Australia's Painted Desert

image from The Australian

Only a handful of people know the true location of one of Australia's most stunning natural treasures.

Australia's 'Painted Desert' is located in the South Australian outback and sits on land owned by a handful of farmers, and they don't want anyone to know that it's there.

Fear of 4WDs trashing the apparently fragile, extremely ancient landscape being Fear Number One.

South Australian Tourism Commission chief Bill Spurr - who flew hours through the outback to reach the location last week - told The Weekend Australian it offered a glimpse of some of the world's most stunning natural formations.

"Imagine a lunar landscape with conical shaped mountains stretching across the horizon," he said. "Now imagine the area covered in a patchwork of rich ochre, ranging from mustard to iron-ore red and whites. That's the beauty of the painted desert."

William Creek-based pilot Trevor Wright is one of the few people who have seen the clay and iron-oxide formations estimated to cover an expanse 20km wide and 10km long.

"The people who look after it guard it with their lives," Mr Wright said. "It was known about for years on the stations, but they wanted to keep it secret because of its fragility."

Paeleontologist Jim Gehling said the rocks were probably formed as a result of millions of years of climate change.

"The climate has gone from glacial to wet and semi-tropical over millions of years," Dr Gehling said. "Australia's landscape has only really dried up in the last three million years or so.

"What you're looking at is the leftover effects of about 50million years of climate change."

Adelaide University geologist John Foden said the rock formations were extraordinary.

The changing colours were the result of oxidation, he said. "The desert landscapes are red because of the oxidation of iron in the rocks. And you get leach zones where the iron has leached away and sections are white."

The Very Best Of John Howard On The First Six Weeks Of The War On Iraq


John Howard Little Digger sculpture image grabbed from here


"....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. If Iraq gets away with this, if Iraq stares us all down, she will certainly not abandon her weapons then." 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

"I think there’s a very big connection between Iraq and North Korea and the connection is this, if the Security Council and the world community can’t discipline Iraq it has no hope of disciplining North Korea." February, 16, 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

"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

"You don't make parallels with history when you are dealing with contemporary events." March 18, 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. I would think during the transitional phase we may retain during that transitional phase - I'm not talking about a period of 12 months or two years, but the immediate period of the transitional phase - we could retain some niche contribution of military forces in order to assist in the immediate transition phase. But we certainly don't intend to have a significant army of peacekeepers." April 10, 2003

"...the same thing with the civilian casualties. Of course there were. 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

"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’s one thing, as I say, to have a short, sharp, highly professional, highly effective contribution when it’s really hot. It’s another thing to have a very long commitment of a large number of regulars."

"...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

IT'S UN-AUSTRALIAN TO BE ANTI-AMERICAN

ENGLAND SEES THE UNITED STATES AS AN EMPIRCAL PLAGUE ON THE WORLD

Some light fluff here about an alleged rise of anti-American sentiment amongst Australians.

No solid examples of this claimed anti-Americanism are cited, just vague generalisations and a threat that such a rise in anti-American sentiment could have dire consequences...of some kind.

Apparently far too many Australians are too willing to think of Americans as "stupid" or "dumb".

And this opinion piece attempts to argue that this is dangerous, unacceptable and downright un-Australian :

When communist China enjoys a higher standing than the world's oldest democracy in opinion polls...and phrases such as "dumb Americans" and "stupid Americans" as well as other dismissive remarks can be used in everyday conversation without any sense of opprobrium, it's time to get serious about the long-term health of US-Australian relations.

There is a ferocity with which Americans are being lampooned, and it can apply to anything - accents, food, entertainment, social graces, fashion, weight, as well as their supposed lack of intelligence and insensitivity to other cultures. And it is the banal and crude nature of such jabs that differentiate anti-Americanism from plain and reasonable criticism of US foreign policy and attitudes, making it a prime candidate for the status of a prejudice.

....parodies of Americans as stupid hillbillies, wild cowboys or just plain dumb have little to do with reality but everything to do with earlier myths of slant-eyed and conspiratorial Asians. It's the return of prejudice, but with an added vengeance.

