Bremer: The Cut-and-Run Transition: "You won't read this in your daily paper or see it on the nightly prime-time news, but I assure you that what we're witnessing in slow motion is likely to be one of the great imperial defeats in history.

"In 2002, the Bush administration released the National Security Strategy of the United States in which it codified the idea of preventive, not preemptive, war -- if we even think you may be thinking... we'll take you out -- and the idea that our country should feel free to act alone to preserve its unparalleled and historically unique position as sole planetary superpower. It would be the global sheriff ('dead or alive'), the global hyperpower, the planet's military hegemon, 'the New Rome.' It took less than a year for that 'New Rome' label to drop into the ashbin of history; now, the belief that nothing can stay our military might has been shown to be a hollow claim (no matter the destructive power we're capable of raining down on another land)."

Bremer: The Cut-and-Run Transition: "You won't read this in your daily paper or see it on the nightly prime-time news, but I assure you that what we're witnessing in slow motion is likely to be one of the great imperial defeats in history.

"In 2002, the Bush administration released the National Security Strategy of the United States in which it codified the idea of preventive, not preemptive, war -- if we even think you may be thinking... we'll take you out -- and the idea that our country should feel free to act alone to preserve its unparalleled and historically unique position as sole planetary superpower. It would be the global sheriff ('dead or alive'), the global hyperpower, the planet's military hegemon, 'the New Rome.' It took less than a year for that 'New Rome' label to drop into the ashbin of history; now, the belief that nothing can stay our military might has been shown to be a hollow claim (no matter the destructive power we're capable of raining down on another land)."

Media alternatives: "The problem is illustrated brilliantly in the poet Aryasura's story, The Ruru Deer. Here, Aryasura depicts the mental turmoil of an individual deciding whether he should repay the kindness of a benefactor who saved his life, or betray him for money: "What should I do - follow Virtue or Fortune? Should I uphold the promise to my benefactor rather than the duty to maintain my family? Which is more important, the worldly existence or the heavenly one? Which code should I follow, that of the pious or that of the worldly? Should I taste glory or the modest joy of the anchorite?... Should I strive for riches or the good cherished by the virtuous?

""At last his mind, overcome by greed, came to this conclusion: 'Once I have obtained great wealth, I shall be able to honour my kin and my friends, guests, and beggars; I will gain not only the pleasures of this world, but also happiness in the other." (Aryasura, The Marvelous Companion, Dharma Publishing, 1983, p.253)

"These altruistic thoughts might strike us as admirable. But as Aryasura makes clear, they are a lie, a classic self-deception - in fact the man has been "overcome by greed" and his 'compassionate' thoughts are merely a salve to his conscience. In these few lines, Aryasura - writing many hundreds of years ago - exposes what is completely hidden to many journalists making big money 'trying to change the system from within'- as they try to convince themselves, and us. It is this capacity for self-deception - for lying without consciously realising we are lying - that ultimately lies at the heart of the propaganda system afflicting modern democracies."

"Ideally, the organisation as a whole would be independent of advertisers - it is clearly absurd for a newspaper like the Guardian to be dependent for 75% of its revenue on corporate advertising promoting greed. What could more clearly compromise the honesty of media reporting? Media should be primarily dependent on individual subscribers providing for minimum overheads, perhaps funding from large corporate organisations should be disallowed. This is obviously a problem for large print media as printing and distribution costs are high, necessitating reliance on wealthy owners, parent companies, again firmly tying the media into the corporate system."

"The point being that the internet +does+ constitute a revolutionary change in the mass media - the power of non-corporate journalism has increased by orders of magnitude in the last ten or fifteen years. It is easy to forget just how enormous the change has been.... Now, our inboxes are flooded on a daily basis with instant responses by dozens of brilliant mainstream and dissident journalists all over the world. Informed and articulate posters provide instant commentary on our message boards generating vibrant debates and floods of emails to the likes of David Aaronovitch, Melanie Phillips and Nick Cohen. This, frankly, is the worst nightmare of state-corporate propagandists seeking to control the public mind."

Media alternatives: "The problem is illustrated brilliantly in the poet Aryasura's story, The Ruru Deer. Here, Aryasura depicts the mental turmoil of an individual deciding whether he should repay the kindness of a benefactor who saved his life, or betray him for money: "What should I do - follow Virtue or Fortune? Should I uphold the promise to my benefactor rather than the duty to maintain my family? Which is more important, the worldly existence or the heavenly one? Which code should I follow, that of the pious or that of the worldly? Should I taste glory or the modest joy of the anchorite?... Should I strive for riches or the good cherished by the virtuous?

""At last his mind, overcome by greed, came to this conclusion: 'Once I have obtained great wealth, I shall be able to honour my kin and my friends, guests, and beggars; I will gain not only the pleasures of this world, but also happiness in the other." (Aryasura, The Marvelous Companion, Dharma Publishing, 1983, p.253)

"These altruistic thoughts might strike us as admirable. But as Aryasura makes clear, they are a lie, a classic self-deception - in fact the man has been "overcome by greed" and his 'compassionate' thoughts are merely a salve to his conscience. In these few lines, Aryasura - writing many hundreds of years ago - exposes what is completely hidden to many journalists making big money 'trying to change the system from within'- as they try to convince themselves, and us. It is this capacity for self-deception - for lying without consciously realising we are lying - that ultimately lies at the heart of the propaganda system afflicting modern democracies."

"Ideally, the organisation as a whole would be independent of advertisers - it is clearly absurd for a newspaper like the Guardian to be dependent for 75% of its revenue on corporate advertising promoting greed. What could more clearly compromise the honesty of media reporting? Media should be primarily dependent on individual subscribers providing for minimum overheads, perhaps funding from large corporate organisations should be disallowed. This is obviously a problem for large print media as printing and distribution costs are high, necessitating reliance on wealthy owners, parent companies, again firmly tying the media into the corporate system."

"The point being that the internet +does+ constitute a revolutionary change in the mass media - the power of non-corporate journalism has increased by orders of magnitude in the last ten or fifteen years. It is easy to forget just how enormous the change has been.... Now, our inboxes are flooded on a daily basis with instant responses by dozens of brilliant mainstream and dissident journalists all over the world. Informed and articulate posters provide instant commentary on our message boards generating vibrant debates and floods of emails to the likes of David Aaronovitch, Melanie Phillips and Nick Cohen. This, frankly, is the worst nightmare of state-corporate propagandists seeking to control the public mind."

Tony Fitzgerald: Howard a 'radical': "Other measures which I would describe as inhumane and dehumanizing include giving children ( and their parents) a number which they must wear at all times and by which they are known and called; not allowing parents to take any photos of their children.....so babies born in detention have no photos recording their growth and development, something most parents take for granted.

"That a society which calls itself civilized continues to countenance the prolonged and indeterminate detention of children in conditions closely resembling those of a high security prison , shocks me profoundly. That this society is Australia, saddens and angers me more than I can say."

Tony Fitzgerald: Howard a 'radical': "Other measures which I would describe as inhumane and dehumanizing include giving children ( and their parents) a number which they must wear at all times and by which they are known and called; not allowing parents to take any photos of their children.....so babies born in detention have no photos recording their growth and development, something most parents take for granted.

