Heath Ledger Was Right About The War On Iraq

"It's Not A Fight For Humanity, It's A Fight For Oil"

By Darryl Mason



Heath Ledger, like the million other Australians who marched against the War On Iraq, was right, as Paul Bignell details in the UK Independent (excerpts) :

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.

Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts.

Rupert 'Always Wrong On Iraq' Murdoch knew all about the deal making on Iraq's oil future, and could barely keep his trap shut, boasting a month before the war :

"The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be US$20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."

A bit later, after publicly giving his full and solid backing to the war, Rupert Murdoch explained why, in his deluded old man fantasy world, the War On Iraq was likely to fuel economic recovery :

"We're keeping our heads down, managing the businesses, keeping our profits up. Who knows what the future holds? I have a pretty optimistic medium and long-term view but things are going to be pretty sticky until we get Iraq behind us. But once it's behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else..."

People actually believed that. They really, really did.

At least, until the truth about Australia's ongoing involvement in the War On Iraq became a little clearer in 2007 :



Amusingly, it was Rupert Murdoch's own Australian media empire that spread this bit of truth far and wide. At least they did for a few hours, until Don't Make Rupert Angry censorship survival instinct kicked in and they tried to make their own headlines disappear and went delete crazy on one of the biggest stories of the past decade.

From The Orstrahyun, July 6, 2007 :

The phone calls from John Howard's office to the head office of Rupert Murdoch's News Limited in Sydney yesterday were less than pleasant.

The News.com.au website, the main portal for Murdoch's network of Australian newspaper websites, reaching some more than 1.5 million Australian readers per day, ran a number of headlines claiming John Howard had said that oil was now a key reason to stay in Iraq. Some of the headlines said the Iraq War was a war for oil. Just like all those protesters back in early 2003 claimed it would be.

By the time Howard moved to deny he said anything such thing, it was too late. The story was out, columns and articles had been written and sent to the printers for today's news racks, and there was no going back.

John Howard's office knew there was little point trying to get Fairfax newspapers to retract their stories, in print or online. Howard Admits War For Iraq's Oil was the story many journos for the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age had been waiting more than four years to write.

But Howard knew the Murdoch media were likely to play ball. If not in print, then at least online, where news.com.au now reaches more Australians than the same company's newspapers do, in print.

But even until the early afternoon today, almost 24 hours later, some of the Murdoch websites were still carrying 'Howard Says Iraq War For Oil' headlines and stories, even though the main news.com.au site had rewritten headlines and stories, inside its own archive, and published the following correction....oh sorry, clarification :

An earlier version of this story from the Australian Associated Press incorrectly reported the Prime Minister as saying oil was a reason for Australia's continued military presence in Iraq.

He said "energy", but as we all know, "energy" is "oil" when it comes to the Middle East, unless Howard is thinking about cutting natural gas deals with Iran sometime soon.

The phone calls from Howard's office to News Limited HQ clearly worked.

News.com.au chose to blame Australian Associated Press for supplying the wire news story that claimed Howard had admitted to a war for oil in Iraq.

Here's the pre-furious phone calls from Howard's office Uncorrected Version as it appeared online yesterday :

And here's the spiffy new Corrected Version :

Note that the sub headlines now put the words relating to 'Iraq War For Oil' squarely in the mouth of defence minister Brendan Nelson, when it was also Howard who publicly talked of needing to "secure" energy resources in Iraq and the Middle East.

The sub headlines were also edited to remove the dead giveaway line 'Another Reason Is To Uphold Prestige Of US, UK', to be replaced with the far more Freedom And Democracy Agenda-friendly 'We'll Stay Until Iraq No Longer Needs Us, Says PM'.

But perhaps more importantly, note that on both the 'corrected' and 'uncorrected' stories above, the byline clearly reads "By Staff Writers And Wires".

AAP may have supplied a story that claimed Howard said Australia had an interest in staying in Iraq to secure future oil supplies, which is, of course, exactly what he said, but unless the byline is a total lie, more than one journo rewrote or added to the text and headline and sub headlines before it went online. Hence "by staff writers and wires".

But to Howard's utter horror, that correction, sorry clarification, only made it onto the story on the main news.com.au site.

The calls for clarifications to the story must not have gotten through to other city newspaper editors and staff in Murdoch's network. Unless, of course, they chose to ignore the clarifications because the story didn't need any clarifying at all. It was true.

And if that was the case, then good on them for not following directions from head office, via the Howard office.

The below pages were all still online through the Murdoch online stable at 10-11am today, and later.

From the Adelaide Advertiser :



Australia's biggest selling daily newspaper, The Herald Sun, ran the following editorial today, hitting the presses before it could be pulled, and staying online, unchanged, well into the late morning :



The Tasmania Mercury still had this up on their site at midday :


And the Murdoch site in Perth still had this posted after midday today :



Even though the story of Howard's Iraq Oil Slick was running up hundreds of comments an hour on websites around Australia, any mention of it was gone from the news.com.au front page by 10.30am this morning.

Over at Murdoch's flagship 'The Australian' newspaper website, at least three key columnists weighed in supporting Howard's claim that he didn't say what he said, and it really didn't matter even if the prime minister and the defence minister did say what they said. Which they did.

Just to jog your memory, here's a reminder of what John Howard had to say about claims that the, then, still coming War On Iraq was about something other than WMDs and deposing Saddam Hussein back in February, 2003 :

"No criticism is more outrageous than the claim that US behaviour is driven by a wish to take control of Iraq's oil reserves."

And here's what the Murdoch media's favourite political whipping post, Greens Leader Bob Brown had to say in that same week, in 2003 :

This is not Australia's war. This is an oil war. This is the US recognising that, as the economic empire of the age, it needs oil to maintain its pre-eminence.

Back then, 76 percent of Australians were opposed to a War On Iraq.


By midday today, the Australia In Iraq For The Oil scandal was making international news, in a big way.

