From Hansard on Wednesday:
Will you ask Saddam’s biggest bagman to return to the
question?
The SPEAKER—The member for Griffith has already
been warned. That was not a point of order. He
will excuse himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
This may have been the highlight of yesterday’s question time during which the ALP peppered the government with questions about Iraq. Kevin Rudd pushed one too many buttons. The question is: Does the Labor Party (and Beazley in particular) have the guts to stay the course and pull-out Australian troops if they win the next election? It’s less than a year away and I wonder if the terror war will become an election issue.
Why do you want them to withdraw in the first place?
I want our guys not to get killed on the one hand.
So if this were your motivation thats one thing.
But is there something else going on here?
Is the Pope a Catholic? IMHO, it will be a central plank.
Saddam’s biggest bagman
Kickbacks in the morning, a nice little earner,
Kickbacks in the noontide for some WMDs;
Waiting for the bagman, and the time of reaping,
We shall come rejoicing, Ratty’s Iraqi cheats.
Refrain
Ratty’s Iraqi cheats, Ratty’s Iraqi cheats,
It’s a nice little earner for Ratty’s Iraqi cheats,
Ratty’s Iraqi cheats, Ratty’s Iraqi cheats,
It’s a nice little earner for Ratty’s Iraqi cheats,
Lying to the UN, lying to the nation,
Fearing the whistle-blower, and Commissioner Cole;
By and by the questions, I really don’t recall,
But look, Saddam gave me a really nice gun.
Refrain
Going forth with weeping, lying to save our skins,
Though the loss sustained the cockies will pay;
When our weeping’s over, We will stay the course,
Behind the Man of Steel, Ratty’s Iraqi cheats.
Refrain
So, the US is thinking of cutting and running! Shame they didnt bother to tell Blair or Dolly.
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=132060®ion=6
I found this bit particularly interesting:
Here’s plan B and/or C! Call in the axis of evil, forget democracy, cut and run the troops, and bring back “stability” (aka dictatorship).
Lovely Katz, do you think we could get the skinny guy with the Sideshow Bob hair from Australian Idol’s Biggest Losers to sing it at our Christmas party?
Eric, i would have thought it quite clear that they are serious about withdrawal. Beazley would never have made this an issue if they weren’t going to follow through. It is definitely an election issue and it is one that the Republicans are getting pasted on in the US at the moment. It’s fair to say that the Australian press and the Australian public will follow the trend in the US, that is, to turn on the government’s Iraq policy. So far the MSM in Australia has been pretty gutless when it comes to questioning the Coalition on their Iraq policy, this will change once they finally realize that this is an issue that people care about.
I think Labor is making good ground pointing out just how feeble Howard’s Iraq stance is. It isn’t “cutting and running” once the war is lost.
Lefty’s link is about the Iraq Study Group (five Republicans, five Democrats) and its supposed ideas, as explained by unnamed sources to the BBC, as reported here by SBS.
Let’s stick to something Baker actually SAID about Iraq:
And here’s what actually happened in Parliament.
The Labor Party intended to (and, later, did) introduce a motion to censure the government for taking the nation to war on a “lie”. Unfortunately, the PM quoted pre-war SWAT Womble saying that it was an empirical fact that Saddam had WMD. Uh-oh. A few Labor frontbenchers tried to convince the Speaker that the Rudd quote was out of order so as to ensure it wasn’t read into Hansard. The Womble – humiliated and exposed as a liar – lost the plot.
Similar story today. Labor’s WMD lie lie was again trotted out, whereupon Alexander Downer pointed out that the bipartisan Jull committee had concluded that the government did NOT lie about WMD and did NOT even oversell the concept. Guess who signed off on and endorsed the committee’s conclusions? One Kim Beazley.
With that, Labor’s frontbench again melted down and six of its members were thrown out for having reality-induced temper tanties.
Will Labor stay the course till the next election, you ask. Well, they haven’t even survived the week without being thoroughly demolished so my guess is NO. These dingalings want Australians to believe they have the gumption to deal with Al Qaeda but they can’t even successfully manage Question Time. The ALP, of course, remains the only political party in the Western world that once asked Saddam & Co for cash.
Hilarious stuff.
CL, so Rudd said something dumb about WMD. John Howard said plenty more dumb things and he had access to a lot more data than Rudd did. What does that say? The government’s tactics are weak and at a high school debating level. We are talking about a war, where decisions make a big difference to the lives of a lot of people. It’s ridiculous that the Howard chooses to fend off questions about Iraq by re-hashing 3 year old quotes by the opposition foreign affairs spokesman. Is that all he’s got?
Can he actually defend his own position? How is it exactly that Howard is dealing with Al Queda? By wasting resources in a war that is lost?
Right. But if it’s because we want, I don’t know, our guys and the Iraqis not to get killed, that’s completely different.
Pfft.
God, I find myself actually agreeing (albeit it in modified form) with the Currency Lad. Do I have a temperature?
Beazers said nothing but support when we were going to war and seventy-odd percent of the population was opposed to it. Certainly, getting out of there now is a solid sell to the electorate but to me it smacks of the populism that Beazley has made somewhat of a mainstay with the party.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad idea, mind, but he’s gotta own that he supported it in the first place.
Will he follow through? I would bet money on it. Hell, the government has, and they’ve lost it, and a shitload of votes. Howard is right in one respect: pulling troops out now is the easy option, but I disagree with him when he says staying is the only solution.
