G�day. Amid Tony Abbott�s �Honest Politics Trust� scandal in September 2003, I wrote in We want convincing pollies � honest:

 

�I reckon Abbott’s invented the slogan for Labor at the next election, if Labor is brave enough to grasp the opportunity: “Honest Politics.” Every time we see Abbott and Howard, we know they don’t stand for that. Labor’s job is to convince the Australian people that it, at last, is for it, and will take significant policy action to work towards that goal.�

Since he became Labor leader in December, Latham has been building his credentials to run an honest politics, power-to-the-people election campaign against Howard. He started with style � speaking plainly and wandering around NSW in a bus addressing town meetings open to all comers. On policy, he�s announced a ban on tobacco company donations to Labor, floated the idea of appointing an independent Speaker to run proceedings in the House of Representatives and last week gave a speech outlining more honesty policy. His censure of Howard on the Keelty affair in Parliament yesterday was replete with references to the need for truth in politics.

Today in Parliament, Labor instigated debate on the government�s growing avoidance of disclosure of material under freedom of information laws to highlight Labor�s promise to strengthen the law, one of Liberal Prime Minister�s Malcolm Fraser�s greatest legacies to accountable government in Australia. The government�s counter attack pointed to the NSW Labor government�s equally appalling record on honesty, transparency and accountability. It�s a great point � one I discussed in The sneaky theft of people power – and Latham has to convince voters in NSW he is different from his bovver boy NSW colleagues and will not collude with them if he wins office.

Latham will also need to do more on the policy front, and he’s clearly listening to Carmen Lawrence � she set out a comprehensive plan to improve our Parliament in Ideas to save our withering democracy.

What would Latham�s standards of ministerial conduct be, and how would he ensure they don�t become the sick farce Howard�s have? I had some ideas in Crean’s new Labor: A chance to change:

�I’d like to see Crean (the then leader) set out a covenant with the Australian people. I’d like him to promise that, if elected Prime Minister, he would be honest with the Australian people and would always ask, in the words of HIH Royal Commissioner Neville Owen, “What is right?” when addressing policy issues. In other words, that he would see his role as leading Australia in the public interest, not as a mere dealmaker or mediator between competing interest groups. He’d promise to do what he believed was right to the limit of what was possible, and explain why in clear, non-partisan terms.

�John Howard’s ministerial code of conduct, a key promise in his 1996 election win, quickly collapsed, partly because most ministers didn’t read it, let alone take it seriously. Crean could learn that lesson by sending each shadow minister to ethics training from the St James Ethics Centre, where they could confidentially discuss their financial affairs, seek guidance on how to handle conflicts of interest, and get a grounding in the responsibilities and duties of a minister.

�Howard’s code also suffered from being too “black letter” in its formulation, opening the way for a vulture-like media to force its first resignation – that of assistant treasurer Jim Short – over a technical breach lacking any substance. Ethics are ideals to aspire to. Mistakes can and are made without bad intent. It is honourable to admit them quickly and move on. Crean could promise that in government, an independent person of honour and experience would be appointed to act as confidential adviser and mentor to ministers, ministerial staffers and backbenchers on ethical questions. He could even – if he was very, very brave – delegate to the independent person the power to decide whether or not a minister in breach of his ethical duties should resign, be counselled, apologise to the Australian people, or have a stint in the sin bin.

�Rebuilding ethics in government, business and the professions is fundamental to Australia’s future. Howard’s government has no credibility to demand ethical behaviour from business and the professions given its record. Australians believe virtually noone with power can be trusted with it.

�A radical ethical government policy would set the foundation for a Labor government to assert the moral authority to lift standards across the nation. And for a government, a little bit of community trust is a big help in getting acceptance for new policy and in creating energy in ordinary people to hop in and do their bit for their society.

�I’d like to see Crean experiment with portfolio titles and responsibilities in his reshuffle, to emphasise issues of trust and bottom-up government. For example, he could appoint a shadow minister for ethical government, with responsibility for putting together a comprehensive plan to nurture an ethical Labor government.�

And will Latham clean up our political donation disclosure laws so both parties don�t drive a truck through them as they�re doing now? We�ll see.

The sham of our disclosure laws were exposed during the Honest Politics Trust scandal, and this month the Senate set up an inquiry to examine the matter. Submissions close on April 8, so go for it � a letter or email is sufficient, and you can also offer to give oral evidence.

Here�s Latham�s speech.

***

The new politics

by Mark Latham

La Trobe Politics Society Annual Lecture, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 19 March 2004

Throughout my 10 years in Federal Parliament one thing has always puzzled me. Why don’t more MPs talk openly about the loss of public trust and confidence in the political system? It’s as if, having become part of the system, nobody is allowed to talk about it.

Yet this is the number one issue facing our democracy today. If the people do not trust their elected representatives then the governance of our society is much weaker. People do not respond as well to government initiatives, the public’s interest and participation in politics starts to hollow-out and, over time, respect for the Rule of Law is diminished. Society itself is likely to be more fragmented and fractious.

Unfortunately, this is how many Australians now see the democratic process. They talk about politics with a cool anger and sense of frustration. They have a feeling that the system is far from genuine � that it has become too plastic and too contrived. That politics is more about convenience that conviction, more about posturing than problem-solving. That the democratic process has somehow divorced itself from the public interest.

We need to be honest � brutally so � about the seriousness of the problem. Anyone who has campaigned for public office knows what I’m talking about. If that’s not enough, then listen to talkback radio or read the letter pages of our newspapers. Or stand in any suburban shopping centre and ask people what they think about politics.

This is not a question of Labor or Liberal, Democrat or Green. None of us are without fault or responsibility. It’s a matter of facing up to the failings of the system and trying to find new ways of restoring public trust and confidence in it.

The responsibility for fixing our broken politics rests with all politicians. But I believe that social democrats have a special responsibility.

More than any other political movement, we have a belief in the power of social reform by democratic means. Our belief in the capacity of human reason and progress to create a fairer society. Our conviction that parliamentary democracy is the most likely and effective means by which this goal can be achieved. If the public does not trust the political system then our task is made doubly difficult. We not only need to convince the electorate of the merit of our reforms but also, that the political process itself can make a difference. Without trust in public life, there can be no meaningful reform.

Our Tory opponents, of course, don’t believe in the potential of good government to improve society. They have no ambitions for Australia beyond the status quo. They don’t have a stake in repairing our broken politics � but Labor does.

Through self-sacrifice we must show people that service of the public is a life-building motivation. Through a new politics we must show the electorate that there are good reasons to believe in democracy and the social good it can produce.

This is why I regard democratic reform as a mainstream political issue. This is why I have placed it at the forefront of my Labor Party leadership. Many great things need to be done for Australia � rebuilding Medicare, creating educational opportunities, protecting the environment � but their potential will not be realised if the Parliament is weak and our democracy is shallow.

Today I want to outline the pathway to a new politics, a program of reform to give the Australian people greater access to the political system and good reason to trust in it. Our program of democratic renewal relies on four principles:

 More open government

 Higher ethical standards

 Greater public participation

 And comprehensive Parliamentary reform.

Open Government

Throughout my time in politics I’ve always believed in open government. My first campaign for public office was in 1987, seeking election to my local Council in south-west Sydney. I ran on a platform of open government � the introduction of precinct committees and freedom of information, based on the model pioneered by Ted Mack at North Sydney Council.

After the election I sat down with the senior Council staff to talk about the implementation of these policies. One of them said to me: “You want to bring the people out there into the workings of the Council. But we’re better off if we look after each other inside the Council and keep them out!”. I had to explain that I represented �them’ and had a mandate to open up the Council to greater scrutiny and public participation.

This taught me an early lesson in public life. Too often our institutions operate like a club � the insiders look after each other’s interests at the expense of those outside the club. This is how the political process can separate itself from the public interest. Real power and access are concentrated in the club, leaving the public on the outside � disenfranchised and disillusioned.

This process also defies one of the most important trends in our society. With massive improvements in information technology, most citizens now have better access to information and a strong understanding of public issues. They are hungry to find out more and hold our public institutions to account. They expect the Information Age to be just that: a new age of access and information about all aspects of society, including government.

Far from meeting this expectation, the public sector is going backwards. Just look at the record of the Howard Government. There is always a missing piece to the puzzle, something it doesn’t tell the Australian people. From the children overboard scandal to WMD in Iraq, to its abuse of the Parliament and gutting of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, it habitually controls and manipulates public information.

Consistent with this approach, the Howard Government has downgraded Australia’s freedom of information laws. The Attorney General, Mr Ruddock, has described the primary purpose of FOI as “ensuring people can get access to information concerning their own affairs”. Public information and the public interest have been sidelined. So too the Treasurer, Mr Costello, has used a technical provision of the FOI Act � a series of conclusive certificates � to deny The Australian newspaper access to basic data on the First Homeowners Grant and bracket creep.

Today I can announce that a Labor Government will reform the Freedom of Information Act to make it more open and democratic. We want the legislation to reflect a pro-disclosure culture � that all government information should be made available, unless its release would cause substantial public harm.

Accordingly, we will amend the objects clause of the Act to create a pro-disclosure regime.

We will also ensure that the public interest test is applied more thoroughly and consistently. The information collected and created by public officers should be regarded as a national resource. It’s a waste if this material, developed at great public expense, is not available for public use.

Ministers shouldn’t be allowed, without any reason or explanation, to declare certain documents �secret’. That’s why Labor will abolish the use of conclusive certificates � other than for matters of national security or Cabinet-in-confidence. Ministers will still be able to refuse a request for information but they will have to argue why, not simply hide behind a certificate.

There are some types of material that should be protected for individual privacy or security reasons, but refusing to make information public because it might embarrass a Minister is unacceptable. Labor will insert into the Act a clause ensuring that “embarrassment to the government” cannot be used as a reason for withholding information. As ever, the public has got the right to know.

Ethical Standards

One of the disturbing aspects of the recent debate about parliamentary superannuation was the suggestion from senior Liberals, including Mr Costello, that some people go into politics for the money. If that’s the case then I say: go set up a company, go into business to make money, not into public life.

We need to rekindle the high ideals of community service. Those of us elected to public office have been given a great honour and privilege, well beyond any material benefit. That is, the honour and satisfaction that comes from helping other people. I’ve always believed that the best life is one lived in the service of others.

This is why � notwithstanding the current cynicism about politics � we should be proud to call ourselves politicians. The task is not to change our vocation in life but to change the way in which we present our work to the public. A good starting point is austerity in office, bringing Parliamentary entitlements closer to community standards. In terms of personal finances and lifestyle, I believe that Members of Parliament should have a clear affinity with the constituency they represent. This is why I have foreshadowed action to:

 Close the parliamentary superannuation scheme to new members; and

 Cap the superannuation entitlements of existing senior office-holders in Parliament.

I’ve also given my commitment that, as Prime Minister, I will live in just one piece of public housing � The Lodge in Canberra � and Kirribilli House will be returned to public use.

Labor is also committed to greater transparency and accountability in public office. This is why we plan to:

 Establish an independent Auditor of Parliamentary Allowances and Entitlements to investigate breaches of the entitlement guidelines;

 Impose a 12 month ban on former Ministers taking up paid employment and consultancies with companies in areas relevant to their responsibilities as Ministers; and

 Require all government advertising to meet strict Auditor-General guidelines to ensure it is necessary for the purposes of government, rather than party political purposes.

Today I can also announce that in office Labor will legislate for the registration of lobbyists. The public deserves to know about the work of lobbyists and how, on behalf of certain corporations and interest groups, they try to influence the decisions of the Federal Parliament and Government. Transparency is important when people are paid to get the inside running in a democracy.

Registration will involve disclosure of the names of their clients, companies or associations and a regular update on the Federal public office holders who have been lobbied. Labor will also introduce a Code of Conduct governing the industry � with a provision for the deregistration of lobbyists who breach the code. All of this information will be publicly available on the Internet.

Public Participation

I mentioned earlier my hope that more MPs will focus on the need for democratic reform. One politician who has been tackling this issue is Carmen Lawrence, the directly elected National President of the ALP. I commend her speeches and papers on this subject to you.

When the Labor Party decided to directly elect its President, the usual sceptics said that it would not work. In fact, it has been a successful exercise in grassroots democracy � empowering our rank-and-file members to have a say in how the Party is run.

In our busy society � with the pressures of work, family and community � people are not likely to get involved in politics unless their participation is meaningful, unless they can directly influence public policy and the things happening around them. An information-rich society demands a participation-rich politics.

Democracy was founded on the idea that everyone should have a say in the decisions of government impacting on their lives. With the increased size of government, however, this system of direct democracy has been replaced by a corporatist state � where governments hear the views of sectional interest groups on a regular basis, often to the exclusion of the general public. This concentration of power has added to the public’s distrust of politics.

Interest groups, of course, deserve their say. But when they start to monopolise the time of government, the process has gone too far. I believe we need to open up the corporatist club and substantially increase the level of public participation in modern politics. For democracies to flourish, people need to be actively involved, and not just on polling day.

As Opposition Leader I have been holding community forums around Australia � a return to the traditional town hall-style meeting where citizens can come along and have their say. And people have responded. They know that political campaigning has become too stage managed, too choreographed for the benefit of the media, rather than open to genuine community participation.

In government, we will hold regular Community Cabinet meetings and forums � a chance for Ministers and senior bureaucrats to get out of Canberra and talk to people in the suburbs and regions face-to-face. It is remarkable how easily governments, seduced by interest group politics and the isolation of Parliament House, can get out-of-touch. The Community Cabinet process is an effective check against this problem.

In other areas, especially the great national decisions of Australian identity and independence, I want the people themselves to determine the outcome. I want to give power away, transferring political influence from the powerful to the people. Let me give two examples of what this would mean in practice, drawn from the experience of the 1999 referendums.

I see the issue of an Australian Republic as not just a question of constitutional independence, but as a way of broadening our democracy � the essence of republicanism itself. This is why Labor will hold a series of plebiscites: direct voting to involve the Australian people at every stage of the process. Do we want to become a Republic and if so, by which constitutional model? Only when the people have determined these matters would a formal referendum be held.

The second referendum in 1999 concerned Mr Howard’s attempt to draft a new constitutional preamble. Given the scale of social change in recent decades, many people are interested in the issue of national identity. They want to talk openly and constructively about what it now means to be an Australian.

These issues can only be sorted out satisfactorily by an exchange of views between Australians themselves. The last thing the nation needed was for its Prime Minister to pre-empt such a debate by writing his own preamble.

The Federal Government should have sponsored a national dialogue about the modern meaning of Australian identity. It should have given every Australian a chance to have a say.

Every classroom should have been asked to debate the values important to young Australians. Every newspaper should have been asked to invite submissions from its readers. Every local government area should have been asked to conduct public forums and opinion surveys. Every household and library connected to the Internet should have been asked to join the debate on-line. Only by asking the people could the nation have had confidence in a new constitutional preamble.

During a time of social change and uncertainty, governments need to do more than frame laws and make decisions. They need to get the public involved in the many social issues we share in common. How do we answer the new challenges of citizenship and identity? How do we build stronger relationships and communities? How do we work together to provide opportunity but also demand social responsibility?

That’s my approach: if in doubt, let’s have more democracy, more direct voting, more public participation. As ever, real power comes from giving power away.

