Regardless of how the Rodent’s cloth is woven, the threads are always manufactured in Washington D.C. Independent Foreign Policys count for naught alongside brand loyalty.

Helen Clark told BushCo to take a hike on Iraq and now she’s chowin’ down with The Imbecile at the White House. Funny old world.

Here is how it worked. Australia had federal police tracking refugees as they landed in Indonesia and knew they could not stay in Indonesia. They had been smuggled out of places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran because getting legal travel documents is not possible.

Once in Indonesia they hid until the agents managed to get them a boat. In the 89 cases of this type I tracked through the senate and courts not one person has gone to jail for so-called people smuggling.

The fact of the matter is that refugees are allowed to travel anywhere without documents so long as they can reach a country that is signatory to the refugee convention. By trying to force people to stay in Indonesia and even paying to set up a UNHCR office we are circumventing our law and international laws and treaties by demanding they shoulder our responsibilities for us.

Every refugee who came to Australia’s mainland from Christmas Island was flown to Australia by the government without visas, under armed guard, not allowed to go to the toilet, no food, no water, and the federal police watched them load the boats and rang to Canberra to say they would be arriving.

In the case of SIEVX we know from survivors that they were told by the UNHCR office in Jakarta to come to Australia as the Indonesians will not and cannot assess claims.

Indonesia has forced over 1,000 people back to the warzones of Iraq and Afghanistan although some 230 people are still rotting in Indonesia, unable to work, to go to school, to leave the cheap motels or have any legal rights and we are paying for it.

In short, Indonesia have not stopped any people smuggling because it never existed.

Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.

I must have missed the new rhetoric. All I heard was the same old rhetoric, about “staying the course�.

Exactly. It was merely a cut ‘n’ paste job from all the other drivel he has been insulting us with from way before the start of the invasion. And what, in the end is it all about?

“Our practical contribution and preparedness to stand with America in Iraq is of first order importance to its current strength and vitality”

The sooner we eject this douchebag from our Parliament, the better.

I must have missed the new rhetoric. All I heard was the same old rhetoric, about “staying the course”.

Oh, I guess staying “as a matter of honour” is a bit of a new twist. The Anzac approach to warfare – take part in a military disaster and depict it as an honourable event.

I’m surprised he didn’t mention the “ANZAC spirit” and our great military tradition of Standing Tall Against the Heathen Turk at Gallipoli.

No, wait. I seem to recall that we were forced to cut and run from that one too. Bummer.

What is a quagmire? A place where one gets bogged. One can neither go forward nor go back.

Howard is opposed to sending more troops to Iraq.

Howard is opposed to removing troops from Iraq.

Howard is in favour of maintaining the current inadequate level of involvement.

Ergo, Howard is in favour of being stuck fast in a quagmire.

Killing questions for Howard:
How do you justify committing Australian arms to a defence of a regime committed Sharia Law?

Has the current level of commitment brought about an improvement or a deterioration in the situation in Iraq?

Do you want to perpetuate failure?

Why, then, do you refuse to change the level of commitment?

It reminds me of a litmus test one can use here in the US to pin down someone’s political leanings quickly: ask them why they though the Vietnam War (err…”American War in Vietnam”) was lost. If they give some line about the lack of support or grit or determination or such, then you can bet they’re backing Bush.

Oh and you left off the best part of that Simpson’s episode, one of the best summaries of American political divisions ever aired:

Candidate Kang: Abortions for all!
Audience: BOO!
Kang: Okay… Abortions for none!
Audience: BOO!
Kang: Hmmnn… Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!
Audience: YAAY!!!

As I said above, there is nothing new here except a shift in the language. He discusses at length the role that Australian troops are playing in Iraq but without any sense of long-term purpose, other than to support the Iraqis. He paints a picture of success in the Australian operations in Iraq, and indeed it seems that the Australian soldiers have performed very well. Yet success can only reasonably be measured by the ongoing fate of the entire country, this ties Australia’s fate to the fate of the American venture which currently seems to be unsuccessful.

Well, jaysus to jaysus and eight hands around. Whenever somebody makes a joke about “No, No, Nanette,” whatever the circumstances, then I do think they deserve to be fully congratulated.

Onya!

I notice that the old line that this debate is about the US alliance got trotted out as well. Anyone who followed Cheney’s visit to Australia last month knows that this is a complete furphy. Cheney made it pretty clear that the alliace is much stronger than this issue.