I guess its been a tough coupla weeks, CL. First Foley makes Clinton look like some blushing girl scout, and now this. So much schtick goes obsolete!
Try these actual quotes on for size then http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-panel-considers-new-tack-on-iraq/2006/10/16/1160850872688.html:
Mission creep ahoy, with “phased withdrawal of US troops to bases outside Iraq” squarely on the table. This aint some external thinktank CL. Check the names involved.
Expect Dolly to be the last to know.
Sorry Mick, Rudd didn’t say “something dumb about WMD”. He is on record saying Hussein HAD WMD but he – Womble – nevertheless participated in an attempt to censure the government for lying about WMD. That the government did NOT lie about WMD was established by a Parliamentary committee whose conclusions were endorsed in writing by Kim Beazley. The Labor members revealed themselves not only to be liars but incompetent idiots. The war is not “lost”; Saddam Hussein is on trial for genocide and war crimes. According to “international law”, Iraq is a sovereign nation. It’s being attacked by terrorists and we should fight them. Surrendering is what gave us 9/11 and the Bali Bombing. (Both of which occurred before the Iraq War, funnily enough).
Lefty, the Foley “scandal” didn’t rate compared to Ted Kennedy’s manslaughter in a sinking Oldsmobile Delmont or Gerry “Stud Muffin” Studds’ molestation of a Congressional page (involving actual sex). The “scandal” is already more or less dead and in the most iconic Iraq War contest in America – Lieberman v. Lamont – Lamont is collapsing. To compare Foley’s email fetish with Bubba’s repeated sexual abuse of an employee is too absurd for words – depending perhaps on what the meaning of “is” is. Meanwhile, the Harry Reid sleazefest continues.
As for the “names involved” in the Iraq Study Group, James Dobbins’ experience with Afghanistan has led him to back the involvement of the Iranians in regional nation-building for the past two years or more. It is not a new idea for him and everyone familiar with his work knows this. Post-Lebanon, post-”wipe Israel off the map”, it’s not a particularly saleable idea.
James Baker’s vested interest in realpolitic and regional schmoozing over systemic change are well known. That reflects the “stability” model of the Elder Bush clique’s old-fashioned Foggy Bottom worldview. Still, kudos to him for saying “the current Iraqi government is capable of sustaining peace in the war-torn region…’If they think we’re going to leave, then they won’t be able to do it’.” Quite so and of a piece with what Alexander Downer has said this week.
There won’t be a Kerry/Beazley surrender to terrorists which the left has always been so very keen to see. So eager are they to avenge a few Anglospheric election losses, in fact, that they’re actually salivating about terrorists in Iraq killing more people. The so-called progressive left – they are the mission creeps.
So CL, suggestive emails to underage page boys are nothing to worry about? My opinion exactly. I believe Mr Foley did fine work for child protection.
And I believe he’s offered the excuse that he was molested by a priest as a young lad.
C.L., Baker is more than one of Bush I’s foreign policy gurus. Have a look at his history with the Bush family. Note that Bush has been taking advice from Kissinger. Bush is not the fool he’s often painted as. After the midterms, Rumsfeld may go, and Baker may get his way. Remember Condi is not a Necon.
There’ll be regime change in Bagdhad soon enough – dump democracy for a “strongman” is a recurrent theme of not just Baker’s three options, but of almost all the commentary emanating currently from the Washington foreign policy community.
Where would that leave you and Dolly? Out on a limb?
In any case, no one believes that the COW will be there in 2009.
Sorry CL but what is wrong with changing your mind about something once you have more facts? Rudd did say that Iraq had WMDs, most of the world said that. Most of the world wasn’t at the table making the decision to go to war, Howard was. Howard was in a position to verify the credibility of the evidence before him, Rudd wasn’t. It appears that Howard either didn’t do his job, or he had other motives for going to war.
In any case, the opposition is doing what they should and asking questions of the Howard government about the situation in Iraq. I think it’s a more than fair to ask how is it exactly that Australian troops in Iraq are making Iraq a better place? Why is it that the government can’t answer that question? How is the government addressing the growing rate of civilian deaths in Iraq? Australian troops have been there since the start and all we have seen is an increase in violence? CL, staying the course isn’t working. Why isn’t the government talking about other options because their current policy is looking more than a little dated.
It seems to me that the ALP is doing what an opposition should, and that is forcing a government to examine their policy failings. No-one is suggesting that Iraq be handed over to a band extremists, but that seems to be the outcome of our current course of action.
Yeah, it’s a bit rich of the ALP to censure the government about something that they also agreed with at the time.
That aside, Howard did lie. Anyone who watched the Cutting edge last night would have seen over 40 interviews with former senior CIA and other intelligence officers who spoke of the Cheney led crusade against Iraq. In the absence of evidence of WMD’s, they were simply directed to make stuff up. Dolly and the dwarf would have known.
600,000 dead Iraqi’s later, and I question the wisdom of their deceit. Yet I wonder why there are still some who defend the indefensible?
Bush:
C.L.:
The Left are traitors to the successful Iraq effort!
Alex, why is it so weird for the ALP to censure the government for misleading them? That seems to make perfect sense. The argument against the censure motion seems to go like this:
1. The government passes intelligence to the ALP.
2. On the basis of that intelligence the ALP makes decisions, it decides for instance that Saddam had WMD.
3. People find out that the intelligence was wrong.
4. People find out that the government may well have known that the intelligence was wrong.
5. the ALP change their stance based on new information.