"That a society which calls itself civilized continues to countenance the prolonged and indeterminate detention of children in conditions closely resembling those of a high security prison , shocks me profoundly. That this society is Australia, saddens and angers me more than I can say."

Iraq Regime Change a Sham, Say Mideast Experts: "Despite the positive responses Monday from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and members of the Security Council who praised the U.S. 'transfer of sovereignty' to an interim government in Iraq, Middle East experts and political analysts dismiss the regime change in Baghdad as a 'monumental fraud'.

"'The truth is that Iraqi sovereignty is a sham,' says Rahul Mahajan, publisher of the blog EmpireNotes.org and author of 'Full Spectrum: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond'. The United States will keep at least 138,000 troops in Iraq (augmented by about 20,000 from other countries) for the forseeable future, he said. Fourteen permanent or semi-permanent military bases have been and are being constructed to house them, said Mahajan, who returned recently from a trip to Iraq.

"'Those forces have, by an eleventh hour edict of Paul Bremer (head of the former U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority), complete immunity from Iraqi law and Iraqi courts,' he added. The role of the new interim government in Baghdad has been reduced to 'advice' and 'consultation'. 'This is, and remains, a direct military occupation,' Mahajan told IPS. He said the level of control that the United States retains 'is just short of full colonial administration'."

"An edict signed by Bremer also gives U.S. and Western defense contractors complete immunity from Iraqi law. Additionally, Bremer created and appointed an electoral commission that can ban political parties; gave five-year terms to the new hand-picked national security adviser and national intelligence chief; and appointed inspectors-general with five-year terms over every one of the 26 Iraqi government ministries. Last month, the U.N. Special Representative in Iraq Lakhdar Brahimi described Bremer as "the dictator of Iraq". "Nothing happens without his agreement in this country," Brahimi said."

Compare this obvious reality with the immense corporate media blather over 'transfer of sovereignty'.

Iraq Regime Change a Sham, Say Mideast Experts: "Despite the positive responses Monday from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and members of the Security Council who praised the U.S. 'transfer of sovereignty' to an interim government in Iraq, Middle East experts and political analysts dismiss the regime change in Baghdad as a 'monumental fraud'.

"'The truth is that Iraqi sovereignty is a sham,' says Rahul Mahajan, publisher of the blog EmpireNotes.org and author of 'Full Spectrum: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond'. The United States will keep at least 138,000 troops in Iraq (augmented by about 20,000 from other countries) for the forseeable future, he said. Fourteen permanent or semi-permanent military bases have been and are being constructed to house them, said Mahajan, who returned recently from a trip to Iraq.

"'Those forces have, by an eleventh hour edict of Paul Bremer (head of the former U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority), complete immunity from Iraqi law and Iraqi courts,' he added. The role of the new interim government in Baghdad has been reduced to 'advice' and 'consultation'. 'This is, and remains, a direct military occupation,' Mahajan told IPS. He said the level of control that the United States retains 'is just short of full colonial administration'."

"An edict signed by Bremer also gives U.S. and Western defense contractors complete immunity from Iraqi law. Additionally, Bremer created and appointed an electoral commission that can ban political parties; gave five-year terms to the new hand-picked national security adviser and national intelligence chief; and appointed inspectors-general with five-year terms over every one of the 26 Iraqi government ministries. Last month, the U.N. Special Representative in Iraq Lakhdar Brahimi described Bremer as "the dictator of Iraq". "Nothing happens without his agreement in this country," Brahimi said."

Compare this obvious reality with the immense corporate media blather over 'transfer of sovereignty'.

Sovereignty Without Substance - by Juan Cole: "Paul Bremer suddenly left Iraq on Monday, having 'transferred sovereignty' to the caretaker Iraqi government two days early.

"It is hard to interpret this move as anything but a precipitous flight. It is just speculation on my part, but I suspect that the Americans must have developed intelligence that there might be a major strike on the Coalition Provisional Headquarters on Wednesday if a formal ceremony were held to mark a transfer of sovereignty. Since the U.S. military is so weak in Iraq and appears to have poor intelligence on the guerrilla insurgency, the Bush administration could not take the chance that a major bombing or other attack would mar the ceremony.

"The surprise move will throw off all the major news organizations, which were planning intensive coverage of the ceremonies originally planned for Wednesday. This entire exercise is a publicity stunt and has almost no substance to it. Gwen Ifill said on U.S. television on Sunday that she had talked to Condoleezza Rice, and that her hope was that when something went wrong in Iraq, the journalists would now grill Allawi about it rather than the Bush administration. (Or words to that effect). Ifill seems to me to have given away the whole Bush show. That's what this whole thing is about. It is public relations and manipulation of journalists. Let's see if they fall for it."

They've already 'fallen' for it big time. The 'transfer of sovereignty' along with the 'building of democracy' are essential myths that the corporate media wont touch, just as it wont touch the reality that the US will continue to occupy the country with over 130,000 troops, build permanent bases and dominate the oil resources. The real 'transfer of sovereignty' is from Paul Bremer to John Negroponte.

Sovereignty Without Substance - by Juan Cole: "Paul Bremer suddenly left Iraq on Monday, having 'transferred sovereignty' to the caretaker Iraqi government two days early.

"It is hard to interpret this move as anything but a precipitous flight. It is just speculation on my part, but I suspect that the Americans must have developed intelligence that there might be a major strike on the Coalition Provisional Headquarters on Wednesday if a formal ceremony were held to mark a transfer of sovereignty. Since the U.S. military is so weak in Iraq and appears to have poor intelligence on the guerrilla insurgency, the Bush administration could not take the chance that a major bombing or other attack would mar the ceremony.

"The surprise move will throw off all the major news organizations, which were planning intensive coverage of the ceremonies originally planned for Wednesday. This entire exercise is a publicity stunt and has almost no substance to it. Gwen Ifill said on U.S. television on Sunday that she had talked to Condoleezza Rice, and that her hope was that when something went wrong in Iraq, the journalists would now grill Allawi about it rather than the Bush administration. (Or words to that effect). Ifill seems to me to have given away the whole Bush show. That's what this whole thing is about. It is public relations and manipulation of journalists. Let's see if they fall for it."

They've already 'fallen' for it big time. The 'transfer of sovereignty' along with the 'building of democracy' are essential myths that the corporate media wont touch, just as it wont touch the reality that the US will continue to occupy the country with over 130,000 troops, build permanent bases and dominate the oil resources. The real 'transfer of sovereignty' is from Paul Bremer to John Negroponte.

Democracy Itself is in Grave Danger: Another very good speech by Al Gore plainly stating the danger to the American Republic.

Democracy Itself is in Grave Danger: Another very good speech by Al Gore plainly stating the danger to the American Republic.

Genius of Bin Laden: 'War on terror' is a disaster: another intelligence official relates the obvious: "Bin Laden is motivated and his followers and his associates are motivated by what they believe their religion requires them to do. And until we accept that fact and stop identifying them as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we're very much behind the curve. Their power will wax our costs in treasure, and blood will also wax."

Mitchell: "But isn't it a distortion of Islam, what they espouse? How can you say that this is the Muslim belief to attack us and to wage war against us?"