And the hundreds of headlines from around the world were immune to Howard's attempt to reframe his own comments, and those of his defence minister. They went in hard, using Howard as the first leader of a Coalition Of The Drilling country to finally admit the truth about a war so blackened and poisoned with so many lies :

Herald Sun, Melbourne : PM's war for oil

Daily Times, Pakistan - Oil key motive for Iraq involvement: Australia

The Scotsman, Scotland - Oil keeps Australia in Iraq

The Independent, UK : Australian troops 'in Iraq because of oil'

RTE, Ireland : Mideast oil priority for Australia

The BBC : Australians 'are in Iraq for oil'

Turkish Press, Middle East : Oil a factor in Australian role in Iraq: minister

Voice Of America : Australia Says Oil Key Motive for Involvement in Iraq

The Guardian, UK : Oil a factor in Iraq conflict, says Australian MP

Xinhau, China : PM: Australian troops to stay in Iraq for oil

Aljazeera : Australia admits Iraq war about oil

Forbes : Australia says securing oil supply means no Iraq withdrawal

Press TV, Iran : Aussies in Iraq for Oil

Gulf News, United Arab Emirates : Oil 'key factor for Australia's role in Iraq'

Stratfor (key military intel site) : Australia: Oil A Reason For Iraq Presence

Alsumaria, Iraq : Oil supply is an essential factor

Zee Tv, India : Mid-east oil crucial to our future: Australian PM

Alalalam News Network, Iran : Australia: Oil Means no Iraq Pullout


Some of those same news sites ran Howard's attempts to deny that he said what he said, but his retraction was given mostly backwater coverage. Those international editors knew, like some editors of Murdoch's Australian newspapers knew, that Howard was trying to scam them.

Like he tried to scam the entire nation back in late 2002 when he said he hadn't decided whether or not he would send troops to Iraq, when they were already in the Gulf. And in early March, 2003, when Howard said he hadn't decided yet whether or not commit troops to the coming war, when some of those already deployed troops had already written letters to their children in case they died during the fighting.

Read The Full July 6, 2007 Post Here

------------------------------

So when are we going to have an investigation into the real reasons why Australia became involved in the War On Iraq?

When are we going to have an investigation into Howard government foreign minister Alexander Downer's meetings with some of the world's biggest oil companies in 2002-2004?

When are we going to have an investigation into the false intelligence circulated so enthusiastically by the Howard government and the Murdoch media back in 2002 and early 2003?

Taxpayers who were swindled of almost $20 billion over eight years for the War On Iraq deserve the truth.

The thousands of Australian soldiers who served in Iraq, the hundreds physically & psychologically wounded, those who committed suicide after they got back, the families ruined, deserve nothing less than the truth.

Australian journalist John Pilger in interview for his revelatory, truth-telling new movie 'The War You Don't See' :




A short collection of clips from the movie about the government lies the mainstream media pumps out, decade in and decade out, to mindwash people into believing war is not only, repeatedly, necessary, but utterly patriotic :



'The War You Don't See' doesn't have an Australian cinema or TV airing release date, which seems strange. Surely the million or so Australians who marched against the War On Iraq in 2003 would be exactly the kind of audience who'd want to see a movie like this.

Plus the millions more who have since learned the truth of the Australian government & Murdoch media lies, myths and deceptions about the Iraq & Afghanistan wars over the past seven years.

Researching the Australian conservative media campaign to rally support for the Iraq War back in 2002 - for onscreen quotes and the Notes section of the coming FTW : The Movie DVD and download - it's mind-boggling how many pro-war campaigners actively played down the chances of Iraq erupting into any kind of post-invasion chaos. Even more noticeably, back in 2002, pro-war media campaigners repeatedly, vehemently, ridiculed claims that more than 100,000 troops would be needed to fight the war, or that it would cost more than a few dozen billion dollars in total.

In playing down the real risks of starting a war in Iraq, some pro-war campaigners in the media said 50,000 troops would be enough, some said 20,000, but there was only one who said the War On Iraq would require less than 100 American troops.

The Daily Telegraph's Tim Blair :

John Hawkins: If and when do you see the United States hitting Iraq? How do you think it'll work out?

Tim Blair: It all depends on Iraq’s fearsome Elite Republican Guard. Why, those feisty desert warriors could hold out for minutes. Dozens of US troops will be required. Perhaps they’ll even need their weapons...Wouldn’t expect it to last long once it happens.

When asked to predict a casualty count for the invasion, Blair predicted :

"Below 50."

The Republican Guard began killing American soldiers with car bombs and IEDs the day Coalition of the Willing troops entered Baghdad. Civilians, trained by Saddam Hussein through TV broadcasts in the construction of improvised weapons and explosives, joined in the fighting.

Within twelve days of President Bush announcing the start of the illegal bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq, more than 60 American soldiers had been killed and more than 200 wounded.

Tim Blair joins the FTW Dishonour Roll.

'FTW' : Coming to DVD and digital download late October.

Quality Death Exploiting Journalism

Glenn Milne, The Australian :

....more Australians have died as a result of the Rudd government's home insulation program, "administered" by Environment Minister Peter Garrett, than lost their lives in the Iraq war.

This is what years of alcohol abuse does to your brain, kids. So go easy.

Nothing from Milne, of course, about the dozens of young Australians who served in the Iraq War, witnessed the gruesome brutal reality of an illegal invasion that Milne fully backed and came home and killed themselves.

That Milne can even dare to mention Jake Kovco's name as he attempts to blame Peter Garrett for the deaths of four insulation installers shows just what a foul and odious Liberal Party hack he really is.

Oh, this is going to be a very, very bitter election campaign. Not so from much from Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd necessarily, but it's already clear that aging, empathy-fucked Murdoch opinionists have convinced themselves they can ensure that the Rudd government only serves one term.

A politically historic event they no doubt intend to be an active part of.

It's going to be grim.


.

November 2000 : Saddam Hussein announces Iraqi oil will be priced in euros, not US dollars.

March 2003 :




Mid-2003 : Iraq's oil goes back to being priced in US dollars, not euros.

November 2009 :

“The idea that an oil company was participating in the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution leaves me speechless”

100,000 to 1 million : Number of Iraqis estimated to have been violently killed during the War On Iraq.

5 million : Number of Iraqi children left orphaned by the War On Iraq.

6000 : Approximate number of coalition government and American private corporation soldiers and agents killed during the War On Iraq.

1 in 4 American soldiers returning from Iraq require ongoing medical and mental health care.

70% of Iraqi children are believed to be suffering trauma-related symptoms as a result of the War On Iraq.

(source)

115 billion barrels : Iraq's estimated oil wealth

340,000 barrels : Estimate of oil consumed by the Pentagon per day.

Possessing the world's largest fleet of modern aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, and support systems - virtually all powered by oil - the Department of Defense (DoD) is the world's leading consumer of petroleum.

.

The United States' top general in Iraq, Ray Odierno, said today :

"I'm not sure we will ever see anyone declare victory in Iraq...."

That can't be right. Andrew Bolt declared Victory In Iraq in late 2007.



Army General Odierno, therefore, has now de-declared victory.

It sounds like the US is trying to cover up their late 2007 Iraq War win.

Must be some new kind of strategy to throw the enemy off.

Unless Andrew Bolt was wrong.

