Blogging politics, culture, sociology and life from Brisvegas
As the architect of Australia’s participation in the Iraq War professes to be “baffled” at our withdrawal, and as his arguments for going to war are systematically demolished, a picture doing the rounds of the intertubes speaks a thousand words.
[Via an anonymous correspondent]
Meanwhile, the faith-based community the White House comments. [Via gandhi in comments]
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
In a strange twist that only reality could deliver , the abandoned strip of shops ( they are opposite Epping railway station ) were going to be developed as a large apartment block .
The rising interest rates and poor realestate market have stalled that so now the whole strip is a bustling energetic strip of restaurants – thai, indian ,kebabs and smart cafes in all a tribute to Sydney’s huge appetite for exotic tastes and the enterprenuership of new immigrants.
“Systematically Demolished” – twaddle
“Have further terrorist attacks been prevented? No, they have not, as the victims of the Madrid train bombing will attest,” Mr Rudd said. ”
Brainless comment. For a start he is measuring a strategic iniative that will need to be assessed over at least decades not over 5 years. Secondly we are now seeing numerous reports and assessments of AQ failing in Iraq and losing its popular support in the Islamic world.
Mr Rudd needs to be careful here, has our involvement in Afghanistan by his same measurements reduced terrorists attacks?
Rudd also exposes himself by listing off just 1 significant terrorist attack in the Western World in 5 years and even then Spain was targeted because it was going soft on Iraq not hard.
‘Has any evidence of WMD and a link b/w former regime and terrorists been found?No.
Whilst it is undeniable many leaders and Intelligence chiefs felt very confident of the existence of WMD Rudd was not challenging this at the time and all the leaders of the day could go with is the available evidence, past behaviour and probabilities. If Bush’s CIA director is literally telling him it is a “slam dunk” what is he suppose to do?
In terms of evidence of links b/w terrorists all the reports the Left crow about is they don’t show direct operational links. Whoopee. I am sooo reassured by the fact Saddam could only tell bin Laden how to make a chemical agent rather than sell him a canister right now.
“Have the actions of rogue states like Iran been moderated? No. After five years, has the humanitarian crisis in Iraq been removed? No, it has not.”
Another brainless comment is he seriously arguing that Iran was just going to roll over immediately and reform. Again he is being sly by judging an enormous long term strategic change by the first 5 years. As for the Humanitarian crisis being relieved yes it got worst but now it is improving rapidly, if he was being honest he’d acknowledge that. He doesn’t.
There is also an overall disappointment for me in the coverage of this war on both sides, my side were simply too optimistic on the other side there is an overall meme of this war wasn’t a roaring success inside of 10 minutes so it is an abysmal failure. Both are silly.
There are still Australian trops in Baghdad. There are still Ausatralian naval and air personnel in Iraq. We are still in Afghanistan. W@hile I’m absolutely delighted Rudd has further exposed Howard/Nelson/Coalition lies, I certainly haven’t forgotten we’re not completely out of either country.
And I won’t be satisfied till we completely stop supporting the Americans in their military adventurism.
There is no mention of SAS soldiers? Are they being pulled out?
Again, there was no AQ in Iraq before the arrival of the COW.
Strategic change? What strategic change?
All I see is a failed policy that has blunted US appetite for involvement and stoked the fires of US isolationism.
I also see a US that has surrendered its moral status in the eyes of millions of Arabs and millions of Muslims. They are the important hearts and minds in this fiasco.
Kingsley’s definition of success: Tens of thousands civilians killed, two? trillion dollars expended, a nations infrastructure destroyed, terrorists empowered…
I’d hate to see his definition of failure.
It’s not about “an overall meme of this war wasn’t a roaring success inside of 10 minutes so it is an abysmal failure”. It’s about the fact that there never should have been a war.
Paul Burns, I won’t be satisfied till we hold the people responsible for this accountable for War Crimes. In case anyone missed it, this SMH interview with Howard (and a coterie of cowardly anonymous “senior officials”) is well worth a read:
That is a lie. Here’s what Howard said on September 11th, 2001, while bodies were still burning in the WTC rubble:
Howard visited the White House again in June 13th, 2002, just a week after Tony Blair had visited Bush’s Crawford ranch. As we now know, thanks to the Downing Street Memos, Bush had already made up his mind to attack Iraq. Howard was clearly being briefed on plans at that meeting.