Anonymous: "I'm certainly not an expert and neither am I a Muslim. I think the appeal that bin Laden has across the Muslim — I indeed think he's probably the only heroic figure, the only leadership figure that exists in the Islamic world today, and he does so because he is defending Muslims, Islamic lands, Islamic resources. From his perspective it's very much a war against someone who is oppressing or killing Muslims.

"And the genius that lies behind it, because he's not a man who rants against our freedoms, our liberties, our voting, our — the fact that our women go to school. He's not the Ayatollah Khomeini; he really doesn't care about all those things. To think that he's trying to rob us of our liberties and freedom is, I think, a gross mistake. What he has done, his genius, is identify particular American foreign policies that are offensive to Muslims whether they support these martial actions or not — our support for Israel, our presence on the Arabian Peninsula, our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, our support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims, be it India, China, Russia, Uzbekistan. Bin Laden has focused the Muslim world on specific, tangible, visual American policies.

Mitchell: "Well, you say in your book that the reality is that there is a large and growing among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims against America, not because of a misunderstanding of America but because they understand our policies very well."

Anonymous: "That's exactly right. I certainly believe that, and I think the substantial amount of polling that's been done by the Pew Trust and by other very reputable pollsters in the Islamic world indicate that most of the Islamic world believes they know exactly what we're up to, and that's to deny the Palestinians a country, to make sure that oil flows at prices that may seem outrageous to the American consumer, but are not market prices in the Islamist's eyes, supporting Russia against Chechnya. I think very coolly bin Laden has focused them on substance rather than rhetoric. And his rhetoric is only powerful because that is the case. He's focused them on U.S. policies."

"Mitchell: "You call the invasion of Iraq, ‘an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.’ Why do you think so?"

Anonymous: "For several reasons. That was a passage cut from a larger passage where I describe my personal aversion to aggressive war, to the war started by the United States. And I tried to draw an analogy between our war against Mexico in the 19th century and just saying it is not part of the American character or our basic sense of decency to wage wars except in self-defense or preemption.

"The major problem with the Iraq war is that it distracted us from the war against terrorism. But more importantly, it allowed—it made us invade, or it caused us to invade a country that's the second holiest place in Islam. It's not really the same as the Russians invading Afghanistan in 1979. Afghanistan is an Islamic country, but it was far from the mainstream of world Islam.

"Iraq, however, for both Sunnis and Shias, is the second holiest place in the Islamic world. And to invade that country, on the face of it, is a great offense to Islam and an action which almost entirely validated bin Laden's assertions about what the United States intended vis-à-vis the Islamic world."

"And there seems to be very little opposition to him within the Muslim world, and that's why I think that our assumption that he distorts Islam is just that, it's analysis by assertion. I'm not sure it's quite accurate."

* This is an interesting analysis except that it is not a 'mistake' to state that bin laden 'hates our freedoms' - that is rather a deliberate lie. Also it is not a 'war on terror' - that also is a deliberate lie. The war on Iraq (and on Afghanistan) is a calculated act of imperialism and aggression, with terror as the essential pretext, which knowingly increased the risk of future terrorist retaliation. It is true however that bin laden is the strategic 'genius' - either that or else Bush and the neocons are strategic morons with their hubris and military/imperial incompetence.

Genius of Bin Laden: 'War on terror' is a disaster: another intelligence official relates the obvious: "Bin Laden is motivated and his followers and his associates are motivated by what they believe their religion requires them to do. And until we accept that fact and stop identifying them as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we're very much behind the curve. Their power will wax our costs in treasure, and blood will also wax."

Mitchell: "But isn't it a distortion of Islam, what they espouse? How can you say that this is the Muslim belief to attack us and to wage war against us?"

Anonymous: "I'm certainly not an expert and neither am I a Muslim. I think the appeal that bin Laden has across the Muslim — I indeed think he's probably the only heroic figure, the only leadership figure that exists in the Islamic world today, and he does so because he is defending Muslims, Islamic lands, Islamic resources. From his perspective it's very much a war against someone who is oppressing or killing Muslims.

"And the genius that lies behind it, because he's not a man who rants against our freedoms, our liberties, our voting, our — the fact that our women go to school. He's not the Ayatollah Khomeini; he really doesn't care about all those things. To think that he's trying to rob us of our liberties and freedom is, I think, a gross mistake. What he has done, his genius, is identify particular American foreign policies that are offensive to Muslims whether they support these martial actions or not — our support for Israel, our presence on the Arabian Peninsula, our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, our support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims, be it India, China, Russia, Uzbekistan. Bin Laden has focused the Muslim world on specific, tangible, visual American policies.

Mitchell: "Well, you say in your book that the reality is that there is a large and growing among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims against America, not because of a misunderstanding of America but because they understand our policies very well."

Anonymous: "That's exactly right. I certainly believe that, and I think the substantial amount of polling that's been done by the Pew Trust and by other very reputable pollsters in the Islamic world indicate that most of the Islamic world believes they know exactly what we're up to, and that's to deny the Palestinians a country, to make sure that oil flows at prices that may seem outrageous to the American consumer, but are not market prices in the Islamist's eyes, supporting Russia against Chechnya. I think very coolly bin Laden has focused them on substance rather than rhetoric. And his rhetoric is only powerful because that is the case. He's focused them on U.S. policies."

"Mitchell: "You call the invasion of Iraq, ‘an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.’ Why do you think so?"

Anonymous: "For several reasons. That was a passage cut from a larger passage where I describe my personal aversion to aggressive war, to the war started by the United States. And I tried to draw an analogy between our war against Mexico in the 19th century and just saying it is not part of the American character or our basic sense of decency to wage wars except in self-defense or preemption.

"The major problem with the Iraq war is that it distracted us from the war against terrorism. But more importantly, it allowed—it made us invade, or it caused us to invade a country that's the second holiest place in Islam. It's not really the same as the Russians invading Afghanistan in 1979. Afghanistan is an Islamic country, but it was far from the mainstream of world Islam.

"Iraq, however, for both Sunnis and Shias, is the second holiest place in the Islamic world. And to invade that country, on the face of it, is a great offense to Islam and an action which almost entirely validated bin Laden's assertions about what the United States intended vis-à-vis the Islamic world."

"And there seems to be very little opposition to him within the Muslim world, and that's why I think that our assumption that he distorts Islam is just that, it's analysis by assertion. I'm not sure it's quite accurate."

* This is an interesting analysis except that it is not a 'mistake' to state that bin laden 'hates our freedoms' - that is rather a deliberate lie. Also it is not a 'war on terror' - that also is a deliberate lie. The war on Iraq (and on Afghanistan) is a calculated act of imperialism and aggression, with terror as the essential pretext, which knowingly increased the risk of future terrorist retaliation. It is true however that bin laden is the strategic 'genius' - either that or else Bush and the neocons are strategic morons with their hubris and military/imperial incompetence.

Water: Blue Gold: "There are untold profits to be made from controlling the simplest and most vital ingredient of our survival: water. The only question, from a profit standpoint, is why it has taken this long."

"The "water rush" is likely to turn into one of the most volatile and potentially galvanizing issues of the 21st century. "This is an incredible struggle, and yet it's still so far below the radar that we're trying to give it a voice," Kaufman says. "People are already willing to die for [water], but it's something that many of us still take for granted." The grab for corporate control of water is indeed already here in our own backyards."