6. The ALP try to censure the government for lying about the intelligence.
7. The government replies by saying that the ALP believed the faulty intelligence therefore they are hypocrites.
It doesn’t make sense, it might if you assume the ALP had all of the same information that the government had, but it is clear that they didn’t (nor would you expect them to).
Sorry CL but what is wrong with changing your mind about something once you have more facts?
Nothing. Just don’t march into Parliament and accuse other people of lying. short of backpacking around Iraq, Howard was not in a position to confirm that Saddam had no WMD. Nor was the United Nations – which believed he did in fact have them. He’d also used them several times. The decision to remove him was understandable, just and correct. Alexander Downer has inventoried the many infrastructual, medical, educational and economic improvements realised in Iraq by the Coalition – as recently as today. He has, then, explained “how Australian troops in Iraq are making Iraq a better place”.
Kim Beazley’s contribution: let’s surrender.
Alex: “That aside, Howard did lie.”
lol – not according to Bomber who endorsed a Parliamentary committee’s findings that he and the government did NOT lie.
“600,000 dead”
An invented figure rushed out for the US mid-terms and published by a clown who recently played sidekick to George Galloway at a “peace” rally.
Why did “The UN” believe it?
Because Powell told them so.
You can’t mean the weapons inspectors.
If there was a rally today, my placard would say:
“Pull the troops out – It’s slightly less worse than the alternatives… probably!”
CL, really, how can you believe this stuff. I want to see Iraq turn around as much as you do but it seems to be very apparent that the CoW is losing the battle, even if you can still define a battle to be won. Why do you think it is that Bush no longer talks about victory in Iraq but rather the danger of looking like they’ve been defeated?
The government message isn’t one of victory but is rather “trust us, we know what we’re doing”. They seem to be out of ideas about how to stop the insurgency. Why not pull the troops back to another country and take that target away from the terrorists? Then they can no longer claim to be an “insurgency” but are rather crazy jihadists looking to control the country. The CoW is giving them legitimacy. Pulling out isn’t surrendering, it’s choosing to fight battles that can be won.
I’m with Leinad, if that wasn’t painfully obvious.
Can any pro-Iraqi war person point to one prediction they got right?
I can’t be arsed googled my 2003 blog observations on this issue (though others are welcome to try) but they could basically be summed up as getting rid of Saddam and creating a new secular democracy in West/Central Asia would be great. But the Bush regime would just fuck it up because they’re most incompetent, venal and ideological-driven junta the US has seen since the Harding Adminstration.
Actually I take that back. Warren wasn’t that ideologically driven. And apparently quite a good poker player. Unlike certain current POTUSi.
And Dubya’s gang still has a while to go to meet Reagan’s all time Presidental record of indicted and convincted appointees.
OK, let’s just settle for massively colossal incompetence.
I just wish Bush would…
Why not pull the troops back to another country and take that target away from the terrorists?
Hang on a second, isn’t Mark saying innocent Christians and priests are targets? In fact, very few troops are killed these days by terrorists. They mostly kill civilians. Should we move all of these targets to another country too? Then, of course, the jihadists will arrive in the third country and start killing people there.
Call me a sceptic.
“Sorry CL but what is wrong with changing your mind about something once you have more facts? Rudd did say that Iraq had WMDs, most of the world said that. Most of the world wasn’t at the table making the decision to go to war, Howard was. Howard was in a position to verify the credibility of the evidence before him, Rudd wasn’t. It appears that Howard either didn’t do his job, or he had other motives for going to war.
In any case, the opposition is doing what they should and asking questions of the Howard government about the situation in Iraq.”
Actually the opposition is not asking questions, they’ve made up their mind mick and as you point out about Howard, they’re not currently in a position to do that intelligently now. You can’t have your cake and eat it here. Certainly the ALP could say they have serious doubts about the course of the war in Iraq and in govt lean toward a pullout, after serious examination and discussion with the US and Britain. To be so adamant now smacks of churlishness, not to mention the other elephant in the room at present-Afghanistan. At present Labor’s stance smacks of cutting and running from allies, albeit for the supposed betterment of Iraqis. I’m not so sure the more nuanced approach would not have sat better with the broader electorate, particularly as Beasley wants to stay the course in Afghanistan at present. An adamant ‘ditch Iraq and hitch Afghanistan’ may come back to haunt Labor yet.
Except some of those third countries actually have a police force and army, not to mention governments that at least some people think are kind of legitimate. Well, that might not be true but they don’t have half the problems that Iraq has. I agree though, they will be a target.
Also, not wanting to quibble because I think that the point is fair, the last month has seen the most US troop deaths in a long time. That number pales in comparison to the number if Iraqis being killed at the moment.
If the US pull out, the terrorists or whoever can no-longer claim to be a liberating force but are rather a force quite clearly trying to push their own agenda.
Sometimes I don’t believe what i read on some of these blogs.
Now i know im in my dotage,and i have probably consumed a little more alcohol than most in my life time, and it has had an effect ,but “LETS SURRENDER” could someone please inform me whom invaded whom here ?.
What are we supposed to surrender or surrender to?.
We are firing on innocent men women and children with all sorts of un-imaginable weapons. But LETS SURRENDER.
We are dropping bombs on innocent men women and children from 30000 ft and never seeing the destruction below But LETS SURRENDER.
The infra-structure of Iraq has been destroyed and people live in stone age conditions .But LETS SURRENDER.