But how could that be? Look how accurately Bolt predicted the reality of the swine flu pandemic :

Australians are more likely to be eaten by mice than to die of swine flu

More than 140 Australians have died suffering from swine flu, including many children, since the first death from the virus in July.

But reports of Australians being eaten by mice are curiously rare in the Australian media. Must be another cover up to make Andrew Bolt look like a complete dickhead.

The War On Iraq : We Won....Wait, They Won...Someone Won....Did Anybody Win?

By Darryl Mason

In November 2007, The Professional Idiot declared :

The War In Iraq Has Been Won

Now, finally, Iraq MP Nuri al-Maliki agrees with The Professional Idiot :

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Saturday that the U.S. troops' withdrawal from Iraqi cities and towns by the end of this month would be a "great victory" for Iraqis.

"It is a great victory for Iraqis as we are going to take our first step toward ending the foreign presence in Iraq," Maliki said during a conference in Baghdad for leaders of ethnic Turkmen minority.

Hmm, probably not exactly the kind of victory declaration The Professional Idiot was counting on al-Maliki to announce. But then, The Professional Idiot was always living an absurd NeoCon fantasy when it came to Iraq.

This from The Idiot when it seemed, briefly, so many years ago, that President Bush was right, and the War On Iraq had been won almost as soon as it began :

"The war happened, all right, yet there were no refugees, and no huge casualties."

And here's "second stringer" Tim Blair, all but declaring victory before the War On Iraq even began :

John Hawkins: If and when do you see the United States hitting Iraq? How do you think it'll work out?

Tim Blair: It all depends on Iraq’s fearsome Elite Republican Guard. Why, those feisty desert warriors could hold out for minutes. Dozens of US troops will be required. Perhaps they’ll even need their weapons.

Wouldn’t expect it to last long once it happens.

No. not long at all.

Six years, a couple of trillion dollars, 4500 dead CoW troops and a few hundred thousand dead Iraqis.

At least they got rid of Iran's main enemy in the region.

Perhaps one day Tim Blair will get the chance to talk to some of the hundreds of young Australian soldiers who had their minds and emotions fucked by what they saw and experienced in Iraq. I'm sure they'll love to hear his explanation for why it was all worth it, and why he was so keen, all those years ago, to perpetuate the myth that the people of Iraq would cave in so quickly to foreign occupation.

"...those feisty desert warriors could hold out for minutes."

Or more than 3.2 million minutes, and counting.

Oh well, at least Blair got a job at the Daily Telegraph out of it.

Australian Troops Have Shot, Killed Dozens Of Civilians In Iraq & Afghanistan

According to this story, more than $350,000 has been paid out by the Australian government to Iraqi and Afghan families who've had family members killed or wounded by soldiers :

Dozens of non-combatants have been shot by Diggers since the Iraq campaign began in April 2003.

Rapid "act of grace" payments can prevent revenge attacks. Defence refuses to divulge how much is paid to each family but has told The Daily Telegraph $126,442 had so far been paid out to Afghani families.

The amount covers more than 20 individuals for an average of about $6000 each. The overall figure for Iraq is $216,417 for about 10 incidents and could climb before Australia's combat involvement in Iraq finally ceases next month.

The Full Story Is Here

Last Australian Combat Troops Arrive Home, Mission Completed

John Howard On The Iraq War : The First Six Months

So the Iraq War is over now for Australian combat troops, officially anyway, with the last troops arriving home to warm welcomes from friends and family over the weekend :

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has today seen the completion of his pledge to bring home all of Australia's combat troops from Iraq, with the final contingent of soldiers flying into Brisbane.

Families and friends waited nervously at Brisbane airport for the first glimpse of loved ones they had not seen for more than six months.

Hugs and tears greeted the 80 members of the Seventh Brigade after their plane touched down...

They are the last soldiers from the Overwatch Battle Group to return home from southern Iraq and their Commander, Brigadier Steven Day, says they accomplished their mission.

"There is a deep sense of pride in what they have done. They have toiled hard for the last six or seven months and southern Iraq is a better place for what they have done," he said.

Well Done and Welcome Home.

The Australian Defence Force strategists who purposely kept Australian combat troops from spending too much time patrolling with under-trained, terrified, and sometimes dangerously incompetent American forces should be thanked. (While stationed in Jordan in the days before the war officially began, Australian troops witnessed young, inexperienced Americans almost blowing a British Chinook helicopter out of the sky. The Americans thought the Chinook was Iraqi. Iraq, of course, has never owned or used Chinook helicopters. The Brits landed their helicopter near the Americans, got out and punched crap out of them.)

Likewise, those ADFers who demanded Australian troops spend as little time as possible in Iraqi provinces fatally contaminated by depleted uranium dust should be thanked.

It will be many years before some of the most important government and ADF documents and reports on the lead-up to the Iraq War, and its opening months, are declassified, and it will only be then that we will learn the full truth of war where it concerned Australian combat troops.

That most Australians know so little of what their troops did and experienced in the Iraq War is a damn shame, and hopefully something that will be rectified in the next few years as more stories of their frontline experiences are made public through books, documentaries and movies.

That most Australians know so little about John Howard's total commitment to the 'War on Terror', including the Iraq War, within days of the September 11, 2001 attacks, is an abheration of our nation's history. That Howard repeatedly lied to all Australians that he had not committed Australian troops to the Iraq War as late as mid-March is, or should be, criminal.

Following is a recap of Howard quotes on the invasion and occupation of Iraq from January to June, 2003. Note the constantly shifting 'reasons for war' and the blindly optimistic belief that there would be no major resistance from Iraqi civilians, which directly contradicted key intelligence briefings Howard received on what would happen once the invasion begun.

As a point of reference, being information Howard was clearly made aware of, the first car bombs aimed at American troops exploded with hours of the start of the war, and the very first American vehicles to enter Baghdad were not met with a shower of chocolates and flowers but machine gun fire from men, women and children shooting from hundreds of open windows and rooftops. The Iraqi resistance began the moment the war did, as Australian generals well knew it would.

John Howard :

"....our goal is to make certain that the weapons that Iraq now has, chemical and biological and a capacity to develop nuclear weapons, are taken from Iraq. I don't believe the world can turn its back on that - January 23, 2003

"..if as a consequence of that military action the current regime disappears, that circumstances in Iraq could well be a lot better, I’m certain they will be a lot better and that in a relatively short period of time the situation could stabilise in the way that it did in Afghanistan." - February 7. 2003

"Iraq must be disarmed. We cannot afford to allow a rogue state like Iraq to retain chemical and biological weapons. Others will do likewise. North Korea will not be disciplined by the world community if Iraq is not disciplined." - March 14, 2003

Howard had been told repeatedly, by March 14, 2003, that Iraq's WMD capabilities were next to useless and/or non-existent.

