When I wrote that Peter Garrett’s position was untenable back on 11 February, I had assumed that he would have departed by now.
It seems that I might have been wrong with a common view now being put that Garrett will survive as a weakened minister because the Prime Minister can ill afford to lose a minister at this stage of the political cycle.
This is very sad. While I disagree with much of what Garrett stands for politically, I’ve always thought of him as an honourable person who had strong principles.
I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t resign. His conscience must be torn – he is clearly upset that his pet project has gone so awry. He is very aware of ministerial standards and responsibility for the design and implementation of the insulation program rests entirely on his shoulders. Is it so important to remain a minister? There are so many better things in life he could be doing.
Come on Peter – follow your conscience and resign on principle. You’ll feel better for doing so and you will be doing the right thing.
I agree that Garrett should resign. Unfortunately the style of governance that informs that view has long passed. When abominations such as Amanda Vanstone and the truly creepy Kevin Andrews kept on keeping on, we knew those halcyon days of the ‘Westminster system’ of ministerial responsibility had become as quaint as hand-written thank-you letters.
Peter Patton
24 Feb 10 at 7:58 am
PP For me the best (in the sense of clearest) example of the abandonment of the Westminster system is Howard’s failure to resign after it was discovered that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Taking your country to war on grounds that turn out to be factually wrong must be as bad a mistake as a leader can make.
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 8:47 am
What is the history with celebrity candidates being forced to resign?
Has there been another celebrity candidate who has been responsible for as bad a debacle as Garrett?
It is good to see that you (Sam J) are not vllifying him personally as people on the left did with the ministers who were sacked from the previous government.
Karl Kessel
24 Feb 10 at 9:00 am
ken n
To be fair, it is not strictly appropriate to shepherd Howard in with Bush and Blair. Howard was much cleverer in the ambiguity of his justification for committing Australia to Iraq. His line was much more in the style of ‘the mother country [this time the U.S.] is at war, and so therefore are we,’ than Bush/Blair’s blatant first-hand claims.
But I agree, the whole incident once more showed that the ‘Westminster system’ was dead. But I put the blame at a slightly earlier stage. The fact that Howard committed Australia, without a proper public parliamentary debate, made a me a convert to a radical form of ‘republicanism.’
In that circumstance, ideally a popularly-elected President would have had sufficient Reserve powers to reject the unilateral authority of the PM – or executive – and to demand a parliamentary debate take place in full glare of the electorate. Even as the constitution stands today, the G-G already has those powers and then some. The fact s/he would not exercise those powers in a pink fit is more evidence our Constitution needs a makeover.
Peter Patton
24 Feb 10 at 9:10 am
Ken
Don’t be such a pansy.
Everybody on all sides of politics believed that Iraq had WMDs. Acting on a reasonable belief is not a resignation offence. Complete incompetence is, and Mr Garrett’s departnment has been incompetent. So has the PM, whose finger marks are all over every fiasco of this government. It is in truth he who should resign.
Rococo Liberal
24 Feb 10 at 9:11 am
agree with RL here Ken, stop being such an unpragmatic peacenik.
Our engagement in Iraq cost us very little but demonstrated our commitment to our main ally whose military might we expect to cheap ride on in bad times. Howard made a great decision.
jtfsoon
24 Feb 10 at 9:16 am
RL
1. I disagree. Howard should have gone.
It would have been the honourable thing to do and, just incidentally, it might have given the Libs a chance of winning the election.
2. I agree. Garrett should go.
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 9:19 am
RL & jfts – you are amateurs at personal abuse.
If that’s the best you can do I might as well go back to JQ’s place and annoy one of his attack dogs.
And RL, saying “Everybody on all sides of politics believed that Iraq had WMDs” is the old “it was an easy mistake to make” defence. Not really a get out for participating in a war.
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 9:23 am
Well done to Peter and ken for the derail.
Can’t you handle discussing Garrett?
Karl Kessel
24 Feb 10 at 9:46 am
KK I thought that we’d done Garrett as thoroughly as he deserves.
What’s left?
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 9:48 am
Come on Peter – follow your conscience
.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 10:14 am
Everybody on all sides of politics believed that Iraq had WMDs.
.
I didn;t.
.
Acting on a reasonable belief is not a resignation offence.
.