\
Within a month of Howard’s visit, the USA had already begun secretive “spikes of activity” designed to provoke Saddam, and UK officials were helping Washington to “fix intelligence around the policy” of a provoked or pre-emptive Iraq invasion.
Howard sent SAS forces into Iraq at least 24 hours before Bush’s phoney deadline to Saddam had even expired (a former Saddam aide later claimed that Saddam secretly offered to yield to all US demands, but his offer was ignored). That in itself is a war crime: invading a country before a formal declaration of war.
Rudd now says there was an “abuse of intelligence information, a failure to disclose to the Australian people the qualified nature of that intelligence.” So now what is he going to do about that? It’s not good enough to just score a political point and then drop the whole issue: we need a Royal Commission.
Contrapunctus, if the government said all SAS troops were being withdrawn, would you believe them?
Amazing how history gets revised after the fact.
Kevin Rudd 9/11/02 “I’ve said repeatedly that there is a significant threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.”
Kevin Rudd 15/12/03 “Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction …That is a matter of empirical fact. If you don’t believe the intelligence assessments, you simply read the most recent bulletin from the Federation of American Scientists, which list Iraq among a number of states in possession of chemical … biological weapons and with the capacity to develop a nuclear program.”
Kevin Rudd 2/6/08 “The former Prime Minister presented four reasons in explaining his decision to go to war:……..• to prevent Iraq giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorists;……….. On every count we on this side of the House rejected these arguments then, as we continue to reject them now. ”
Will the real Kevin Rudd please stand up?
sorry – That second quote was 15/12/02, not 03.
Andrew, are you still getting your talking points from Murdoch hacks like Piers Ackerman? Maybe you need to have a think about how we got into this mess in the first place.
If Rudd was duped by the bogus intelligence on Iraq, or even if he just pretended to be, it’s all the more reason why he now needs to launch a full, independent investigation into how more reliable intelligence was suppressed and ignored.
Gandhi – no, I was listening to the ABC news this morning which prompted me to read the Hansard of Rudd’s and Nelson’s speeches to parliament yesterday. Interesting.
Rudd’s position in 2002 was fairly typical at the time. The point being – it was a more than reasonable view at the time that Iraq had WMD. Indeed – they’d actually used them!
For Rudd to now mislead parliament that he always opposed this view is wrong, a big fat lie, and is exactly the sort of thing that the left side of politics used to pillory Howard for.
here’s the Hansard link
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/hansreps.htm
worth a read
Love the photo. Howard as an empty shell: As empty and hollow as were his reasons for committing us to George Bush’s war.
How apt.
And yet it seems that there are still a few poor deluded souls prepared to try and justify the Iraq adventure, as if it had somehow made the world a safer, more peaceful place.
Andrew, I can’t be bothered debating Rudd’s seemingly hypocritical stance on Iraq with you. As Annabel Crabb says of Rudd today “when he was a frontline soldier in Mark Latham’s Labor army, he all but lay down in the road to stop Latham announcing a policy to withdraw troops from the region.”
But if you want to play party politics (not my game, sorry) it’s worth noting the farewell speech by then Federal Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, to HMAS Kanimbla, January 2003.
I notice some Brits seem to think we are very lucky to have Rudd in power, but at least Gordon Brown has promised (after a cabinet revolt) to hold a full enquiry into Iraq (albeit delayed until combat troops come home – which could mean forever).
I think Rudd will be happy to score political points here and let the matter rest. It will be up to the public (and the Greens, I hope) to press for real accountability on what went wrong.
The war in Iraq has cost Australian taxpayers $2.314 billion. The cost to our international reputation, and our national pride, cannot be calculated in dollars.
Royal Commission now!
What struck me about that quote from Howard is the first part – that it was a “personal decision” (how dare he make a decision to send troops to war on a personal basis) and influenced by being in the US on 9/11 – which erroneously conflates Iraq with the September 11 terrorists. It’s incredible that he still persists with this nonsense (and that the journalists don’t call him on it.)
ghandi, I’ve lost the link, but apparently Lyn Allison ande var5ious others have sent a case to the ICC [International Criminal Court] charging Howard with war-crimes. And equivalent British organisations have done the samr for Blair. Bush ngets off scot free because the USA is not a signatory. One can only hope something comes of it.