Parliamentary Reform

Our Parliamentary institutions also need to be reformed. In a world where information flows at a faster rate and people exchange views more frequently, many of the procedures of the Parliament appear anachronistic.

Legislative debates lack spontaneity and significance, with the results predetermined along party lines.

Question Time in the Parliament suffers from the farce of Dorothy Dix questions and Ministers obsessed with point-scoring, rather than problem solving. Most people who watch Question Time are struck by its artificiality and lopsided rules. Far from being a showcase of the Parliament, it is widely regarded as a public embarrassment.

I’m committed to comprehensive Parliamentary reform, starting with the appointment of an independent Speaker. This is something that Mr Howard promised in 1996 but failed to act on. In practice, it is the key to improving the Parliament. Without impartiality and a sense of public interest from the Chair, the chamber will continue to be bogged down with procedural points and grievances.

A Labor Government will also make the following improvements to the rules of the House:

 Questions Without Notice will be limited to one minute in duration and answers limited to four minutes.

 The practice of allowing supplementary questions will be re-introduced and limited to one minute in duration with the answer also limited to one minute.

 The Speaker will be empowered under the Standing Orders to require Ministers to not only be relevant but also to actually answer the question in full.

 Questions asking about “alternative policy positions” will be out of order, along with answers based on personal point-scoring.

 Fewer Dorothy Dixers will be allowed and more opportunities will be created for genuine backbench questions.

 Points of order will not be allowed during Question Time itself. They will only be able to be raised at the end of Question Time, in line with the practice in the House of Commons.

 Ministers will be required to answer Questions on Notice within 30 days.

 Parliamentary Committees will be given increased powers, including the power to refer matters to themselves for inquiry.

 And, finally, the Independent Speaker will have a new power to make rulings on whether Ministers have misled the House.

These rulings will not be binding on the government but they will create pressure for higher Ministerial standards. We need to restore the fundamental principle of honesty in the House of Representatives.

Conclusion

This is a comprehensive program of democratic reform. I am confident that it will make our political system more responsive and open to the Australian people. Most of all, I hope it gives them new reasons to believe in public life and the possibilities of public progress.

Politics today is like a permanent campaign, with both sides jostling for public advantage on a daily basis. In this sort of environment, politicians are at risk of losing sight of the great problem-solving traditions of democracy � that issues are more important than image. That substance matters more than spin. That a positive contribution to the debate counts for more than negativity and partisanship.

In this election year, I want to ensure that we don’t lose sight of the need to reform politics itself. This is an agenda above and beyond party politics and the next campaign. It concerns the finest of all democratic ideals: a strong and trusting relationship between the people and the people’s representatives. One hundred years ago Australian was known internationally as a laboratory for democratic reform. I want us to regain this reputation � a world leader in open, participatory government. I want this to be the trademark of the next Labor Government.

Now, of course, there will be sceptics � commentators who will say that this is the sort of thing Oppositions always talk about. But they said the same thing about Parliamentary superannuation � that no party would move first to close the scheme.

In public life, it is always good to prove the sceptics wrong. And when it comes to democratic reform, that’s exactly what I’ll do. I got the mail through on Parliamentary super. And in government, I’ll be doing the same, the same dedication to reform, to give the Australian people a new politics.

Webdiarist Robert Lawton noted in a recent email that Latham was acting like a governor general. Above politics. Measured. Relaxed. Straight. So it�s a matter of heightened significance when he first chooses to go for the throat, and on what topic.

 

Who�d have thought it � the topic was national security at a time when the topic was as hot as.

For the first time since he became leader, Latham asked all the opposition�s questions today. They were all on one matter � the dealings between Howard and Mick Keelty last week after Keelty opined that Spain�s backing of the war on Iraq was a possible reason for the Madrid bombings.

Latham asked eight low key requests for information:

1. What did Howard�s chief of staff Arthur Sinodinis say to Keelty when he rang him, on Howard�s instructions, within minutes of the Sunday interview with Jana Wendt? Confidential.

2. What did Howard tell Sinodinis to say to Keelty? No comment.

3. Why didn�t the public have the right to know what the PM�s man said to Keelty in relation to PUBLIC statements by our chief law officer on a matter of grave national importance? No answer.

4. What was the involvement of Howard, his staff or his department in Keelty�s �clarification� statement two days later claiming he�d been taken �out of context� (By whom? Howard?) �I don�t intend to go into it.�

5. Did Howard�s office see any drafts of the statement? �There were discussions.�

6. Why wouldn�t Howard tell the people of Australia whether Howard or his office saw any drafts? No comment.

7. Did Howard expect the people of Australia to believe that Keelty drafted the statement alone? Howard said the police commissioner said it was �his statement�.

8. Keelty had also said in the interview that honesty was required at this time. Why was Keelty rebuked for expressing his honest opinion, and what guarantees could Howard give that senior public officers would not be �rebuked and shamed for simply telling the truth”? Howard said all exchanges between the government and Keelty had been �entirely proper�.

Latham could not have hoped for a better springboard to his first censure motion against the Prime Minister. Howard knew what was coming and just before he sat down after not answering eight questions in a row he said, �Bring it on.�

Latham did just that, seeking to censure Howard for political interference in the AFP compromising the standing and independence of our first law officer, refusing to rule out further interference, and compromising national security.

�His sin was nothing more than telling the truth�, a truth that has since been reinforced by no lesser figure than one of the US neo-conservative Iraq war architects, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz. �That�s what Howard finds so offensive�, that Keelty had �a level of honesty he has not got himself�.

You can see how Latham will stress this theme in the lead-up to the election. He cited kids overboard, ethanol and the Weapons of Mass Destruction that never were. �It�s a pattern of behaviour.”

“With this Prime Minister there is always a missing piece to the puzzle… He�s always loose with the truth.�

Latham has been building �honest politics� as a core theme to win Labor office for some time now, but this was the first time he�d dared take the issue to the heart of Howard�s core strength � trustworthiness on national security.

And then, the statement so many Australians have been waiting so long to hear from a Labor leader: Howard snuffed out Keelty because he said the unsayable, that Howard’s “policy on Iraq has made things worse”.

Yes! It�s the debate we�ve very nearly had for so long but that Labor has never persisted with. Howard�s decision was disastrous because invading Iraq would NOT make the world safer, but would make it more dangerous, and make life in Australia more dangerous too.

Latham reminded us that Tony Abbott had warned that invading Iraq would make us a bigger target for terrorism in a speech before the war, and that Howard had also carpeted him for telling the Australian people the truth. The truth was that Howard had capitulated to the US neocons� doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, now “hidden away in the attic like a mad uncle” since Iraq. Howard’s government “cannot stomach the truth of their policy failings”. Simple as that.

Latham then made what will � like in the pending US presidential election � become the key difference between the parties on national security � while Howard wants to fight ground wars on the American nod, Latham, echoing Democrats presidential candidate John Kerry, believes that �the war against terror is primarily an intelligence war…the conflict in Iraq diverted resources away from that process of targeting the terrorists � Al Qaeda and bin Laden.�.

Howard�s problem in the Keelty scandal, Latham said, was that he, like the former Spanish government after the Madrid bombing, had put his narrow political interest ahead of the national interest. �Politics has no place in the management of our national security.�

Latham loosened his lips too, for an assault on Alexander Downer, who�d claimed last week that Keelty was sprouting Al Qaeda propaganda. Downer was �a rotten lousy disgrace�. The heat is on, at last.

You could tell when Howard spoke. I�ve never seen him so jumpy, and so intent on standing sideways to address not only the opposition but also his own backbenchers. As he castigated a �red faced� Latham for insulting Downer, I looked at the faces of all three. Only one face was red, and it was that of John Howard, as red as the face he wore when Bob Brown interjected on George Bush.

Invading Iraq was �a decision I will never apologise for and never retreat from,” he thundered.

The battle is joined. Howard�s behaviour last week has given Latham the opportunity to become a winner on national security, using the most effective weapon there is against Howard � his lack of candour. He�s now got proof most Australians accept that Howard also stops his top officials telling the truth, allowing Latham to bleed credibility from the entire administration.

National security takes centre stage. Could Howard be a victim of his own wedge?

This is an extended version of my Sun Herald column, published yesterday.

 

Late last year while having coffee with a few Liberal backbenchers in Canberra, I mentioned the latest twist in the Iraq war. �But it�s over, isn�t it?� one replied. We looked at each other for a moment, scandalised. Later, the politician whispered in my ear,�I�m worried too.�

Perception and reality. Politics and truth. My guess is that the politician�s first response was based on the fact that the war wasn�t registering as a big issue with voters at the time. Howard had claimed victory early, welcoming home our troops as victors while their US and British colleagues remained to face death and mayhem. Australians had moved on, he pronounced.

Not true. Australians, most of whom opposed our participation in the war without UN backing, were thankful no Australian soldiers died and hoped for the best, despite our strong misgivings. Webdiarist Christian Wesely wrote:

�I�m an Austrian who spends several weeks each year with average Australians. Last year we walked Namibia in August and September and although locals referred to the ‘criminals’ Bush and Blair the name Howard didn’t escape from Australian lips once, and these were ALP inclined people! The talk was football and everything political seemed embarrassing. Australians try to hide their participation in the Iraq-war similar to Austria�s denial of its role during WW2.�

Al Qaeda and Saddam were enemies because Saddam ran a secular nation, not an Islamic one. Yet last week, just before the war entered its second year, US military commanders admitted that resistance in Iraq was now dominated by Islamic fundamentalists, not Saddam loyalists. Great. Thanks to Bush and our PM, Al Qaeda is taking on the Americans in a war WE started and don�t know how to end and winning new recruits and new power through Muslim resentment at Western occupation of a Muslim country after an illegal war. In the battle for �hearts and minds� we�ve stuffed up big time.

Howard took us to war against a powerless nation on a lie to appease the Americans, after the top British intelligence body, the Joint Intelligence Committee, warned that invading Iraq would INCREASE the risk of terrorism, as it has. No wonder Howard squashed Australian Federal Police chief Mick Keelty for daring to be honest last Sunday.

Yes, Spain�s hardline support for Bush�s war despite the opposition of more than 90 percent of the Spanish people could well be linked to the attack. Keelty said. �There’s a level of honesty that has to exist here� not only in Australia but in our region.� But John Howard can�t afford to be honest, because he�d lose office for being dishonest before the war. So he pretends he told us the truth when he said the war would reduce terrorism and not make us a greater target, belittled Keelty � our frontline policeman against terror – and let Alexander Downer tag him a dupe of Al Qaeda propaganda. The spectacle of Howard�s hand picked Defence force chief Cosgrove jumping to attention to back Howard�s spin and disagree with Keelty�s honesty makes us feel even less safe. Suddenly Howard is not the �man of steel� we need, but, well, scary.

The Spanish people sacked a government which lied to them after their terrible tragedy by blaming local group ETA to save its skin. Times of national crisis require leaders who inspire trust, not spinners who so confuse self-interest with the national interest that they lie over the bodies of their citizens.

The cover of last week�s Economist magazine tells the story of the changed climate since Spain elected a bloke who promised to focus on the war on terror, not on backing Bush�s imperial ambitions whatever the cost to ordinary people.

Remember the Yanks� pack of cards with faces of their most wanted Iraqis? The cover is four Aces – Blair (hearts), Howard (diamonds), Bush (spades) and former Spanish leader Aznar (clubs), whose face is crossed out. The headline: �One down, four to go?�

Webdiary sizzled with reader comment this week, pro and anti war, as the Madrid atrocity forced many to engage again and try to work out the best way forward for our nation.

Shaun O�Brien wrote: “This is a war between those who hate the US and those who support/have similar cultures as the US and nothing more.”

Michael Grimes replied: �How simplistic is that? If we simply assume away the root causes of terrorism, we are left with no option but to pursue a policy of all-out war, which has been spectacularly unsuccessful so far.�

If you want to get up to speed on what�s happening in Iraq, I recommend the website of Michigan history professor and Iraq expert Juan Cole at www.juancole.com. As Webdiarist Jenny Green wrote this week: �We haven�t got a chance of sorting out this mess unless we all make the effort to understand what�s going on before we rush to fight it. The military knows this � the concept of studying your enemy is as old as history.�

***

READER QUOTE OF THE WEEK

John Carson: �We must balance two important attitudes. One is the steadfastness and determination without which we will not succeed in any difficult endeavour. The other is the critical reflection which causes us to examine whether our current efforts are likely to succeed or whether a change of approach is needed. Too much single minded determination makes us stupid, unable to adapt and find alternatives to failed strategies. Too much reflection robs us of our determination.�

G�day. I�m off to Canberra tomorrow to get the vibe of federal politics in the last session before the pre-budget break. Tonight, discussion on how reporters might penetrate the endless dishonest spin of the government. Tonight�s contributions on the Iraq/Spain terror debate are pro-war or responding to pro-war emails. It feels like people really want to think this stuff through.

 

Brian Long recommends the Boston Globe�s The Bushes’ new world disorder. A taste:

�In America, the new order of things is defined mainly by the sour taste of moral hangover, how the emotional intensity of the 9/11 trauma – anguished but pure – dissolved into a feeling of being trapped in a cage of our own making. As the carnage in Madrid makes clear, the threats in the world are real and dangerous to handle, but one US initiative after another has escalated rather than diffused such threats. Instead of replacing chaos with new order, our nation’s responses inflict new wounds that increase the chaos. We strike at those whom we perceive as aiming to do us harm but without actually defending ourselves. And most unsettling of all, in our attempt to get the bad people to stop threatening us, we have begun to imitate them.�

Philip Gomes has found a site allowing the world�s citizen�s to vote on who they�d like to be US president: Virtual election.

Webdiarist Matt Walker does flash do-ups: “My personal way of dealing with Howard and Co….. take the piss.” Here’s a sample: education, aggrudda, block, mars, hoax, overboard.

I�ve asked Antony Loewenstein to write a new column called Engineering consent, on the media and its machinations. Coming soon. Here�s a new Webdiarist, by Gary Le Clerc, on reporting political spin:

Interviewing politicians is not easy, especially given that so many have been lawyers in a past life, trained to lie/deceive in the interests of their clients. This skill is an unfortunate side-effect of Australia’s adversarial legal system, where truth is less important than persuading a jury, but is not useful to the community when employed by our political representatives.

In this political game, every word is important. When lying/deceiving, it is vital to include qualifiers so that future ‘plausible deniability’ is not endangered.

Then there is the pejorative term, carefully thought through in advance, and endlessly repeated in ‘on message’ sound-bites. Some obvious examples: ‘queue-jumpers’, ‘illegals’, ‘job snobs’, ‘un-Australian’, ‘elites’.

I am constantly disappointed by the instant acceptance by journalists/reporters of patently fatuous sound-bite words and phrases designed to distort meaning rather than to enhance it. Within hours of the original being spouted, we are treated to this ‘spin-bite’ being adopted and casually repeated (without quote-marks!) by sundry media outlets. These insults to our intelligence are compounded by journalists including these terms in their subsequent questions to the perpetrators (how satisfying that must be!).