It wasn;t reasonable belief. It was shameful bullshit. If you’re going to launcgh a colonial resource war at least have the honour to admit that that’s what your doing. Everyone on all sides of politics knew that the real reason for the Iraq War was to nix pesky Saddam and get the Texas Tea flowing again.
.
That’s nasty but it’s true. And in realpolitik terms necessary. But own your sins boyo.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 10:17 am
will you two pissy pants get off it?
you can pin all you want on Bush and Blair but you haven’t addressed the point that for Australia, our participation in the war was basically an excellent investment in realpolitik alliance maintenance with the US. We don’t expect those European pansies to help us so there was no cost to pissing them off.
jtfsoon
24 Feb 10 at 10:21 am
Seriously Jason, I suspect a major reason Howard was so willing to participate was the fact that he was in Washington on 9/11 and felt the shock of the first attack on the US mainland in however many 100 years.
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 10:24 am
Anyway, I don’t think anyone here dissents from the view that Garrett should go. But it’s clear that he won’t.
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 10:26 am
Karl
While the point for you might be to provide an opportunity for huffing and puffing ad hominem, for others, any judgement requires a clarification of one’s attitude to ministerial responsibility. I know, I know, wouldn’t it be great if we could dispense with all this pansying around and live in Alice’s Wonderland, where we could demand, “sentence first, evidence later!”?
Peter Patton
24 Feb 10 at 10:56 am
jtfsoon
When you have family and friends in the ADF, it becomes unconscionable to be so flippant with justifications for war as “an investment.”
Peter Patton
24 Feb 10 at 11:04 am
PP
There is nothing flippant about realpolitik considerations. We honour our alliance with the US under the assumption that they will be of some help in future. it’s not an iron clad contract but it’s a ptetty important understanding.
We have deployed our troops for operations that have far less utility and seem to be motivated by partly altruistic/foreign aid reasons which have little to do with long term national security whereas maintaining our investment in our military alliances is important for national security.
jtfsoon
24 Feb 10 at 11:17 am
Calling something an ‘investment’ doesn’t cheapen things in my book, they make them more valuable. read my sentences in some other language if you rpefer.
jtfsoon
24 Feb 10 at 11:18 am
What statman fails to say is that this ‘reason’ was never given exante at all.
Indeed it took several years to germinate.
Also If Australia was attacked the ANZUS alliance means automatic help from the US.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
24 Feb 10 at 11:19 am
our participation in the war was basically an excellent investment in realpolitik alliance maintenance with the US
When you have family and friends in the ADF, it becomes unconscionable to be so flippant with justifications for war as “an investment.”
.
Jason’s right Peter. It was an excellent and wise investment, depending. John Howard was a student at the height the the Vietnam Protest Movement. He knew we wouldn’t tolerate a US war if it cost significant lives. On the other hand he wanted to re-buddy it up with America.
.
So he made a big song and dance of support and sent a few specialists.
.
From his point of view, the standard one in mainstream politics, this was the good politics. Our casualties are still negligible but Australia has ingratiated itself with American Hawks and that provides emotional incentive for them to honour their ANZUS obligations if it comes to that.
.
Trouble is his point of view assumes that things will not change. That our luck won’t run out. The United States will honour their ANZUS obligations if it’s in their interests to do so. Given the endless bleeding of their defense budget I’m not certain that their guarantees of our defense will continue to be in their interests.
.
We have always been protected by the World’s pre-eminent power. We cannot count on that persisting. We should count on the opposite.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 11:36 am
jtfsoon
The issue is not whether Australia decided to honor a margin call on an incalculably risky investment – if you consider US military savior much beyond a fantastic Cold War pipe dream, you are on the margins of security thinking on this issue. Rather the issue is the process by which forces were committed.
And no, your bright, shiny, and trendy fashion for “investment” is not worth a dime when confronted with the reality of just who is to be dispatched to meet your margin call.
Peter Patton
24 Feb 10 at 11:37 am
We don’t fund ANSTO for shits and giggles.
Jacques Chester
24 Feb 10 at 11:41 am
Adrien
I appreciated Howard’s – very clever and, yes, ultimately in the national address – tactic of minimizing Aussie casualties, while maximizing (and then some) Australian diplomatic capital. But the context of the discussion here is executive responsibility, and I do not think the Prime Minister should have the power to unilaterally commit Australian troops to third-party full-on WARS, especially when they are wars that do not have international multilateral support.