"I have no doubt at all in my mind, and many would agree with me, that the Iraqi people will suffer less if Saddam Hussein is removed." - March 17, 2003

"I think you’ve also got to remember that the suffering of the Iraqi people will be a lot less once this regime has gone..." - March 19, 2003

"I want the Iraqi regime disarmed, I want Iraq disarmed. The question of what happens to Saddam Hussein to me is incidental. The aim is the disarmament of Iraq."- March 19, 2003

"...we don’t have any quarrel with the ordinary people of Iraq, we don’t want to inflict any avoidable pain injury or death on them. We do have a big quarrel with the regime because it’s the regime that has defied the world in relation to its chemical and biological weapons. We mustn’t lose sight of what this is all about." - March 20, 2003

"....on the scale of suffering I have believed for a long time that the people of Iraq will suffer less if he’s gone than if he’s left there." - March 21, 2003

"...it is a very tyrannical regime and once it’s gone the people of Iraq will I’m sure have a much better life." - April 2, 2003

"...if Iraq had disarmed and fully cooperated, then I don’t think people would have been arguing on its own for regime change." - April 2, 2003

"...getting rid of the regime and thereby ensuring that Iraq does not retain chemical and biological weapons or a capacity to develop them in the future, that is the goal....I would say victory once the regime is gone." - April 6, 2003

"...we won't be making a significant peacekeeping contribution. I would expect that as our military involvement winds down, and I'm not announcing that it's about to wind down, let me emphasise, but at some point obviously it will begin to wind down." - April 10, 2003

The scale of resistance by Iraqi civilians to the invasion and occupation was already clear by April 10, 2003. Howard knew that. By April 10, Howard had already told the Australian military leaders and commanders that he had committed Australian troops to staying in Iraq for the long haul.

"Of course there were (civilian casualties from 'Shock & Awe'). But you have to put that in the balance against the tens upon tens of thousands who have died in different ways as a result of this regime." April 13, 2003

Conservative estimates of Iraqi deaths as a direct result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq reach more than 100,000. More generous estimates put the death toll at close to one million. The majority of deaths in Iraq were, and are still, not officially recorded by the US military, or the US and Iraq governments. The Iraq War resulted in some 4 million Iraqis becoming refugees.

"It was inevitable that when you topple a tyrannical regime and you took the lid off, it was inevitable there was going to be a period of some upheaval..." April 16, 2003

"...it was a remarkable military victory, and a great tribute to the American military leadership." May 2, 2003

"...can I Mr President congratulate you on the leadership that you gave to the world, at times under very great criticism, at times facing very great obstruction...I think what was achieved in Iraq was quite extraordinary from a military point of view. I think the military textbooks will be replete with the experiences of Operation Iraqi Freedom for many years to come..." May 3, 2003

A few more recaps of the Iraq War and Australia's role in it to follow in the next week.

Your 'War On Terror' Bill : $20 Billion And Counting...

'War On Terror' Funding Quadrupled Budgets Of Australian Spy, Intelligence Agencies

Fighting "Islamic terrorists" at home has cost Australian taxpayers some $20 billion since the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington DC, and the Bali bombings.

But the money fountain for intelligence agencies and defence contractors appears to have
peaked :

New figures show that by 2011 the Federal Government will have invested more than $17 billion in direct measures to beef up national security since the brazen al-Qaeda terrorist attacks against the US.

The national investment has an impact on everyone, from expanding CCTV camera networks to invasive airline security checks and a new army of private security guards.

An analysis of spending shows the big years were 2003-04 with an extra $1.8 billion, 2002-03 $1.3 billion and 2005-06 $1 billion.

Since 9/11, funding to the chief Australian spying agency ASIO has spiralled "a massive 514 per cent."

The 2001-2002 budget was $69 million.

The 2008-2009 is $423 million.

Most Australians have never even heard of "the shadowy overseas spy agency" ASPI. But it's funding was boosted 236 per cent.

The Australian government's "peak intelligence agency", the ONA, has had a budget increase of 441 per cent since 2001.

But those massive increases, primarily to fight "Islamic terrorism", seem almost insignificant compared to the mind-boggling vault in defence funding, post-9/11.

In 2001, the Australian government spent almost $14 billion.

The 2008 budget has rocketed to more than $22 billion. And that's with big cuts by the Rudd government.

The John Howard-implemented role for Australians in the War On Iraq has chewed up more than $2 billion, with another billion or so likely to be needed to help the hundreds of young veterans physically and mentally wounded by the war.

So how will our intelligence agencies spend all that money?

The threat of "Islamic terrorism" to the average Australian was vastly oversold, and spectacularly hyped by the Howard government and its corporate media allies.

But thanks to the mega-hype, the Australian spy agencies that spy on Australians got the funding to build surveillance networks and infrastructure that even China admires.

Murdoch Admits Using His Media To Shape Opinion On Iraq War

Former Australian Rupert Murdoch fesses up, with a laugh, to purposely using his worldwide media empire (including 70% of all newspapers in Australia) to pump pro-Iraq War propaganda.



Partial transcript :

Q: For example, take the war...Have you shaped that agenda at all, in terms of perceptions of the war? In terms of how that war is viewed?

Murdoch : No, I don't think so. We tried...

Q: Tried in what way?

A: Well, we basically supported, our papers, and television...we supported the Bush policy.

No shit.

Here's but one example of the kind of propaganda Murdoch himself pumped pre-war to wash over criticisms that War On Iraq was illegal, extremely reckless, dangerous, would kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and would impact negatively on fuel prices around the world :

"The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be US$20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."

He was only out by about $110.

More Murdoch lies and propaganda about the Iraq War :

"(Sunni insurgents)...they’re not really trying to kill Americans."

"...things are going to be pretty sticky until we get Iraq behind us. But once it's behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else."

"There’s tremendous progress in Iraq. All the kids are back at school."

The death toll of American soldiers in Iraq, according to Murdoch, is "quite minute."

"...most of Iraq is doing extremely well."