You really don’t get it do you? Soldiers are kicking peoples doors down in the middle of the night, terrorising women and children looking for so called insurgents,and the men folk are just gonna wear this,of course if they wasn’t insurgents then they sure are now.There is no riddle here,it’s called revenge.At the end of the day, and the circumstances are of no matter,you kill or injure any of my family, your gonna get it back in spades.
This is gone beyond all the hyperbole about W.M.D. and Saddam Hussein,we have invaded and occupied a soveriegn country and they want us out.The so called elected government of Iraq was a sham and all but a few wingnut RWDB’s believe otherwise. The cut and run bollicks was used in the Viet Nam conflict it was as trite then as it is now.
Oh by the way i anm an x digger so save any facile insults for the arm chair privates(there aint no Generals here)
You have a point observa. But it is becoming pretty clear, especially given the recent statements by the head of the British army, that the intelligence community is calling for a pullout. You are right though, we are debating stuff about which we really know nothing and the electorate could very well think the same thing. At least now it is cleat what the ALP stance is and it sets the grounds for a debate, a debate which is very much needed.
” At present Labor’s stance smacks of cutting and running from allies, albeit for the supposed betterment of Iraqis.”
We’ve got 900 soldiers there tucked away in a quite corner. I doubt removing them would even be noticed by the Americans, let alone the Iraqis.
“I’m not so sure the more nuanced approach would not have sat better with the broader electorate…”
Amd ain’t nothing nuanced about the broader electrorate’s views.
And Obby the way you keep mentioning Afghanisitan when Iraq comes up sounds more and more like someone blaming his car’s stripped gearbox on a passenger failing to fix a flat tyre.
Ok, “quiet” not “quite”. Quite so.
It could be mick that Beazley has info to make him fairly confident that we will be following a strategic pullout from Iraq before the next election and he is preempting Howard here. Nevertheless there is danger for him(and us all) in the following report
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20601508-401,00.html?from=public_rss
Notice a couple of points about the war in Afghanistan here. Firstly there are increasing foreign fighters involved there and furthermore, since the truce in Waziristan, attacks have increased 300%. What will happen to Afghanistan if such a ‘truce’ is declared in Iraq you have to wonder. That may become Beazley’s problem faster than he thinks. Personally I would have gone for the nuanced critique of Iraq as a result.
Obby unplugged: The Central Asia geopolitical situation is all turning to shit because of the ALP.
This is becoming really pathetic obby. Just go back to writing about Wilhelm Reich and company tax reform. That way you can at least raise at least a good laugh and some valid observations about business startups.
Nabakov, I keep harping on about Afghanistan because of the striking similarities there (next cab off the rank?), but more specifically you could add ET and the Solomons (PNG?) to Australia’s nation building woes. A true conservative would be saying “I told you ALL so” right now you dopey liberal progressives. Don’t be fooled about the 6 out of 10 Australians who want us out of Iraq. That doesn’t mean they think any better of the other ventures, which is where Beazley stands of course. He may only be a quick pullout away from Howard’s position now and counting, if JI suddenly take heart from Western lack of resolve in the ME. For mine Islam is on the march and we might well need to recall a name like Dunkirk. We’ll see.
“Obby unplugged: The Central Asia geopolitical situation is all turning to shit because of the ALP.”
Don’t know where you got that idea from Nabakov. I place the blame squarely at the feet of a certain mediaeval Religion of Peace.
“I keep harping on about Afghanistan because of the striking similarities there (next cab off the rank?), but more specifically you could add ET and the Solomons (PNG?) to Australia’s nation building woes.”
Huh? I do believe it’s time you had a Bex and nice lie down Obby.
The only nation we have to really build is our own. Fuq Iraq, soon we won’t be able to wash our cars every weekend. Now that’s an Australian national crisis.
The witless galoot who would be foreign minister.
Oh dear. Chicken Little is now a student of the Bolta.
CL says:
“Nothing. Just don’t march into Parliament and accuse other people of lying. short of backpacking around Iraq, Howard was not in a position to confirm that Saddam had no WMD. Nor was the United Nations – which believed he did in fact have them.”
Actually, now you are being dishonest. Hans Blix and his team couldn’t find so much as a cracker in Iraq and were not prepared to say Iraq had WMD. Howard and co. bought sexed up, or should that read trumped up, evidence that Iraq had WMD. Who could ever forget the pathetic Colin Powell presentation which was simply wall-to-wall lies nd which key players in the US intelligence community found embarrassing.
Rudd and co. accepted what the CoW had to say in good faith prior to the invasion. Now they quite rightly recognise that such good faith wasn’t reciprocated.
For the record, the more astute players in the Oz Blogosphere, including John Quiggin, were doubting Iraq had WMD prior to the 2003 invasion.
Apparently poor old CL doesn’t believe in wishy-washy things like nuance.
“CL, so Rudd said something dumb about WMD.”
No you are LYING mick.
You people have got to stop this relentless lying about WMD.
Well said, Phill. A nice dose of reality amid all this witless chatter.
Paul Kelly gets it right:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/paulkelly/index.php/theaustralian/comments/us_prepares_to_shift_the_line_in_the_sand/
“The only nation we have to really build is our own. Fuq Iraq, soon we won’t be able to wash our cars every weekend. Now that’s an Australian national crisis”
So Nabs, you’re a true conservative WRT foreign policy and believe we shouldn’t be messing around in any of these countries/cultures, except perhaps to retaliate if they attack us? Basically you think Howard and the Beazer are both up a wattle then? Does that stance also include refusing to be complicit in repugnant regimes ethnically and theocratically cleansing their countries? ie by shoving the fleers back across their borders to ‘sort themselves out’? Besides we’ve got no water for them to wash their cars. Where you at Nabs? Fuq em all…?