Water: Blue Gold: "There are untold profits to be made from controlling the simplest and most vital ingredient of our survival: water. The only question, from a profit standpoint, is why it has taken this long."

"The "water rush" is likely to turn into one of the most volatile and potentially galvanizing issues of the 21st century. "This is an incredible struggle, and yet it's still so far below the radar that we're trying to give it a voice," Kaufman says. "People are already willing to die for [water], but it's something that many of us still take for granted." The grab for corporate control of water is indeed already here in our own backyards."

Juan Cole: Urban demonstrations could force US out: "The guerrillas in Iraq are hoping to provoke big, frequent demonstrations by the urban crowd. If elections are not held in January, or if they are widely felt to be unfair or stage-managed-- and if US troops overstay their welcome, we could well see the big crowds start coming out. The big threat for the US is if dissatisfaction with the situation and with the US presence becomes generalized in both the Shiite and the Sunni communities. If Grand Ayatollah Sistani and Sunni cleric Hareth al-Dhari both call for the crowds to come out, you could have hundreds of thousands in the streets."

"This worst case scenario will very possibly come to pass if 1) the US troops overstay their welcome and continue to act heavy-handedly (a repeat of April's twin sieges of Fallujah and Najaf would be fatal), if 2) the January elections are postponed or perceived as deeply flawed, and if 3) both Sunni and Shiite leaders beyond the small circle of the guerrillas call for massive demonstrations. I'd give 50/50 odds of this kind of urban crowd revolution happening in Iraq sometime in the next two years."

Juan Cole: Urban demonstrations could force US out: "The guerrillas in Iraq are hoping to provoke big, frequent demonstrations by the urban crowd. If elections are not held in January, or if they are widely felt to be unfair or stage-managed-- and if US troops overstay their welcome, we could well see the big crowds start coming out. The big threat for the US is if dissatisfaction with the situation and with the US presence becomes generalized in both the Shiite and the Sunni communities. If Grand Ayatollah Sistani and Sunni cleric Hareth al-Dhari both call for the crowds to come out, you could have hundreds of thousands in the streets."

"This worst case scenario will very possibly come to pass if 1) the US troops overstay their welcome and continue to act heavy-handedly (a repeat of April's twin sieges of Fallujah and Najaf would be fatal), if 2) the January elections are postponed or perceived as deeply flawed, and if 3) both Sunni and Shiite leaders beyond the small circle of the guerrillas call for massive demonstrations. I'd give 50/50 odds of this kind of urban crowd revolution happening in Iraq sometime in the next two years."

Antony Lowenstein butchers the corporate media, for those still making the mistake of taking it seriously: The most interesting aspect of this article is that it is published by the Sydney Morning Herald (in Margo Kingston's Webdiary, but presumably not in the print edition).

"The role of The Australian newspaper in pushing the war agenda was essential. Like every other Murdoch newspaper around the world, dutifully pushing their master's wishes, the mogul said in early 2003: "We can't back down now, where you hand over the whole of the Middle East to Saddam.... I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly, and I think he is going to go on with it." Putting to one side the factual inaccuracy of his statement (Saddam has held little strategic influence over the Middle East for at least a decade), Murdoch's pro-war and pro-business agenda was mirrored in The Australian's coverage. Apart from bullying and foreboding editorials regarding Iraq's supposed WMD, Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan deserves special mention for hyping up Iraq's supposed threat. No other Australian journalist produced more fawning attention to the claims churned out by Bush, Blair and Howard, though stable-mate Paul Kelly was also competitive. Virtually all of his claims have subsequently been proven false and yet no apology has been forthcoming. Likewise from the paper's editorial staff. This kind of short-term memory loss journalism is undermining the public's trust in the media's ability to report accurately and transparently. This behaviour should not be considered responsible reporting - it is nothing more than lies and arrogance dressed up in sanctimonious chest beating."

"Nobody wanted a war against Iraq more than Ahmad Chalabi, and the biggest paper in the US (The New York Times) gave it to him almost as willingly as the White House did.... "This brings us to the now popular scapegoat for the fictions about WMDs, touted by Times editors, by other reporters and by US intelligence agencies. It was all the fault of the smooth-tongued Ahmed Chalabi, now fallen from grace and stigmatized as a cat's-paw of Iranian intelligence. But was there ever a moment when Chalabi's motives and the defectors he efficiently mass-produced should not have been questioned by experienced reporters, editors and intelligence analysts?""

"Noam Chomsky calls it Manufacturing Consent. He writes that the mass media "serves to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity and that their choices, emphases, and omissions can often be understood best, and sometimes with striking clarity and insight, by analyzing them in such terms. Perhaps this is an obvious point, but the democratic postulate is that the media are independent and committed to discovering and reporting the truth, and that they do not merely reflect the world as powerful groups wish to perceive it." The New York Times is exactly the kind of newspaper Chomsky argues is incapable of seeing its inherent biases and slavish love of power. The newspaper's virtually unqualified reporting of Bush administration lies over Iraq is ample evidence of this thesis."

"By November 4, the Herald expressed its concerns about the lack of WMD, but along with the majority of Western media, still held Bush administration claims for Iraq as believable and achievable: "The US has not wavered from its commitment to see Iraq rebuilt and power transferred to a stable democratic government", it offered. The facts overwhelm that the US has never wanted a real democracy in the Middle East, despite the vast rhetoric, but rather a manageable dictator or strongman to control the country's oil reserves and the continual presence of US forces. It appears inconceivable to the Herald that the US government's aims for Iraq should be questioned. After the lies of Iraq's non-existent WMD and links to al-Qaeda, why do Leader writers continue accepting Western governments' comments as essentially decent and good?"

"Once again, on March 19, the Herald continued the idea that Iraq may become a democracy in the heart of the Middle East - exactly echoing the propaganda of Bush, Blair and Howard. As the three leaders' spin shifted from WMD and al-Qaeda to Iraqi 'democracy', so did the mainstream press. "One year on, the justification for the war is not the justification for starting it. Instead it is the hope that by toppling Saddam, Iraq might become a template for a new, stable Middle East." The evidence against this is profound, from polls conducted in the region to US Army Generals to average Iraqis themselves. And yet newspapers still prefer to live in a reality created for them by their government "masters"."

Antony Lowenstein butchers the corporate media, for those still making the mistake of taking it seriously: The most interesting aspect of this article is that it is published by the Sydney Morning Herald (in Margo Kingston's Webdiary, but presumably not in the print edition).

"The role of The Australian newspaper in pushing the war agenda was essential. Like every other Murdoch newspaper around the world, dutifully pushing their master's wishes, the mogul said in early 2003: "We can't back down now, where you hand over the whole of the Middle East to Saddam.... I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly, and I think he is going to go on with it." Putting to one side the factual inaccuracy of his statement (Saddam has held little strategic influence over the Middle East for at least a decade), Murdoch's pro-war and pro-business agenda was mirrored in The Australian's coverage. Apart from bullying and foreboding editorials regarding Iraq's supposed WMD, Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan deserves special mention for hyping up Iraq's supposed threat. No other Australian journalist produced more fawning attention to the claims churned out by Bush, Blair and Howard, though stable-mate Paul Kelly was also competitive. Virtually all of his claims have subsequently been proven false and yet no apology has been forthcoming. Likewise from the paper's editorial staff. This kind of short-term memory loss journalism is undermining the public's trust in the media's ability to report accurately and transparently. This behaviour should not be considered responsible reporting - it is nothing more than lies and arrogance dressed up in sanctimonious chest beating."

