Iraq, Iraq. Here we go again. But first, Webdiary’s intern Judith Ireland has discovered that the Liberal Party has removed its history from its website. How fitting, since it has dumped liberal philosophy:
The `Our History’ page on the Liberal Party’s web site has gone into hiding. The page disappeared from its usual home under the `About the Liberal Party’ section sometime in early to mid March.
The page is still on the server and can be found by going directly to its URL. But because `Our History’ is no longer officially linked on the site, it is now invisible to visitors who don’t know its exact address.
Our History contains a brief run down of the Liberal Party’s formation and development between 1944 and 1949 from the first meeting to its first electoral success. It then provides a four-sentence summary of the Liberal federal governments since that time.
The Liberal Secretariat said it was unaware that the page was missing and suggested that information contained in `Our History’ had probably been divided across other pages on the web site. But whilst the site certainly contains information about the beliefs, achievements and structure of the Liberal Party, details of the party’s formation do not appear any where else except in `Our History’.
The entire Liberal Party web site has been upgraded with a new design and extra information within the last two weeks and the Secretariat also suggested that `Our History’ might not have been transferred from the old site yet. But as `Our History’ has the same design as all other pages on the new site, perhaps its link was lost in the move.
The rest of the site does not appear to be experiencing any other technical difficulties.
***
NOTICEBOARD
Scott Burchill:“Could it be that Washington has achieved something neither Saddam or anyone else could achieve – bring the Shia and Sunni together in a united opposition to occupation?” See Muslim Rivals Unite In Baghdad Uprising.
Peter Cook in Brisbane:“David Clark in The Guardian sums it all up rather well: The war on terror misfired. Blame it all on the neo-cons.
Christopher Dunne:“If you haven’t heard any Republicans from Texas deconstruct neo-conservative philosophy and trace its paternity to Machiavelli, then this is for you: We’ve Been “Neo-conned”!
The US government wants to lock out journos and transmit its propaganda direct to the people: U.S. military finds way around the press corps.
John Boase: Who wrote this in 2000? “The president must remember that the military is a special instrument. It is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.” Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, who’ll give evidence under protest to the S11 inquiry overnight.
Stephen Pirie: “Re Robert Bosler’s piece on political creativity, Why is Latham alarming?, I recently wrote a book called Awkward Truths which more fully explains the art and function of creativity within political, social and gender contexts.
From the spam bank: “Visit arabiaenquiries to find out how to win business deals in the Middle East.”
Peter Botsman: “I am pleased to announce that Australian Prospect is now live. The first edition is `New Provident: Partnerships with Indigenous Australia’.
***
Peter Evans
I believe that CNN is shifting its description of the 4 “civilian contractors” killed in Falluja. Today it reports: “U.S. Marines fought skirmishes with Iraqi fighters Monday in and around the restive city of Fallujah, closing off the city in response to the killing and mutilation of four American security guards last week.”
Now that they are being called more like what they were, the new description raises lots of questions: Were they armed? If so, what with? Were they wearing uniforms? If so, what kind? Was their vehicle marked or unmarked? If marked, with what markings? What were they doing where they were? Why were there only two of them, given the dangers in Falluja? What battlefield status did they have? If they were not civilians, what were they? Combatants, spies, or what? Was their presence in a battle zone covered by the Geneva convention? Or could they, in fact, be described by the Americanism “illegal combatants”.
The CNN.com change in terminology, presumably based on more information, is welcome if it helps reach the truth. Unfortunately, it is late in the process. And the truth has already been sacrificed.
***
Brian McKinlay in Greensborough, Victoria
Several US sites I’ve been reading are warning about the manipulation and politicisation of the news flowing from the Coalition Forces’ media outlet in Baghdad. The organisation, known as “The Office of Strategic Communication” (Stratcom) operates within the US compound in central Baghdad. Its critics say it’s a part of the Republican Party’s election machinery funded with great dollops of taxpayer money.
The service director is Dan Senor, a graduate of Hebrew University, friend of Pearle and Wolfowitz and other neo-con insiders. Senor has also worked for the Bush family investment and oil-company Carlyle Investments, said to have extensive Saudi links.
Amongst the 58 senior staffers at the Stratcom Office in Baghdad, 21 were long-term Republican Party activists and staff members in the U.S.A, and its Democratic Party critics say it targeted news-release from Iraq to deflect unfavourable news coverage which would have harmed Bush and tried to deflect public interest from Senator Kerry during the Democratic primary elections.
They may wince now at two recent headlines which appeared on press releases. One read “Beautification Plan for Baghdad Ready to begin ” whilst a second read “The reality is nothing like you see on television “.(Ouch!!) So when you come across a piece of what looks like tailor-made GOOD NEWS FROM IRAQ, remember that it was probably tailored to meet George Bush’s political needs.
***
Marie Berghuis
I was interested to learn on the SBS Insight program last night, `Should we withdraw our troops from Iraq’, that we have about 300 personnel serving in Iraq, and that no journalist is allowed to interview them. Basically they are working on the outskirts of Iraq as air traffic controllers.
I don’t know why some get so upset that we would consider withdrawing a mere 300 troops from Iraq, or believe the statement from Howard that if we did we would be giving into terrorism. What a laugh! Our troops are not reconstructing Iraq or helping Iraqis – all they are doing is air traffic control at the airport and a few other administrative jobs due to be taken over by private contractors.
If we wanted to help Iraqi people we should join with a UN peace force to protect them and rebuild essential services. We do have a moral obligation to help fix up the disgraceful mess created by the `trio of the willing’. It’s a pity we couldn’t send messrs Bush, Blair and Howard (the three warlords) over to Iraq for six months! As in all wars it is the young and innocent who are sacrificed.
***
Tracy Rice
After watching Insight, what concerns me is that Australian troops, the Iraq war and the War Against Terrorism are being used as political footballs. I hope politicians of all persuasions can put Australia’s safety and welfare above party politics. Questions I have asked myself and which I can not find answers to are:
* What is our goal in Iraq ? What is the timeline of bringing our troops home? What are the other alternatives? What commitments have we already made regarding the War on Terror? How can we assist Iraq in a constructive way?
* Do we know what present US government’s foreign policy plans are for Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the world ? Is Australia signed up for a wild ride with USA on foreign affairs not knowing where we are going, who we are fighting and why or for how long and how much it will cost us?
* How are we protecting Australia against terrorism here at home? What is the terrorist threat inside Australia and with our near neighbours? Have we learned any important lessons regarding relying on other nations intelligence to make important decisions to protect Australia or entering into wars?
***
Trevor Kerr
On SBS last night, Jenny Brockie brought together a festoon of knowledge, talent and experience to exchange views on the Iraq situation. Only a couple of them were blowing smoke, and one was a twit from the Institute of Public Affairs (Margo: Howard’s favourite `think tank’, funded by big business) He was patriotically waving the Stars ‘n Stripes and rabbiting on about freedom, human rights and democracy. From his tone, the junta in Burma should be worried. But I guess that wasn’t in the script he had been bid to follow.
The bloke from a US think tank (Friedman) was more impressive with his authority and passion for the US system. Which leads me to suppose one of the main differences between us and them is that citizens of the US have an opportunity be involved, from grassroots up, in the election of their head of state. Whereas, over here, the head of state is handpicked by someone who may be despised by half the populace.
We are involved with our democratic system for about ten minutes at the ballot box, where we will be affected by the chosen issues of the day (or hour), such as the current price of petrol.
It’s no wonder Aussies are nonchalant about their democratic rights. My secret hope is that Latham, having been brave enough to pop the Iraq bubble, will run with fixed-terms and head-of-state as campaign issues