Now, I agree that the UN should never be seen as beyond reproach, nor the ultimate decider of our foreign policy. All I am saying that the circumstances of Iraq were too dodgey to allow the Prime Minister such power.
Peter Patton
24 Feb 10 at 11:44 am
oops, national interest not “address.”
Peter Patton
24 Feb 10 at 11:45 am
Adrien,
Given our large uranium resources I doubt that it would ever (at least, not for the forseeable future) be in the US national interests not to come to our aid. Besides, our army needs to be deployed into shooting zones from time to time it will end up like New Zealand’s.
Andrew Reynolds
24 Feb 10 at 11:47 am
I do not think the Prime Minister should have the power to unilaterally commit Australian troops to third-party full-on WARS, especially when they are wars that do not have international multilateral support.
.
Yep.
.
I agree that the UN should never be seen as beyond reproach
.
Yes but I’d put it differently. I’d say the UN is to organization what three turds from a mad dog in a blender to one part kerosene and two of Bangaladeshi street litter is to cocktail hour.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 11:49 am
“John Howard was a student at the height the the Vietnam Protest Movement. ”
Nup, he graduated from law school in 1961. Then he practised as a solicitor until he was elected in 1974.
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 11:49 am
When was the last time a fed minister lost their job due to anything at all but internal party ructions?
FDB
24 Feb 10 at 11:51 am
AR
When – not if, but when – China is strong enough, rich enough, and overpopulated enough that it cannot be bothered any longer with diplomatic niceties, and the minefield of international securities and trade law, it will decide to annex Australia. Sure, the US will be freaked out, but pretty powerless to do anything. Most probably the optimal strategy will be US acquiescence in exchange for some Chinese geopolitical gesture that won’t help us one little bit.
Peter Patton
24 Feb 10 at 11:52 am
I agree with Adrien and Jason. Nothing wrong with realpolitik. National interest comes in many forms. If someone has the means and the will to cripple your economy through the control of, say, oil supplies, then that’s a big deal.
.
The United States will honour their ANZUS obligations if it’s in their interests to do so. Given the endless bleeding of their defense budget I’m not certain that their guarantees of our defense will continue to be in their interests.
.
It will almost certainly be in their interests to assist in defending Australia, in almost any concievable scenario. And it has nothing to do with Uranium. Australia is valuable to America for a ton of other reasons that are more important than uranium.
daddy dave
24 Feb 10 at 11:53 am
We don’t fund ANSTO for shits and giggles.
Given our large uranium resources I doubt that it would ever (at least, not for the forseeable future) be in the US national interests not to come to our aid. Besides, our army needs to be deployed into shooting zones from time to time it will end up like New Zealand’s.
.
Outstanding. You just don’t get that kind of realty on other blogs.
.
LP Reality: We should get rid of the Americans, turn all our guns into plowshares, foresake nuclear weapons and give Indonesian generals who read books about Saldon a group hug.
.
Menzies House Reality: Commie!
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 11:53 am
Nup, he graduated from law school in 1961.
.
Stand corrected.
.
I heard some anecdote that he used to demonstrate publically for the war. I thought he was a student and admired the guts if not the position.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 11:54 am
When – not if, but when – China is strong enough, rich enough, and overpopulated enough that it cannot be bothered any longer with diplomatic niceties
.
no, it’s “if.”
Nothing in the future is certain, least of all China’s continued rise.
daddy dave
24 Feb 10 at 11:54 am
Oops – That’s Saladin not Saldon.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 11:55 am
dd
Take your uncertainty to at least the parliament, if not the public square, before so flippantly sending our ADF friends and family off to the world’s nether regions.
Peter Patton
24 Feb 10 at 11:57 am
When was the last time a fed minister lost their job due to anything at all but internal party ructions?
FDB, you clown. 5 people are dead and 100 homes have burned down with 160,000 others in jeopardy and dangers of electrocution.
Are you suggesting Lurch should stay on? Seriously?
Personally I don’t mind how long Rudd keeps him on for. In fact I’d love to see lurch in the general election.
JC
24 Feb 10 at 12:02 pm
Nothing wrong with realpolitik
.