American Murdoch Whines About Australians Becoming More 'Anti-American'

Sept, 07 : Murdoch Media Launch 'Coup' To Take Down Prime Minister Howard

Rupert Murdoch - Always Wrong On The Iraq War

Murdoch Admits He Tells His Newspapers What To Print

Murdoch Journalist Denies Murdoch Media Conspiracy

Hey Rupert! What Happened To All Those Post-Saddam $20 Barrels Of Oil

The Big Loser Speaks


John Howard : proud recipient of treasured NeoCon-approved crystal salad bowl

John Howard gleefully accepts a big fat NeoCon pay cheque for forcing Australia into adding some international legitimacy to the Iraq War, against the will of the vast majority of Australians, and finally speaks to his people...in the United States :

'I'm Absolutely Shameless And You're The Only Friends I Have Left, Please Pay Me $50,000'

Unfortunately for the Liberals, and conservatives (we'll list them as separate to the "we're with you Mr Rudd" Liberal Party because it seems to make the conservatives happy) who were hoping the Big Loser would light their way forward with some much needed illumination, and inspiration, Howard is still flogging the same load of old wank that lost him the election.

American NeoCons like to reward their international lickspittles with 'tours' of US 'think tanks'. Of course Howard got a hero's welcome at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday. Why wouldn't he? The American war industries that fund so many of these 'think tanks' have seen profits soar majestically since 9/11, while other American industries have spluttered to a halt and laid off millions of workers.

The AEI loves Howard. He's as hollow and shameless as they are.

Howard did what he was told in Washington in the days after September 11, 2001, and committed Australia to the War On Iraq without consulting his own government, the opposition, or even engaging the Australian people and asking what them what they thought.

Now Howard is getting his blood money.

Australia Declares "Mission Accomplished" In Iraq

By Darryl Mason

When Australian special forces joined the American war to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait in late 1990, a t-shirt that simply said "Fuck Iraq" became as popular as Guns N' Roses merchandise in suburban Australia.

"Fuck Iraq" also became a fast way to strike down any pub conversation about the impending war. You didn't need to hold an opinion on Iraq War I (or The Gulf War), as it was more than acceptable at the time to mutter "Ahh, fuck Iraq" if you were asked what you thought about George HW Bush Vs Saddam Hussein.

"Fuck Iraq" meant "fuck the Iraqis", it also meant "fuck that place", "fuck Saddam" and "fuck if I give a shit."

No interest, no opinion either way, was no big deal back then.

But for Iraq War II (or more accurately The War On Iraq), you had to have an opinion. You were either for or against the war, and and all were for the Iraqi people.

You weren't allowed to say "fuck the Iraqis". That was far, far worse than saying "Fuck Bush" or "Fuck Howard."

For or against the War On Iraq, everybody seemed to argue that the people of Iraq were the first priority of concern...okay, maybe second priority behind your own armed forces. But close.

We were there to save the Iraqis this time. Not to fuck them.

This wasn't a war against the people of Iraq, we were repeatedly told, it was a war to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMDs....then it was a war to find Saddam's WMDs....then it was a war to bring order to Baghdad after mass rioting and looting and the first wave of IED attacks...then it was a war to catch Saddam....or his sons....and then it was a war to see justice served up on Saddam's snapped neck...and then it was a war to escort democratic elections under armed guards to the people of Iraq....then it was a war to pacify Fallujah, again...then it was a war to train Iraqi forces....then it was a war to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq...then it was a war to save democracy in Iraq by supporting the newly elected and thoroughly Iran-allied government
...then it was a war to secure the kind of peace that would allow large-scale troop withdrawals
...then it was a war that couldn't be stopped because it would make the Coalition of the Willing (Few) look weak to jihadists across the planet....

But it was never a war against the people of Iraq. Unless they were insurgents, or heavily armed and objected to 4am raids and a kicked in front door. Which was a lot of Iraqis. Or if they had been unemployed for six months and took $50 to dig holes for IEDs along American supply lines.
It wasn't "Fuck Iraq" this time, it was "Save The Iraqis". Those not trying to kill CoW(F) soldiers anyway, even though it was almost impossible to determine who was who in the ghettos of Baghdad, Basra and Fallujah.

John Howard committed Australian troops to the War On Iraq within days of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington DC. As a witness to the attack on the Pentagon, Howard was right there in American capital during some of the most tumultuous days in American history. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were discussed before Howard left Washington DC and flew home.

The 'War On Terror', from its genesis, was never simply about finding and killing Osama Bin Laden and crushing Al Qaeda. It was always planned, and discussed, in the White House, in Downing Street, in Kirribilli House, as a war on terrorists and those who supported them, funded them, sheltered them. Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan were from day one viewed by the war's planners as future locations for combat or special operations to kill terrorists. Howard signed on.

John Howard allowed the Australian Defence Forces to start ramping up the numbers of Australian servicemen in the Gulf in mid-2002. Australia sent hundreds of soldiers and sailors to the Gulf in the last three months of 2002, many of whom knew that they were going there for a war, despite the evening news claiming Howard had still not made a decision.

For the three months before Australian and American rockets and missiles ploughed into Baghdad and other targets, in March 2003, Howard refused to confirm the common knowledge in Canberra, in news media editors offices, and shared amongst nearly every military family in the country, that he had told President Bush Australian troops were committed to fighting the War On Iraq, and that Australians were in the Gulf to fight the war.

Howard needed to lie about the fact that Australians and Americans were there to fight a war, regardless of what did or didn't happen in the United Nations Security Council, because so many Australians were opposed to it. When 1 in 20 Australians took to the streets of every major city in Australia to protest the coming War On Iraq, Howard and his supplicant media drones tried to vilify every single protester, including thousands of World War 2, Korea and Vietnam veterans, by claiming their opposition to the illegal use of military force was like giving comfort to Saddam Hussein. By March 2003, more than 70% of Australians were opposed to military action in Iraq.

Howard finally relented and confirmed Australian forces were committed to fighting the War On Iraq a few hours after the first missiles were fired. He then said Australians would be in Iraq "for months, not years" and then lied, or dodged, about the reasons for the war and why Australian soldiers could not come home for dozens of months more.

There's no doubt that Howard's refusal to listen to the will of the Australian people on Iraq played a factor in his humiliating defeat last November.

Howard knew by April-May 2007 that as far as the Australian Army was concerned, they'd done their duty in training up Iraqi police and security forces and keeping safe provinces in Southern Iraq. They were preparing to withdraw most of their combat forces, and start the long process of restocking and repairing and replacing gear, equipment, weapons and vehicles damaged or lost during the years of desert deployment. This decision was made months before Howard called the election. And he knew that. Howard couldn't force the Australian Army to stay in Iraq, and the decision had been made to withdraw.

So why didn't Howard come clean and tell the Australian people that if elected, he, like Rudd, would oversee the withdrawal of Australian combat troops from Iraq in mid-2008? And why did foreign minister Alexander Downer shout in Parliament that even thinking about "cutting and running" from Iraq was giving in to "the terrorists" when he already knew Australian troops were coming home?