Forty yesterday and another 14 today for NATO and growing as we’ve heard http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20607478-401,00.html?from=public_rss
Apparently the Beazer’s comfy with that Nabs(including the collaterals in bombing strikes)but not Iraqi casualties.
I second adrian’s comment, well said Phill.
IMV we are the invaders, the killers and the terrorists. We are the existential threat to them and all this islamofascist bs is a red herring to blind gullible westerners into supporting (or at least not violently opposing) endless war/s in the middle east.
The (Reagan era) crooks in the Bush admin driving this obscenity are the same people that brought us some of the 20th century’s worst (and most sustained) acts of terrorism against civilian populations in central America while they propped up Saddam in the M.E.
Labor would do better as a strong opposer of our current path with a clear alternative. There is no middle ground worth seeking while the rightwing idealogues frame the debate. Labor has to frame its own ground and stick to it.
Just terrible isn’t. Just wicked,
That we ousted Saddam and the Taliban.
I don’t know how we are going to deal with all that guilt.
Never forget that you leftists are fascists.
JustaGuy,well said yourself.Oh yes you are right on as well.
The right at this moment are grasping at straws, whilst their ship of state is slipping under the waves being overeloaded with the weight of lies that far exeeds anything that came out during the Viet Nam conflict.
But what i find to be more pathetic than anything,is the retards on the right will never concede a point.They are right and excuse the pun, about everything.And when they have been found out,still no admission it will be(as the 10watt globe goes on in their head)I know lets give Stalin another run ot maybe Mao.The deaths under these two bastards will vary from(depending on who you read)from 10 to 100 million people.And now they can’t connect the dots to the modern progressive left with Stalin and Mao and (I don’t know pick a left wing dictator of your own)now they say Hitler was a socialist.It is on public record,it can be found in thousands of documents ref W.W.2 that Hitler was a right wing raving lunatic but oh no,according to some of the people here who would’nt know their arsehole from their elbow he is now a socialist.
And what will be real funny in another fifty years when the real truth comes out on what Bush,Blair,Howard et al have done.They to will be communists.
Paul Kelly has a new worldview for the week! This one should last, oh about a week.
Poor old melaleuca
Hang on, CL, you’re now using the Beazer as a source? I’m not; I’m using former CIA agents directly involved in the intelligence process as a source. These guys admit that they were directed to make stuff up to strengthen the case for war. Australia’s decision to support the Cow was based on these forged assessments. Are you saying Howard didn’t know? Wow, you must really think that he’s incompetent if that’s the case.
So what part about the study is made up, CL? Stats have analysed the data and strongly defend the methodology used.
Poor old melaleuca, as I was saying:
In 2003 Hans Blix reported that Iraq had NOT fully accepted its disarmament obligations and that and the question of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. In March, he reported: “Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.”
By that stage, Iraq was in breach of 1441′s “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”.
The UN believed Saddam had WMD. So did Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Kevin Rudd, Kim Beazley, Scott Ritter and most of the world’s intelligence agencies. People who maintain that the war was based on a lie are themselves liars.
test
Hang on, CL, you’re now using the Beazer as a source? I’m not; I’m using former CIA agents directly involved in the intelligence process as a source. These guys admit that they were directed to make stuff up to strengthen the case for war. Australia’s decision to support the Cow was based on these forged assessments. Are you saying Howard didn’t know? Wow, you must really think that he’s incompetent if that’s the case.
So what part about the study is made up, CL? Stats have analysed the data and strongly defend the methodology used.
Rudd & Co deserve to be condemned for not asking what WMDs did Iraq have and could Iraq threaten any country.
One did not need to be in intelligence to answer either of those questions.
As for now , given that on any count the amount of people being killed is increasing and then at an appalling rate it is impossible to say that the Forces stationed there are doing any good at all.
Indeed if they left ( remembering that AQ and associates will say they have won anyway) it is highly likely that the Insurgents would turn their attention to the foreign based ‘terrorists’.
You have to hand it to him. In so many areas Iron Mark has been proved right again
Chris Floyd
I know that reality is not CL’s or others chosen field of expertise, but the above quote sums up the whole disaster that is Iraq with great clarity for those with eyes to see and a brain to comprehend.
Adrian,of course you are correct,They are losing the argument and come November in the States,the mid term elections will see just how far the arguement has been lost.
“Labor would do better as a strong opposer of our current path with a clear alternative.”
Perhaps that’s true but life in govt is a little more complex than that. In particular there are always uncomfortable tradeoffs involved and value judgements to be made as to the importance of those tradeoffs. I have put some of those policy tradeoffs to nabakov in particular and as you can see, sometimes the life of a policy maker was not meant to be easy. Naturally we all long for simple solutions.
Here’s the link to the article for anyone interested.
Alex, a couple of your comments got caught up in the Spaminator. Should be ok now.
Thanks adrian for that blockquote from a Saddam supporter with a shocking case of BDS.
See Chris Floyd’s earlier expose of the Bush/Hitler connection! And coming soon: the Bush/Roswell Story!
We might indeed.