I don’t think so. There’s everything wronmg with it. It’s evil. It’s also a necessity. I look forward to a planet without it. And then after a 1000 years of Love we’re all too gentle to defend ourselves against the inevitable invasion of those who molested Mulder’s sister.
.
It will almost certainly be in their interests to assist in defending Australia, in almost any concievable scenario.
.
In the event that they can’t afford to? It’s always getting said here that Obama is bleeding money disastrously. Bush has set up permanent Imperial outposts which is one of the things that killed the Sovs. Andrew’s point about our resources is salient but the United States has managed to live with the routine of local populations getting fucked over without interupting the flow of goods. As long as they’re a large market whoever controls the uranium or whatever else will sell such to them.
.
But I think the more likely scenario is the one in which they are unable to defend us. Or if they try, cannot win. I’m not implying that we turf ‘em. I’m saying we are going to have to consider taking responsibility for our own defense and soon.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 12:02 pm
There’s everything wrong with it. It’s evil. It’s also a necessity.
.
There’s no such thing as a necessary evil. If it’s necessary, it isn’t evil.
.
In the event that they can’t afford to?
.
Sure, there’s always a cost calculation. It’s in their interests no matter how you cut it. Can they do it, can they afford it? That’s not the same thing. Right now they could. But the future can hold surprises.
.
But I think the more likely scenario is the one in which they are unable to defend us. Or if they try, cannot win. I’m not implying that we turf ‘em. I’m saying we are going to have to consider taking responsibility for our own defense and soon.
.
Absolutely. The only caveat being that I’m not as pessimistic as you and Peter about America’s decline. Their capability to help us will probably be around for a long time to come.
daddy dave
24 Feb 10 at 12:10 pm
“I’m saying we are going to have to consider taking responsibility for our own defense and soon.”
Perhaps. To do that properly would require a very large increase in defence spending. More likely is that the government of the day would do a New Zealand – drop out of ANZUS but fail to pay the price. Governments often do that kind of thing.
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 12:11 pm
Coming back to where we started this, if Howard had used the “my ally right or wrong argument” I’d be OK (I guess) on Iraq.
My objection is to him basing the war on facts that turned out to be wrong.
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 12:13 pm
If it’s necessary, it isn’t evil.
.
This is my trouble with conservatives. The need to self-decieve. Imagine being a Cambodian peasant, an Iraqi merchant. Someone whose got not much interest in and no inflence over politics. Your house gets bombed, your children are dead. You’re destitute ina wasteland suddenly.
.
It’s not evil?
.
Their capability to help us will probably be around for a long time to come.
.
I’m not being pessimistic I’m being realistic. They might be. I see the signs of stagnation. It’s a cycle and we’ve seen it before. There’s nothing happening in the States that says they won’t go thru it and lots to say they will.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 12:18 pm
ken n
The fact that so many people, especially on a site like this (!), do not share y/our view on executive responsibility is both chilling and a disappointing instance of at the least sloppy thinking (which can at least be remedied), but perhaps hypocrisy.
One wonders how raa-raa peeps here would be if the executive started compulsorily acquiring their land, as it was needed to house visiting US troops? And if in that process the executive set-up a body to assess ‘just’ compensation, and gave them all $10,000 per property acquired. After all, surely this is a bargain investment in our future security?
Peter Patton
24 Feb 10 at 12:21 pm
It’s not evil?
.
Yes, of course it is, in the sense that all war is evil. But “evil” is a human trait, not something ascribed to agentless events. What you meant was that the person who made the decision to start the war that led to that event was “evil”, or that they made an “evil” decision. But again, by your criterion (the suffering village), all decisions that involve violence are evil. All decisions that involve war (including entering war in self-defense) are evil. And hey, fair enough. That’s pacifism, a standard moral position that many people hold.
.
This is my trouble with conservatives. The need to self-decieve.
.
Who are you calling conservative? I’m very centrist, you know.
daddy dave
24 Feb 10 at 12:26 pm
This is my trouble with conservatives. The need to self-decieve.
Yes, this is a problem peculiar to conservatives. It must be so comforting to be, like yourself, not only post-partisan, but “beyond” self-deception. Oh, the irony.
dover_beach
24 Feb 10 at 12:35 pm
DD – What you meant was that the person who made the decision to start the war that led to that event was “evil”, or that they made an “evil” decision.