Another point of despair for the quality of journalism is the apparent widespread inability of interviewers to recognise these qualifiers and call the interviewee to account on the spot. Interviewing media-savvy politicians is a very difficult task, as they are intent on re-framing every question into a ‘Dorothy Dixer’ and ‘staying on message’. The rarest skill in interviewers is the art of listening to the answers, rather than using that time to focus on what the next question will be. One of the most impressive interviewers of politicians in my experience was author Ramona Koval when she filled the drive-time slot on ABC Radio National (10 years ago?). It was a joy to hear answers being intelligently discussed rather than routinely ignored. A politician’s reputation (and that of his/her party) can be enhanced through such discussion… the sky doesn’t have to fall in.

For many years, I mistakenly believed that the reason political interviews were such a pointless, uninformative exercise was that interviewers were not asking the right questions. Eventually, it dawned on me that the politicians don’t really care how ‘hard’ the question is, because they are confident that their grab-bag of techniques will enable them to transform it into something unrecognisable they can then ‘answer’.

I am pleading for journalists to, firstly, call attention to politicians’ qualifiers on the spot, not leave it to some opinion column down the track. Secondly, treat spin-terms with the distrust they deserve by either not repeating them or, at least, putting them in quotes. An example: Howard: �Look, I can assure you there has been no improper communications in relation to the role of the Police Commissioner…� The next question could be: �You said ‘improper communications’, could you describe the proper communications in relation to the role of the Police Commissioner that have taken place?� (See Alan Ramsey�s column Bad call of a Keystone Cop routine.)

Even if there is a droning meaningless response or ‘no comment’, the qualifier ‘improper’ has been highlighted and people can focus more closely on Howard’s word plays. When an interviewer ignores a qualifier and moves on, that is a tacit acceptance, thus giving the answer more credibility than it deserves.

Another classic is ‘formal advice’. This is fondly regarded by lawyer-politicians as they can later define it in the narrowest terms if things get messy. It’s worth pondering the myriad of ‘informal advice’ methods which people who don’t work in these rarefied worlds would consider as perfectly normal, accountable advice � verbal briefing, written memo, file note on non-letterhead paper, memo sighted and initialed but addressed elsewhere, margin note… you get the picture.

One of many variations on a theme: Ruddock: �I have no formal recollection of any of those discussions which I am prepared to discuss�.

How is it possible to do one’s job competently or professionally if one doesn’t know certain key facts relevant to said job? Why isn’t more made of this when politicians shamelessly plead ignorance. Ignorance is not a defence.

As a side issue, one of Downer’s favoured techniques when things get rough appears to be along the lines of ‘I find that question offensive’, but I digress.

I thought it instructive in the pre-amble to the invasion of Iraq a year ago that throughout every level of society there was a lively debate as to whether Australia should take part or not. That debate cut across all boundaries, be they family, social or political. There was one group of individuals, however, who apparently had no (public) doubts or variations in opinion – the Liberal Party MP’s in Canberra. This was truly remarkable, and says a great deal about how far spin control and party discipline/bullying has come.

The examples used relate only to the happenstance that the Liberal Party rules the day. Spin increases with increased responsibility, ie the party in power. Labor also appalls me with its behaviour.

Finally, what about the party politician who accidentally (or not) says something truthful in public? Apart from the career-threatening anger of his/her boss, there is all too often the observation from well-known political commentators that the politician should have lied, or else ridicule at his/her political ineptness. How about some positive acknowledgement? The saddest part of this sorry tale is that the media eats alive any politician who does this. This treatment is kindergarten stuff and it stifles political debate in this country. It’s as if many journalists see the same world out there as the politicians…

MARGO: Politicians get trained in how to answer media questions, often by journalists! They�ve got us pegged � now we need training of journalists on how to break the spin.

When Michael Wooldridge was health minister and engulfed in the MRI scandal, he made the startling admission in Parliament that when a politician says �to the best of my recollection� he actually means he�s sure he won�t get caught out.

You can tell when John Howard has run out of plausible spin when he refuses to comment on a matter of public importance. I�d like journalists to start calling this play for what it is � an admission.

Alan Ramsey gives this example from the Keelty scandal, in an interview on Adelaide ABC radio:

Q: Prime Minister, did your office urge AFP Commissioner Keelty to issue a clarification over his remarks linking the Madrid bombings to Spain’s involvement in Iraq?

Howard: I’m not going to comment.

Why not? – Because I’m not commenting on it. You can’t say whether Mr Keelty’s statement on Tuesday was made after a request from your office? – I don’t have any comment on those matters. He made a statement, the statement speaks for itself. I really don’t have anything further to say.

But isn’t it legitimate for Australians to know whether there was any pressure applied from a political office on a law officer?

Look, I can assure you there has been no improper communications in relation to the role of the Police Commissioner. We totally respect his complete authority and independence in relation to confidential operational police matters.”

But if you don’t tell us whether or nor that contact was made…?

I am telling you there has been nothing improper.

During the height of the SIEV-X debate, I pressed Howard to provide the evidence on which he repeatedly claimed during the 2001 election that SIEV-X did not sink in international waters, and was thus outside Australia�s intensive surveillance zone during �Operation Relex�. The background is at SIEV-X: Another bombshell. Here�s his response to my attempt to get the truth at a press conference:

Are you now able to advise where you got the information on or before the 23rd of October that SIEV-X sank in Indonesian waters?

PRIME MINISTER: I haven’t got anything to add to what I�ve said.

But you recall that I asked you this question last week and you said that you’d have to check.

Well I’m telling, you I don’t have anything to add to what I’ve said.

So you’re not able to advise –

I’m telling you I’m not adding anything to what I’ve said.

Why not Mr Howard?

Because I’m not adding anything to what I’ve said.

What�s your reason for it? I’m not adding anything to what I’ve said.

Howard is tacitly admitting he had no evidence – that he lies over the bodies of 353 people. But this tactic works because traditional �news judgment� doesn�t allow the reporting of such stonewalling prominently, or at all. I suggest a daily update for newspaper readers on the questions they WON�T answer, and why that might be.

***

THE WAR DEBATE

Mike Dean in Houston, Texas, USA.

It’s been nearly 3 years since 9/11. Previous attacks by terrorism on the US were never addressed by the Clinton administration. After 9/11, the Bush administration decided that it was time to declare a ‘war on terrorism’. I personally think it was appropriate.

Since that moment, there has been a worldwide movement condemning this ‘war’. Most definitely in the press, of whom you belong to.

I have been in a position to have observed the daily press briefings, and ‘alerts’ firsthand, etc. So I have observed the questions and accusations the press ask of officials. These guys are no lightweights. They have an agenda.

First up, Afghanistan (and Iraq later)….. “quagmire”, “Viet Nam”, etc. The press was very solid. They did not want success, but it happened. Afghanistan is a free nation today, although in it’s infancy.

Every other effort, from freezing assets to arresting terrorists, to trying to bring certain nations into helping to reduce terrorism has been fought ‘tooth and nail’ by journalists.

Now Iraq. Hussein, a known supporter of terrorism and all else…. I don’t need to go into ANY detail as only a fool would not know what a S.O.B. he was. The press is, once again, against his removal. Or, more likely, the US removal of him.

Two questions. Why are so many in the press, yourself included, seemingly so ‘against’ removing terrorism from this world? Why do the forces of good have to fight you as well as terrorism?

I’m very unhappy about this, and as this is the 1 year anniversary of the liberation of Iraq, the Iraqis are free now, and there STILL is a concerted effort to remove coalition forces from Iraq. Why? Help me to understand this. Please, I’m desperate for a useful explanation.

A very, very evil tyrant has been removed. Do you think Iraqis were better off with Saddam?

MARGO: The bottom line of the debate is whether invading Iraq has made the world a safer or more dangerous place. The world is split on this, with most world leaders bar the Anglo-leaders believing the war has increased the risk of terror, not reduced it. The journalist’s role is to test what our leaders tell us, for its truth and its reasoning.

***

Russell Dover in Canberra

HR’s email in Spain aftershock: your say is the response lefty rhetoric on the Iraq war really needs in order to dig out the confusion and inconsistency that plagues the anti-war position.

I am vehemently anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Howard. However, a few things that HR said rang true. One was that the Iraq war was always about destroying a violent, despotic regime, and that surely it’s a good thing to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and all the other violent tinpot dictators around the world who brutalise and torture their citizens.

Well, it’s a great idea, in theory. If there are bad guys in the world, well, use the West’s superior firepower to throw them out, and free their people!

It’s never been that simple, unfortunately. While the US has certainly gotten rid of Saddam Hussein because they are the world champions at winning conventional war with messy, overwhelming brute force, they are incompetent when it comes to nation-building. I mean mind-numbingly, catastrophically foolish. They have no hope of winning the peace on their own. Which is why they are now begging the UN to save Iraq from the mess that the US created, before the US elections, so George Bush can pretend that he had a UN mandate all along, and win the election.

To get back to HR, though, this enigmatic character’s email was glaringly different from the usual right-wing emails to Webdiary. It wasn’t just a tired parroting of something John Howard said to Alan Jones, and it didn’t seem cut-and-pasted from The Australian.

This strange beast contained an original thought! The reference to Tony Blair’s hopeful comments about invading other countries to free their people, and how we’ve all thought that’s a good idea for at least a little while, is not something you’d hear from the current government.

Far from being divisive, HR actually seems to want people to work together in fighting global terrorism, whereas the Howard government doesn’t bother to hide the fact that it exists solely to win the next election, by any means necessary.

We on the left need to stop listening to our idiots who tell us to immediately withdraw from Iraq, leaving the country to slide into its own little hellhole of civil war. Just as the right needs to stop listening to their idiots, who say that the way to beat terrorism is with M1 Abrams tanks.

We need to start actually listening to people like HR, because while we may disagree with what s/he says, at least HR argues on a logical basis, and doesn’t just regurgitate a tired “Everything we say is right, you losers” government line.

Talking, rationally and thoughtfully, with an open mind, with the “other side” of the political arena is the only way we are going to beat Howard’s wedge politics. It is the only way that we can bring Australia out of the hole we’ve dug with our ignorance, fear, and credulity.

***

Tim Gillin in Kensington, Sydney

Left and liberal critics of the war on terrorism would have more credibility if they outlined a realistic alternative strategy to defeat terrorism. It’s no good sniping from the sidelines.

History books tell us that wars are messy, chaotic and even nations fighting just causes make horrid moral mistakes and battlefield blunders. Dresden and the largely unprovoked allied mass murders of German and Japanese civilians with night aerial bombardment come to mind. I am making an unremarkable assumption here that the war against Hitler was something of a just cause, even if “victory” merely meant that Stalin beat Adolf to the top the list of 20th century’s bloodiest tyrannts.

We may as well have thrown the towel in after contemplating the moral fine points of Churchill’s sinking of the French fleet at Oran. And what about John Curtin’s illegal pre-emptive invasion of the peaceful and neutral territory of Portugese East Timor in 1942? Time honoured international law rejected due to national security considerations. Doesn’t that make Labor’s national hero a war criminal with the blood of about 60,000 East Timorese on his hands? Morally Curtin’s Timor was probably worse than Kissinger in Cambodia – at least the Viet Cong were actually using the Khymer Kingdom as an invasion route into South Vietnam before the USA-ARVN invasion. Nixon wasn’t pre-empting anyone.

The liberal left has yet to tell us how they are going to eliminate (kill) terrorists and their support networks. They have so far winced out.

Invading Iraq may have been the biggest mistake since the British Empire decided to squash the Boer republics. But pulling out of Baghdad now will not revise last year’s mistakes. Reversing over a pedestrian you previously hit will not restore him to health. History gives us no simple way out.

Withdrawl would most likely spark a bloody racial and religious civil war. And whatever brave steps the Iraqis have made under American rule towards freedom of speech and public debate – the core of democracy – whilst coping with occupation, lawlessness and brutal terror would certainly be drowned in blood.

And however incompetent the Bush administration most certainly is, the cynical merry-go-round of the UN, where security council votes are essentially swapped and auctioned, is even more incompetent, immoral and unaccountable. At least US voters will have the opportunity to sack Bush if his adventure goes pear shaped.

One gets the feeling that those leftoids who “accept that we all want to fight terrorism”, think they could do it without getting their hands or consciences dirty. History books also tell us that guerilla wars are generally dirty wars. Britain used internment in Northern Ireland. And France’s use of torture and summary executions in the Algerian War made Guantanamo look like a holiday camp. The war against terrorism will have to get a lot dirtier if it is indeed to be won.

The left love to tell us how much more morally sophisticated they are than Bush, Howard and Blair. The reality is however that the Clinton – Blair left’s vision of global humanitarian interventionism is barely distinguishable from the Bush – Blair right’s vision of preventing terror.

Indeed it may have been Clinton’s green light for the covert shift of Arab “Afghans” to Kosovo that truly turned Al Quaeda into an international threat (Cross-border terrorism: a mess made by the West ).

Sure we found no WMDs in Iraq, but wasn’t the same line propagated through the 1990s by Clinton, Hawke and even Keating? At least Fraser and former “neo-liberal” Liberal leader John Hewson signed a letter of protest against US invasion without UN approval. Keating and Crean refused to sign.

And surely the mass graves of Yugoslavia were similarly sexed up. As Phillip Knightley said:

“The American government (Clinton) decided that 500,000 Kosovar Albanians missing, feared dead, was an impressive figure and this was the one issued by the State department on 19 April. The US defence secretary, William Cohen, reduced this on 16 May to 100,000. “We’ve now seen about one hundred thousand military-aged men missing,” he told CBS News. “They may have been murdered.” The British government said on 17 June that the Serbs had killed 10,000 ethnic Albanians in Kosovo in more than 100 massacres and this is the figure Robin Cook insists is still correct… The (Red Cross) says now that 2,700 Albanians are missing, repeated missing, as a result of the conflict in Kosovo and it actually has their names..”

Presumably some imperialist lies are politically correct and others aren’t. The left’s selective fury over the Iraq invasion whilst giving silent complicity to equally illegal invasions in Yugoslavia is sheer humbug. Spare us the moral high horse stuff.

 

***

 

Shaun O’Brien

Shaun wrote Missive from a critic last week, provoking responses in Spain and Australia: the parallels. Here he goes again.

After receiving what I thought was a tame response by fellow Webdiary readers, I shall press ahead with a further look at the issues surrounding the War on Terror. Even though I am just a layman in terms of detailed knowledge, I feel I can articulate some interesting thoughts that can be mulled over.

A few ideas spring to mind when looking at how we have arrived at these horrific events and how we can try to minimise future terror incidents. I take a simplistic view but then I feel that a simpler view creates an atmosphere where a solution can be found. Make a problem seem too complex and then noone can feel that they can fix it.

Why has the Middle East been a source of troubles for the last century? Without doubt oil is a major cause. It’s not the product per se but the treatment of the countries and their peoples who have the precious commodity from oil users. Ever since oil became the driving force of developed nations its importance has seen the subservience of the “lucky” occupiers of the Middle East. To western nations the ability to receive black gold without supply or pricing problems was the only consideration, regardless of how many Middle East people were trodden on.

The next problem was the creation of Israel. Before I’m criticised as anti-Jewish, the creation of Israel and the continued mistreatment by western nations of Arab countries are part of the main reason why the Middle East is in so much trouble: LACK OF RESPECT!