Maybe, just maybe, since he was elected PM in late 2007 Rudd has been in receipt of a richer diet of intel than the self-serving, redacted stuff ladled up by intelligence proxies who were stooges of Chimpo and Ratty.
Staff officers of the CIA have long complained of contamination of the intel flow compliments of Cheney’s “Office of Special Plans”. And Andrew Wilkie blew the whistle on Howard’s falsifications long ago.
As an honest man, Rudd spoke only of what he was told in 2003.
Paul Burns,
Here’s that link – the website needs some volunteer help, but there seems to be some serious legal work involved in the lengthy submission to the Hague.
John Quiggin had a good thread about the legal issues surrounding prosecution of Bush, Blair and Howard (also on Crooked Timber – see also these links from Robin Miller). Basically, while there are many fine ideals surrounding international law, implementation is difficult to say the least, and the chances of a genuine prosecution at The Hague within our lifetimes are minimal.
Of course, that should not stop us pursing justice within Australia according to our own laws and signed international treaties including the Geneva Convention. As I wrote on Prof Q’s blog:
At this stage, the key issue seems to be whether there is enough public anger still out there to demand accountability through Rudd’s government. I suspect Rudd might enjoy bringing some embarrassing details to light ahead of the next general election…
“It’s incredible that he still persists with this nonsense…”
Suz, i am not sure that he has any other nonsense to call on. Still you never know.
And Australian journalists have not shown any wish to call him on anything, anyway, since i know not when.
Maybe they used to when he was Treasurer. I dunno – too young to remember!
That photo says as much about Sydney and why I don’t live there anymore. All their strip shopping like that where you can’t park and have trouble driving past as the road is so narrow and the ALP government have done nothing about it. They also have these tiny local councils more concerned with stopping you cutting down a single tree than fixing roads.
George W. Bush’s response:
ABC’s Michael Rowland says “the pullout of Australian combat troops neutralises Iraq as a political issue in Canberra”.
Maybe.
Re the ICC case against Howard: Here are Monday’s ABC “Just in” link to the story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/02/2262414.htm?section=justin
ABC’s Michael Rowland says “the pullout of Australian combat troops neutralises Iraq as a political issue in Canberra”.
Wouldn’t it just be nice if the tosser had of indicated that it was… “IMHO”?
Aunty has officially given up on the distinction between opinion and the news.
A plant of young libs were ushered through some journo school, offshore, and are now making up bullshit fulltime for our 23 cents a day, allowing for Howard inflation.
In my opinion.
Ghandi #23 Bush at his Newspeak worst.
So Katz, “As an honest man, Rudd spoke only of what he was told in 2003.
”
Why is he resiling from that view now? He is now saying that he never had that view – which is plainly a lie. Was Rudd being honest then or is he being honest now?
Andrew, none of your pre-2008 quotes mentioned this:
Let’s deconstruct it. This quote says two things:
1. Iraq had WMDs. Rudd stated in 2002 and 2003 that he believed this, sincerely but incorrectly.
2. Saddam intended to give these WMDs to “terrorists”. None of the pre-2008 Rudd quotes that you adduced mentioned Saddam’s supposed intentions regarding WMDs, much less that Saddam intended to give these WMDs to “terrorists”.
Therefore, there is nothing inconsistent between the Rudd quotes that you have provided.
DeeCee, regarding Bush at his worst, this quote is right up there:
That was in the buildup to the massacre of Fallujah, which history will record as a major War Crime.
Oh Katz…. now you’re resorting to the kind of weasling out that the left was so quick to jump on Howard for!!! The rodent is dead, long live the rodent!
Before this thread dies its natural, unlamented death in Ozblogistan, let me just thank Mark for posting it, and Kim for the previous related thread.
I’ll also point readers to Antony Loewenstein’s excellent article on ABC Unleashed today.
Everyone:
Should Australia have gone into Iraq as part of a United Nations force to liberate the people of that country from a corrupt and oppressive ruler and his family …. and so that they could set up THEIR OWN government and system of government according to THEIR OWN needs?
My bloody oath!
Should Saddam Hussein been given the generous “opportunity” to send his Republican Guard into Afghanistan to eliminate his RIVAL Osama bin-Laden …. then accept the generous Russian offer of “protective” exile in Russia for himself and his family?
Of course!