"Nobody wanted a war against Iraq more than Ahmad Chalabi, and the biggest paper in the US (The New York Times) gave it to him almost as willingly as the White House did.... "This brings us to the now popular scapegoat for the fictions about WMDs, touted by Times editors, by other reporters and by US intelligence agencies. It was all the fault of the smooth-tongued Ahmed Chalabi, now fallen from grace and stigmatized as a cat's-paw of Iranian intelligence. But was there ever a moment when Chalabi's motives and the defectors he efficiently mass-produced should not have been questioned by experienced reporters, editors and intelligence analysts?""

"Noam Chomsky calls it Manufacturing Consent. He writes that the mass media "serves to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity and that their choices, emphases, and omissions can often be understood best, and sometimes with striking clarity and insight, by analyzing them in such terms. Perhaps this is an obvious point, but the democratic postulate is that the media are independent and committed to discovering and reporting the truth, and that they do not merely reflect the world as powerful groups wish to perceive it." The New York Times is exactly the kind of newspaper Chomsky argues is incapable of seeing its inherent biases and slavish love of power. The newspaper's virtually unqualified reporting of Bush administration lies over Iraq is ample evidence of this thesis."

"By November 4, the Herald expressed its concerns about the lack of WMD, but along with the majority of Western media, still held Bush administration claims for Iraq as believable and achievable: "The US has not wavered from its commitment to see Iraq rebuilt and power transferred to a stable democratic government", it offered. The facts overwhelm that the US has never wanted a real democracy in the Middle East, despite the vast rhetoric, but rather a manageable dictator or strongman to control the country's oil reserves and the continual presence of US forces. It appears inconceivable to the Herald that the US government's aims for Iraq should be questioned. After the lies of Iraq's non-existent WMD and links to al-Qaeda, why do Leader writers continue accepting Western governments' comments as essentially decent and good?"

"Once again, on March 19, the Herald continued the idea that Iraq may become a democracy in the heart of the Middle East - exactly echoing the propaganda of Bush, Blair and Howard. As the three leaders' spin shifted from WMD and al-Qaeda to Iraqi 'democracy', so did the mainstream press. "One year on, the justification for the war is not the justification for starting it. Instead it is the hope that by toppling Saddam, Iraq might become a template for a new, stable Middle East." The evidence against this is profound, from polls conducted in the region to US Army Generals to average Iraqis themselves. And yet newspapers still prefer to live in a reality created for them by their government "masters"."

US tortured Afghanistan detainees: "Detainees held in Afghanistan by American troops have been routinely tortured and humiliated as part of the interrogation process, in the same way as those in Iraq, a Guardian investigation has found. Five detainees have died in custody, three of them in suspicious circumstances, and survivors have told stories of beatings, strippings, hoodings and sleep deprivation. The nature of the alleged abuse indicates that what happened at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was part of a pattern of interrogation that has been common practice since the US invasion of Afghanistan."

US tortured Afghanistan detainees: "Detainees held in Afghanistan by American troops have been routinely tortured and humiliated as part of the interrogation process, in the same way as those in Iraq, a Guardian investigation has found. Five detainees have died in custody, three of them in suspicious circumstances, and survivors have told stories of beatings, strippings, hoodings and sleep deprivation. The nature of the alleged abuse indicates that what happened at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was part of a pattern of interrogation that has been common practice since the US invasion of Afghanistan."

Commission banks on falling prices to boost market: "Falling house prices will open the market to more first-time buyers while people who bought property recently will be hurt as their homes decline in value, the Productivity Commission has found.

"In its report on housing affordability, the commission says strategic planning of land releases and streamlining of building approvals could improve housing affordability for first home buyers. The report also gives the NSW Government a tick of approval for reforms that broadened land tax and gave stamp duty relief to first-time buyers. The commission said the median house price in Australia was now nine times the average income, up from six times at the beginning of the upswing in the mid 1990s. Price corrections would improve affordability in due course, though it would disadvantage those who had recently bought homes."

Commission banks on falling prices to boost market: "Falling house prices will open the market to more first-time buyers while people who bought property recently will be hurt as their homes decline in value, the Productivity Commission has found.

"In its report on housing affordability, the commission says strategic planning of land releases and streamlining of building approvals could improve housing affordability for first home buyers. The report also gives the NSW Government a tick of approval for reforms that broadened land tax and gave stamp duty relief to first-time buyers. The commission said the median house price in Australia was now nine times the average income, up from six times at the beginning of the upswing in the mid 1990s. Price corrections would improve affordability in due course, though it would disadvantage those who had recently bought homes."

Tax breaks for investors put brakes on first home buyers: "The tax treatment of property, especially the Coalition Government's decision to halve capital gains tax in 1999, has encouraged property speculation by the wealthy at the expense of those wanting a first home. The Productivity Commission is not alone in questioning tax breaks for property investors. Earlier this month the Reserve Bank Governor, Ian Macfarlane, said tax laws relating to investment properties were being 'interpreted too leniently'.

"'We think about forms of negative gearing which appear to be so contrived and so unlikely ever to make any cash flow and are still permitted. We think those should have been addressed,' he said. There are several reasons why both the Government and Labor are ignoring the concerns being raised.

"The growing pool of small investors who would be affected, especially landlords, would be incensed. About one in seven households have an investment property, easily the highest ratio in the developed world. Federal Labor would face a massive scare campaign if it proposed any changes to property related taxes. It seems the best hope for those struggling to buy a first home is for a big fall in prices."

Its a zero sum game: it can no more be the case that everyone is an 'investor' with tenants paying them rent than everyone can be a slaveholder with slaves doing their work for them. Somebody has to be the tenant/slave.

Tax breaks for investors put brakes on first home buyers: "The tax treatment of property, especially the Coalition Government's decision to halve capital gains tax in 1999, has encouraged property speculation by the wealthy at the expense of those wanting a first home. The Productivity Commission is not alone in questioning tax breaks for property investors. Earlier this month the Reserve Bank Governor, Ian Macfarlane, said tax laws relating to investment properties were being 'interpreted too leniently'.

"'We think about forms of negative gearing which appear to be so contrived and so unlikely ever to make any cash flow and are still permitted. We think those should have been addressed,' he said. There are several reasons why both the Government and Labor are ignoring the concerns being raised.

"The growing pool of small investors who would be affected, especially landlords, would be incensed. About one in seven households have an investment property, easily the highest ratio in the developed world. Federal Labor would face a massive scare campaign if it proposed any changes to property related taxes. It seems the best hope for those struggling to buy a first home is for a big fall in prices."

Its a zero sum game: it can no more be the case that everyone is an 'investor' with tenants paying them rent than everyone can be a slaveholder with slaves doing their work for them. Somebody has to be the tenant/slave.

As housing becomes unaffordable, both major parties reject reforms: "The Federal Government has rejected a recommendation by the Productivity Commission to review the effect of the tax system on the housing market after it blamed capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing for inflating prices.