The problem with all this is, of course, the fact that the majority of television and movies screened in Australia that parody Americans as "stupid hillbillies, wild cowboys or just plain dumb" are made by....Americans.

You can turn on any commercial network channel any night of the week and within a couple of hours you will see such cliched American characters being played for laughs, or for the fear factor, if the show happens to be related to crime.

In fact, it is America's entertainment industry that panders to these cliches, constantly.

It's hard to think of a single British or Australian movie which has recently featured lead American characters hitting these cliche red alerts anywhere near as hard as TV shows like 'My Name Is Earl' and movies like 'The Dukes Of Hazzard'.

Our cinemas are full of American-made movies starring American actors protraying American characters obsessed with sex, violence, money, guns, consumerism and with no real interest in the world outside their own shores.

So what are Australians supposed to think when America itself makes bllions from sending these cliched characters out into the entertainment world market?

While Australia has decisively ditched earlier forms of bigotry, the pervasiveness of anti-American sentiment or prejudice is growing. But unlike other forms of discrimination, it is stigma free....insults and cheap shots have increasingly substituted intelligent debate on American policy. Neither practice bodes well for the long-term future of the relationship.

It's academic, waffle-twaddle. The majority of Australians judge people on how they act and interact when they meet them for themselves.

Australia is widely regarded as one of the most tolerant countries on the planet, and Americans are deeply entrenched in our culture and our national psyche.

If some Australians think that Americans are "dumb" or "stupid", well maybe that's because those Australians met Americans that they thought were dumb or stupid, or watched too many US shows where Americans were portrayed as dumb or stupid.

It doesn't have to be anymore sinister than that.

While American tourists are finding themselves being aggressively confronted by strangers in the streets of England and across the EU, mostly for the actions of their president, few Americans are complaining that they are facing racism, or intolerance, or abuse, when they visit Australia.

To portray the honest reactions of Australians to their encounters with Americans as some ultra-threat to the future of Australian-American relations is absurd and it's anti-Australian.

Per capita, we are the largest consumer of American entertainment products (movies, music, TV shows, video games) in the world. If we didn't like what them, and we didn't like their gear, we wouldn't be buying so much of it.

There's a growing attempt at society-shaping by some who want to see Australia far more integrated into American business, politics and culture more than we already are.

But we are not a state of the US, and we are one of the last of their world allies who do not view this allegiance as negative or dangerous.

As usual, the culture that America sends out to the world through its entertainment industries in exchange for billions of dollars, is not taken into account for how Americans are perceived. Television, in particular, is a powerful and vastly influential medium for shaping peoples' minds and perceptions, and ingraining beliefs.

This is why the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, spends more taxpayer funds on television advertising than any other Australian leader since the medium first rolled out across the nation.

If Americans, generally, are worried about Australians thinking that they're stupid and dumb - and there is little evidence in the American media to show this is does concern them - then it's up to their cultural exporters to help change those perceptions.

And it's up to the President, as well, to talk and explain himself and his actions like one of the most powerful leaders in the world when he makes national, and with growing frequency, international addresses, not to laugh it up like he's still snapping towels in college locker rooms.

Bush is the American face most frequently seen on the news in most of the world, and people in most of the world find it genuinely creepy and disturbing that he feels the need to smile so much when talking about mass murder in Iraq and torture in his own military prisons.

But, Australians know that Bush is not all of America, just as John Howard is not all of Australia.

Americans know they are always welcome in Australia, and that the vast majority of Australians are happy to talk to them, show them around and teach them a bit about our country and culture.

It's in England that the US now has some extremely serious public perception problems, according to a new survey :

More than half of those interviewed regard the United States as an imperial power bent on ominating the world.

A majority of Britons think American culture and the actions of the Bush administration are making the world a worse place to live in, and almost no one thinks the United States is now, if it ever was, a beacon to the world...

More than three-quarters of Britons think President Bush is a "poor" or even "terrible" world leader, and almost as many think his rhetoric about promoting the cause of democracy in the world is a cover to promote U.S. national interests.

Americans are still held in high regard in Britain, but America's role in the world is not. The so-called "special relationship" may still thrive in official government circles, but it obviously has atrophied among the British public.