Howard's bizarre refusal to confirm what the military, and military families in particular, along with various news media editors and thousands of public servants, already knew as a fact was a repeat of his scandalous behaviour at the start of the war.

His stubborness, his inability to come clean to the Australian people on the end of the Iraq War, as with its beginning, helped to lose him the election. It wasn't the only reason, but Howard's barely believable illusion-weaving throughout four years of war only encouraged Australians to wonder about his honesty when it came to other vital issues, like interest rates, like WorkChoices. Howard's hundreds of spin-filled, forced-empathy hollowed interviews about the Iraq War planted millions of seeds of doubt - we can't trust him on Iraq, so why should we trust him when he says we won't be worse off under IR changes?

The War On Iraq was not simply a heavy chain around Howard's neck, weighed down further by his man-love blushing over President Bush, it was a constant stream of bright sunlight, illuminating Howard's torturing of truth on numerous issues and exposing his inherent dishonesty.

History will record that Australia went to War On Iraq based on a concoction of outright lies, deception and selective use of downright dodgy intelligence, and all of it will indelibly stain Howard's place in the history books.

History will record that the Australian people's rejection of war in dealing with Iraq brought into the streets of our cities and towns the biggest mass-gatherings and protests ever seen.

History will also record that Australian special forces played a vital role in dissuading key Republican Guard majors and generals from backing Saddam Hussein, with suitcases full of cash, many weeks before the war officially began.

And history will record that Australian troops trained tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police personnel, helping to recruit former insurgents and militia men years before it became a policy of the American military to pay and train those who once tried to kill them.

And so we come to the official announcement that Australia's key military role in the War On Iraq has ended :

The chief of the Australian Defence Force has told a parliamentary committee it is time for Australian troops to leave Iraq.

The Federal Government has ordered Australian combat troops be withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of the year.

Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston says Iraqi forces have faced a number of challenges over the past 18 months and always come out on top without any major support from Australia.

"It's been a very pleasing outcome," he told a Senate estimates committee this morning.

"We have achieved our objectives in southern Iraq and frankly if you look at the two provinces, it's time to leave."

Air Chief Marshal Houston said Australia would still be engaged with Iraq through a broader program focused on training, including bringing members of the Iraqi forces to Australia.

"We will be providing training in Australia," he confirmed.

Houston confirms Australian troops would have pulled out of Iraq in 2008 even if John Howard won the election :

Air Chief Marshal Houston said both al-Muthanna and Dhi Qar provinces had been under Iraqi security control for almost two years.

"We have seen very pleasing results from the (Iraqi) security forces deployed in the two provinces," he said.

"They have had a number of security challenges over the months and they have come out on top without any support from us . . .

"When you look at the two provinces, it is time to leave."

Australia's withdrawal was likely to have happened even if the federal coalition had retained government at the last election, Air Chief Marshal Houston said

UPDATE : In an earlier ABC News report, the story claimed that "Australia sent troops into Iraq in March 2003 in support of the US push to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein."

Even the notorious House Of Evil Lefties, according to the nuts and Bolts, has finally brought the new myth, and reported it as fact, that Australia joined the War On Iraq to overthrow Saddam.

But only for a few hours. Commenters pointed out that this was a complete lie, and that Australia went to War On Iraq to stop Saddam from firing his alleged WMDs into England within 45 minutes, or giving non-existent nuclear weapons to Osama Bin Laden.

Here's the ABC News corrected version of why we went to War On Iraq :

"Australian troops have been in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003."

No reason at all is given now.

Murdoch Pro-War Propagandist Retreats From Claims War In Iraq Has Been "Won"

Andrew Bolt : Did I Say "Won"? I Meant "Going Well"

By Darryl Mason

In early November last year, Murdoch media columnist Andrew Bolt proudly declared that "The War In Iraq Has Been Won".

The Orstrahyun covered Bolt's moronic declaration of victory in Iraq here.

After a six week long holiday, Bolt has returned to declare again that the War In Iraq Is Now Won.

It's easy, wrote Bolt last Sunday, "to publicly back George Bush now that the war in Iraq is won."

But a few hours later, Bolt had a sudden and dramatic change of heart about whether the Iraq War has actually been won or not.

Bolt pulled the last Sunday blog post with the big fat "Iraq War Is Now Won" headline and deleted all traces of it from his blog and newspaper archive. However, it's still listed on the Google News archive. When you click the link, you get nothing.

The next time Bolt referred to Iraq, on Monday, he claimed that Iraq has been secured, and its democracy and thousands of Iraqis lives saved, all thanks to the Bush troop surge. But he didn't say the war has been won. Instead he says it is, simply, "going well".

So why has Bolt backed down on his claim that the Iraq War has been "won", and decided to delete all traces of his most recent post referring to a "won" war in Iraq?

Perhaps he wasn't paying attention, while on his six week long holiday, to the relentless death, destruction and horror in Iraq since he last declared the Iraq War had been won.

In his Herald Sun newspaper column of November 2, 2007, Bolt claimed the Iraq War had been "won", in part, because the monthly toll of Iraqi civilian and coalition soldier deaths had dramatically decreased :

Just 27 American soldiers were killed in action in Iraq in October - the lowest monthly figure since March last year.

The number of Iraqi civilians killed last month - mostly by Islamist and fascist terrorists - was around 760, according to Iraqi Government sources.

In the eleven weeks since Bolt's insidious pro-war echoing of NeoCon propaganda was excreted into the public debate, more than 3600 Iraqis have died after being shot, blown up, beheaded, drowned or tortured, beaten, burned or stabbed to death (according to this archive). More than 7000 more Iraqis have been wounded in hundreds of terror attacks.

In those same eleven weeks since Bolt last declared "The War In Iraq Has Been Won" (without deleting the claim), more than 100 coalition soldiers have lost their lives (mostly Americans), with hundreds more wounded, many left permanently disabled.

Winning the war in Iraq sure has led to a lot of killing and torture, shattered American military families and Iraqi children having their arms, legs and genitals blown off.

I've put the question to Mr Bolt on why he has decided to un-declare the Iraq War has been "won" and is now only "going well" and I will update this story with Mr Bolt's response, if any.

UPDATE : No response from Andrew Bolt on why he has backed down so dramatically on how the Iraq War has been "won", but he has mentioned Iraq again today, and reveals the Bush (and Howard?) troop surge strategy is "bearing fruit" and that Al Qaeda has been defeated. His hero George W. Bush would thoroughly disagree with Bolt on that claim.