If you were your average Arab citizen and saw that your country’s wealth was being bled by greedy Western Nations and their puppet rulers as well as (let’s not beat about the bush here) loathed Jews given territory to form a new nation supported by those western nations then you can see why the hatred began.

Add further fuel to the flames over the next decades with Lebanon, the Palestinians and the 6 Day War and still the Arab nations did not earn respect from the nations that were happily raping and pillaging their natural resources, the very resources which move the west further and further ahead in terms of individual and collective wealth. Arab history for most of human existence been a source of strength and power except for the last 100 or 200 years so to lose that respect when you are standing on the world’ driving liquid is a powerful kick to the unmentionables.

Add to that the religious angle and again another source of anguish through a perceived/actual lack of respect by Christian nations to Islam and here we are today.

Respect is a funny thing. We think in terms of gaining or earning respect through good deeds, hard work, strength and abilities under pressure etc. I am not referring to the respect that some people believe they have achieved purely because of money, power or influence, which isn’t respect at the end of the day. The terrorists believe that another form of respect can be achieved by using FEAR. When all forms of activity over the years have failed to achieve one ounce of respect from Western Nations then the only one left is fear.

But like all other activities that earn respect it is not everlasting. And the other problem is that only like minded people see terror activities as capable of earning respect and not the actual people who are the targets – for them fear will always be fear and will never turn into respect.

So the use of terror tactics is usually a failure in the long term except when people have had enough of being the target – this depends on the fortitude of those at the pointy end of terror (the Israelis seem to have a high threshold).

Also terror is a hard thing to let go for those who wield it, like any form of power.

Can this lack of respect be undone? Yes, at a large cost to the West. It means that oil should be totally under the control of the countries that have it without external influences. The US should remove its presence from the Arab world in a militarily sense forthwith. But in doing that it should have a huge stick ready for any intervention if any of the Middle Eastern countries see that they would like to conquer weaker states or would like to have a go at Israel.

And speaking of Israel an immediate resolution to the Palestinian problem should be the priority, with recognition of Israel’s right to exist by Arab nations. No if or buts!

The US and other Western nations should then put in, without ties, funds to the Arab nations to bring these nations up to the standard that is enjoyed by ourselves. As far as the religious problems I feel that elevating problems at the grass root level by providing better economic opportunities goes hand in hand with less religious fanatism.

The tactics of the pro-war crowd who�ve hung in there knowing we were lied to and watching a war about to enter its second year never change. The Spanish people are now appeasers, as is everyone else who opposed the war for what turned out to be bloody good reasons and now want the UN to take over as quickly as possible to end the US/British/Australian occupation.

 

Please have a read of New Spanish government a circuit breaker on Iraq by new Webdiarist Sam Guthrie. And please, Miranda Devine and co, accept that we all want to fight terrorism. Some of us, though, don�t believe we can do so when governed by liars and spinmeisters who we can�t bloody trust and who mow down people we feel we can trust.

A colleague sent me a great email today:

�I get the feeling there’s a great many people out there who really object to this issue being politicised at all. Did you read the Lateline transcript of Tony Jones’s interview with Downer? Downer’s pathetic waffle was a real object lesson in what happens when politicians think they can take people for complete fools. It would be worth a piece on whether the “art” of evasion is at all helpful when the world is witnessing the true horror of commuter trains being blown up by backpacks containing bombs triggered by mobile phone detonators. When that happens don’t we all expect our politicians (and journos) to get serious and coalitioned rather than point-scoring?�

In yesterday’s feedback Webdiary Spain aftershock: your say, several Webdiarists accused me of writing things I did not write, so I thought I�d make my position crystal clear. It is the same as that of Michigan history professor and Iraq expert Juan Cole, whose blog is a must-read on Iraq and its consequences. He wrote, on March 16, in part:

Did al-Qaeda Win the Spanish Elections? This silly question is being asked by billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s and Conrad Black’s media outlets all over the world in blazing headlines. For some strange reason, the billionaires aren’t happy that the Socialist Workers’ Party won the elections in Spain, and are trying to portray the outcome as cowardice on the part of the Spanish public.

The entire argument is specious from beginning to end. First of all, the Iraq war had nothing to do with the battle against al-Qaeda. Nothing whatsoever. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and others were pressing for a war against Iraq in the 1990s before al-Qaeda had even become much of a threat to the US… Jose Maria Aznar, in supporting Bush on the war against Iraq, was not standing up to al-Qaeda.

I believe that the Spanish public just recognized the correctness of the “opportunity cost” argument about the Iraq War and anti-terrorism efforts. Let’s say you are in business. If you put your capital, which is limited, into expanding one part of your business (“X”), you may make money – say 7% percent on your investment. But you had another opportunity to put your money into expanding a different part of the business (“Y”), and that would have given you a 25% percent return (which you did not know at the time). Giving up the 25% return is an opportunity cost of doing X rather than Y.

The Iraq War represents an enormous opportunity cost in the counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda and its constituents. After the Afghanistan War, the Bush administration forgot to ask Congress for any money for Afghanistan reconstruction, and Congress helpfully put in $300 million. This year, the Bush administration will put $1 billion into Afghanistan, an immense country devastated by 25 years of war (for which the US bears some responsibility), in which the Taliban is having a resurgence…

Since the end of the Afghanistan War, al-Qaeda has struck at Mombasa, Bali, Riyadh, Casablanca, Istanbul, Madrid and elsewhere. Some chatter suggested that Ayman al-Zawahiri himself ordered the hit on Istanbul. The attack on a Spanish cultural center in Casablanca in May of 2003 now appears to have been a harbinger of the horrible Madrid train bombings last week. How much did Spain spend to go after the culprits in Casablanca? How much did Bush dedicate to that effort? How much did they instead invest in military efforts in Iraq?

Instead of dealing with this growing and world-wide threat, the Bush administration cynically took advantage of the American public’s anger and fear after September 11 and channeled it against the regime of Saddam Hussein, which had had nothing to do with September 11 and which never could be involved in such a terrorist operation on American soil because its high officers knew exactly the retribution that would be visited on them. Only an asymmetrical organization could think of a September 11, because it has no exact return address…

The Iraq adventure is likely to have cost the US nearly $250 billion by next year this time. The US is no safer now than it was before the Iraq war, since Iraq did not have any weapons that could hit US soil and would not have risked using them even if it did.

Let me repeat that. Maybe $1.3 billion for Afghanistan. $250 billion for Iraq. Bin Laden and his supporters are in Afghanistan. What is wrong with this picture?

There is not and cannot be such a thing as a “war on terror.” Terror is a tactic. There can be a global counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda and kindred organizations. But a large part of such a struggle must be to deny al-Qaeda recruitment tools and propaganda victories. The way the Bush administration pursued the war against Iraq, as a superpower-led act of Nietzschean will to power, simply made it look in the Middle East as though al-Qaeda had been right. Bin Laden’s message was that Middle Easterners are being colonized and occupied by the United States.

There is no evidence at all that the Spanish public desires the new Socialist government to pull back from a counter-insurgency effort against al-Qaeda. The evidence is only that they became convinced that the war on Iraq had detracted from that effort rather than contributing to it. This is not a cowardly conclusion and it is not a victory for al-Qaeda…

Here is what Zapatero said about all this, according to the Washington Post:

�The war [in Iraq] has been a disaster; the occupation continues to be a disaster,” Zapatero told a radio interviewer. At a news conference later, he called the Iraq war “an error.” He added, “It divided more than it united, there were no reasons for it, time has shown that the arguments for it lacked credibility, and the occupation has been poorly managed.” He pledged to continue to combat international terrorism, but said the fight should be conducted with “a grand alliance” of democracies and not through “unilateral wars,” a clear reference to Iraq.��

Here’s my rough rendering of Zapatero’s full statement, which Fox Cable News will not read out in its entirety:

“Tonight I commit myself to commence a tranquil government and I assure you that power is not going to change me,” affirmed Zapatero between the applause of hundreds of people who congregated to celebrate the triumph.

“My most immediate priority is to fight all forms of terrorism (Mi prioridad mas inmediata es combatir toda forma de terrorismo). And my first initiative, tomorrow, will be to seek a union of political forces to join us together in fighting it.”

After defining himself as “prepared to assume the responsibility to form the new government”, Zapatero described his priorities.

“I will set out to strengthen the prestige of democratic institutions . . . to move Spain into the vanguard of European development and to guide myself by the Constitution at every moment”

“The government of change,” he added “will act from the dialogue, responsibility and transparency. It will be a government that will work by cohesion, concord and peace.”

After nearly four years of White House rhetoric stolen from old Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns, the determination in this speech to pursue anti-terrorism with an eye to establishing social peace and creating the conditions of human development hits me as a gale of fresh air.

So this is what al-Qaeda was going for with the train bombs? To create a “grand alliance” of democracies against it? Zapatero’s speech is a victory for Bin Laden?

No, it is a defeat only for the Bush administration and the Neoconservative philosophy of Perpetual War�

With the secession of Spain from the “coalition of the willing,” the rug has been pulled out from under the Bush doctrine of preemption, the Bush commitment to US military action without a proper UNSC resolution, and the Bush conviction that you can fool all the people all the time. Since Bush administration militarism and desire to go about overthrowing most of the governments in the Middle East actually was highly destabilizing and created enormous numbers of potential recruits for al-Qaeda, the Spanish actions are a great victory for the counter-insurgency struggle against al-Qaeda.

Webdiarist Luke Stegemann, a former resident of Spain now lecturing in Osaka, would also like to set a few records straight. He sees parallels between Australian and Spanish politics:

As a long-term Australian resident of Spain and having just left the country after spending most of the election campaign there, I must comment on the deeply insulting – not to say patronising – attitude shown by those who suggest that the new Spanish government is there thanks to Al-Qaeda, and that this is somehow a �victory for terrorism�.

This misguided view implies that the previous government is to be absolved of responsibility for its authoritarianism and highly divisive means of ruling the country. Anybody familiar with Spanish politics would have known that the country was ripe for change. The Spanish participation in the war in Iraq against the vast majority of people�s wishes was one of many reasons the Spaniards wished to change their government.

The new Spanish government was elected by the Spanish people through a transparent and democratic process. They’d had enough of a highly centrist and hard-right party. As far as the majority of Spaniards are concerned (and I�ve spoken to quite a few since the election result), the election was a victory for democracy, not terrorism. And isn’t the protection – or promotion – of democracy what the whole “war on terror” is about?

There are a number of striking parallels between the rise and fall and political hue of elected governments in Australia and Spain going back to the early 1980s. If the trend is to continue, there are some clear pointers to the national election later this year.

For the purposes of this comparison we can equate quite closely, in terms of ideology and political practice, the Australian ALP and the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) and the Liberal Party and Spain�s conservative Partido Popular (PP).

In 1982, the PSOE swept to power as the first Socialist government since the days of the Civil War under the leadership of Felipe Gonzalez. This was mirrored the following year in Australia by the sweeping to power of the ALP under Bob Hawke in 1983 (notwithstanding the Whitlam years which look, in hindsight, like an historical and political aberration, despite the enormous social advances made in those three short years).

The PSOE ruled until 1996, increasingly alienated from its traditional support base as economic rationalism came to exert its grip on models of governance, and beset by corruption scandals. The ALP also held power until 1996.

In Spain, where elections are held every 4 years rather than our 3, the PSOE was widely tipped to lose power in 1992, until Felipe Gonzalez won an �unwinnable election� to take one more term, as did Paul Keating the following year in Australia. It was to be the final term for both parties.

The Spanish PSOE and the Australian ALP then went into the political wilderness as more right-wing governments took over. The Liberal Party under John Howard and the PP under Jose Maria Aznar came resoundingly to power on the same weekend in March, 1996.

The similarities between Aznar and Howard were both physical (small men who punched well above their weight) and ideological: neo-conservative, authoritarian, masters of the wedge, and so on.

Last year, Aznar and Howard stood shoulder to shoulder with Blair and Bush though curiously, while in Australia those opposed to the war or the �coalition of the willing� talk of the triumvirate of Bush-Blair-Howard (with no mention of Aznar), in Spain, where popular opposition to the war was even stronger than in Australia, everyone talks of the �assassins� Bush-Blair-Aznar � no-one has even heard of Howard!

A significant difference, and what may be more telling as time goes on, is that last year Aznar decided to step down and personally appointed his successor, Mariano Rajoy, as part of a generational change Howard has pointedly refused to entertain.

At the same time, the Spanish PSOE fielded their young leader, a fresh-faced 43 year-old (I know Mark Latham may not be fresh-faced, but does it sound familiar?) It is very easy to see the parallels continue between the two countries, with Mark Latham coming to power later this year on a wave of public frustration with intolerance and unadulterated spin, just as �bambi� Zapatero (as he is known) has taken the Spanish election.

Of course, the Australian elections � one hopes � will not take place against a background of near civil unrest such as was brewing on the streets of Spain last Saturday, as the PP continued in its fervent efforts to pin blame for the atrocity on ETA despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I was told by my Spanish wife (who was in the middle of it all) that such tension had not been felt on the streets of Spain since the aborted military coup of February, 1983, when gunmen opened fire in the National Parliament and the tanks rolled onto the streets of Valencia.

Now we see that Pedro Almodovar is in hot water for making this very claim � that the country was close to a coup d�etat last Saturday evening. Yet even if we do go to vote, as expected and hoped, under very different conditions, the Australian people have more than enough reasons to cry, as the Spanish people have done in a different context, �Enough is enough�.

Since the last election, the children overboard affair and the war in Iraq are but two instances of appalling spin that one hopes will come back to haunt the Howard government and, like Spain�s conservatives, they will be made to pay for their contemptuous treatment of the general public by being thrown out of government. The argument of a good economic record will have nothing to do with it.

If Mark Latham and the ALP are elected to power later this year, the political nature of the respective governments in Madrid and Canberra will carry on in curious parallel, even after 22 years. And if Latham does win, let�s hope that no-one is contemptuous enough of the will of the Australian people to claim it as a �victory for Al-Qaeda�.

Tonight, the Webdiary debate began last night rages on. Here�s what you say.

Antony Loewenstein recommends Robert Fisk on Iraq and Al Qaeda in Al-Qa’ida Attacks Intensify, But Iraqi Police Say: “Let Them Come” and Iraq: a year of war.

Peter Woodforde: Australia’s police chiefs have, for a variety of plausible reasons, sought to expand powers of detention without trial or charges. That may be all very well, but given the recent demonstration of ruthless impropriety toward Federal Police chief Keelty by the PM’s murky private office, just who would wield the increased powers? The Keelty episode has shown once again the worryingly furtive and Kremlinesque atmosphere of the PM’s private office, and cut public trust in the independence of statutory office-holders.

Marcus Paul: Reading your Webdiary lately, it is easy to observe one particular strand of hopeful expectation in the comments on the war on Iraq, the terrorist bombing in Spain, any threat of terrorism in this country, and the various governmental deceits involved. A number of Webdiarists seem to hope that the Australian public will respond to the body of lies and half-truths that surround the Howard government’s handling of these matters. I suggest that people have come to expect such deceit from the coalition. It might even be said to be a non-issue. It is only the more discursive media outlets such as the Sydney Morning Herald and your own Webdiary that exhibit an ongoing concern with John Howard’s record on the truth. It is interesting to note that Mark Latham too has been conspicuously silent on these matters. He knows all to well that there is little electoral mileage to be had in criticising the coalition. Of course, should the worse happen and Sydney or any other Australian city falls prey to terrorist atrocity, the debate would be one which all Australians would have to engage with. Let us hope this is a future we never have to witness. We would no doubt respond very differently to the Spanish. For one thing, it is unlikely that the Labor Party could ride into government on any resentment at Australia’s participation in the latest Gulf War, or any related rendering of Australia as a terrorist target.