.
There are very few absolutely evil people, Hitler, Stalin, Phil Collins, but yes the decision is evil. It’s also unavoidable.
.
That’s pacifism, a standard moral position that many people hold.
.
Yes but I also know about necssity. Pacifrists feel more confortable not knowing.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 12:38 pm
“The fact that so many people, especially on a site like this (!), do not share y/our view on executive responsibility is both chilling and a disappointing”
Nah, just part of the great tapestry of varied opinion that makes this such a wonderful part of the internet.
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 12:38 pm
Oh, the irony.
.
What irony DB.
.
I am not beyond self-deception. I just feel that I am morally obliged not to self-deceive. A lot of conservatives believe the opposite. A lot of other people also. That said, the self-deception of conservatives is based more on reality than other kinds of ideological self-deception.
.
My ‘post-partisan’ position is simply one of individual interest. I have no interest in investing absolute loyalty to any ideology, party or movement.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 12:42 pm
BTW I think Garrett should stay. It’s harder to represent the Rudd govt as the Addamms family if he goes. I think Kevvie should be portrayed as Wednesday with glasses.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 12:45 pm
It’s harder to represent the Rudd govt as the Addamms family if he goes.
I didn’t know Julia Gillard could speak French!
Peter Patton
24 Feb 10 at 12:50 pm
Taking your country to war on grounds that turn out to be factually wrong must be as bad a mistake as a leader can make.
Neither Australia nor the US went to war on that basis alone. That they did is a myth. The reasons for war presented to the US Congress were multifaceted and, largely, incontrovertible.
…it might have given the Libs a chance of winning the election.
They won the election in 2004 – as did Bush. Iraq wasn’t much of an issue by 2007. Not that Rudd had much room to move on WMDs anyway:
“There is no debate or dispute as to whether Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. He does.”
- Kevin Rudd, Lateline, September 24, 2002.
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 1:00 pm
Tim Blair remembers Craig:
July, 2009:
February, 2010:
So long, Craig. Don’t take it personally.
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 1:04 pm
Garrett should not only be sacked he should be laughed at in the street. Ostracism has wonderful efficacy and in this instance is justified. The man has played dirty games with the Aus public. He has become the very thing he once despised.
Forget the partisan stuff, I find it annoying when issues like this are raised and then people say something like … but Howard blah blah blah … fucking irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have standards of behavior that are above partisan concerns. That people resort to defending Garrett or any pollie on the grounds that the other side is just as bad is a huge indictment on the integrity of our politicians and on the level of political debate in this country.
John H.
24 Feb 10 at 1:08 pm
“but Howard blah blah blah … fucking irrelevant”
Amen. The Liberals were still crapping on about the CAD in 1990 something a few years ago.
Get a clue: Pitchford thesis. The CAD doesn’t even matter!
Semi Regular Libertarian
24 Feb 10 at 1:11 pm
Garrett should not be sacked. I want him to stay on and help fight the election.
JC
24 Feb 10 at 1:14 pm
I want him to write a song about industrial deaths
tal
24 Feb 10 at 1:23 pm
Neither Australia nor the US went to war on that basis alone. That they did is a myth. The reasons for war presented to the US Congress were multifaceted and, largely, incontrovertible.
.
For some reason CL, I’m reminded of the dude that complained that he didn’t agree to some contractural obligation and the lawyer who replied “you didn’t read the fine print”. I’m not sure why.
.
Queen and country? Pah! Oil and hegemony.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 1:28 pm
It’s masculine hegemony Adrien
tal
24 Feb 10 at 1:32 pm
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 1:36 pm
When – not if, but when – China is strong enough, rich enough, and overpopulated enough that it cannot be bothered any longer with diplomatic niceties, and the minefield of international securities and trade law, it will decide to annex Australia
This is undoubtedly correct. That is why we should stop kissing the backsides of foreign governments or institutions such as the US, the UN, ASEAN, and nuke the fuck up. The new policy will be MAD on steroids: any violation of our sovereignty, from whichever direction, will trigger the instant nuclear destruction of every hostile power that we can reach, including Beijing, Moscow, Mecca, Jakarta, Pyongyang, and Tehran, even if only one of them were guilty. We’ll be the North Korea of the Indian-Pacific. And our policy will deliver peace for the next 100 years.