To recap Bolt on Iraq :

November, 2007 - "Troop Surge Brilliance Means We've Won The War In Iraq"

January, 2008 - "Troop Surge Bearing Fruit"

UPDATE : Still no response from Bolt, which is strange. Usually he leaps on any chance to exercise his right of reply. Not this time, however. Is this truth too hard to refute?

Howard And Downer Were Full Of "Cut And Run" Lies On Iraq

Troop Withdrawals From Iraq Will Have No Negative Impact On Australia-US Alliance

Another bunch of foul lies of John Howard and former foreign minister, Alexander Downer, exposed for the dirty propaganda that they were :

(Former) prime minister John Howard condemned Mr Rudd's proposed timetable for a troop withdrawal as abandoning an ally and providing encouragement for terrorists.

But a senior US State Department official, Nicholas Burns, said the US appreciated what Australia had done in Iraq...

Mr Burns, Under-Secretary for Political Affairs in the US State Department, delivered a strong message of support for the Rudd Government from the Bush Administration.

Yesterday Mr Rudd described the US as "an overwhelming force for good in the world" and Mr Burns said he was impressed with the skill, knowledge and professionalism of the new ministers.

Both Mr Rudd and Mr Smith have been invited to visit Washington as soon as they can.

For more than three years, Howard and Downer railed in Parliament and ranted across the media about how the Labor position of withdrawing combat troops from Iraq would have massively negative impacts on the Australian alliance with the US, and would be "cutting and running" on the US, the Iraq government and the Iraqi people.

All of those claims from Howard and Downer were nothing but worthless rubbish :

Mr Burns has told ABC TV's Lateline he has been very impressed with the new Federal Government.

"Allies should treat each other in a friendly and respectful way, particularly when a new government comes in, so there's a lot of goodwill in Washington towards Prime Minister [Kevin] Rudd and towards his fellow members of the Australian Cabinet."

Mr Burns says the US administration understands the Labor Government's stance on Iraq.

"What all those Australian men and women have done in the Iraq effort, as well as Australia is doing in Afghanistan, we're grateful for it," he said.

"But we understand that Australia has a right to make its own decisions, we respect that."

The desperate deceptions and propaganda of the former Howard government over Rudd's plan to "cut and run" from Iraq and to "abandon its allies" aggravated officials in the US State Department, who always saw the continuing US-Australia alliance, and positive relationship, as vastly more important than whether or not Australia kept 500 combat troops in Iraq when the primary missions Australia was tasked with, such as training the Iraq Army and police, were clearly coming to an end.

Australian Middle East Commander Declares Iraq Army Is "Ready To Stand On Its Own"

Major General Clears The Way For Troop Withdrawals From Iraq

The United States has officially accepted Australia's decision to withdraw more than 500 combat troops from Iraq by mid-2008, and now our top commander in the Middle East, Major General Mark Evans, has declared the Australian Defence Force's mission to train up Iraq's Army to take care of itself has been completed.

On Wednesday, US Undersecretary of State, Nicholas Burns, met with Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith.

Burns was told that the Rudd government was moving ahead with plans to withdraw Australian combat troops from Iraq, and Burns confirmed that this move would in no way damage the Australian-US alliance, or friendship.

Burns lobbied the ministers for Australian troops to remain in Iraq, and continue to help rebuild the country and its political system.

Major-General Mark Evans is quoted in the Melbourne Age as saying :

"I think the situation in (the provinces of) Dhi Qar and al-Muthanna is quite stable..."

"It's not without its violence … but it's certainly at a level now that both the governors of Dhi Qar and al-Muthanna would be of a view that they are well placed to manage most things."

"I'm pretty satisfied that the support we've given has enabled them (the Iraqis) to stand on their own two feet."

He said the Iraqi army was in a position to train its own forces, but Australia could play a role in training recruits and officers.

While Australia's troops in the south of the country will be gone by mid-2008, hundreds of other Australian military personnel will remain in and around Iraq.

The navy guards Iraq's oil platforms, commandos in Baghdad guard Australian diplomats, RAAF patrol planes guard road convoys and transport aircraft carry freight around the war zones.

More than 1000 Australian air force, navy and army personnel will remain in Iraq and neighbouring countries through 2008.

Earlier in the year, Kevin Rudd proposed that Australia could help to continue the training of Iraq military and police in Jordan, outside of the war zone.

Troops To Withdraw From Iraq Within Months

Prime minister Kevin Rudd will keep his election promise and begin withdrawing Australian combat troops from Iraq in the new year. The last of the troops are expected to be home by July 2008.

Next week PM Rudd begins discussions with the American ambassador to sort out the timing of the troop withdrawals.

The United States is planning to withdraw a substantial number of troops from Iraq in the first half of 2008. It doesn't have a choice. They don't have enough troops left to keep up the current numbers of more 160,000. The British are pulling out its troops. The Danish contingent is also withdrawing.

Some defence industry watchers now claim that regardless of whether Labor won, or the Howard government was returned, in last Saturday's election, the results for Australian troops would have been the same : withdrawal of most of the combat forces, and a new emphasis on training Iraqi troops and police.

The Iraq War is over?

More on all this from ABC's PM here.

Whitewashing Howard's Iraq War Legacy

By Darryl Mason

In a long, glowing tribute to John Howard, 'the most influential foreign affairs commentator in Australia', Greg Sheridan, decides the debacle and horror of the Iraq War is hardly mentioning. Well, not beyond a weighty 42 words worth of whitewashing.

Regardless of how Sheridan tries to spin it, in two or three decades, Howard's involvement in the Iraq War will be one of the three key reasons why his name will be mentioned in the history books, along with his, reportedly, platonic man-love affair with President George W. Bush.

Historians care little for "the economy" in the long term, they always write at length about the controversies and dramas, the wars and conflicts and the big historical events that divide and unite the nations that prime ministers and presidents lead.

Howard's larger national and international legacy is not "the economy". It is the Iraq War. Without Howard's shameless appeals to President Bush, from early 2002, if not earlier, that Australia was right behind the Iraq War, Bush would have had one less key member of the Coalition of the Willing, which was thin enough to begin with, outside of the involvement of the UK and Spain.

The Iraq War has occupied five years of Howard's 11.5 year reign, almost half of the total years Howard served as prime minister, if you consider the Iraq War began for Australian when it sent in special forces troops in late 2002.

The lead-up to the Iraq War saw the largest gatherings of people opposing a government policy in the nation's history. And it some of the most foul and odious columns ever written by Australian opinionists, in a disturbingly co-ordinated effort to try and dampen down the overwhelming opposition to the coming invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Many so-called journalists, including Sheridan, followed Howard's psy-op line that if you opposed the war you were giving "aid and comfort" to Saddam Hussein. Tell that to the many thousands of Australian war veterans who marched and spoke out in early 2003 against the brutal violence and mass civilian slaughters they knew, from experience, were coming to the people of Iraq.