It's not all bad news, however. As with polls taken recently in countries across Europe, and the Middle East, it's Bush Co and the 'War On Terror' that seems to be inflicting the major damage on how the world now regards the US in general.

A large majority of Britons like Americans either "a little" (49 percent) or "a lot" (21 percent), and 54 percent are inclined to feel positively about the United States in general. There are certainly few signs in YouGov's findings of an across-the-board anti-American prejudice.

Fully 69 percent of Britons say their overall opinion of the United States has worsened in recent years.

Fewer than one-quarter, 22 percent, think the Bush administration's policies and actions make the world a better place. And 65 percent regard U.S. influence in the world today as predominantly malign.

...77 percent (of Britons) were startled by the idea that the United States may be setting the rest of the world a good example.

The Gallup Poll in 1975 found that 27 percent of Britons had considerable confidence in U.S. leadership.

That figure has fallen to 12 percent.

Court Declares David Hicks' Military Trial Would Be Illegal

Prime Minister Howard Blames "Bad Advice"...Yet Again

Prime Minister John Howard likes to boast, in private, that he can get Australian terror suspect David Hicks freed from Guantanamo Bay any time he likes just by calling his good mates George & Dick.

But how quickly Howard changes his tune when he realises how big an election issue the David Hicks saga may become.

From news.com :

Prime Minister John Howard has urged the US to find a quick alternative for dealing with terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay after the inmates won a major court victory. In a blow to US President George W Bush and the US military, America's Supreme Court has ruled the controversial military commissions set up to prosecute Australian David Hicks and other Guantanamo prisoners were illegal.

Mr Howard said he was not embarrassed by the ruling but admitted his government, and the US administration, were incorrectly advised that the military commission process was lawful.

He said the US government had to move fast to find another process to try Hicks and the other detainees at the US naval base in Cuba.

"What now has to happen is that, quite quickly in my view, the administration has to decide how it will deal with the trial of the people who are being held," he told Southern Cross broadcasting.

"Our view in relation to Mr Hicks is that he should be brought to trial.

"As the military commission trial is regarded by the court as unconstitutional, there clearly has to be another method of trial – a court martial or a civilian trial – which conforms with the supreme court decision."

From the Sydney Morning Herald :

Australian terror detainee David Hicks's military lawyer said he was not surprised by Thursday's US Supreme Court ruling upholding a challenge against military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay inmates.

The decision will have major implications for Hicks, who has faced a military commission, but is yet to face trial.

Marine Major Michael Mori, the US military lawyer appointed to defend Hicks, said the ruling did not surprise him.

"The military lawyers who have been defending the defendants at Guantanamo have been saying this all along," Major Mori said.

"Any real lawyer who isn't part of the administration knows this violates the Geneva Conventions."

From news.com :

Mr Howard said he was not embarrassed by the ruling but admitted his government, and the US administration, were incorrectly advised that the military commission process was lawful.

He said the US Government had to move fast to find another process to try Hicks and the other detainees at the US naval base in Cuba.

"What now has to happen is that, quite quickly in my view, the administration has to decide how it will deal with the trial of the people who are being held," he told Southern Cross broadcasting.

"Our view in relation to Mr Hicks is that he should be brought to trial.

"As the military commission trial is regarded by the court as unconstitutional, there clearly has to be another method of trial - a court martial or a civilian trial - which conforms with the supreme court decision."

Federal Human Services Minister Joe Hockey said it was up to Mr Bush to decide what to do with Hicks.

"We have been pushing and pushing the US Government to put him to trial - to try him and have him convicted," he said.

"There has been a lot of legal argy bargy.

"Now the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the US, has said that they believe the Guantanamo Bay process is wrong ... and the ball is now back in President Bush's court.

"Obviously, we will be waiting for the US Government to find out what they will do now with Hicks."

Quotes From Key Players In The Gitmo Fiasco :

PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH:

"As I understand it - now, please don't hold me to this - ... there is a way forward with military tribunals in working with the United States Congress. As I understand, certain senators have already been out expressing their desire to address what the Supreme Court found. And we will work with the Congress.