Michael Fisk
24 Feb 10 at 1:59 pm
The Chinese are devilishly clever. Strike the monster at its strongest point:
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Analysis_PLA_eyes_aircraft_carriers_999.html
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3307277
John H.
24 Feb 10 at 2:08 pm
It wasn’t “fine print,” Adrien. It was all laid out at length in the Iraq War Resolution. WMD were never the only reason for war. This was a myth invented by the Michael Moore left. (Who threw everything bar the kitchen sink at Bush in 2004 and failed). The war overthrew one of the worst mass murderers in modern history.
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 2:10 pm
The war overthrew one of the worst mass murderers in modern history.
.
This was all spelt out at the time by Bush. I remember he described clearly and in detail what an arsehole Saddam Hussein was, in addition to the WMD stuff.
daddy dave
24 Feb 10 at 2:18 pm
I am not beyond self-deception. I just feel that I am morally obliged not to self-deceive. A lot of conservatives believe the opposite.
Don’t dig yourself a larger hole, Adrien, please. Which ‘conservatives’ believe they are not “morally obliged not to self-deceive”?
dover_beach
24 Feb 10 at 2:25 pm
WMD were never the only reason for war.
They were the reason put to the UN security council, and they were the principle reason put to the respective citizens in Coalition countries. In fact, not only did Bush and co allege that Iraq had WMDs, they argued that a pre-emptive strike was necessary due to imminent risk of said WMDs being deployed.
THR
24 Feb 10 at 2:26 pm
I (sort of) agree Fisk, but suggest a non nuclear precision alternative, including missile defence. Cut the head off and the snake will die.
Conventionally armed SSBNs/MIRVs with 20 or so extended range curise missiles or JSOWs as the payload with conventional PGM warheads or multiple, precision guided sub-munitions.
Semi Regular Libertarian
24 Feb 10 at 2:28 pm
I thought they justified the war on an older UN resolution.
The whole deal was in bad faith. The UN and the US did not want to cooperate with each other.
Semi Regular Libertarian
24 Feb 10 at 2:30 pm
err no fellas Hussein was a threat to world peace and US security.
I do remember the detail of Powell’s UN presentation which he knows says was err incorrect.
Bush invaded Iraq for reasons we will never know. The ‘reasons changed so often they became meaningless.
By invading Iraq he wasted resources that should have been in Afghanistan eliminating both AQ and the Taliban.
His tactics would lead people to think he was in league with AQ
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
24 Feb 10 at 2:32 pm
…they were the principle reason put to the respective citizens in Coalition countries.
No, they weren’t. The Iraq War Resolution was the central instrument justifying the war and WMD were only one of many reasons. If WMD were considered especially worthy o emphasis, that was to be expected given that everyone believed they existed. The most militant advocates of this view were the US Democrats. Others included Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd. Bottom line: the war was just and legal. Most importantly, we won. Obama and Biden last week tried to claim credit for the achievement – much to the amusement of even rusted-on American liberals.
Bush invaded Iraq for reasons we will never know.
No, dopey, we do know them because they were presented to the Congress and passed.
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 2:40 pm
We also know that Bill Clinton bombed the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory because he insisted it was being run by Saddam Hussein for the benefit of Al Qaeda. Clinton also linked Saddam to Al Qaeda in the 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden for the US embassy bombings in Africa.
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 2:46 pm
CL:
Seen this. It was bullshit, by the looks of things… in so many ways.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/lamberts-pinker-tape-ambush-pr-stunt/
JC
24 Feb 10 at 2:46 pm
JC, I no longer take anything Lambert says seriously. His laughable defence of the Lancet proved beyond all reasonable doubt that he’s a left-wing extremist who uses “science” to wage ideological war against all those on his Nixonian enememis list. In fact, I probably realised that when he illegally swiped Tim Blair’s intellectual property so as to run a comments thread where everyone could agree with him. He’s a crank.
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 2:51 pm
Cl always forgets Bush and co was always changing the reasons for the invasion.
Yes the reasons presented to Congress were a crock
He has a problem with memory.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
24 Feb 10 at 2:52 pm
“FDB, you clown. 5 people are dead and 100 homes have burned down with 160,000 others in jeopardy and dangers of electrocution.