Jim Stewart: Two readers cite Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero’s: “Mr Blair and Mr Bush must do some reflection and self-criticism. You can’t organise a war with lies.” Surely its time someone pointed his mistake. It�s an historical fact that not only can you organise a war with lies, but that to win wars (and elections) leaders need to be good liars! More important, since the spread of ‘real time’ mass media they need reporters and commentators to report their lies as if they are worth hearing. Imagine if all viewers ever heard on TV/radio was: Because we try to report only the truth, Alexander Downer/Mark Latham (or as appropriate) was asked to clarify or correct his confusing and public lies in his media statement but refused to do so and just changed the subject!

***

Michael Grimes, on debut

I’ve been an avid reader for some time, but I’ve never felt moved to write until now. What brought about the shift from observer to participant is the almost brutish crudity of the arguments of some of your right-wing correspondents, and their willful determination to misunderstand the nuances of the anti-Howard, anti-war arguments.

Let’s start with Shaun O’Brien in Missive from a critic:

“This is a war between those who hate the US and those who support/have similar cultures as the US and nothing more.”

How simplistic is that? What room for manooeuvre does this kind of thinking give our policy-makers? If we simply assume away the root causes of terrorism, we are left with no option but to pursue a policy of all-out war, which has been spectacularly unsuccessful so far.

Mitchell Beston believes that:

“We are all targets. The only way to avoid terrorism, is to join Islam and renounce Western values and lifestyle.” What, exactly, are “Western values and lifestyle”? Given that Islam has existed for well over a thousand years, why has this kind of terrorism begun to surface only in recent decades? Why are there so many countries with “Western values and lifestyle” that don’t appear to be of any interest to the terrorists? His comment about “gutless Saddam-supporters” demonstrates just how divided a nation we have become under Howard. It is contemptuous in the extreme, and such comments make it almost impossible to respond in a civilised fashion.

The anonymous “HR” writes:

“If any legitimacy is placed on terrorism it wins and it breeds more terrorism. If at any stage we bow to it, it will breed.”

Are we to infer that it’s not breeding now? The logical extension of this argument is that the origins of terrorism lie in our failure to stand up to terrorism. What kind of nonsense is that? Terrorism does not occur in a vacuum. I can almost hear the response already – that I am somehow making excuses for cold-blooded killers, that I am a “Saddam-supporter” or some other inexcusable crudity.

What can I say? I’m not doing either of these things. I’m making a pragmatic plea for understanding. We won’t solve this problem until we understand it. Shaun, Mitchell and HR do not understand it. I don’t either, but at least I’m trying. At least I’m approaching it as a problem that can be understood if we take the time and the trouble to face it honestly and courageously, look at our own role in generating these feelings in the Islamic world, and don’t allow ourselves to be defeated by our baser instincts. That can only lead us into unending chaos and horror.

I do understand HR’s fear. I do understand why we are all concerned about the escalation in terror attacks. I feel as vulnerable as anybody else. But it is imperative that we understand the reasons for it. Otherwise we are condemned to live in a world where it just goes on escalating.

Globally we are, in a sense, in the same situation as Israel. Before Sharon came to power, terror attacks were happening sporadically. In an effort to eradicate them completely, he has erected walls, destroyed homes, sidelined Arafat, attacked the cars and homes of known terrorists with rockets launched from helicopters, killing many civilians in the process, and generally engaged in an onslaught of unprecedented ferocity on the enemies of Israel. Terror attacks are now virtually a weekly phenomenon.

Is this what we want for the world?

***

Mick Dean in Springwood, NSW

‘HR’ says:

“I for one do trust the government. I trust the government because they are presenting an argument that makes much more sense than yours. I trust the government for they haven’t misled me in the way people like you are continually trying to convince me that they have. In doing so you are the true misleaders.”

I wonder where he/she was when the lies about ‘children overboard’ were brought to the public’s attention – sounds like someone with selective hearing to me.

“WMDs were not found but this was not the only reason.”

Well, actually it was, if HR listened to Johnny.

“The WMD reason is one we had to use to get the UN to do something about it because the UN is too weak to intervene in situations where a leader’s tyranny is the reason for intervening.”

So why didn’t Johnny just say this? Too weak perhaps? Too scared of the political consequences? So much for “one has to base it on what is right.” Hypocritical? Me?? Huh!

As for the line “Your argument basically says that it is right for terrorists to strike Spain for it’s involvement in the Iraq war”, that’s as blinkered as the ludicrous argument that if you were against the war in Iraq then you support Saddam Hussein.

At least Shaun O’Brien had the balls to put his name to his critique – I didn’t agree with it, but if you have something you want others to hear, then you should be prepared to put your name to it. Otherwise you might be accused of being gutless and not basing your actions on ‘what is right’!

Reveal yourself “HR”!

***

Jane Macdonald

I agree with much of what Shaun O’Brien, Daniel Maurice, David Tester, Mike Lyvers, Mitchell Beston and HR said in Webdiary today. However, like Shaun O’Brien, I won’t shed any tears when Howard resigns or is voted out.

But what would Latham and Labor offer as an alternative?? Honest politics? I don’t think so.

And where are some PRAGMATIC policy ideas from the opposition on this increasing threat of terrorism? How about a look in Webdiary at how Costello is doing a great job of shadowing Latham and catching him out at any opportunity.

If only Howard hadn’t been so ‘power hungry’ and handed over to Costello, we’d now be watching a fascinating contest between the two forty somethings rather than a stale and somewhat desperate Howard versus someone who appears to be a ‘media darling’ but who does not inspire me with confidence that he has the ability to do the job.

What sort of PM would Costello make if he ever gets the chance? (MARGO: I don�t think Costello could hold the mix of constituencies Howard has. I think the battlers would trust Latham more than Costello.)

***

Yutaka Yoshino

The lesson for the government from the Spanish election should be “saying it is so does not make it so”. It is unfortunate that there is strong faith in the notion that reality is shaped by what is declared publicly, loudly and repeatedly. The serious confusion amongst those in power between spin and reality is furthered by a media with no sensitivity to the difference between the two.

The contortions in logic and rhetoric required to continue to deceive self and the populace, all for the maintenance of the alliance with the United States, is beginning to make the leaders appear utter fools.

Given November is not far away, it is time to start thinking clearly, if not to avoid future terrorist attacks, to regain a little self respect. It may not be too late to begin to distance Australia from Bush’s failed war on terror.

Should Bush not be reelected there will be substantial changes to American behaviour. Should the unthinkable occur and Bush is reelected, there is even better reason to avoid becoming caught in the cross fire in a perpetual war.

***

Philip Hewett in East Gosford

Robert Bosler�s The Liberal Party: headed for oblivion? is superb. He distilled the essence of what is gnawing at millions of Australians as they see Howard and his cowed ad subservient cabinet ministers perverting and dismantling the Australian social system.

Listening to and reading the aggressive authoritarian rhetoric of Howard’s supporters and apologists gives the impression that Howard has become a cult figure to his followers. I fully expect to see massive posters of Howard smiling paternalistically down on ‘his’ people in the near future.

Just as the victims of Stalin refused to see him as their persecutor, Howard�s followers are selectively blind. To them he is the personification of political perfection – he is their ‘father’, their protector in times of grave fear. To these deluded citizens Australia’s problems are the fault of Howard ‘haters’ – along with greenies, feminists, unions, public school teachers, Aboriginals and middle eastern migrants, ad infinitum.

I get the uneasy feeling that if their ‘Glorious Leader’ were to give the right dog whistle in times of social duress, his blinded followers would turn on their own – and history is littered with examples.

***

Jenny Green

Although I think Shaun O�Brien is wrong to assert that Webdiary refuses to assess the alternatives on offer to the Howard government, his piece made me think about the duties we (the non-journos and non-pollies) owe to the democratic process.

Surely the first thing we owe to ourselves, and to our community, is to educate ourselves about the issues and events which raise such anger and resentment directed at the Howard government. It is not enough to go entirely by the pronouncements of politicians or the media of either side. We are all sick of being treated like credulous sheep by the current government et al � and I think the only thing which is going to change that is to make sure that we don�t waste time venting spleen at the expense of trying to understand exactly what is going on.

For instance, I find Shaun�s response �Should the invasion have happened? I really don�t know etc� irresponsible. An essential part of our civic duty is to debate and learn about the important issues of our community.

We have a duty to examine our own beliefs and decide where we stand, where our line in the sand is, and what we cannot accept. Otherwise our whining that the politicians don�t listen to us is just that � whining too late after the fact.

Any preliminary investigation of modern Iraq and the circumstances surrounding the war would have come up with one glaring fact � Saddam is Sunni, while the majority of Iraq is Shia. If the coalition of the willing invaded Iraq to free the country from Saddam�s tyranny and �grant� them democracy, majority rule would result in a government similar to that of Iran.

Think about it � why would the US go to such great lengths to replace Saddam with a sort of government it has named in the �the axis of evil�

O�Brien�s piece also contains the unthinking assumption that all problems in the middle east are a result of one issue � a clash between eastern and western culture. That Bali equals Madrid, equals 9/11 etc. We all should be better informed than that.

I�m sure most of us have read or heard the statements and speeches released by Al Qaeda, various militant organisations and prominent Muslim figures. Did we even try to understand what these people were saying were the reasons for much of the current strife? Or did we consider it all lies because it came from terrorists and others we consider simply as the enemy? How easy for us � and again, how irresponsible.

Anyone who has read a fraction of these statements could not help but notice two things � the Palestine issue is mentioned over and over and over again; and it seems clear that many people in this large chunk of the world feel that they are being treated as inferior to those in the west, that their concerns are not as important to the international community, that their way of life is considered inferior to ours.

To say this is simply the outpouring of evil men is saying that we want to shut our eyes and slyly give the nod to our politicians to dispose of these issues without reference to us in the way which best suits their purpose.

To be blunt, we haven�t got a chance of sorting out this mess unless we all make the effort to try and understand what�s going on before we rush to fight it. To demonise the �other side� in a conflict only leaves the path open for the same problems to happen again, and again, and again. Even the military are aware of this � the concept of studying your enemy is as old as history.

How many of us are aware that the Sari club in Bali did not allow local Balinese in as patrons? What does that say about the nature of the target?

How many of us understand the way sanctions across the middle east have affected the local population? What have the governments concerned and the people concerned said about this? Do you understand why? What do YOU think should happen?

Have you tried to imagine how horrific living in a camp in the territiories would be? Have you imagined what daily life in Jerusalem is like for those living under the constant threat of terrorist bombs?

Have you put yourself in the place of a resident of Baghdad in April 2003? What would it be like? Do you care?

O�Brien says that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with pre-war Iraq. I think he�s probably right. But if one thing is clear about Al Qaeda, it�s that they seek to take on all the perceived slights, all the criticisms, all the attacks on the Islamic nations, and wreak their own bloody, terrifying revenge.

The fact that this is evil does not make it less true. We must deal with this fact if we are to destroy terrorism. To pretend it�s not there is, on all of our parts, irresponsible. We must get over our cowardly �if I don�t acknowledge that it�s true, I can just dismiss it� response. That response is all about political posturing, and has nothing to do with the will and desire to do something about the current tragedy.

O�Brien says that allowing �people� to �thumb their noses� at the US is �bad for the world�. I cannot begin to describe how much the blind subservience, the unthinking unselfconsciousness of that statement frightens me. He negates the will and power of the people, and betrays a unconscious willingness to overrule them in the statement �Now it looks like a terrorist act can bring down a government�.

The people brought down the government, not the terrorists. To believe anything else makes a mockery of grassroots democracy, that thing we all say we prize so much we believe it should be imported to those who do not have it.

All these points have worrying implications for our communal integrity and willingness to seek a solution. But the icing on the cake is the statement �Local politics are clouding the whole problem in dealing with these terrorists�.

The Islamic community is divided within itself in ways we do not want to learn about, each with a history we can�t be bothered to investigate. Until we have the guts to accept that local politics, as well as international actions, are the cause of the problem, our breathtaking arrogance will ensure that our children, and our children�s children will inherit a world permanently at war.

Our refusal to legalise the death penalty is based on a belief that all human life is sacred, and that all human life is equal. We must stop this ‘them against us’ attitude and begin to see all the different players in this drama as our global community, whom we value as ourselves, and whom we want to help, for the common good of all.

G�day. I got my first deluge of emails for the year – on Spain, Iraq and Keelty � and you�re split. The Iraq war takes centre stage, yet again, and it�s hard to imagine it won�t be a factor at the election. I�ve published a strong piece by new Webdiarist Sam Guthrie on the Spanish election and where it might lead which might help clarify our thoughts about this latest twist in the Iraq war saga. Tonight, it�s over to you.

 

NOTICEBOARD

John Dalton recommends kuro5hin for on the ground insights into what�s happening in Spain. He also recommends wikipedia on Madrid attacks: �The quality of this article is really opening my eyes to the power of collaborative media.�

John Boase recommends, as I do, juancole for intelligent and informed daily coverage and opinion on the war.

Antony Loewenstein recommends The Aftershocks from Madrid.

Ross Sharp recommends iraqontherecord: �It was prepared at the request of US Rep Henry A. Waxman and details 237 instances of misleading statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell over 125 public appearances in the lead-up to the Iraq adventure. It certainly bears out Spain’s new PM Jos� Luis Rodr�guez Zapatero when he said: ‘Mr Blair and Mr Bush must do some reflection – you can’t organise a war with lies.'”

Scott Burchill recommends A Year After Iraq War Mistrust of America in Europe Ever Higher, Muslim Anger Persists, a survey by the Pew research center for the people and the press.

And Scott notes a rare occasion when Howard doesn�t echo Bush:

“…it’s my view that Iraq is really irrelevant to the intent and the purposes of Al Qaeda.” (John Howard, 7.30 Report, 15 March 2004, ABC.)

“Al-Qaeda has an interest in Iraq for a reason, and that interest is they realise that this is a front on the war on terror. And they fear the spread of freedom and democracy in places like the greater Middle East, and so it’s essential that we remain side by side with the Iraqi people as they begin the process of self-government.� (George W. Bush, AM, 17 March , 2004, ABC.)

An Australian reporter made a good point on the Keelty thing: �In all the coverage there’s one issue that’s missed the attention it deserves: The AFP Commissioner does not enjoy the independence enjoyed by many other departments and statutory authorities in the Federal Government. He’s essentially a political appointee, there at the sufferance of the Attorney General. This means that it’s very hard for the AFP commissioner to do anything other than what he’s told. Doesn’t this saga highlight the need for senior public servants to have security of tenure….like they used to. So they can tell the Minister to f*** off.�

North Shore Peace and Democracy, featured in Webdiary in Liberal elder to Abbott: Dear friend, make amends on Iraq, advises Sydney readers of events to mark the first anniversary of the Iraq war:

Global Day of Action: Saturday, March 20

10-11 am Vigil & collection for medical aid to Iraq. George Street, just outside Town Hall Square. Organised by Sydney Peace and Justice Coalition.