"And one thing I'm not going to do, though, is I'm not going to jeopardise the safety of the American people. People got to understand that. I understand we're in a war on terror, that these people were picked up off of a battlefield, and I will protect the people and at the same time conform with the findings of the Supreme Court.

LT. CMDR. CHARLES SWIFT, a lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, defendant in the case before the US Supreme Court:

"All we wanted was a fair trial and we thank the Supreme Court. Yes it is a rebuke for the process. ... It means we can't be scared out of who we are."

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL:

"Today's Supreme Court ruling blocking the military commissions set up by President George W. Bush is a victory for the rule of law and human rights. The US administration should ensure that those held in Guantanamo should be either released or brought before civilian courts on the US mainland."

ZACHARY KATZNELSON, lawyer for 36 Guantanamo inmates including Ethiopian Binyam Muhammad, one of 10 who faced charges before the military commission:

"I think its a fantastic victory for us. It's a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court to President Bush. They clearly have said he is not above the law and that the men at Guantanamo absolutely have rights, and the military commissions are just blatantly illegal."

US SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY, Vermont Democrat on Judiciary Committee:

"For five years, the Bush-Cheney administration has violated fundamental American values, tarnished our standing in the world and hindered the partnerships we need with our allies. This arrogance and incompetence have delayed and weakened the handling of the war on terror, not because of any coherent strategic view it had, but because of its stubborn unilateralism and dangerous theory of unfettered power.

SENATORS LINDSEY GRAHAM AND JON KYL, Republicans of South Carolina and Arizona:

"We are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision. ... It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. ... We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions.

SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts Democrat:

"This decision is a stunning repudiation of the Bush administration's lawless behaviour at Guantanamo. As we approach the Fourth of July, it is entirely appropriate that the Supreme Court has reminded the president and Secretary Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law, even when our country is at war."

MICHAEL MORI, a military lawyer appointed to defend Australian prisoner David Hicks before the tribunals:

"It doesn't come as a shock to me. The military lawyers who have been defending the defendants at Guantanamo have been saying this all along. Any real lawyer who isn't part of the administration knows this violates the Geneva Conventions."

FARHAT PARACHA, whose husband was sent to Guantanamo in 2004 after 15 months at a detention centre in Afghanistan:

"There is no justice. They have no rights, even don't have status of prisoners of war. It reminds me of the medieval era. ... Really, it is not serving any purpose but triggering more and more hatred."

Supreme Court Completely Rejects Gitmo War Crimes Trials

Supreme Cout Decision Is "A Nail In The Coffin For The Idea That The President Can Set Up These Trials"

Alexander Downer Lobbied Washington, Baghdad In 2003 On Behalf Of BHP

Excerpts from this Sydney Morning Herald article :

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, warned BHP Billiton that pushing for control of an Iraqi oilfield straight after invasion would be "very sensitive" because the US-led coalition had made it clear "there would not be blood for oil".

Despite this Mr Downer agreed he would raise the company's claim over the huge Halfayah oilfield with Washington and the head of the post-war occupation government in Iraq, Paul Bremer, according to documents released yesterday by the Cole inquiry into the Oil for Food scandal.

A highly confidential record of the meeting between Mr Downer and BHP Billiton executives written by the Department of Foreign Affairs details their discussion of the project in London in May 2003, only weeks after the Saddam Hussein government fell.

The document reveals an extraordinary effort by BHP Billiton to get its share of the Halfayah oilfield, one of the richest in the country, by lobbying the key players in postwar Iraq.

The executives told Mr Downer the company had already lobbied Arthur Sinodinos, the chief adviser to the Prime Minister, John Howard, and were about to approach Downing Street and the US Vice-President Dick Cheney.

In a frank assessment of the power structure under the occupation government in Baghdad, the executives told Mr Downer they had a key contact there, the former boss of Shell Oil in America, Philip Carroll, who had been hand-picked by the White House to advise the new Iraqi oil minister. Mr Carroll also had a number of Iraqi exiles with him who had worked for the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

"The Australian Government had said sincerely that it had not joined coalition forces on the basis of oil," Mr Downer is recorded saying. "Wise judgement suggested it was the Iraqis themselves who needed to be awarding the oil contracts.