Should Mr J W Howard be packed up and sent off to be the star attaction in a certain court in The Hague [Mr Milosevic's cell is vacant at present - no waiting; no delay] …. so as to, as Voltaire put it so nicely in Candide, “to encourage the others’ ….
Too right!
No probs, Gandhi. I’m a little surprised the end of our involvement in Iraq combat hasn’t been more debated! Just because something has been “neutralised as a political issue” doesn’t mean it’s not worth talking about – including the efforts to bring the instigators of the war to account.
Mark, I am also disappointed at the lack of discussion of this story on Aussie blogs, but not really “surprised”.
I did a search and note that it was covered by WebDiary, Grodscorp, and just about nobody else. Things were not much better on MSM blogs, mind you. Tim Dunlop was away and did not touch the story when he got back yesterday. The ABC Open For Comment blog was only a peripheral story and the Moderator warned people to ” focus on the Australian foreign policy issues raised in the article”. The only remotely controversial MSM blog I could see discussing this issue was JB’s Brisbane Times blog, and even that was framed as a “blame game” with the ridiculous opening question “Do we owe America an apology?” (JB did manage to use the term “war criminals” in the comments).
I think this story signals for me all the things that are “wrong” (well, from my point of view) about Ozblogistan. The MSM has co-opted our outrage and moderates discussion along set talking points.
Most Aussie blogs now seem to be little more than social chat rooms with the same people pushing the same lines (and everybody seems to have grown tired of my own supposedly “holier-than-thou” anti-war line).
Sadly, I cannot see Aussie blogs ever serving the same gate-keeper or political pressure role here as they manage (to some extent anyway) in the USA. A pity.
Gandhi, in this instance I think what is going on is a few things:
(1) Blogs tend to follow the media cycle. That’s inevitable, but we’ve made a conscious effort to keep writing about and following particular issues even when they drop off the media radar.
(2) From the pov of the media, “Iraq is no longer a political issue in Australia”.
(3) I think there’s broad resistance – among politicians as well – to admitting that citizen efforts and protest made a difference – hence we get discounting of the significance of those efforts and a refusal to consider how much the Iraq War might have contributed to Howard’s defeat. I think it’s important that we try to continue to highlight the validity and possibilities of grassroots political action.
Go Gandhi! Good to see you fired up on all cylinders again. Agree w/ Graham B. Grab the war criminals. No deals Kevin.
I’m off for much needed sleep. Don’t believe the HYPE.
The blogosphere’s failure to speak up on this story leaves the door open for media propaganda specialists like Miranda and Greg to put their own sick spin on it today.
“in Britain the Conservative Opposition, which strongly backed the war, is miles ahead in the polls.”
Sheridan spinning like a top…eh Gandhi? It just happens that the Labour party who took the British to war are way behind in the polls partially because some of the main war-mongers are still there. Including the fella who helped finance it. Bit of a super-hero these days…but is it all fiction? It would be interesting to see how Labor did w/ a new leader who takes a similar position to Obama on the Iraq invasion & talks tough diplomacy.
Nasking,
The funniest thing about Sheridan these days is how he keeps co-opting Rudd into his world view. I cannot work out whether he is trying to suck up to the new Man, or gently cajole him down the Murdoch-prescribed path to Success(TM).
To be honest Gandhi, I don’t read Sheridan enuff to notice…I’ll take your word for it. I’m sure They’d love to take Rudd on their faux Libertarian journey…hopefully he has enuff common-sense to know that Faustian pacts can lead to awful undoings in the later stages of leadership. Even more so now the Success(TM) is not what it used to be due to REAL competition.
Alexander Downer writes :
As our new Prime Minister, it is incumbent upon Kevin Rudd to pursue the War Crimes of the previous government. If he fails to do so, then he become complicit too. The media must now hold Rudd to account, as they failed to hold Howard to account.
More here if anyone is still interested.
So the White House responded to Rudd by saying “we acted based on what was the threat that was presented to us”.
And today Dana Perino says “That dissent amongst experts within the intelligence community at some level did not reach the president.”
But today’s new Senate Report shows that actually a whole lot of dissent DID reach the President and yet still “the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence.”
All Bush had to do was read the reports on his desk! More at Think Progress.
And now the White House backs down:
The question for Australians is whether all members of our government were allowed to see ALL the intelligence “that we had” or just carefully selected (and carefully created) bits.