Before the Iraq War began, Australian, British and American intelligence agents broke protocol, and cover, to warn Howard directly against backing the extremely dodgy 'Saddam Has Nukes And Lots Of WMDs' NeoCon fakery, most of which was built around the claims of the infamous 'Curveball', who turned out to be nothing more than a desperate Iraqi who was being paid to tell NeoCons what they wanted to hear, so they could use it to try and sell their war to the people.

None of it worked to convince even a thin minority of Australians that the Iraq War was necessary. Regardless of the mass opposition from the people, Howard sent his nation to war, knowing full well the NeoCon-packaged WMD intelligence was pure crap.

So here's how Greg Sheridan, supposedly one of our most respected and highly regarded foreign affairs journalist, sums up Howard and Iraq :

Howard made the right call on the information available, and it took incredible guts to do it. There were certainly no lies involved - every responsible authority was convinced Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction - and Howard will be vindicated by history.

This is whitewashing at its best, and most shameless.

The lies from Howard about the Iraq War were many, and Sheridan knows this.

Here's but one of the many bold and outrageous lies from Howard on Iraq : He told us he had not committed Australian forces to war in Iraq, literally 48 hours before the 'Shock And Awe' bombings of Baghdad began. But Howard knew, as Greg Sheridan knew, that Australian special forces had been working away in Iraq's west for months, and many Australian troops had been told in October and September, 2002, that they were going to Iraq to fight a war, and that they were prepare for war, and that they were prepare their families for that fact.

That Sheridan would even think he could float such an absurd paragraph in a major newspaper and that people would believe him is just bizarre.

Perhaps Sheridan is so mortified by what has happened to the people of Iraq, in a war that he relentlessly promoted through the last half of 2002, and right through 2003, that he really wants to believe his own twaddle. Maybe he has to. Perhaps it is easier then to sleep soundly at night, and not think of the millions of innocent people, mostly young people, killed or maimed or driven from their homes.

And don't think for a moment that Sheridan was some of sort of apologist, or PR flack for Howard. God, no. Sheridan himself admits he was "savagely critical" of Howard during the former prime minister's 30 year long political career. How many times was Sheridan "savagely critical"?

I'll let Sheridan reveal the vast extent of his savage criticism for himself :

"Twice in Howard's career, I have been savagely critical of him."

Twice!

Sheridan was relentless in holding Howard to account for his foreign policy decisions and disasters, and you would expect nothing less from 'the most influential foreign affairs commentator in Australia'.

How did Howard stand all that pressure and scrutiny from Greg Sheridan?

It must have been tough.


Janet Albrechtsen : I Don't Even Mention The Word "Iraq" In My Howard Whitewash

September 2007 : Greg Sheridan's Shameless Anti-Democracy, Anti-Free Speech Propaganda

February 2007 : Sheridan Helps Dick Cheney Make His Case For War On Iran

Sheridan Predicts "Outside Chance" Victory For Liberals In 2010, With Tony Abbott In Charge

Murdoch Mouthpiece Barks : Pro-Peace Aussies Hate News That Less Iraqis Are Being Slaughtered

A gruesome example of absurdity from the editor of The Australian newspaper, Chris Mitchell :

The sad fact is that for most of the anti-war Left, the only thing that matters is delivering a defeat to the Bush administration, and in achieving that end the Iraqi people are expendable.

The anti-war, anti-American Left should be ashamed, but precisely for this reason they continue to look away when Iraq doesn't fail in the way they wish.

What absolute twaddle.

Mitchell clearly still believes in the fantasy that only 'The Left' are opposed to war on defenceless people. That means something like 70% of Australians, and even a greater number of Americans, must be 'Lefties'.

This is yet more garbage about the fictional Left/Right paradigm so favoured by those who want to divide the populace into pro-this and anti-that, honing in on what supposedly divides the minority instead of focusing on what unites the vast majority.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians didn't march in the streets of towns and cities across the nation in early 2003 because they wanted the United States to be defeated in Iraq. They marched because they didn't want Iraqis to be slaughtered in an illegal war. They knew they were being conned, by media like The Australian, and they knew that the War On Iraq would lead to massive civilian death tolls and untold suffering.

The 'pro-peace' movement so despised by an ever depleting slice of Australian and American 'conservatives' are now supposed to be furious that the death rate of Iraqis is dropping?

This is maniacal spin of the most chilling kind.

The editor of The Australian, Chris Mitchell, is deploying his version of the fabled "six more months" argument rolled out by so many talking heads on American news shows through the past four years. If we stay "six more months" everything will be just wonderful and dreamy.

To try and now claim that the pro-peace movement is disappointed by the very recent reduction in Iraqi civilian deaths is just plain bizarre, and incredibly insulting to every Australian war veteran (thousands of them) who protested the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq because they knew, from experience, that war simply doesn't work when it comes to solving a problem like that posed by Saddam Hussein and his alleged arsenal of WMDs. The very same veterans who shook their heads in disgust when newspapers like The Australian enthusiastically pumped the fable that the Iraq War would have only a small number of civilian deaths.

It's not the pro-peace movement who have to rethink their positions on the War On Iraq. Their concerns and fears were proven right by the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed or maimed, the appalling insurgency, the horrific humanitarian crisis, the millions more who were forced to flee their homes and their country and the continuing destruction of the nation's infrastructure.

It is the pro-war mob who have to admit that they were wrong to back an illegal war against a mostly defenceless country, in the face of untold warnings about NeoCon lies on WMDs, and of the tribal and ethnic massacres and guerilla warfare that would inevitably follow the invasion.

Chris Mitchell also writes :

It is far too early to declare victory...

Declare victory? Nobody, except Murdoch mouthpieces like Chris Mitchell, is ever going to officially declare 'Victory' in the War On Iraq.

Not even President Bush mentions the 'V' word much any more.

War was not the right answer when it came to Iraq, no matter how much those who were so very involved in dispensing and pumping the BushCo. propaganda campaign in this country, like Chris Mitchell, to try and dupe Australians into backing the Iraq War fiasco, want to believe it all worked out for the best.

Chris Mitchell and the massed ranks Murdoch propagandists failed to get even one-third of the country on side back in early 2003 to support the illegal invasion, and they fail still in their gruesome efforts to find diamonds amongst all the death and destruction unleashed upon Iraq.

Mitchell should be ashamed of himself.


The Suicide Soldier Epidemic : 6000 'War On Terror' Veterans Killed Themselves In 2005