"That said, Mr Downer agreed he would raise the matter both in Washington and in Baghdad with Paul Bremer. He would also have it raised with the Oil Ministry in Baghdad."

The document also clearly sets out of the first time that real relationship between BHP Billiton and the controversial company Tigris, its joint venture partner in Iraq.

Tigris has been accused in evidence to the Cole inquiry of being involved in a major fraud in the UN's Oil For Food program to assist Australia's wheat trader, AWB.

According to the document, Mr Harley told Mr Downer: "Tigris was responsible for maintaining relationships with [Saddam Hussein's] Iraq by working Oil for Food projects until a normal political situation could be established in Iraq.

"This arrangement was judged by all parties to give Australia the maximum chance of securing the Halfayah field investment."

The Cole inquiry also released a bundle of new documents from AWB and the UN supporting evidence to the Cole inquiry that AWB knowingly paid hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime to maintain its wheat contracts in Iraq.

Several Iraqi documents written by Saddam Hussein's officials between August and December 2000 detail orders to Iraqi ministers to collect kickbacks and fees on humanitarian shipments to Iraq under the UN Oil for Food program and transfer the money back into government coffers.

The Full Story Is Here

Howard Government Denies Conspiracy to Overthrow Government Of East Timor

World Bank Now "Stands Ready To Assist" East Time After PM Kept Them Out For Years

By Darryl Mason


This remarkable image by Glenn Campbell appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The rumours and whispers have grown so strong, so convincing, that now even the Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello, has been forced to publicly state Australia did not play a r0le in overthrowing the government of East Timor.

"It's absolutely false that Australia has intervened in any way in the political line-up in East Timor," he said on Channel 9.

"Australia, by the way, has troops that are serving, in difficult conditions, the East Timorese people, keeping law and order on the streets.

"Those troops are there at the invitation of the president and the then prime minister Mr Alkatiri. So they were asked to be there."

Well, that's not quite true now is it Mr Treasurer?

Australian ships and helicopters and ground vehicles and troops were sent to East Timor with the expectation that the Prime Minister Alkatiri would ask for Australian troops to come in and help out, at the height of the rioting, the burning and the killings last month. But he refused to commit for days, unsure of what the role of foreign peacekeepers should be in East Timor.

Alkatiri feared a coup back then, and warned his supporters that this might happen. Now he has been forced to quit, his supporters believe his prediction has come true.

When Australian troops entered East Timor there was still a bit of paperwork left to be signed, and the East Timorese Prime Minister Alkatiri was extremely reluctant to allow foreign troops into the country, no doubt forseeing his disposal.

Australian troops were allowed into East Timor mostly due to President Gusmao, who engaged in "shouting matches" with the Prime Minister in the days leading up to Australia's intervention.

The Australian Treasurer plays dumb when it comes to discussion of just how influence 1300 Australian troops, with gunned up trucks and Blackhawk helicopters, can have on local happenings in East Timor.

"To claim that they've engaged in domestic politics is absolutely false and I can say that for a fact."

This is a ridiculous thing to say and Costello knows it.

Any time foreign troops enter a sovereign country, and are seen to be protecting, or keeping watch over anti-government forces, as Australians did, then they are becoming involved in domestic politics.


It's not getting any better in East Timor. The government is in chaos after Alkatiri quit. and he is now being accused of arming kill squads to take out his political enemies in the early days of the current conflict.

Homes are being burned, Australian troops are having big time trouble keeping rival gangs from beating and stabbing ten kinds of hell out of each other, and even the displaced persons camps are being attacked and harassed.

Their bodies trembled with fear. They sobbed. They stared wide-eyed, heads bowed. They were mostly women and children, huddled at the gate of Dili's main wharf yesterday.

They had been chased there by anti-Alkatiri rioters who then stood on the road 20 metres away, screaming threats. "We're going to kill you all," a mob leader yelled. "You are all dead."

All that mattered to the rioters, who were frothing at the mouth and screaming incoherently, was that they believed the petrified women and children they had bailed up were from East Timor's east.

That's how far East Timor's conflict has gone: Timorese attacking strangers because of where they were born.