Are you suggesting Lurch should stay on? Seriously?”
Yes, seriously.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/02/24/did-the-insulation-program-actually-reduce-fire-risk/
FDB
24 Feb 10 at 2:55 pm
And if you believe that FDB, you have a career in politics ahead of you. Or blogging anonymously for Crikey.
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 3:01 pm
I’m not buying. It’s an additional 93 fires per 1.1 million homes per year.
That’s what the data says.
Semi Regular Libertarian
24 Feb 10 at 3:02 pm
FDB,
This is one of your stupider comments.
You’re actually sending me to Crikey’s site where some doofus calling him/herself “Possum Comitatus” is suggesting that Lurch’s electrification of people’s roofs had the effect of reducing fire potential? That the need to check the installation “work” done is therefore redundant.
hahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
But yes, all that aside I think Lurch should stay on. I fully support the idea.
JC
24 Feb 10 at 3:03 pm
The reasons (of which WMD were only one) were presented in the 2002 resolution, Homer. It was voted on and passed. It was supported by most Democrat House members and a majority of Democrat senators. Compared to the Democrats’ Vietnam War or even Clinton’s illegal Bosnian air war, Bush’s war was one of the most openly discussed and democratically affirmed in American history.
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 3:05 pm
Debbie:
Aren’t you copying Rog here? Didn’t you support the war?
CL, didn’t homer support the war?
JC
24 Feb 10 at 3:07 pm
Did the insulation program actually reduce fire risk?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 3:08 pm
Yeah CK Bush only invaded ?Iraq because over 70% of Yanks at the time thought Hussein was responsible for 11/9.
The reasons given for the invasion we now know were wrong.
only an imbecile of the highest order would believe Iraq posed a treat to the US or the World.
Oh yeah it was the US and two other nations that invaded not the UN so it had nothing to do with UN motions at all.
it is interesting what actual data brings up.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
24 Feb 10 at 3:14 pm
Another truck-load of cash down the toilet:
Rudd announces $42 million rescue package for “insulation” workers.
He, thanks Fiscal Conservative!
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 3:15 pm
Fire prevention workers CL
tal
24 Feb 10 at 3:17 pm
This is really getting out of hand. The fucker is spewing cash like he’s running the printing press 24/7.
Kevin 7 takes takes a whole new meaning in this context.
JC
24 Feb 10 at 3:18 pm
Hey there’s someone equally as stupid as FDB. It didn’t take long as all I had to do was go to the Crikey site and find a comment to FDB’s link.
Bobswinkle replying to Possum Comitatus statistical study that proves Lurch isn’t as incompetent as was originally thought.
bobswinkle
Posted February 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm | Permalink
Thank you Possum. I had been thinking for the last two weeks this is EXACTLY the sort of analysis we need to be doing when judging Garrett. The aggregate numbers are never going to tell the story, it’s the ratio which matters.
Quick question, is it possible to do a similar analysis on deaths? I’m guessing finding suitable statistics on workplace deaths and their relative industries would be too difficult right?
JC
24 Feb 10 at 3:22 pm
No, Homer. You’re wrong. The reasons presented for the invasion were overwhelmingly right.
…only an imbecile of the highest order would believe Iraq posed a treat to the US or the World.
“Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors. ”
- Blil Clinton
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 3:23 pm
Fire prevention workers CL.
That’s right. Sorry, Tal. They’re not insulation workers, they’re fire brigade workers. LOL.
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 3:25 pm
“Oh yeah it was the US and two other nations that invaded not the UN so it had nothing to do with UN motions at all.
it is interesting what actual data brings up.”
They justified it legally on an old resolution.
My take is that if Bush is smarter than he is given credit for, it was an attempt to encircle nations that terrorists come from or are supported by (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) by inserting another US ally between others.
“The aggregate numbers are never going to tell the story, it’s the ratio which matters.”
No. It is the marginal effect. Which is 93 extra fires.
Semi Regular Libertarian
24 Feb 10 at 3:32 pm
Jason said:
“will you two pissy pants get off it?
you can pin all you want on Bush and Blair but you haven’t addressed the point that for Australia, our participation in the war was basically an excellent investment in realpolitik alliance maintenance with the US. We don’t expect those European pansies to help us so there was no cost to pissing them off.”