Imagine if the Chamberlain Government had rabbitted on about cutting and running then. Imagine if the BEF had been massacred by a German army with overwhelming momentum and firepower, and the British had not used its superior naval power to withdraw troops from the by-then hostile continent. Far better for nabakov, observa and others for them to have “stayed the course” with the BEF slaughtered, and the defeat of Nazism prolonged and possibly even postponed, than have the Chamberlain government admit a mistake.
As it was, they withdrew from an impossible situation, continued the fight by better tactics when circumstances changed, and helped win the war. Smart move that. Worth seeing how we can apply it in current situations.
Fair enough Andrew E, but then they didn’t have another sizeable expeditionary force in say Calais that they were gunna leave there to continue to fight the good fight, while pulling out of Dunkirk. That may be the analogy for Afghanistan now but the Beazer seems sure it aint.
Phun History Phact:
Only half of the BEF was trapped at Dunkirk many army units evacuated from there were redeployed to France and evactuated again when France finally fell
Phun History Phact the second: WW2 has crap all to do with the ‘War on Terror’, the War in Afghanistan or the War in Iraq.
Quit using dodgy analogies.
Yes, what was the real reason behind Bush’s Jan 2004 New Mexico visit? A speech on the war on terror? In Roswell? A very convenient excuse.
For future guidance, here are some half-way decent historical analogies for the Iraq War and the WoT
Iraq War
1. The Suez Crisis (mismanaged tragicomic imperial bungle)
2. Bosnia (enthno-religious civil war)
3. Lebanon (ditto, plus occupying forces (Syrian, US, French and Israeli) and effective use of car/truck bombings, assassinations etc)
4. Somalia
5. Algeria, pre- and post-independence
6. British Occupation of Iraq, 1917-32; 1941-47
dodgy analogies
1. WW2 – I really can’t think of any analogies that don’t ridiculously distort, including 1938 analogies and 1939-45 analogies.
2. Vietnam – captures the futility/cluelessness and incompetence angles but has uselss Cold War overtones, doesn’t capture the ethno-religious factors, oil factors, and the whole ‘Middle East’ bit.
War on Terror
acceptable:
None? It’s pretty safe to say this kind of conflict, on a global scale is pretty much without precedent. You could say its the could war minus the nation states, but even then.
dodgy analogies:
1. Vienna 1683. This one’s just goddam silly. The Great Turk was at war with the Austrians for the glory of the Ottoman empire (rapidly diminishing at that point), not because he wanted to, or was capable of, enslaving Christendom. 1683 was his last futile throw – over the sixteen years following the battle, the Habsburgs of Austria, and their allies gradually occupied and dominated southern Hungary and Transylvania, which had been largely cleared by the Turkish forces.
2. Tours 732. I don’t know which pisses off more, this or the Gates of Vienna analogy. Martel’s delusions to the contrary, the Arab force at Tours was a raiding party and not much more. They hadn’t the numbers or the siege equipement to do anything more than harrass Septimania and the southern Frankish lands, and were already riven with tensions between the Arab nobility and their Berber grunts. Smashing this force didn’t save ‘Western Civilisation’ from Islamic Domination, it merely accelerated Frankish reconquest of the Septimanian territories.
FYI, IBC has rationally debunked the Lancet’s brobdignagian make-believe concerning the civil death toll in Iraq. Having an activist editor is costing the Lancet its credibility: perhaps they should stick to medical matters.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
Remarkable job those fellows do, averging six unique reports on each incident.
May I suggest anyone with a little spare change donate to them? I have done so. The service they provide is almost without doubt the most accurate of such data.
MarkL
Canberra
Leinad, in brief: “I don’t like WWII analogies because they make lefties look like cowards”.
Of course the war on fake militant Islam has nothing to do with WW2. My point was to do with the correct use of military force. It is possible, and sensible, to withdraw military force from one place where it isn’t doing much good and apply it again at another place and another time where such force might be put to good effect. You can’t do that if your force is bogged down indefinitely or being wiped out.
A tactical withdrawal need not mean you’re giving up the fight altogether. This is why the rhetoric about “stay the course” and “finish the job” does not refute, or even address, the very good arguments for withdrawing from Iraq.
MarkL did you actually read your link.
I found it interesting that although they talked in general about statistical methodology they merely let any discussion about that go through to the keeper and then proceeded to talk about implications.
A bit like my wife telling me the CPI is wrong because her bills are going up much more.
I am entirely sceptical about any sample survey being done in Iraq however IBC certainly didn’t bring any arguments at all to the debate.
I do not mind people disputing the figures but please get some people who actually understnd statistics to do it.
If one believes one can do a sample survey in Iraq then they went about it the right way.
I remain to be convinced given huge population movements, stratification problems etal.
your blokes put up a pretty poor show
Interesting, MarkL
The critique you cite didn’t criticise this aspect of the Lancet study:
In other words, the critique:
1. conceded the validity of the research design.
2. did not dispute the claim that the researchers counted 302 post-invasion violent deaths.
3. remains slient about the validity of the quotient by which the sample figures were to be multiplied to achieve the grand total.
The Lancet study reported supporting evidence for a high proportion of the deaths counted:
In any well-governed society, as the critique implies, the death certificate represents the best means of calculating mortality. For example, Australians can go to their Year Book for an almost precise count of all deaths in Australia for the previous year. (Derelicts who jump of bridges and get stuck in the mud at the bottom of rivers may occasionally not be counted–a tiny proportion of total deaths.)
The critique of the Lancet study questions the validity of these death certificates:
I have some problems with this critique.