11 am � 12 noon Community memorial service . Pitt Street Uniting Church, 264 Pitt St Sydney (near Park St). Speak out our grief, our vision and our commitment Organised by Sydney Peace and Justice Coalition.

12 noon March and Rally: Assemble at Hyde Park North. March through the city back to Hyde Park Speakers include John Pilger, Andrew Wilkie, Senator Kerry Nettle, Saif Abu Keshek. Organised by Stop the War Coalition.

Palm Sunday March & Rally for Peace: Sunday April 4, 1 pm, Belmore Park. Palm Sunday service & Multi-Faith Prayers for Peace. Then march to Hyde Park North. Speakers include Sharan Burrow, ACTU President, Andrew Wilkie, former intelligence analyst. Organised by Sydney Peace and Justice Coalition Sponsored by NSW Ecumenical Council.

The Victorian Peace Network advises that the Melbourne rally for peace begins at the State library at 1pm on Saturday 20th March. Terry Hicks, father of David Hicks, will join Church and union speakers in calling for peace and an end to pre-emptive wars.

***

SHORTIES

Brett Hocking: I am surprised that many journalists, including you, seem to believe that changing parties at elections, whether here or overseas, makes a difference. The forces driving the world do not stand for election, and never have.

Lesley Snow: I was looking at the messages on the placards carried by Spanish protesters in Madrid – the one that stuck out was ‘do you think we are idiots”? Does this mean that citizens around the world are starting to wake up to the daily diet of humbug, spin, manipulation and out right lies we are being fed?

Graeme Richardson in Albury: Confucius said: �If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone.” Do the “undone”, that is fall in line with the Howard agenda and in the judgement of Alexander Downer you change from being Lord Haw Haw one day to George Washington the next.

David Eastwood Elizabeth Bay: It’s odd that a Prime Minister who mad a virtue out of scrapping political correctness and claiming that a plurality of views was good for Australia should react so badly when a view that contradicts his political position is aired by a credible figure. My democracy doesn’t need this kind of hypocrisy.

Daniel Maurice: I dipped into your column today after an absence of some months only to catch your latest diatribe, “Why won’t Howard let us trust anyone?” Depressingly I found another entirely predictable attack on Howard – full of bile, hysteria, exaggeration, lies and rhetoric. Don’t you see the irony of using the very tactics to attack the Government that you accuse the Government of? This is not journalism, but polemics. You continue to contribute nothing to reasoned debate on important public policy issues.

 

Graeme Rankin in Holder, ACT: I am absolutely revolted by the sheer arrogance of the Australian Government to label any dissenting view on Iraq or the war on terror put forward by people, both in the know or from a concerned general public, as support of terror and terrorists. This arrogance makes anything Paul Keating did or said pale into insignificance! Howard, Downer and Ruddock are a disgrace as Ministers and despicable as people.

 

David Tester: By changing government the Spanish people have increased the terrorist threat to all nations involved in the war on terror, which is pretty much everybody. Al Qaeda’s Spanish mission was accomplished. Had the former government been returned, Al Qaeda’s attack would have failed. A simple but unpleasant fact. Margo, you seem to be under the illusion that the defeat of Bush, Blair and Howard will change things with regard to Iraq. It won�t. Get some perspective if you want to be credible. No doubt this survey won’t get a link at Webdiary: Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq.

Shayne Davison in Mulwala: Margo, your article Why won�t Howard let us trust anyone? on our lying government is spot on. Despite the attempted intimidation by Howard and his Media Moles I will be attending the protest on Saturday to remind him that we knew he was lying about the Iraqi threat then, and we know he is lying now. Roll on the Election.

Bill Parnell: I’m absolutely sick to death of this guy who grabs onto any straw he can to shore up his faltering leadership. He is becoming a chatterbox talking about whatever trivial issue crosses his path yet fails to address monumental issues such as the disaster that Iraq has become. I’m not a Labor person or a Latham fan (just yet) but I’ve had about as much of Howard as I can take and I believe I’m in a majority right now. I wish he’d just piss off and leave the stage to someone else. He’s becoming an embarrassment to the country and the world.

Jack Robertson: Alexander Downer’s performance on Lateline on Tuesday night plumbed new depths of embarrassing exposure, and further revealed the Foreign Minister’s staggering disdain and contempt for the Australian people. Downer would do well to consider the most important single soundbite in the ‘War on Terror’ to be made by a wartime leader so far. It comes from new Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero: “Mr Blair and Mr Bush must do some reflection and self-criticism. You can’t organise a war with lies.” Sooner or later John Howard will wake up to the fact that almost none of his citizens believe a word anyone in his government says now. And that is disastrous for us all. Stop playing games with us, John and Alexander and Phillip and Co. Start treating us with a tiny bit of intellectual respect. We’re not stupid, and there’s simply no-one left to spin to anymore.

***

 

Mike Lyvers

 

You write: “Does the government think we�re stupid? The former Spanish government thought its people were when it blamed ETA for the bombings without evidence, and look what happened to it!”

Margo, I guess the UN also thinks you’re stupid, as they drew the exact same initial conclusion that ETA was responsible. Do you now suggest replacing the UN?

Another question. Do you think the people of Iraq would benefit if all “Coalition of the Willing” forces immediately withdrew and left them to their fate? I was against the invasion of Iraq but NO WAY do I think those forces should depart at this time of civil unrest and internal conflict. Much less in response to the terrorist attack in Spain, which probably had more to do with Ferdinand and Isabella than Iraq in any event.

I see you are STILL obsessing over the Sunken Children business. (I call it Sunken Children because their parents purposely sank the vessel their children were in, effectively tossing them into the water.) Old news, Margo, get over it.

Or can you? It seems to me that you’ve succumbed to an ends-justifies-the-means approach recently. That is, say ANYTHING to get rid of Howard. Why? Where does all this desperation come from? And do you really think Mark Latham is any different? Perhaps your talents should be directed elsewhere than the get-rid-of-Howard-at-all-costs theme.

***

Peter Anderson

 

I don’t know why I was shocked when I saw the way Howard and his playground bully boys behaved after Mick Keelty’s simple statement of fact on the ‘Sunday’ programme. As a retired senior executive service officer in the Commonwealth Public Service you’d think one would get used to this type of political ineptitude. Still, each time it happens it seems that the institution of the public service is struck yet another blow in the process both sides of politics have been waging against it since the first Hawke/Keating government.

 

 

What was particularly disdainful was the behaviour of Dennis Richardson (head of ASIO). Rather than support his colleague (or just say nothing) Dennis weighed in on the side of his political masters. Since the Petrov affair ASIO has been treated as a joke by the rest of the intelligence community. It�s always been (and probably still is) an organisation staffed mainly by misfits who were not bright enough or couldn’t pass the physical to be accepted into one of the state police forces. Along comes 9-11 and suddenly its star rose.

 

 

Dennis is not going to let his organisation’s new-found glory disappear; so in he wades to support ‘school yard bully’ Ruddock – what an appalling display.

 

 

Whatever happened to ‘frank and fearless’ advice from the public service? I know that ministerial responsibility has been dead for a very long time. Sadly, the Keelty fiasco is just another step on the rung to the complete politicisation of the public service, a process that will leave Australia the much poorer.

 

 

Sorry if I ranted a bit; but this is a topic I still find appalling, even after nearly three years of retirement.

 

 

***

 

 

Mitchell Beston in Woy Woy, NSW

 

Margo, what a load of crap you wrote in �Why won’t Howard let us trust anyone?� So your pin-up boy has changed his mind and clarified his statements. This was done, not due to pressure from the Government but because Mick Keelty saw that his comments were being twisted by the gutless Saddam-supporters. The world is a better place for Saddam being removed from power. How can anyone argue the opposite?

Why was New York and Bali attacked? Was it due to the war on Iraq? Wake up! We are all targets. The only way to avoid terrorism, is to join Islam and renounce Western values and lifestyle.

Move on Margo, you are nitpicking. Oh and by the way, you need to get out more. The majority were not against the war in Iraq, it was a noisy minority. You should read other newspapers. This one is full of journalists aligned to the left politically, which is why I have trouble getting my letters printed. Anyway, have an enjoyable St Patrick’s Day. (Freedom’s great isn’t it).

***

Michael Hannon

Thanks for continuing to highlight the treachery of the Howard government in this latest affair with Mick Keelty. Why won’t Howard let us trust anyone?). I hope Australia kicks that little terrier out of power the first opportunity it gets.

What upsets me is the lack of political consequences for the government over Iraq. What has happened to democracy in Australia that there hasn’t been more uproar about it? We’ve seen the consequences for Blair and the increasingly bad feeling towards Bush and his cronies – but Howard seems to sail through everything unscathed, while at the same time humiliating public officials – and everyone else who dares to contradict him – with impunity.

One thing that struck me about the Madrid bombings was that if they had happened in America 3 days before an election, there is no way the information would have gotten out that it was caused by Al Qaeda. That news would be buried until well after the election. So maybe it gives some credit to the former Spanish government that they allowed the news to come out at all. (How cynical have we become?). What would happen in Australia?

***

Kylie Ritter

I was so relieved to read ‘Why Won’t Howard Let Us Trust Anyone’. I am normally a fun-loving, fairly passive, un-political 26 year old female, but I am currently appalled at what is going on in the world and Australian politics. I can’t help but be moved to enragement (and the use of profanity) when I read things like like:

“The Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, has backed away from controversial comments linking the Madrid terrorist bombings to Spain’s involvement in the invasion of Iraq, which contradicted the position of the Federal Government.”

Isn�t it painfully clear that the reason why trains are being detonated in Spain is directly related to the Spanish to Spanish support of the US in Iraq?

Or am I missing something? Why the f*ck are politicians being so dishonest and deceitful about this issue? Masses of innocent people are being killed for god�s sake. Not to mention the affect on the families of the victims.

What makes Mick Keelty’s comment so controversial? It’s the f*ckin truth. I just don’t understand. Don’t we have the democratic right to contradict the Federal Government? The Howard government is acting like some kind of dictatorship or communist regime, controlling the media and suppressing our right to freedom of expression.

And when I try to discuss this with people, they just go quiet and think I am a maniac for even caring about it – how can people not care about this? Our minds are being manipulated and our fundamental right to the truth and our freedom is being screwed by people in positions of power who don’t have the best interest of humanity in mind, but rather their own personal gain – all in the name of power and wealth for the selected few. Can’t everyone see how hugely destructive, shallow and inhumane this is?

I’ve never been a ‘letter to the editor’ type person, but today feel compelled to express myself to someone who shares a similar sentiment, and ask for advice on what I can personally do about this? It’s not enough just to show concern or be enraged about these issues.

***

HR (who says he or she wants to remain anonymous �for now�)

I just read Howard at end of credibility line on Iraq and am dumbfounded by your inability to understand the issues at hand. Your inability to consider all the facts to strengthen your argument is criminal for any journalist, but for a journalist who apparently is the protector of society it’s deplorable. Your line of thinking is so off the mark that it begs the question whether you are so biased you cannot see the forest for the trees.

Firstly open your eyes and understand that the world is at war. A war like no other and one where the combatants are relying on people like you to win it. You talk about Spain as a perfect example of why supporting the war with Iraq was wrong but you fail to realise that this was exactly the response the terrorists were looking for. It underscores their belief in the weakness of the west and they are exploiting these weaknesses for their gains. It insults the intelligence of clear thinking peoples and plays to the hearts and minds of the weak.

One cannot base foreign policy on whether it�s detrimental to one’s country or not – one has to base it on what is right. If we where to do the former then the terrorist would have already won. If we were to do the former terrorist would truly be able to terrorise.

Your argument basically says that it is right for terrorists to strike Spain for it’s involvement in the Iraq war, that somehow Spain brought this upon itself. (MARGO: I made no such argument.) When will people like you understand that nothing justifies the deliberate targeting and killing of innocent civilians (which is very different to accidental killing of civilians which people like you seem to like to use for the justification of NOT waging war).

When will you people understand that at the very heart of the argument is the fact that terrorism must never be rewarded in any way shape or form? To do so is to give it legitimacy and that is exactly what people like you are doing.

If any legitimacy is placed on terrorism it wins and it breeds more terrorism. If at any stage we bow to it, it will breed.

Spain must be commended for its courage in standing up to terrorist and sending the correct message to these killers. They supported the US because they have experienced terrorism for many years and have grown to understand it and know that there is only one way to defeat it and that is by attacking it, not rewarding it. No government should ever negotiate with terrorists for terrorism in itself forfeits any rights to negotiation.

The current Spanish Government, if it goes ahead with its threat to withdraw troops, would be making a grave error, but if you read between the lines the current leader has not said he would withdraw troops outright. He said he would only do it if the UN did not take over. Don’t be surprised if he finds other ways of not removing troops.

It is only when these things are properly understood by all that we will defeat terrorism. It took Spain many years to understand this concept and it will take the rest of the world the same sort of time. But there will come a time when it will be understood, but unfortunately many more attacks will need to take place before the penny drops for all. Europe is now beginning to realise this.

An attack on France or Germany will help galvanise the concept. France especially will receive a wake up call. It did not support a war with Iraq but it is still a target because of its western system of values. Especially it’s ultra secular society. So here we have a country not meddling in the affairs of others and still it is a target, so where is you argument now. Terrorist are insulting your intelligence and you seem to be going for the ride.

You talk about the reduction of civil liberties through the introduction of draconian laws by the government and at the same time advocate tighter security at entry points and any other areas where terrorist may strike. Do you not see the inconsistency of you own argument? On the one hand you want civil liberties and on the other you want us to have to go through police state controls at airports. Isn’t this a reduction in civil liberties?

Civil liberty is not only the ability to live life without the fear of an all powerful police force or government but also the ability to live life without the constant threat of indiscriminate violence and it’s systems to control it. If you have ever been to Israel you would know that that is no way live. You need to understand that to defeat terrorism you need to defeat terrorism not minimise its risk for you cannot guard against suicide attacks. No security can guard against these sorts of attacks and it’s understandable that the government doesn’t want to introduce overly heavy airport security.

You are the sort of person that asks for these things but any day now I can see you writing an article on how some so and so was mishandled at an American airport while at the same time advocating tighter airport security. You�re a hypocrite clear and simple. One final thing. You ask the question whether we trust the Government and by “we” I assume you mean all Australians. You are not the voice of all Australians so don’t speak for all Australians.

I for one do trust the government. I trust the government because they are presenting an argument that makes much more sense than yours. I trust the government for they haven’t misled me in the way people like you are continually trying to convince me that they have. In doing so you are the true misleaders.

WMDs were not found but this was not the only reason. There are many more reasons, some plainly obvious like the tyrannical rule of a ruthless leader and some are slightly more subtle. You continually ignore this point because it muddies your argument.

The WMD reason is one we had to use to get the UN to do something about it because the UN is too weak to intervene in situations where a leader�s tyranny is the reason for intervening. Look at Africa, what has the UN ever done? Tony Blair’s comments of last week (which would have caused horror in minds like yours) about doing something about these sorts of regimes is one of the most refreshing and enlightened things to come out of a leader for many years. You want civil liberties, then why not free the peoples that have none?