I agree 100% But, Jason such a slash and burn writing style isn’t like your usual geekish-metrosexual approach. Have you been overdosing on your butch pills again:)
Rococo Liberal
24 Feb 10 at 3:36 pm
RL
I actually don’t mind the geek label, I don’t think it mutually exclusive with other positive labels but I’ll be damned if I let you call me metrosexual without protest.
jtfsoon
24 Feb 10 at 3:45 pm
you can pin all you want on Bush and Blair but you haven’t addressed the point that for Australia, our participation in the war was basically an excellent investment in realpolitik alliance maintenance with the US. We don’t expect those European pansies to help us so there was no cost to pissing them off.”
A long time ago I saw a TV doco, by Robert Hughes I think, where he put forward the idea that while many people believe Australia too closely follows the US lead, the reality is that the Aussie politicians were being very shrewd because we are the winners in that alliance. Being a close friend of the USA makes any attempts to declare war on Australia suicidal, we get access to the best military hardware, and access to the biggest market in the world. A friend of mine who was in the army put it more succinctly: better a friend of the USA than an enemy!
John H.
24 Feb 10 at 3:49 pm
Barrie Cassidy reckons Garrett’s got to go.
Sinclair Davidson
24 Feb 10 at 3:50 pm
not saying for a second Cassidy is right wing.
But I sure wish the right wing wanting Garrett to go. That’s a silly thing to ask.
JC
24 Feb 10 at 3:57 pm
oops…. stop wanting…
JC
24 Feb 10 at 3:58 pm
I’ve been thinking about it, JC. You’re right. I strongly urge Mr Rudd to stand by this excellent minister and keep him in his job.
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 4:02 pm
The war overthrew one of the worst mass murderers in modern history.
.
True.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 4:42 pm
But, Jason such a slash and burn writing style isn’t like your usual geekish-metrosexual approach.
.
yep. Jason time to stop trimming the nasal hair or you’ll end up a Nancy Boy.
Adrien
24 Feb 10 at 4:54 pm
I was living in the US when the Ted Kaczinsky (Unmbomber) manifesto was published in the newspaper. It must have been a quiet day in the trading room as I read it all.
Although I don’ readily recall every part of it, I can say that nearly all the parts, at least those that don’t preach the horrendous violence he practiced, are pretty damned similar to St. Clive’s beliefs system.
Take a read and tell me where the differences lie (other than the bombings) as I can’t see it.
http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
JC
24 Feb 10 at 5:01 pm
sorry wrong thread.
JC
24 Feb 10 at 5:03 pm
“our participation in the war was basically an excellent investment in realpolitik alliance maintenance with the US.”
What about the increased risk of blowback? In order to maintain this arrangement don’t we need to participate in every substantial military adventure that the US participates in? Is complete military independence a pipe dream?
Greego
24 Feb 10 at 10:02 pm
Is complete military independence a pipe dream?
If we had nukes, we’d be totally independent. Of course, the Indos would then start their own program. I remember it used to be argued that one raison d’etre of the ANU was as a brain HQ for expediting the development of nukes, if need be. Not sure if that’s historically true.
Re so-called blowback, Bali occurred prior to the Iraq invasion so it’s pretty clear we were always a second-order target for Islamists. That’s no excuse not to do what’s right, though, in any case.
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 10:22 pm
“Bali occurred prior to the Iraq invasion”
The 2002 bombings were allegedly in response to the Australian military partnership with the US (presumably the war in Afghanistan), as well as our involvement in East Timor. The 2005 bombings were certainly after the Iraq effort but I don’t know if that was the reason. Just something to keep in mind if realpolitik is the strategy.
Greego
24 Feb 10 at 10:35 pm
But realpolitic would demand that we not flinch on something like overthrowing the Taliban or righting the situation in East Timor in order to appease Islamists. What’s the payback for that? They’re going to target Australians anyway. The equation with the United States – leaving aside the actual moral aspects in play with specific situations – is that we support the US when much of the noisy official world polity (the UN, the EU etc) goes into its traditional anti-US convulsions and, in return, we – a country with a population comparable to that of Greater Los Angeles – gets blue ribbon protection in the event of regional or hemispheric war. It’s a bargain and both sides of politics know it.
C.L.
24 Feb 10 at 10:43 pm