When death certificates are issued they are placed into the hands of the next-of-kin. The issuing authorities keep a record of having issued the certificate, not the crtificate itself. If these running tallies were not kept up or were destroyed, or were hidden, then it is quite easy to imagine how so many original certificates may exist, but their duplicates do not.
In other words, the critique concedes that the Lancet researchers conscientiously and accurately counted the number of dead, and if the critique concedes that in a very high proportion of cases the Lancet researchers actually eyeballed death certificates.
This being the case, it seems less likely that randomly chosen Iraqi civilians would have forged death certificates than that for whatever reason–incompetence, happenstance, misadventure, or conspiracy–registering authorities undercounted the number of death certificates they issued.
I’m not rejecting the possibility that the Lancet count is vastly inflated. I’m merely point out that the critique itself is not above criticism.
Perhaps the answer lies in the three concessions I mentioned above:
1. Maybe the research design is invalid.
2. Maybe the Lancet researchers miscounted.
3. Maybe the quotient used to apply the sample to the entire population is too high.
Shorter CL: History is whatever I can twist to smear people.
Andrew E – coalition forces are not being militarily defeated or likely to be in the near future in either Iraq or Afghanistan – that is why your analogy with Frnce in 1939/40 sucks.
The Australian Battle group in Iraq has trained two Iraqi Brigades and Iraqi authorities and forces have taken over control of the province that they are based in.
Just because the terrorists in Iraq are expending more effort doesn’t mean it is time to withdraw, nor is it an indicator that stability can never be imposed.
Again, I know nothing about statistical methods myself, but the Lancet number still just leaves me scratching my head. This is from a critique in the Wall Street Journal’s online page, written by a certain Steven E. Moore…
“…the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report, “Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey,” the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn’t survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.
“Neither would anyone else. For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not everyone has the U.N.’s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005 survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711–almost three times that of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.
“What happens when you don’t use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP’s survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths–four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points…”
Like I say, I don’t know what to make of all this, and of course even a figure one-tenth of the Lancet’s claims would still be “too many.” But it’s damn hard enough trying to figure out who’s telling the truth about what’s going on over there. Maybe this will help; I don’t know.
It seems to me that this thread has gone a little OT recently. Surely the main argument is about whether or not the Labor Party is seriously going to go to the next federal election campaigning on the issue of “Bring them home”.
The arguments about body counts, historical analogies etc, will be part of that debate, but the key issues it seems are:
1: Can the CoW actually deliver on promises to both the Iraqis and their domestic (voting) audiences?
2: If there’s a withdrawl, what happens on the ground in Iraq – I guess then we have to argue over the nature of the conflict there. When does it become *civil* war (what a nice euphemism)
3: What are the consequences globally for the war of terrorism? Will a withdrawl embolden the jihadists, or take the steam out of their shovel?
For reference to “war of terrorism” see this thread.
Wonder what the Right will say if the GW Bush people reinstall Saddam or another just like him to control IRAQ,I believe that was talked about,but I have a feeling we will end up with 3 states controled by Islamic clerics ,and the Kurds will last about 4 weeks before the Turks invade
I was interrupted as I wrote my last bit. The final point for the night - before I return to my cat-infested garage to drink alone (again) is really to ask the most vital question:
If Bomber campaigns on a policy of withdrawl, will the Australian voters go for it?
Howard has laid many planks for his re-election: WorkChoices [puke]; the sanctity of the family; rooting out the *Marxists* from schools, collegs and universities; standing up to the terrrrrrists; and (cue canned laughter) getting sirrius about climate change(1).
Can the Beazer cut through?
(1) Non-core promise as per the Ministerial code of conduct.
It’s not an analogy. It’s an illustration of how military forces can be deployed well rather than badly, by focusing on the wider fight instead of a particular field of battle which may suit the enemy better than us. They can’t be ‘defeated’ and they can’t ‘win’ because these terms require forethought, planning and resources that simply haven’t been devoted to this exercise.
Trained them to do what? When they ‘take control’, are they acting in the name of the recently-constituted Iraqi state or in the name of what they consider higher loyalties? Uniform has become irrelevant as terrorists get around in official gear and official vehicles while well-meaning cops have to wear their street clothes.
I suppose it is possible to win any argument if you frame it narrowly enough. My argument is not that the terrorists are too strong. My argument is that, as in South Vietnam, the indigenous forces of stability are too weak and are being propped up rather than reinforced. This is despite, and not because of, the best efforts of Australian and other allied forces on the ground. You can rub as hard as you like but you can’t polish a turd. If they can be deployed elsewhere to better effect, they should be.
No, he can’t. That is all.
Andrew,
ALL the polls say he is.
You have an assertion searching for evidence. A bit like the WMDs!
I have ten years of history, and given that we cannot fast-forward to the 2007 just now let’s just leave it there.
Are the polls substantially different today than they were in the leadup to the 1998 and 2001 elections? One can understand why Howard insists that the only poll that counts is the one where actual votes are counted after election day. Polls showed that Mark Latham was on track to become PM at one stage. Polls showed in 1992 that Victorians preferred Joan Kirner over Jeff Kennett as Premier. Let’s just be grateful that big decisions in our lives, unlike those of Beazley and others, don’t depend much on polls.
It is a bit like WMDs I suppose in that nobody doubted they existed at some point in the past. Mass graves of gassed Kurds attest to this. With WMDs we see now that positions changed over time: your faith in Beazley’s capacity to change reveals a similar yearning for evidence, and I wish you well in your quest.
with respect Andrew the polls did change and they all say at the moment he is winning big time thus your comment is plainly wrong
observa on 19 October 2006 at 11:50 am
âLabor would do better as a strong opposer of our current path with a clear alternative.â?
