![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thorfinnBeen a little while since I posted any political-fu. So. Here's some not so light reading.
Just thought I'd label Howard's recent "remove the double dissolution trigger" proposal. I call it, The Jar Jar Binks Proposal a la Howard. It does not replicate Jar Jar's proposal in form, but certainly does in background intent. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, see: How far is the PM willing to go on Senate reform? and The Senate ain't broke: now watch Howard fix it. Fortunately, Most oppose Howard Senate changes, so I am relieved.
However, the proposal itself speaks volumes about Mr Howard. I've been saying for quite some time that he's a power hungry scumbag, who cares not for anything except his own power. There is no reason for this proposal except to remove one of the constitutional balances against government power, thus giving himself more power. That's also likely the reason why he's gone out of his way to make a disaster of the office of the Governor General - the more discredited that office is, the more power sits with the Prime Minister, rather than the GG. You'll note, too, that the Attorney General is very very firmly in Howard's pocket, and quite frequently goes well out of bounds to support the PM, instead of upholding the standards of the High Court and the Law in general. It's all part of a trend. Mr Howard wants power, and more of it in his hands, personally, thank you very much. No, no review. Just do what I say, damn you all. I'm right, no matter what anyone else says.
Sorry. I don't like that very much. Fuck you, Mr Howard. Go away. I'd rather have backstabbing Labor pollies, than you and your power mad cronies, any day.
Now, the War on Terror's Over, right? Isn't there Peace In Our Time yet?
Well, how about we start with Afghanistan:
A life worth living - The Age, May 27 and US turns to the Taliban - Asia Times, June 14. War's over, huh? Guerrilla attacks, a standing army, a growing "communist" Northern Alliance... this is all, of course, in a country which is no longer at war, and is now, of course "safe". <sarcasm>Yeps. Sure. Great. George told me so, so it must be true.</sarcasm>
How about Iraq? Well, fortunately, it seems that initial claims of museum losses were exaggerated (Lost from the Baghdad museum: truth - UK Guardian, June 10), although a National Geographic survey - June 11 points out that that's hardly the only venue being looted. <sarcasm>Course, Iraq is safe and free now, right?</sarcasm> Well:
In the meantime, take a nice look at some speeches from U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd:
And, just to put on the finishing touches, The blogger of Baghdad is revealed.
Just thought I'd label Howard's recent "remove the double dissolution trigger" proposal. I call it, The Jar Jar Binks Proposal a la Howard. It does not replicate Jar Jar's proposal in form, but certainly does in background intent. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, see: How far is the PM willing to go on Senate reform? and The Senate ain't broke: now watch Howard fix it. Fortunately, Most oppose Howard Senate changes, so I am relieved.
However, the proposal itself speaks volumes about Mr Howard. I've been saying for quite some time that he's a power hungry scumbag, who cares not for anything except his own power. There is no reason for this proposal except to remove one of the constitutional balances against government power, thus giving himself more power. That's also likely the reason why he's gone out of his way to make a disaster of the office of the Governor General - the more discredited that office is, the more power sits with the Prime Minister, rather than the GG. You'll note, too, that the Attorney General is very very firmly in Howard's pocket, and quite frequently goes well out of bounds to support the PM, instead of upholding the standards of the High Court and the Law in general. It's all part of a trend. Mr Howard wants power, and more of it in his hands, personally, thank you very much. No, no review. Just do what I say, damn you all. I'm right, no matter what anyone else says.
Sorry. I don't like that very much. Fuck you, Mr Howard. Go away. I'd rather have backstabbing Labor pollies, than you and your power mad cronies, any day.
Now, the War on Terror's Over, right? Isn't there Peace In Our Time yet?