"The commission's report, ordered by the Government last August and released yesterday, said the interaction between negative gearing, the halving of capital gains tax in 1999 and high marginal tax rates had helped fuel house price rises beyond what could be explained by other factors. It said a review should focus on the capital gains tax but also assess the impact of negative gearing - where investors gain a tax break when their interest costs exceed rental income - and the capital works deduction provision for buildings.

"'Interactions between negative gearing, capital works deductions, post-1999 capital gains provisions and marginal income tax rates have lent impetus to investment demand during the housing boom,' the report said. The proportion of first-home borrowers has fallen recently to record lows of about 12 per cent of all home borrowers, as the boom has put a first home even further out of reach. The frenzy of residential property investment has been blamed for locking out first-home buyers."

"The commission said the surge in house prices since the mid-1990s has been bigger than previous booms and affordability had plummeted. Prices had overshot and future "softening of prices" was inevitable, with serious consequences for some investors. "For investors with a large number of heavily geared properties, the financial consequences could be severe, even requiring the forced sale of the family home."

"Mr Costello also rejected the commission's recommendation to target the first-home buyers' grant at low-income earners. The commission said the bulk of the payouts - $7000 to all first-time buyers - goes to households with above-average incomes. "Assistance should be targeted to the housing needs of lower income households by restricting the eligibility," it said. The commission also called for a national inquiry to examine the housing needs of low-income earners, but Mr Costello said this was not required and that the Government provided "significant resources to address the housing needs of low-income households". The commission said stamp duty on properties was inefficient and should be replaced by more efficient levies such as land tax."

"Labor would "carefully consider" the report but, like Mr Costello, had ruled out any changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing."

As housing becomes unaffordable, both major parties reject reforms: "The Federal Government has rejected a recommendation by the Productivity Commission to review the effect of the tax system on the housing market after it blamed capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing for inflating prices.

"The commission's report, ordered by the Government last August and released yesterday, said the interaction between negative gearing, the halving of capital gains tax in 1999 and high marginal tax rates had helped fuel house price rises beyond what could be explained by other factors. It said a review should focus on the capital gains tax but also assess the impact of negative gearing - where investors gain a tax break when their interest costs exceed rental income - and the capital works deduction provision for buildings.

"'Interactions between negative gearing, capital works deductions, post-1999 capital gains provisions and marginal income tax rates have lent impetus to investment demand during the housing boom,' the report said. The proportion of first-home borrowers has fallen recently to record lows of about 12 per cent of all home borrowers, as the boom has put a first home even further out of reach. The frenzy of residential property investment has been blamed for locking out first-home buyers."

"The commission said the surge in house prices since the mid-1990s has been bigger than previous booms and affordability had plummeted. Prices had overshot and future "softening of prices" was inevitable, with serious consequences for some investors. "For investors with a large number of heavily geared properties, the financial consequences could be severe, even requiring the forced sale of the family home."

"Mr Costello also rejected the commission's recommendation to target the first-home buyers' grant at low-income earners. The commission said the bulk of the payouts - $7000 to all first-time buyers - goes to households with above-average incomes. "Assistance should be targeted to the housing needs of lower income households by restricting the eligibility," it said. The commission also called for a national inquiry to examine the housing needs of low-income earners, but Mr Costello said this was not required and that the Government provided "significant resources to address the housing needs of low-income households". The commission said stamp duty on properties was inefficient and should be replaced by more efficient levies such as land tax."

"Labor would "carefully consider" the report but, like Mr Costello, had ruled out any changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing."

Billmon on Bush and the Big Lie re Saddam-Al Qaeda link: "What the gang seems to be doing here is testing the outside of the Orwellian envelope a little bit, to see if they can get away with such a flagrant display of 'up-is-downism.' I don't think I've ever seen such an utterly naked ploy from these guys before. Perhaps they've stumbled, wittingly or unwittingly, across the same insight Joseph Goebbels had all those years ago: The bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be accepted, since the audience will be reluctant to believe its leaders would tell them such a monstrous untruth. (In this case I have to assume the audience in question is the GOP faithful and that tiny sliver of undecided voters in the middle. Everybody on our side of the partisan divide already realizes there is no lie too big for this administration to tell, and they know we know.)"

Billmon on Bush and the Big Lie re Saddam-Al Qaeda link: "What the gang seems to be doing here is testing the outside of the Orwellian envelope a little bit, to see if they can get away with such a flagrant display of 'up-is-downism.' I don't think I've ever seen such an utterly naked ploy from these guys before. Perhaps they've stumbled, wittingly or unwittingly, across the same insight Joseph Goebbels had all those years ago: The bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be accepted, since the audience will be reluctant to believe its leaders would tell them such a monstrous untruth. (In this case I have to assume the audience in question is the GOP faithful and that tiny sliver of undecided voters in the middle. Everybody on our side of the partisan divide already realizes there is no lie too big for this administration to tell, and they know we know.)"

Rumsfeld torture memo articulates the Fuhrer principle for the Whitehouse: "The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture, the report argued... To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president.""

"[ex-CIA agent Ray McGovern warned] The key question for the next five months, then, becomes how far the administration will go. An elevated threat level justifying martial law and postponement of the election? No doubt such suggestions will seem too alarmist to those trusting that there is a moral line, somewhere, that the president and his senior advisers would not cross. I regret very much to note that their behavior over the past three years leaves me doubtful that there is such a line."

Rumsfeld torture memo articulates the Fuhrer principle for the Whitehouse: "The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture, the report argued... To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president.""

"[ex-CIA agent Ray McGovern warned] The key question for the next five months, then, becomes how far the administration will go. An elevated threat level justifying martial law and postponement of the election? No doubt such suggestions will seem too alarmist to those trusting that there is a moral line, somewhere, that the president and his senior advisers would not cross. I regret very much to note that their behavior over the past three years leaves me doubtful that there is such a line."

Seymour Hersh analyses implications of Kurdish situation: "A former Israeli intelligence officer said that Israel’s leadership had concluded by then that the United States was unwilling to confront Iran; in terms of salvaging the situation in Iraq, he said, “it doesn’t add up. It’s over. Not militarily—the United States cannot be defeated militarily in Iraq—but politically.”"

"As they saw it, their warnings and advice had been ignored, and the American war against the insurgency was continuing to founder. “I spent hours talking to the senior members of the Israeli political and intelligence community,” the former official recalled. “Their concern was ‘You’re not going to get it right in Iraq, and shouldn’t we be planning for the worst-case scenario and how to deal with it?’”

"Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister, who supported the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq, took it upon himself at this point to privately warn Vice-President Dick Cheney that America had lost in Iraq; according to an American close to Barak, he said that Israel “had learned that there’s no way to win an occupation.” The only issue, Barak told Cheney, “was choosing the size of your humiliation.”"

"Several officials depicted Sharon’s decision [to intervene in Kurdistan], which involves a heavy financial commitment, as a potentially reckless move that could create even more chaos and violence as the insurgency in Iraq continues to grow.... A top German national-security official said in an interview that “an independent Kurdistan with sufficient oil would have enormous consequences for Syria, Iran, and Turkey” and would lead to continuing instability in the Middle East—no matter what the outcome in Iraq is.... [a European official] added that, at the start of the American invasion of Iraq, several top European officials had told their counterparts in Iran, “You will be the winners in the region.”"