Certainly Andrew Wilkie saw quite a bit of contrary intelligence, but his efforts to highlight it were suppressed. Why? On whose orders?
This abyssmal nonsense from the White House only confirms the urgent need for a full Royal Commission into Iraq.
Speaking at UQ in September 2006, Dr Rod Barton (author of ‘The Weapons Detective’, former director of intelligence responsible for monitoring overseas developments of WMD, UN weapons inspector, special advisor to Hans Blix and a senior advisor to the CIA in the hunt for Iraq’s missing weapons following the 2003 invasion) said that in December 2002, a DIO report to the Howard Government revealed that although Iraq retained a limited stock pile of chemical weapons, there were difficulties in storage, there was no means to deliver weapons and that the old weapons did not pose a threat. In fact there was no known chemical weapons production or biological weapons testing from 1991. Yet when asked about going to war based on WMD in Iraq, Howard still says, “I can only go on what I was told.”
“As our new Prime Minister, it is incumbent upon Kevin Rudd to pursue the War Crimes of the previous government. If he fails to do so, then he become complicit too.”
Agree…wholeheartedly.
For anyone interested, I have summarized my take on this week’s events here.
And lest we forget, this was John Howard in February 2007:
And this was Obama’s bitch-slap into touch:
This is how far we have come, folks.
Gandhi, I luv ya bro…but we need to back off. Let IT be takin’ care of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkJIcFMN_pc
Let’s start thinkin’ about the FUTURE.
It’s up to you DAD. Or such.
Isn’t that so?…isn’t that what we are?…what WE demand…when WE look the OTHER WAY?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LKCHKOM4_I&feature=related
just a DUMB…ANIMAL?
An ANIMAL?
Imagine if that ANIMAL
asked YOU
“look into your heart?”
N’
“Think about whether you should start”
“It’s a matter of ethics”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_HjiZ8r7Ek&feature=related
Lest we forget, eh Nasking?
We’ve already <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Laughter_and_Forgetting”forgotten, obviously.
I notice the Socceroos fans were being charged up to 20 times the going rate for tickets to the game against Iraq in Dubai last night. Not everybody is as quick to forget as us, I suspect.
Sorry, here’s that link, and a memorable (?) quote:
Gandhi…the capitalists pigs will always be. But no matter what they make…they never FEEL the moment.
I remember the Canada/Russia series of 72 like it was yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YzHG88B8Qo
So many French Canadians..w/ the American & other beaut Canadian players…takin’ on the Russkies…who were amazing.
When Paul Henderson took that pass off Phil Esposito & shoved it behind Tretiak…magic…no SETUP…here’s the Wiki view:
The Series was played at a time when only amateurs were allowed to play in the Olympic Games. The Soviet players, who had Olympic experience, were amateurs by strict definition only, as they were elite players playing hockey full-time in their native country. Some were given other titular professions (e.g. army soldiers playing full-time for the Central Red Army hockey team) to maintain amateur status for Olympic eligibility. Team Canada featured the country’s best professional NHLers, who by virtue of this status were ineligible for Olympic competition. For this reason, Canada had ceased competing in the IIHF World Championships and Winter Olympics after 1969.
The eight-game series consisted of four games in Canada, held in Montreal (Montreal Forum), Toronto (Maple Leaf Gardens), Winnipeg (Winnipeg Arena) and Vancouver (Pacific Coliseum) and four games in the Soviet Union, all of them held in Moscow at the (Luzhniki Ice Palace). The series was played at the height of the Cold War, and intense feelings of nationalism were aroused by the contest in both Canada and the Soviet Union. The series was of particular interest to Canadian residents due to the popular perception that Canada was the “birthplace of hockey,”.
The games showcased many great Russian players previously unknown in North America, such as Valery Kharlamov, Alexander Yakushev and Vladislav Tretiak against the stiffest competition they had ever faced, and they revealed the leadership of prolific scorer Phil Esposito and the quieter contributions of solid NHL veterans like Paul Henderson and Gary Bergman.
Canada’s Bobby Orr, the most dominant NHL player at the time, was named to the team but did not play because of a knee injury. Bobby Hull, another dominant player, was selected for the team by coach Harry Sinden, but was ruled ineligible to play because of his defection from the NHL to the rival World Hockey Association. Alan Eagleson, a player agent and the future head of the National Hockey League Players Association, was involved in forming the Canadian team. He was also considered to be responsible for the decision to exclude Hull and other WHA stars.
