamned Bolsheviks. Picking up their orders from Yank central” (Millers Crossing).
But you don’t want to be projecting this pack instinct (or worse) onto the rest of us.
Now if you have some sort of authentic argument about ANYTHING that Greg says here why don’t you MAKEIT.