Australian troops are heavily restricted by their rules of engagement in East Timor. They can't open fire unless they feel their lives are directly threatened, but the rioters aren't targeting the troops. They go after women and children and the houses and businesses of those they view as their enemies.

...the soldiers must remain "neutral". Major James Baker, the spokesman for Australia's peacekeeping force in Dili, said: "Our soldiers are taught to have a measured response to defuse any situation which might arise. Our job is to make sure the feuding parties are separated."

The soldiers separate them, but then the rioters run around the block and attack each other, or innocent passers-by, all over again.

The soldiers jumped out and chased the culprits, one of them screaming "Come here, you little f---ers." The soldier ran down and grabbed the slowest by the neck before bundling him into one of the vehicles. The rest of the rioters escaped, free to terrorise elsewhere.

Australian journalist John Pilger has covered events in East Timor from the early 1970s, when Australia first refused to interfere with the ongoing Indonesian genocide that wiped out 1/3 of the entire population over the next two decades. Here's an excerpt of his take on what's happening in East Timor today :

These days Australia likes to present itself as a helpful, generous neighbor of East Timor, after public opinion forced the government of John Howard to lead a UN peacekeeping force six years ago.

East Timor is now an independent state, thanks to the courage of its people and a tenacious resistance led by the liberation movement Fretilin, which in 2001 swept to political power in the first democratic elections. In regional elections last year, 80 percent of votes went to Fretilin, led by Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri, a convinced "economic nationalist," who opposes privatization and interference by the World Bank.

Barely three days after Prime Minister Alkatiri stepped down, the World Bank has made it known that it "stands ready to assist in any way we can."

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz was one of the most insidious of all the NeoCons who lied their country into the brutal 'War On Iraq', later admitting that the story of Saddam's WMDs was just a cover story to help sell the war.

Wolfowitz has now got his World Bank sights well and truly set on East Timor, after being denied extensive exploitation rights by Alkatiri for the past six years. Not anymore. Says Wolfowitz :

"This chance for a united approach to peace and recovery may not come again."

That almost sounds like a threat.

Go Here For Extensive Coverage From May 28, When Australian Troops Had Just Entered East Timor

Go To 'Your New Reality' Blog For Coverage On How The Current Troubles In East Timor Began And Quickly Spiralled Out Of Control.

Another Slab of Coverage Here

The Most Influential Australian Of All Time Is....An American

By Darryl Mason

It just makes your heart swell with Australian pride to discover that 'The Most Influential Australian Of All Time' actually turns out to be an American.

The Bulletin Magazine has oh-so-pomously decided that some ex-Australian media mogul named Rupert Murdoch deserves to be called 'The Most Influential Australian', despite the fact that he didn't think being an Australian citizen was worth as much as owning a few American television stations.

That Murdoch is ranked above deeply patriotic, committed, passionate Australians like Fred Hollows, Manning Clark, Jack Lang, Henry Lawson, Damien Parar and Banjo Patterson makes this Australian icon branding of Murdoch all the more absurd.

Murdoch gave up his Australian citizenship for the benefit of no-one but himself. It wasn't an act of charity or generosity, and he didn't do it for love. He did it for money and power and his own prestige.

He was told he couldn't own TV stations in the US unless he became an American citizen, and so he very quickly dumped his right to be called an Australian like it was a smelly old coat he could now afford to replace.

People risk their lives to try and get to this country to become Australian citizens, and often have to spend a few years in a detention centre before they are extended this honour. They swear allegiance to Australia and expect nothing but the right to call themselves Australian in return.

But Rupert Murdoch thought his Australian citizenship was worth LESS than....Fox News.

"I think that we're on the cusp of a better world," Murdoch said during a speech in Sydney yesterday. "A world of certainly very fast change, change which we can't all foresee except we know it's going to be tremendous."

The Murdoch News media empire were the chief cheerleaders of the War On Iraq, and his television network, newspapers, book publishers and radio shows were the loudest promoters of the 'Saddam's Got Nukes' myth.