It is through people like you that terrorists have a chance of winning and destroying the very values that you vehemently uphold. They know every one of your strings and are more than adept at pulling them any which way they wish. To see an intelligent person be played in this way is so sad but to see someone like yourself wearing your insulted intelligence on your sleeve is the saddest thing of all.

‘On my rough count, there are 100 times as many political bloggers in Australia as there are sports bloggers. Therefore, I unsyllogistically conclude that Australians are 100 times more interested in politics than sport.’ Tim Dunlop

On my rough count, there are 100 times as many political bloggers in Australia as there are sports bloggers. Therefore, I unsyllogistically conclude that Australians are 100 times more interested in politics than sport.

 

If, by chance, you are in the sporting minority, the place to go is Ubersportingpundit, where, for instance, the topic of cricket’s best chuckers is being addressed.

One of the things I got emails about after last week’s blogjam was how to start a blog. I wrote back to everyone, but here’s some links for any others who are interested. Still the quickest, easiest and cheapest way to start your own blog is Blogger – yep it’s free. For a more versatile approach you can try Movable Type, though you will need to have some idea about building websites to use it.

Alternatively, you can use their Typepad version, which gives you many of the advantages of Movable Type but is quick and easy to set up. Costs start at about $US5 a month. And if you do start a new blog, don’t forget to let me know about it over at Surfdom.

On a related subject, the ongoing debate about the influence and usefulness of blogs continues apace, and Jozef Imrich collects a bunch of stories on the topic.

And some people got a widdle bit upset that I didn’t include them in last week’s round-up, so go and say hello to this poor fellow.

Ken Parish penned an interesting piece about the new Iraqi constitution and there was follow-up at Southerly Buster.

John Quiggin was on the topic with this discussion of how to assess how well things have gone in Iraq since the US occupation. All these sites also link to other relevant stories, which is one of the nice things about blogs, one post generally leads to another and another and maybe even another and another.

Intellectual property expert, Kim Weatherall, discusses the recent High Court ruling in the case where Channel 9 sued Channel 10 about The Panel using Channel 9 newsclips on their show. Flick through Kim’s other writings on aspects of the recent free-trade agreement between Australia and the United States.

Clarence Street wrote a review of the way in which the Weekend magazines in Australian newspapers have been revamped (bonus picture of Halle Berry).

If you ever wanted to understand the term “assassin”, then Soul Pacific has the post for you – and incidentally, Soul Pacific will give an idea of the quality of presentation possible on a humble blog.

I also discovered an Australian blog I hadn’t seen before: Frankenblog seems to deal mainly with science stories and issues related to science and public policy. I haven’t had a good look around yet, but it looks interesting.

Meanwhile, Helen looked at affirmative action for men in the teaching profession, while the Bulldogs’ gang rape story, which is one that the blogosphere has shied away from a little, was tackled over at Williams Burrough’s Babboon, who has some words about Herald columnist, Miranda Devine’s take on the matter.

Chris Sheil moved the discussion in another direction and discussed the future of Rugby League.

The blogs I read kinda got taken over this week by the story of the terrorist bombings in Madrid and the subsequent Spanish election. I mentioned at my site the travel blog of Australian musician, Sophia, who blogs atKrokodilla, . She is currently working in Madrid and offered this personal account of the terror attack there. She has other posts up now, and her writing highlights how blogs can offer an immediacy and intimacy not generally found in mainstream media.

Early on, journalist/blogger Christopher Allbritton discussed the likelihood of an ETA/al Qaeda collaboration.

As events unfolded, it became generally accepted that there was an jihadist connection to the bombing, and when the people of Spain threw out their conservative government, many (especially here in America) were quick to condemn this as capitulation to the terrorists. I wrote an argument against that point of view but I’m not sure I convinced a whole lot of people.

Bunyip, for one, thinks the Spanish people sold their souls. Canadian journalist, Mark Steyn, took exception to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner suggesting Australia’s relationship with the US might make us vulnerable to terrorist attack, and he was roundly chastised from Gummo on the left and Gnu on the right.

Gnu expanded his discussion in this post.

Steve at the Daily Slander suggested there were lessons from Spain for John Howard about being honest with voters, while one of the Libertarians discussed if terrorism could ever be justified.

Finally, one of the nice things about doing blogjam for Margo is that you get noticed by the Governor General. More next week.

Mick Keelty. It took 48 hours, but they got him to sign his name to utter rubbish, humiliate himself, and thus hammer the nail in the coffin of the government�s credibility on security.

 

Does the government think we�re stupid? The former Spanish government thought its people were when it blamed ETA for the bombings without evidence, and look what happened to it!

When was the last time the government forced a very, very senior public official � one we trusted � to sign a false statement to protect the government�s lies?

Why, it was in the last week of the 2001 federal election campaign, when this government without honour humiliated the then chief of the navy, Admiral David Shackleton.

How sickening is John Howard�s government allowed to get before we sack it?

On November 8, 2001, three days before the election, Admiral David Shackleton told reporters that boat people had NOT thrown children overboard (see Red light questions and Photo fraud). His statement came within hours of John Howard falsely claiming during questions at the National Press Club that ONA had confirmed the throwing (in fact, ONA was reporting press reports of the government�s claim, as it made clear in its brief to the PM�s office).

Within hours, a statement under Admiral Shackleton’s name appeared as follows:

Statement by the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral David Shackleton AO RAN

“An AAP report (1640 8/11/01) attributed to me, following today’s farewell of HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Kanimbla in Western Australia, concerning unauthorised boat arrivals is inaccurate.

“My comments in no way contradict the Minister.

“I confirm the Minister was advised that Defence believed children had been thrown overboard.”

Further information: Tim Bloomfield (Department of Defence) Ph 0404 822361 (See Circling the wagons).

How misleading can you get? As we found out during the unthrown children inquiry, a defence force bloke running on a verbal report and speaking without authority had told the government verbally that children had been thrown overboard, but the Navy tried its arse off, through all available channels including a call from the acting chief of the defence force Air Marshall Houston to defence Minister Reith, to correct the record.

I remember very well calling Mr Bloomfield on the matter. It was interesting, since the Government had insisted throughout the election that journos only speak to Reith�s PR flack Ross Hampton (who later refused to give evidence to the inquiry and is now Brendan Nelson�s press secretary). When the shit hit the fan, of course, the government palmed it off to defence people with orders to say nothing! (For Howard�s lies after the statement, see Howard throw)

Revolting, isn�t it.

And now, AFP commissioner Mick Keelty gets the treatment for telling the truth. God, he�s been loyal. Keelty refused to cooperate with the unthrown children�s inquiry�s questions on SIEV-X, and in the end pleaded privilege to avoid answering questions about how far the AFP had gone in it s �disruption program� of boats.

But when push came to shove, he became just another victim of this government without shame. Now, he says, without explanation, that he was was �taken out of context�. Crap.

This is what Keelty said on the Sunday program, a standard view of every expert in the world who is not compromised by connections with George Bush and his cronies:

JANA WENDT: Well, Commissioner, that brings me to the question that most Australians are asking themselves. Could this happen here?

MICK KEELTY: Well, I think we’ve said all along this is an uphill battle. This is a marathon, not a sprint. The reality is, if this turns out to be Islamic extremists responsible for this bombing in Spain, it’s more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq. And I don’t think anyone’s been hiding the fact that we do believe that ultimately one day, whether it be in one month’s time, one year’s time, or ten years’ time, something will happen.

And no one can guarantee it won’t. And I think there’s a level of honesty that has to exist here in terms of what the problems are here, not only in Australia but in our region. (Sunday transcript)

Honesty? Was he joking?

That�s the last thing the government which ordered Australian troops to invade another country despite the wishes of the majority of Australians wants. The last thing (see Howard at end of credibility line on Iraq).

The Lateline transcript of Tony Jones� interview with Alexander Downer has not been published as I write, but the interview tells the story of the corner the government is in. At last.

We can analyse it to our hearts content later today, but basically, Downer admits that the war on Iraq is irrelevant to Al Qaeda, except in its usefulness as a propaganda and recruitment tool.

That is, he admits, finally, because there�s nowhere left for him to go, that invading Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the �war on terror�.

Oh, and he denies that he was critical of Keelty�s capacity to do his job when he said his comments were �expressing a view which reflects a lot of the propaganda we’re getting from al-Qaeda”. Only the ABC had that view, Downer said. No wonder the government wants to get rid of the ABC!

Downer claims a Spanish pullout from Iraq would hurt the war on terror. Bullshit. The first thing the new Spanish leader said was that fighting terrorism was his first priority. The Iraq war has exacerbated the terrorism threat, as every sensible international affairs expert, and the CIA, warned at the time.

Early election please.

Why won’t John Howard admit that our participation in the invasion of Iraq increased the risk that Australia will be targetted for a terrorist attack?

Pretty simple really. If he admits the obvious, as the AFP chief Mick Keelty did, then he’s back to square one in explaining his decision to go to war (see Terrorist attack on Australia inevitable, warns FBI expert).

We know that intelligence agencies advised that invading Iraq would INCREASE the risk of terrorism in general. We know that there were no WMDs, so Howard’s stated reason for war – that it would reduce the terrorist risk – is wrong, and we also know that Howard was not relying on the intelligence service’s objective assessment of the Iraq risk, but, like Bush and Blair, decided to invade then looked for evidence to convince the UN it was justified (see the Parliamentary Committee WMD report) .

We also know that the Iraq invasion and occupation split the world and damaged co-operation in controlling terrorism, and that the war could drag on indefinitely, sucking energy from the United States defence force and adding people to terrorist ranks.

Surely, we’re reaching endgame on Howard’s credibility on security. Surely few of us trust him to tell us the truth any more.

That’s how I explain the sudden rush for even more terrorism laws – now to include socialising with suspected terrorists – crushing even more civil liberties. The idea is to force Labor to oppose some of the more extreme measures, and thus blame Labor if an attack occurs. Basic stuff.

The NSW government’s announcement that it would extend its already draconian terror laws is based on a different calculation. The Carr government is now so discredited and rancid that any way to divert attention from its disgraceful management of our hospitals, schools and public transport is a relief. On past performance the State Liberals will back any extension of anti-terror laws. Carr’s justification – that existing laws weren’t designed to deal with “murder planned on such a vast scale” as Madrid – is ludicrous. He passed his laws after Bali!

Overlaying the decisions by the NSW and federal governments is the calculation that they want to be SEEN to be responding to Spain, and this way there’s no real financial investment required. If you wanted to defend us against terrorism at home, you’d be training drivers of chemical trucks how to react to a hijacking, you’d be securing ALL our airports, and you’d be widely encouraging participation by the public. But that requires money and it also requires TRUST.

Do we trust the federal and state governments? No.

I set out the premium on trust between citizens and government in today’s world in reporting Carr’s new anti-terror laws in 2002, and suggested that the use of Carr’s extraordinary new police powers be overseen by an Australian trusted by all of us, like Sir William Deane. But no, the police minister oversees everything, and he doesn’t even need to report to Parliament. My reports included Costa: Police watchdog, Protecting our safety AND our liberty and Democracy’s watchdogs blind to the danger

On the federal front trust is even more important, so people feel safe in coming forward to give information about their suspicions, particularly people from minority communities. Locking people up for ‘consorting’ will REDUCE trust and REDUCE cooperation.

From what I’ve read a big factor in the rejection of the Spanish conservatives by the Spanish people was disgust that they ware again being lied to, with the government blaming ETA without evidence. I hope the people also sack Howard, Bush and Blair to cleanse all their democracies and allow their successors to rebuild the trust in government so vital to defeat terrorism (see the Financial Times report Blair more isolated over Iraq policy).

Today, a piece by Webdiary debutant Sam Guthrie on Keelty, Damien Hogan rounds up progress on the war on terror, and some seriously wild reports claiming the US is importing WMDs into Iraq. Noam Chomsky’s latest on Iraq is at The Guardian.

*

Sam Guthrie

In response to The American elections, the future of alliances and the lessons of Spain, and the article I am sure you are about to write regarding the Government’s reaction to Commissioner Keelty’s analysis of the terror threat to Australia post Iraq, please find the attached torrent.

As a PhD student in politics and international relations I am wading through security related analysis every day. I find the Howard Government’s attack on Commissioner Keelty and every academic and analyst who correctly assert the view that our membership of the Coalition of the Willing has made us a more prominent terrorist target, absolutely appalling. It is a new low in political expediency.

The Abstract Reality Express rumbles back into town

What is the latest political dumb show our Prime Minister is performing? Are we in for more of the rhetorical hop scotch we saw during the recent WMD inquiry? Hands up if you’re sick of being treated like an imbecile by a Government whose grasp on the concept of honesty extends only as far as the sound bite of a few cautious, well chosen words from a suburban lawyer “based on the information available to us at the time”.

Yes the Abstract Reality Express has rumbled back into town as the Prime Minister and Attorney General attempt to sell the idea that whilst the security of the country is at constant risk from Islamic terrorism, such risks are in no way connected to or increased by Australia’s role in the invasion of Iraq. This despite claims to the contrary yesterday by such authorities as the Federal Police Commissioner, the NSW Police Commissioner, internationally acclaimed Al-Qaeda analyst Rohan Guna Ratna and a videotape, purportedly from Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, saying it carried out the attacks in Spain due to that country’s support for the US-led war on Iraq.

Is there a better example of a Government wanting to have its cake and eat it too? On one hand they jump on the events in Madrid knowing it facilitates the opportunity to trot out the national security credentials which since 2001 have inspired enough fear to translate into electoral support for the Coalition. On the other, the Government furiously seeks to avoid any responsibility for a rise in the level of potential terrorist threat which may be due to their strategically naive involvement in Iraq.

What is more disturbing is the fact that the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and today the Foreign Minister and Defence Minister are willing to compromise the vital experience and expertise of the Federal Police Commissioner to defend themselves.

This is the blame shifting tradition that saw the anonymous bureaucrats and members of the Defence Force blamed for the children overboard claim, and ONA blamed for Howard’s false WMD claims. In the face of ailing support and descending polls it seems the Government has become even more brazen in placing its own political success above the security of the nation.

Today as FBI executive assistant director (counter-terrorism) John Pistole, goes on record stating Australia’s alliance with the US has made it more of a terrorist target, we discover that moments after making a similar claim on Channel Nine’s Sunday program Federal Police Commissioner Keelty was rebuked by Arthur Sinodinis, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, for contradicting the Government’s message.

Whilst such a contempt for truth may be permissible when used merely to manipulate the trauma of drowning refugees to win an election or to justify sending the sons and daughters of Australia into an unjust war, when it directly effects the security of the nation surely the Government must, at last, be called to account.

The Howard Coalition is fast losing its credibility on the last policy front upon which it thought it could hold its ground: National Security. Rather than providing the country with a single streamlined department specifically dealing with security issues the Governments anti-terrorism apparatus has been exposed as fractured, de-centralised and at the whim of a blinkered political agenda.