Seymour Hersh analyses implications of Kurdish situation: "A former Israeli intelligence officer said that Israel’s leadership had concluded by then that the United States was unwilling to confront Iran; in terms of salvaging the situation in Iraq, he said, “it doesn’t add up. It’s over. Not militarily—the United States cannot be defeated militarily in Iraq—but politically.”"

"As they saw it, their warnings and advice had been ignored, and the American war against the insurgency was continuing to founder. “I spent hours talking to the senior members of the Israeli political and intelligence community,” the former official recalled. “Their concern was ‘You’re not going to get it right in Iraq, and shouldn’t we be planning for the worst-case scenario and how to deal with it?’”

"Ehud Barak, the former Israeli Prime Minister, who supported the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq, took it upon himself at this point to privately warn Vice-President Dick Cheney that America had lost in Iraq; according to an American close to Barak, he said that Israel “had learned that there’s no way to win an occupation.” The only issue, Barak told Cheney, “was choosing the size of your humiliation.”"

"Several officials depicted Sharon’s decision [to intervene in Kurdistan], which involves a heavy financial commitment, as a potentially reckless move that could create even more chaos and violence as the insurgency in Iraq continues to grow.... A top German national-security official said in an interview that “an independent Kurdistan with sufficient oil would have enormous consequences for Syria, Iran, and Turkey” and would lead to continuing instability in the Middle East—no matter what the outcome in Iraq is.... [a European official] added that, at the start of the American invasion of Iraq, several top European officials had told their counterparts in Iran, “You will be the winners in the region.”"

Howard defends war on Iraq as 'war on terror': "But we also need to understand that this contest in Iraq represents a critical confrontation in the war against terror. We recognise this and so do our enemies. I find it astonishing when people claim that Iraq is a diversion from the real war against terrorism."

* I find astonishing the boldness and crookedness of Howard's position. It is plainly obvious and has been confirmed by one intelligence expert after another that the war on Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism but only increased the recruiting efforts of Al-Qaeda and diminished the safety and security of the peoples of the nations that took part in the unprovoked aggression.

"The reality is that international terrorism has invested an enormous amount in breaking the will of the coalition in Iraq."

The reverse is the case. Reports on Al-Qaeda have it that they are not focussing on Iraq, but on other countries. The resistance in Iraq is not 'terrorism' but an anti-colonialist insurgency.

"Not only are organisations associated with al Qaeda operating in Iraq but each and every turn of the Iraq struggle is interpreted by spokesmen for international terrorism as part of the ongoing campaign against the United States and her allies."

Certainly it is true that the unprovoked aggression against Iraq based on a pretext of transparent lies has been an enormous propaganda & recruiting boost for Bin Laden. His statements and positions demonstrate more credibility than the crude lies and deceptions of Bush/Blair/Howard.

"Whatever may have been the origins of the horrific attack in Madrid, al Qaeda and its associates opportunistically associated that attack with Spain’s participation in the military operation in Iraq. The terrorists have recorded Spain’s subsequent decision to withdraw from Iraq in the victory column against the West."

Spain's withdrawal from the war is a victory for the Spanish people, who finally got their governemnt to adhere to their clear wishes not to participate in this criminal and immoral enterprise; a victory for the people of Iraq who can look forward to the ultimate defeat of the invasion; and a victory against terrrorism, which must be combated by police action and addressing of grievances, not by war.

"With that in mind it is incontestable that a failure of will in Iraq by the coalition would be seen as an enormous propaganda victory for international terrorism. A victory with far reaching consequences."

The victory will not be a victory of 'terrorism' but a victory of indigenous resistance against colonialist invasion, occupation and exploitation. Howard's transparent ideological tactic is to conflate anti-colonialist indigenous resistance with 'terrorism'.

"Any weakening or retreat by the coalition in Iraq will not appease the terrorists. Those who imagine that respite from future terrorist attacks can be purchased by withdrawing or temporising could not be more wrong."

The defeat and retreat of the colonialist invaders will certainly reduce the incidence of attacks on the occupiers. Just as when the US withdrew from Vietnam casualties fell among US soldiers, so when the invaders withdraw from Iraq it is obvious the violence will diminish against them.

"International terrorism is an enemy of Australia because of who we are, not what we have done."

This is the fairy tale that is the essential ideological prop of the phony 'war on terror'. In reality it is Western colonialist and imperialist intervention in the Middle East region in pursuit or hegemony over the energy reserves that is the obvious cause of anti-Western rhetoric and violence (termed 'blowback' by Chalmers Johnson).

Howard to the end of his days will repeat this nonsense and will never be able to speak the truth: that the war on Iraq was a crime based on a pretext of massive lies which predictably increased the threat of terrorism against the invading countries, and that the real reasons for the war were and are to establish permanent military bases and to dominate the oil region of the Middle East.

Howard defends war on Iraq as 'war on terror': "But we also need to understand that this contest in Iraq represents a critical confrontation in the war against terror. We recognise this and so do our enemies. I find it astonishing when people claim that Iraq is a diversion from the real war against terrorism."

* I find astonishing the boldness and crookedness of Howard's position. It is plainly obvious and has been confirmed by one intelligence expert after another that the war on Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism but only increased the recruiting efforts of Al-Qaeda and diminished the safety and security of the peoples of the nations that took part in the unprovoked aggression.

"The reality is that international terrorism has invested an enormous amount in breaking the will of the coalition in Iraq."

The reverse is the case. Reports on Al-Qaeda have it that they are not focussing on Iraq, but on other countries. The resistance in Iraq is not 'terrorism' but an anti-colonialist insurgency.

"Not only are organisations associated with al Qaeda operating in Iraq but each and every turn of the Iraq struggle is interpreted by spokesmen for international terrorism as part of the ongoing campaign against the United States and her allies."

Certainly it is true that the unprovoked aggression against Iraq based on a pretext of transparent lies has been an enormous propaganda & recruiting boost for Bin Laden. His statements and positions demonstrate more credibility than the crude lies and deceptions of Bush/Blair/Howard.

"Whatever may have been the origins of the horrific attack in Madrid, al Qaeda and its associates opportunistically associated that attack with Spain’s participation in the military operation in Iraq. The terrorists have recorded Spain’s subsequent decision to withdraw from Iraq in the victory column against the West."

Spain's withdrawal from the war is a victory for the Spanish people, who finally got their governemnt to adhere to their clear wishes not to participate in this criminal and immoral enterprise; a victory for the people of Iraq who can look forward to the ultimate defeat of the invasion; and a victory against terrrorism, which must be combated by police action and addressing of grievances, not by war.

"With that in mind it is incontestable that a failure of will in Iraq by the coalition would be seen as an enormous propaganda victory for international terrorism. A victory with far reaching consequences."

The victory will not be a victory of 'terrorism' but a victory of indigenous resistance against colonialist invasion, occupation and exploitation. Howard's transparent ideological tactic is to conflate anti-colonialist indigenous resistance with 'terrorism'.

"Any weakening or retreat by the coalition in Iraq will not appease the terrorists. Those who imagine that respite from future terrorist attacks can be purchased by withdrawing or temporising could not be more wrong."