Perhaps thatâs true but life in govt is a little more complex than that. In particular there are always uncomfortable tradeoffs involved and value judgements to be made as to the importance of those tradeoffs. I have put some of those policy tradeoffs to nabakov in particular and as you can see, sometimes the life of a policy maker was not meant to be easy. Naturally we all long for simple solutions.
Oh, I’m well aware of the “difficulties” as you put them involved at the centres of power, and have shied well clear of anything at all to do with them. I believe in them (the difficulties) to the point where I have no faith at all in our system and less faith in the US system that John Howard would have us hurtling toward.
I don’t think we live in democracies as such anymore, if we ever did. Certainly the yanks don’t and haven’t done since the Federal Reserve was created.
It would be nice for a relevant party with a show of winning government take a principled stand on matters which are destroying millions of lives though, all in pursuit of propping up the neoliberal system which actually benefits a select few to the detriment of the western middle classes who vote on the minutiae of image.
We used to have a broader representation of views and interests though and I’d have been happy to stay there. That middle ground is long gone and it won’t be a voting exercise between Liberal and Labor that brings it back. It will be much less civilised in my view.
Leinad
War on Terror
acceptable:
None? It’s pretty safe to say this kind of conflict, on a global scale is pretty much without precedent. You could say its the could war minus the nation states, but even the
You neglect the fact that this is the war on terror part 2. Reagan’s war on terror part 1 was a bloody and brutal affair which suppressed democracy and economic progress in Central America. Nicaragua, El Salvadore, Guatemala etc etc experienced state terrorism delivered by good old Uncle Sam on similar scales to what we are now seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their economies, run by ‘democrats’ sympathetic to US corporate interests continue to languish while the US agribusinesses’ profits continue to soar.
It’s mostly the same happy democracy spreaders and freedom lovers in charge of policy in the Bush2 administration too, but with a decidedly greater Likudnik slant. Maybe the Reagan years were just practice for the main event? Which is almost certainly Iran.
Of course the Central American crimes have been largely airbrushed from history. Not even a comma.
Q.E.D.
With the wisdom of hindsight, we can see that the polls did change. Without this wisdom from this point until the next election, who knows what will happen? It is perfectly fair to say that history shows us that good poll results now will not necessarily translate into good electoral results for the ALP. Kim Beazley’s record is such that it will not translate into Labor victory under his leadership.
With the exception of Simon Crean, every Federal Opposition Leader since 1981 has seen poll results which put his party (and in some cases, his own rating as preferred PM) ahead of the incumbent government/PM. Since 1981 there have been nine Federal elections, but only two of these have seen a change of government. Part of the reason why political reporting is so tedious is that spasms like this are to be expected: pretty much every Opposition Leader is going to end up a nose in front at some stage. Projecting this reasoning forward it’s fair to say that the next Federal Opposition Leader, Gillard or Costello or whomever, will get a similar attack of the vapours.
BBEP, you seem to think that current polling augurs well for Labor: this is not necessarily the case. Beazley’s record in leading Labor to electoral defeat is more significant than the ups and downs of the moment. My idea of winning is winning actual votes, yours seems to be getting good poll results in between elections. As we’re operating from different definitions of success, your sniping is irrelevant.
Since this is probably the most appropriate thread on which to comment, I found Meg Gurry’s article in today’s Aus to not be as aggressive as I’d like, but this quote sums up what the Government and its apologists do on this site, other blogs and in the MSM.
Andrew,
You do not seem to understnd poll results.
All I am saying is if poll results show an ALP landslide as they do at the moment it is silly in the extreme to say Bomber isn’t connecting.
He patently is.
Whether he is still doing this next year is another question entirely.
Keep on hoping, Homer.
Homer is right. The government polls has been sliding on average now for the best part of a year. There have even been minor shifts in the betting agency predictions, though these still show a comfortable Howard victory. A week is a long time in politics, a year is an eternity. Labor is in front at the moment but that could all change very suddenly.
Importantly, and this will have Howard scared, this time the Labor party seems have some structure to their campaign (and yes, the federal election campaign is well underway). Bomber isn’t following a small target strategy, Labor doesn’t have a leader who is making weird policy decisions off the top of his head they seem to have a coherent strategy. This week’s Iraq debate is quite clearly timed to coincide with the US elections. The Dems are scoring points all over the Republicans on the Iraq issue and the media in the US is picking up on this. This is allowing a new narrative to be formed, one that paints the conservatives as being out of ideas.
What should also be worrying for the government is that the Cole report into the AWB scandal will be delivered soon. While it seems clear that the government will escape serious rebuke, it will be hard for the government to shake off the stigma that they have been involved in this since the start. The close personal connections that exist between the major players in the AWB scandal and the National party will undoubtedly be highlighted. People that had close connections to the Australian government were heling to prop up Saddam’s Iraq, this will be demonstrated in court and will continue to make headlines for the next year.
The Coalition are looking like a tired and corrupt government that are incapable of moving Australia forward – well at least that’s the message that I guess Labor will be pushing for the next year.
I agree with that, mick.
Climate change is another issue where the government looks on the back foot and bereft of any useful ideas.
Will the Likudniks in the ALP allow a Labor Government to pull out of Iraq? Isn’t Bomber in the LFI group? Just asking…..