The treatment of Commissioner Keelty is despicable considering the remarkable role he has played in furthering the security of the country since 9/11. During the Bali investigations he worked not only as the operational chief of the AFP but as a fine diplomat for Australian security, developing a level of regional cooperation which the erratic diplomacy of our Foreign Minister had failed to achieve. The regional networks on security that he continues to spearhead, the experience he has garnered working on the ground in terrorist related investigations and his exposure to vast intelligence sources (including that of ASIO) makes him one of the most well informed commentators in the country on matters of security. By rebuking him the Government has not only shown its contempt f or Keelty but the role of the AFP and the vital work it has achieved since 2001.

It is widely acknowledged that the war against terror is an untraditional conflict, a war that will not be won on a battlefield but rather through the effective analysis of intelligence. The treatment of Keelty underlines the reoccurring crisis in Australian intelligence and indeed the wider Public Service. He has been rebuked for not initiating the self censorship that the Parliamentary Joint Committee Inquiry into Intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction found rife in ONA’s analysis of the WMD threat.

In short, Keelty has been attacked for not telling the Government what it wanted to hear. This, during a time where our intelligence should be our strongest weapon against the terrorist threat, is further evidence of the Governments inability to priorities the security of the country over the security of its’ own opinion polls.

***

Damien Hogan

With the dust yet to settle in Madrid and our own Prime Minister claiming “security” as one of his pre-election strengths, I thought a quick roundup of the War on Terror might be in order.

Obviously this is not a war in the traditional sense. Al Qaeda have no plans to occupy and hold the western half of Utah or embark on a Lend-Lease agreement. So what are their plans and how has the war been going for them? By a stroke of luck Osama’s “secret” plans were left on the bus seat next to me today:

Our Secret Plan – August, 2001

* Create fear

Fear is the backbone of any terrorist organisation. Lacking the resources to mount any large scale invasions or military occupations, the anticipation of horror is our greatest weapon. The acts themselves will probably generate their own publicity, but ideally local politicians should never let the concept slip from the public’s mind for more than a few days – some kind of “terror indicator” (colours would be good) that can be placed on the front pages of newspapers or in TV bulletins would be useful. Obviously, it is mere fantasy to think of it, but an expensive television advertising campaign promoting the concept of “being terrified” would be great. To make it more palatable we might have to substitute the word “alert” for “terrified”, but the message should still be clear.

* Alienate US from her allies

The combined forces of The West are enormous. With a unified approach they would be almost unbeatable. We must divide and conquer. The UK is touch and go (and Australia is simply untouchable) but 150+ or more of the remaining countries should be easily separated. The mere appearance of the US (or even a small handful of minor powers) as “rogue states” will be an enormously powerful propaganda tool in recruiting new members.

* Massively increase US military spending

This should weaken one of America’s great strengths (their economy) and may directly lead to pain in the American community (via reduced services and/or higher taxes). A massive military build up in conventional weapons (and high tech weapons in particular) would be largely ineffectual in fighting us and so should be encouraged. In a perfect world a focus on space-based weapons or even a missile shield would be excellent as these are simultaneously astronomically expensive and entirely useless. As an additional benefit, military spending also consumes resources that might otherwise be used to woo our power-base of poverty stricken, powerless, despotically ruled zealots.

* Unite the Arab world

There is no need to spell out that fighting amongst ourselves is the road to ruin. Whilst our differences are large, we can surely draw together around a common enemy. If we can somehow get the US president to use terms like “crusade” when discussing various conflicts we will be doing very well indeed. I can’t see how this is possible as it would play completely into our hands… but Allah willing.

* Disperse US forces

The more countries the US attacks the better. Occupation will generate thousands of new supporters. Standard military theory teaches that the concentration of force is vital for any victory. Arab countries are preferred targets but beggars can’t be choosers. There will be real dangers for us if America remains focussed on Afghanistan for any length of time. An attack on Iran or Syria would be excellent – North Korea would be OK, but would take the spotlight of us and is not preferred. I was joking the other day with Omar about how funny it would be if the US attacked that infidel Hussein!

* Training facilities

If I may briefly continue the joke and presume that somehow all sense had left our enemy’ minds and that they DID invade Iraq – well that would be a great service. A fundamentalist Islamic government would almost certainly eventually take power and prior to that event many of the techniques of terrorism would be best taught in the kind of arena that Baghdad would offer. I think we could say with great confidence that Baghdad would become to us what Fort Bragg is to the Americans.

* USA out of Saudi

We must remove American military forces from the holy land.

* Weaken moderate leaders

We should hope for US arrogance towards unstable regimes. If possible open threats and/or blatant bribes by the US should be encouraged. We must separate the people from their governments. This should create either a shift to policies more favourable to our position or alternatively more repression from those regimes. Either helps us.

* Increase recruitment

Any US action which leads to increased recruitment or support from the countries in which we operate should be supported. It goes without saying that the American’s only real chance of final victory is to turn the locals against us. We must prevent this. Racism is our friend.

* Attack American legal institutions

Whilst there is already plenty of material to work with, anything which increases global the perception of hypocrisy by the Americans will be propaganda gold. This is a very tough one as many of the American’s rights are enshrined in the constitution. But since we are making wish lists, it would be great to get the US to hold without trial (or even deport) thousands of innocent middle eastern looking citizens. The rights of the 1st and 4th and 5th amendments should be gutted. Gulags would be good. In addition, multilateral treaties (eg Chemical, Nuclear or Biological treaties) should be ignored for the US and Israel but rigorously applied to others.

* Ignore Palestine

Any peace in Palestine would be a terrible blow and rob us of a great deal of “righteousness”. Luckily the US seems to determined to let the Israelis solve this one on their own! So that pot should be boiling for a couple of decades yet.

* Discourage non-military solutions

Military solutions inevitably lead to collateral damage no matter how carefully they are carried out. Collateral damage is the life blood of “radical” recruitment. Occupation is equally useful. If possible every problem should be viewed by the US as a military problem.

* Finally – avoid capture of important leaders (eg Me)

Whilst I technically play a very small role in the actual organisation, my capture would be a significant propaganda defeat. America will probably recognise this and would show themselves as complete fools if they were to become distracted by other less important targets e.g. Hussein. If however I am captured alive then under no circumstance must I be tried fairly for my crimes or kept alive to rot in a cell. My trial must appear to be manifestly biased (or even illegal if possible) and martyrdom would greatly increase the movement’s power and legitimacy.

*

Two things occurred to me as I sat on the bus and read this document.

1) Even blind Freddy could guess Al Qaeda’s plan, and

2) There appeared to be not a single significant setback in the last 4 years.

***

The following reports were compiled by Scott Burchill, who warns they have not been verified to date

U.S. Unloading WMD in Iraq

Tehran Times | March 13 2004 – TEHRAN: Over the past few days, in the wake of the bombings in Karbala and the ideological disputes that delayed the signing of Iraq’s interim constitution, there have been reports that U.S. forces have unloaded a large cargo of parts for constructing long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the southern ports of Iraq.

A reliable source from the Iraqi Governing Council, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Mehr News Agency that U.S. forces, with the help of British forces stationed in southern Iraq, had made extensive efforts to conceal their actions.

He added that the cargo was unloaded during the night as attention was still focused on the aftermath of the deadly bombings in Karbala and the signing of Iraq’s interim constitution.

The source said that in order to avoid suspicion, ordinary cargo ships were used to download the cargo, which consisted of weapons produced in the 1980s and 1990s.

He mentioned the fact that the United States had facilitated Iraq’s WMD program during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq and said that some of the weapons being downloaded are similar to those weapons, although international inspectors had announced Saddam Hussein’s Baath regime had destroyed all its WMD.

The source went on to say that the rest of the weapons were probably transferred in vans to an unknown location somewhere in the vicinity of Basra overnight.

“Most of these weapons are of Eastern European origin and some parts are from the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. The U.S. obtained them through confiscations during sales of banned arms over the past two decades,” he said.

This action comes as certain U.S. and Western officials have been pointing out the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq and the issue of Saddam’s trial begins to take center stage.

In addition, former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has emphasized that the U.S. and British intelligence agencies issued false reports on Iraq leading to the U.S. attack.

Meanwhile, the suspicious death of weapons inspector David Kelly is also an unresolved issue in Britain.

*

Occupation Forces Official Claims to Have No Information About Transfer of WMD to Iraq

A security official for the coalition forces in Iraq said that he has not received any information about the unloading of weapons of mass destruction in ports in southern Iraq.

Shane Wolf told the Mehr News Agency that the occupation forces have received no reports on such events, but said he hoped that the coalition forces would find the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction one day.

Coalition forces and inspectors have so far been unable to find any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. invaded Iraq under the pretext that Iraq possessed a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

*

US tried to plant WMDs, failed: whistleblower, see http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/?page=story_12-8-2003_pg1_9

Daily Times Monitor – Lehore, Pakistan – 15 March: According to a stunning report posted by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration’s assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to “plant” WMDs inside the country. Nelda Rogers, the Pentagon whistleblower, claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by “friendly fire”, the Environmentalists Against War report.

Nelda Rogers is a 28-year veteran debriefer for the DoD. She has become so concerned for her safety that she decided to tell the story about this latest CIA-military fiasco in Iraq. According to Al Martin Raw.com: “Ms Rogers is number two in the chain of command within this DoD special intelligence office. This is a ten-person debriefing unit within the central debriefing office for the Department of Defense.”

The information that is being leaked out is information “obtained while she was in Germany heading up the debriefing of returning service personnel, involved in intelligence work in Iraq for the DoD and/or the CIA. “According to Ms Rogers, there was a covert military operation that took place both preceding and during the hostilities in Iraq,” reports Al Martin Raw.com, an online subscriber-based news/analysis service which provides “Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence”.

Al Martin is a retired Lt Commander (US Navy), the author of a memoir called “The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider,” and is considered one of America’s foremost experts on corporate and government fraud. Ms Rogers reports that this particular covert operation team was manned by former military personnel and “the unit was paid through the Department of Agriculture in order to hide it, which is also very commonplace”.

According to Al Martin Raw.com, “the Agriculture Department has often been used as a paymaster on behalf of the CIA, DIA, NSA and others”. According to the Al Martin Raw.com story, another aspect of Ms Rogers’ report concerns a covert operation which was to locate the assets of Saddam Hussein and his family, including cash, gold bullion, jewelry and assorted valuable antiquities. The problem became evident when “the operation in Iraq involved 100 people, all of whom apparently are now dead, having succumbed to so-called ‘friendly fire’. The scope of this operation included the penetration of the Central Bank of Iraq, other large commercial banks in Baghdad, the Iraqi National Museum and certain presidential palaces where monies and bullion were secreted.”

“They identified about $2 billion in cash, another $150 million in Euros, in physical banknotes, and about another $100 million in sundry foreign currencies ranging from Yen to British Pounds,” reports Al Martin.

“These people died, mostly in the same place in Baghdad, supposedly from a stray cruise missile or a combination of missiles and bombs that went astray,” Martin continues. “There were supposedly 76 who died there and the other 24 died through a variety of ‘friendly fire’, ‘mistaken identity’ and some of them?their whereabouts are simply unknown.” Ms Rogers’ story sounds like an updated 21st-century version of Treasure Island meets Ali Baba and the Bush Cabal Thieves, writes Martin.

“This was a contingent of CIA/ DoD operatives, but it was really the CIA that bungled it,” Ms Rogers said. “They were relying on the CIA’s ability to organise an effort to seize these assets and to be able to extract these assets because the CIA claimed it had resources on the ground within the Iraqi army and the Iraqi government who had been paid. That turned out to be completely bogus. As usual.”

“CIA people were supposed to be handling it,” Martin continues. “They had a special ‘black’ aircraft to fly it out. But none of that happened because the regular US Army showed up, stumbled onto it and everyone involved had to scramble. These new Iraqi “asset seizures” go directly to the New US Ruling Junta. The US Viceroy in Iraq Paul Bremer is reportedly drinking Saddam’s $2000 a bottle Napoleon-era brandy, smoking his expensive Davidoff cigars and he has even furnished his office with Saddam’s Napoleon-era furniture.

This piece was first published in yesterday’s Sun Herald.

 

G’day. Last week, John Howard’s game plan to retain office was revealed, and what a wild ride it will be. It’s a carbon copy of his triumph in 2001, also after being written off early in the election year.

The wildcard is that the nation’s mood seems to have changed, so it’s a moot point whether the same plan can work twice.

There are three components to Howard’s war game:

1. Clear the decks

In 2001, Howard’s backbenchers said voters thought the Government “mean, tricky and out of touch”. Howard quickly apologised to voters for slugging them with an extra petrol levy in breach of his GST promise, and to prove his contrition abolished automatic indexation of the levy, costing billions.

In 2004, after he couldn’t budge voters in their determination to stop him from winding back Medicare, he found hundreds of millions more to beef it up. He even extended Medicare to health professionals who aren’t doctors and nicked a slice of Labor’s plan to resurrect the dental health program Howard abolished when he came to office.

2. Garner a key constituency

In 2001, Howard’s budget threw money, services, and tax cuts at our elderly, thus introducing age-based discrimination into our progressive tax system. There was no mention of the Government’s dire warnings of the increasing financial burden of our ageing population. At the election, over 55s flocked to Howard, the only age group which preferred him as Prime Minister.

In 2003, he is aggressively wooing the Catholic vote. He announced this year he would deliver lots more money to Catholic schools, and now proposes an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act to exempt the church from its obligation not to discriminate against women by giving financial subsidies only to male students.

Howard’s also made it clear he’ll run strongly on his generous funding to independent schools, thus encouraging more religious schools at the expense of secular state schools.

3. Find a wedge

In 2001, Howard’s exploitation of Tampa broke Labor’s back. The teacher discrimination issue is a potential wedge this year, although his ditching of the Liberal’s long-held opposition to reverse discrimination is a sleeper.

Howard threw this up not only to woo the church, but to put Latham back in his box.

But now the teachers’ problem is out there for debate, and most people don’t seem to buy the line that teaching discriminates against men, especially since there are more male than female school principals!

Web diarist Peter Funnell wrote: “Once there were teachers’ scholarships offered by the Federal Government across every state and territory. It was a terrific system, reflecting the importance of maintaining and encouraging people into teaching. In its place today is an ever increasing HECS debt.

“Once, teaching was acknowledged as a highly respected occupation in the community. Sadly, the students they teach aspire to more glamorous and better paid occupations. Teaching does not pay well, not for the qualifications required and the debt they now incur to get them.

“If the minister wants to make a ‘positive’ whole-of-nation contribution to the teaching profession, reintroduce the scholarship system.”

David Eastwood suggested the preponderance of female teachers might be due to the discrimination against them in other jobs, especially on working hours: “Teaching offers females a better pay/status/conditions trade-off than they can get elsewhere in the workforce, so they flock to it. If this is true, our anti-discrimination regime is simply not working.”

Another wedge Howard is playing with is homosexual rights. He’s copycatting a wedge George Bush is trying in the US presidential election. Unfortunately for Howard, there’s no public outcry at the ACT’s recent law giving homosexual couples the right to seek to adopt a child. But he’s working on it – talking up the issue on radio in the expectation that his attack dogs in the media will stir the pot, and gaining the support of his ACT Liberal colleagues to overturn the law.

So let’s sit back and watch John Howard do whatever it takes to stay in power “for all of us”. And let’s see if Mark Latham can not only avoid Howard’s traps and set a few for Howard, but put policy muscle on his vision for a kinder, more ethical and more egalitarian Australia.