TV and radio coverage Hockey Canada produced telecasts in both English and French for Canadian audiences, sponsored by Labatt Breweries, with the cooperation of both CTV and CBC. The CTV television network won a bid to carry the English broadcasts, but their network only served Canada’s major markets. Therefore, all CTV stations carried the telecasts, and areas that did not have a CTV affiliate could view the game on their local CBC station.
For the four games in Canada, Hockey Canada produced a single video feed that was used for both English and French telecasts, as well as for Soviet television. For the four games in Moscow, Soviet state television produced the video feed that was used in Canada, as well.
On the radio, Bob Cole provided the English language play-by-play of the series.
Game 8
Heading into Game Eight, each team had three wins and three losses, with one tie. Only a win in Game Eight would deliver victory in the series. In Canada, the entire country just about shut down for the game on September 28, with many watching it at work or school.
(I had bloody chicken pox…on the 21st floor in those days…so forced to watch by myself…Henderson lived a few blocks from me…so eventually got his autograph…& Jacques Plante’s at a dinner thanx to Dad).
Team Canada took a number of questionable early penalties (which wasn’t surprising to Canadians, as they were the same referees who were accused of being biased in Game 6.) The game was delayed after a marginal call against Jean-Paul Parise, and emotions boiled over. Parise nearly swung his stick at the referee and got a match penalty. Sinden threw a chair on the ice. Despite the penalties, the score was 2-2 after the first period, but the Soviets pulled ahead 5-3 after two. Things looked grim for Team Canada. During the second intermission, goalie Ken Dryden was reported to have thought, “If we lose this one, I’ll be the most hated man in Canada.”
(My buddy & I went to a Montreal VS. Toronto game not long after & cheered goalie Dryden for his effort…he gave us the thumbs up…we were ecstatic as young lads. Also got tickets to Chicago Black Hawks at Maple Leaf Gardens… & enjoyed cheerin’ them on w/ my outfit given to me way back in 1971 at Disney World by a Dad sick as a dog, i remember the haunted house blew me away…but Dad puked, poor bugger afrer we rode spinnin’ teacups & we left before thre fireworks & Tinkerbell.
…for a few years I used to play cards by spinnin’ them against the wall..to win team players…& listen to late night games in bed.)
But the Canadians came out roaring in the third period, and Phil Esposito and Yvan Cournoyer scored to even it up. After Cournoyer’s goal, Alan Eagleson (seated across the ice from the Team Canada bench) caused a ruckus in the crowd because the goal light had not come on. As he was being subdued by the Soviet police, the Canadian players headed over, Peter Mahovlich actually going over the boards to confront police with his stick. Eagleson was freed and the players escorted him across the ice to the bench. In anger, he shoved his fist to the Soviet crowd, as a few other Canadian supporters also gave the finger to the Soviets.
At that point, with the score tied 5-5 and the series tied 3-3-1, a member of the Soviet delegation unexpectedly informed Canada that, if the score and the series remained tied, the Soviets would claim victory on goal differential.
Then, with just 34 seconds remaining in the game, Paul Henderson, in perhaps the most famous moment in Canadian sports history, scored for Canada, jamming in a rebound behind Soviet goaltender Vladislav Tretiak. This play is widely known as “the goal heard around the world” and was captured on film by cameraman Frank Lennon. The picture became one of Canada’s most famous photographs. Canada held on for the win in the game and thus the series.
Canadians erupted in celebration; it was truly a memorable moment for the country. In the Soviet Union, many people thought that their country would have won if the Canadians had not fractured the ankle of their best player; however Canada was without Bobby Orr, arguably their best player so neither team had its greatest talent on the ice.
(Oh yea!)
I remember a fella at the Runcorn Hotel used to play ice hockey…he & his mates were into it BIG TIME. I thougt, imagine Aussies playin’ in the big series?
Just a thought. Coached a good baseball team at Indooroopilly SHS…we won the pennant years ago. Ya gotta invest.
Here’s my take:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/06/08/australias-war-is-over-ii/
Excellent points Mark & Gandhi…as usual…you’re right not to leave it up to Dad (Father Time)…& corporate mobsters to figure out…as has been done far too often in the past.
That ice hockey stuff was meant to be in the Salon that was turned into a Saloon last night late.