The defeat and retreat of the colonialist invaders will certainly reduce the incidence of attacks on the occupiers. Just as when the US withdrew from Vietnam casualties fell among US soldiers, so when the invaders withdraw from Iraq it is obvious the violence will diminish against them.

"International terrorism is an enemy of Australia because of who we are, not what we have done."

This is the fairy tale that is the essential ideological prop of the phony 'war on terror'. In reality it is Western colonialist and imperialist intervention in the Middle East region in pursuit or hegemony over the energy reserves that is the obvious cause of anti-Western rhetoric and violence (termed 'blowback' by Chalmers Johnson).

Howard to the end of his days will repeat this nonsense and will never be able to speak the truth: that the war on Iraq was a crime based on a pretext of massive lies which predictably increased the threat of terrorism against the invading countries, and that the real reasons for the war were and are to establish permanent military bases and to dominate the oil region of the Middle East.

Wilkie: Howard knew reasons for war: "The book, which has been vetted by the Attorney-General's Department and had some details censored on national security grounds, also states that:

* Australian agencies gathered intelligence on the US Administration and reported that allegations of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorists were not the main reasons it wanted to invade Iraq.

* The Opposition was deliberately misled during briefings by intelligence agencies in the lead-up to the war, with facts undermining the Government's position omitted.

* The Government knowingly presented false intelligence to the public that exaggerated the threat that Saddam Hussein posed."

""Mr Howard and Alexander Downer knew exactly why the US was going to war and that terrorism and WMD was not the most important part of the reason," Mr Wilkie said. The US wanted to gain control of oil reserves, reinforce its global power ascendancy, respond to domestic political considerations after the September 11 attacks and influence the shape of the Middle East, he said. Confidential US Administration information was obtained from sources and contacts, then communicated back to Australia in diplomatic cables, he said.

"By late 2002, the ONA had determined that the US had already decided to invade Iraq, the book states. Repeated claims by the Howard Government that its WMD case against Iraq accurately reflected the views of national intelligence agencies were "plainly wrong", Mr Wilkie said. In 2002, the ONA knew that evidence that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program with uranium purchases from Africa was false. The agency also knew that any WMD capacity held by Iraq was limited and there was no hard evidence to show Saddam was "weaponising"."

These high level revelations only confirm what was pretty obvious to any observer throughout the buildup to war. Perhaps the most striking thing about them however is that despite the ammunition they provide, the oppositioin will not go on the attack but continues to be on the defensive about 'supporting the alliance.' One wonders whether Latham is making an error in his softly-softly approach.

Wilkie: Howard knew reasons for war: "The book, which has been vetted by the Attorney-General's Department and had some details censored on national security grounds, also states that:

* Australian agencies gathered intelligence on the US Administration and reported that allegations of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorists were not the main reasons it wanted to invade Iraq.

* The Opposition was deliberately misled during briefings by intelligence agencies in the lead-up to the war, with facts undermining the Government's position omitted.

* The Government knowingly presented false intelligence to the public that exaggerated the threat that Saddam Hussein posed."

""Mr Howard and Alexander Downer knew exactly why the US was going to war and that terrorism and WMD was not the most important part of the reason," Mr Wilkie said. The US wanted to gain control of oil reserves, reinforce its global power ascendancy, respond to domestic political considerations after the September 11 attacks and influence the shape of the Middle East, he said. Confidential US Administration information was obtained from sources and contacts, then communicated back to Australia in diplomatic cables, he said.

"By late 2002, the ONA had determined that the US had already decided to invade Iraq, the book states. Repeated claims by the Howard Government that its WMD case against Iraq accurately reflected the views of national intelligence agencies were "plainly wrong", Mr Wilkie said. In 2002, the ONA knew that evidence that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program with uranium purchases from Africa was false. The agency also knew that any WMD capacity held by Iraq was limited and there was no hard evidence to show Saddam was "weaponising"."

These high level revelations only confirm what was pretty obvious to any observer throughout the buildup to war. Perhaps the most striking thing about them however is that despite the ammunition they provide, the oppositioin will not go on the attack but continues to be on the defensive about 'supporting the alliance.' One wonders whether Latham is making an error in his softly-softly approach.

The Betrayal of Dissent: "I was struck, especially after 9-11, by writers who claimed to be protecting the “Left” by tarring those who questioned US foreign policy as naï ve, deluded, or dangerous. I think immediately of Thomas Friedman, Leon Wieseltier (sp?), Michael Kelly, Todd Gitlin, Michael Walzer, and George Packer, claiming moral and political authority by hanging the “extremist” placard around the necks of dissidents who raised issues over the rush to war."

It strikes me as ludicrous to describe people like Thomas Friedman as 'leftist'. The corporate media and its hired hacks is simply not worth reading - if you are reading it there is your mistake. It was long ago pointed out by Chomsky how the system works - the so-called 'liberal' press performs a crucial propaganda function by indicating the limits of the debate. That is its only function. Once you have perceived that the game is up and none of it can be taken seriously.

The only interest is, rather like the study of Kremlinology, how far what the media is saying indicates the thinking of the ruling elite. A prime example is the huge media ding-dong about torture and Abu Ghraib. The significance of the leaks and the massive media exposure of this event is not the fact of torture (that could hardly come as any surprise to anyone who was paying attention or who has a clue about the nature of war and occupation) but the serious dissension among the US elite about the incompetent conduct of the war and Bush's whole policy, which is regarded as risky and dangerous even within the constraints of imperialist/colonialist thinking. Had the war been a success in its own terms, there would never have been this kind of negative media. The deepening crisis for the United States, however, is what if the ruling clique refuses to play by the established rules? Damn the media and the 'liberals', we've decided we're staying in power.

The Betrayal of Dissent: "I was struck, especially after 9-11, by writers who claimed to be protecting the “Left” by tarring those who questioned US foreign policy as naï ve, deluded, or dangerous. I think immediately of Thomas Friedman, Leon Wieseltier (sp?), Michael Kelly, Todd Gitlin, Michael Walzer, and George Packer, claiming moral and political authority by hanging the “extremist” placard around the necks of dissidents who raised issues over the rush to war."

It strikes me as ludicrous to describe people like Thomas Friedman as 'leftist'. The corporate media and its hired hacks is simply not worth reading - if you are reading it there is your mistake. It was long ago pointed out by Chomsky how the system works - the so-called 'liberal' press performs a crucial propaganda function by indicating the limits of the debate. That is its only function. Once you have perceived that the game is up and none of it can be taken seriously.

The only interest is, rather like the study of Kremlinology, how far what the media is saying indicates the thinking of the ruling elite. A prime example is the huge media ding-dong about torture and Abu Ghraib. The significance of the leaks and the massive media exposure of this event is not the fact of torture (that could hardly come as any surprise to anyone who was paying attention or who has a clue about the nature of war and occupation) but the serious dissension among the US elite about the incompetent conduct of the war and Bush's whole policy, which is regarded as risky and dangerous even within the constraints of imperialist/colonialist thinking. Had the war been a success in its own terms, there would never have been this kind of negative media. The deepening crisis for the United States, however, is what if the ruling clique refuses to play by the established rules? Damn the media and the 'liberals', we've decided we're staying in power.