Well, how about we start with Afghanistan:
A life worth living - The Age, May 27 and US turns to the Taliban - Asia Times, June 14. War's over, huh? Guerrilla attacks, a standing army, a growing "communist" Northern Alliance... this is all, of course, in a country which is no longer at war, and is now, of course "safe". <sarcasm>Yeps. Sure. Great. George told me so, so it must be true.</sarcasm>
How about Iraq? Well, fortunately, it seems that initial claims of museum losses were exaggerated (Lost from the Baghdad museum: truth - UK Guardian, June 10), although a National Geographic survey - June 11 points out that that's hardly the only venue being looted. <sarcasm>Course, Iraq is safe and free now, right?</sarcasm> Well:
- US casualties rise - NY Times, June 11
- Iraqi raids on US troops a mystery - The Age, June 12
- US launches raids as soldiers play politics, too - NY Times, LA Times, June 13
- Dozens die in new clashes - Reuters, June 14
- US forces find loyalty to Saddam hard to break - LA Times, June 14
- US troops battle resistance in Iraq - AFP, The Age, June 15
- Claims of summary executions in US attack - The Age, June 15
- US forces launch fresh attack on resistance - The Age, June 16
In the meantime, take a nice look at some speeches from U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd:
- May 06, 2003 - Making the Military a Prop in Presidential Politics
- May 21, 2003 - The Truth Will Emerge
- June 5, 2003 - The Preception of Deception: Where Are the Iraqi Weapons?
- USA lied about Iraq's weapons, AftenPosten, March 19
- SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE - The New Yorker, May 12
- Arab world is waking up to terror's threat - The Age, May 25
- Our ABC's spin on war in Iraq - Senator Alston, The Age, May 29
- How the ABC upheld its duty during Iraq - Max Uechtritz, The Age, May 30
- Leaders under fire for 'exaggerating' threat - Telegraph, June 4
- British MPs turn heat on Blair over Iraq weapons - Guardian, June 5
- The Risk of Iraq-Gate - Le Figaro, June 7
- CIA officials tell of Cheney pressure - Washington Post, June 6
- America invaded Iraq because it could - Thomas Friedman, NY Times, June 6
- Blix casts doubt on Iraq's arms - Washington Post, June 7
- If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People - Right Wing News, June 8
- Blair's spin doctor apologises for dossier - Telegraph, June 9
- Truth and consequences - US News, June 9
- CIA aware of dubious war motive - The Age, June 11
- Iraq intelligence 'not solid': Blix - AFP, The Age, June 11
- Key Iraq findings 'withheld' - Washington Post, June 13
- Iraq: holding the left to account - Pamela Bone, The Age, June 12
- Iraq scandal a threat to democracy - Robert Manne, The Age, June 16
- WMD: Where are they? - z Facts, Aug 26 2002 to current
And, just to put on the finishing touches, The blogger of Baghdad is revealed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-06-16 05:36 (UTC)Sadly, I have to agree. Nicely put.
Senate "reform"
Date: 2003-06-16 05:39 (UTC)However, it's worth noting that Keating had some very similar things to say about the Senate. The ALP is just as suspicious of it as the Liberals are, and quite frankly I wouldn't be *too* surprised to see them trying to pull pretty much the same stunt if they were in Government and felt they had an unassailable position, re-election wise.
The other biggie is the ASIO bill. Now that's one scary bugger. The short version, for those not up on Australian politics, is that the Government is trying to get a Bill through which would give the intelligence body ASIO the right to hold anyone suspected of "having information" related to terrorism for up to seven days secretly and without legal representation. *And* you have to prove you don't have the information they think you have or you can be thrown in the slammer for five years.
In the US they at least pretend that you're somehow actively involved, rather than merely "having information".
More scarily, it's sounding like the ALP may side with them in the Senate on this one. After all, they side with the Government far more often than not, despite Howard's claims of obstructionism.
How long before people who raise annoying questions are suspected of "having information" and left to the tender mercies of ASIO interrogators?
who needs conspiraciy theories?
Date: 2003-06-16 07:07 (UTC)Re: who needs conspiraciy theories?
Date: 2003-06-16 09:05 (UTC)