His media empire has profited to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars from the 'War On Iraq' and are now whipping up further distrust and hatred of Muslims in anticipation of more big dollars coming from a War On Iran. It should come as no suprise that Murdoch's media attack dogs are now claiming 'Iran's Got/Wants Nukes'.

According to the Australian Prime Minister and the Australian Treasurer, Rupert Murdoch is also "a great Australian', a claim they've both made numerous times, knowing full well that Murdoch sold out his nationality simply to make more money.

Murdoch is neither "A Great Australian" or 'The Most Influential Australian Of All Time'.

He is an ex-Australian, by choice, and there's nothing more insidiously un-Australian than that.


The Full List Of The 100 Most Influential Australians

The Sydney Morning Herald decided to run the list, as it should have been run in The Bulletin - in alphabetical order.

We'll come back to discuss some of the people on this list later. Rupert Murdoch is certainly not the most controversial choice on the list, particularly when it includes an Australian serial killer and a colonial-era armed robber and cop slayer.

Dennis Altman sexual theorist

John Anderson philosopher

Eric Ansell rubber manufacturer

J.F. Archibald journalist and editor

Faith Bandler political activist

Lewis Bandt ute designer

Geoffrey Bardon art teacher

C.E.W. Bean journalist and war historian

Geoffrey Blainey historian

Thomas Blamey military commander

J.J.C. Bradfield civil engineer

Donald Bradman cricketer

Martin Bryant mass murderer

Arthur Calwell federal politician

Manning Clark historian

H.C. "Nugget" Coombs public servant

Alfred Deakin prime minister

Owen Dixon High Court judge

Peter Dombrovskis wilderness photographer

Don Dunstan state premier

Michael Durack cattle pioneer

Sydney Einfeld advocate

Elizabeth Evatt jurist

William Farrer wheat breeder

Howard Florey pathologist

John Flynn missionary

Margaret Fulton cookery writer

Eugene Goossens conductor

Al Grassby federal politician

Germaine Greer feminist

Reg Grundy television producer

Michael Gudinski music entrepreneur

Pauline Hanson federal politician

Henry Higgins industrial relations judge

Fred Hollows eye surgeon

Donald Horne journalist and academic

John Howard prime minister

William Hudson dam builder

Robert Hughes art critic

A.V. Jennings home builder

Peter Jensen Anglican archbishop

Fletcher Jones clothing manufacturer

Susannah Kable First Fleet convict

Paul Keating prime minister

Ned Kelly bushranger

Allan Kendall children's TV producer

Graham Kennedy television personality

Michael Kirby High Court judge

Jack Lang state premier

Henry Lawson poet and writer

Essington Lewis industrialist

Ben Lexcen yacht designer

Norman Lindsay artist and writer

Frank Lowy business leader

John Macarthur wool pioneer

Jean MacNamara health campaigner

Daniel Mannix Catholic archbishop

William McBride medical researcher

Robert Menzies prime minister

Kylie Minogue entertainer

John Monash general

Allan Moss banker

Jack Mundey environmentalist and unionist

Glenn Murcutt architect

Rupert Murdoch business leader

Sidney Myer retailer and philanthropist

Albert Namatjira painter

Garth Nettheim legal theorist

Sidney Nolan painter

Gustav Nossal medical institute director

Kerry Packer business leader

Damien Parer war photographer

Ruth Park writer

Henry Parkes politician

Banjo Paterson poet

Noel Pearson Aboriginal activist and lawyer

Charles Perkins Aboriginal activist

George Robertson bookseller and publisher

W.S. Robinson industrialist and mining financier

Eric Rudd oil explorer

B.A. Santamaria Catholic activist

James Scullin prime minister

Peter Sculthorpe composer

Peter Singer philosopher

John Singleton advertising guru

Dick Smith businessman and adventurer

W.E.H. Stanner anthropologist

Jessie Street suffragette

Charles Todd meteorologist and electrical engineer

Bertram Wainer abortion campaigner

Edna Walling garden designer

Shane Warne cricketer

Peter Weir filmmaker

WIlliam Wentworth explorer and politician

Patrick White writer

Gough Whitlam prime minister

Alec Wickham swimmer

David Williamson playwright

Tom Wills football code creator

Tim Winton writer