Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

C Parsons, “You even admit to being already aware of it.”  Did I?  About time this egocentric little game stopped don’t you think? I will, however, allow you the last word if your ego insists but I am now finished with this childishness.

Good Night and Good Luck.

Phil Moffat: So typical.

You asked for a poll. I gave you one.

You even admit to being already aware of it.

And now you don't want to accept its findings.

Simply because, presumably, it doesn't support your contention that the Iraqi people, the chief victims of almost daily "resistance" terrorist bomings and assasinations, are not somehow "at one" with the "resistance" and your interpretation of its objectives.

Let the moral panic begin.

 

C Parsons: "Quite clearly, the Iraqi public distinguish between their wellbeing and that of the so-called "resistance". And they make it abundantly clear whom they have more reason to fear."

Do they?

That was an unusual poll, CP. Once again I find it interesting what has not been said or, in this case, quantified.

"An overwhelming majority of those questioned said they considered improved national security to be the main priority for the next 12 months, although many felt secure in their own neighbourhoods.

And while many wanted to see American and other foreign forces leaving Iraqi soil, a majority said they should not go until security had been restored, or until the Iraqi security forces were able to operate independently."

Strange sort of poll that does not report the percentages.

This from the Washington Post on 13 May 2004:

"In the poll, 80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq."

And more recently, this was reported in the Sunday Telegraph (UK) on 23 October 2005.

"The study commissioned by Britain's ministry of defence and reveals that fewer than one percent of Iraqis believe US-led coalition forces have helped improved security in Iraq."

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. (my italics ) It reveals:

45 per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops; less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq."

And this is another poll about the sentiments of our fellow Australians:

"The Newspoll of 1,200 Australians, published in The Australian newspaper 31 Dec 05, shows 66 per cent of voters believe it was not worth joining the Iraq war. This compares with 58 per cent for December 2004. Fewer than half of coalition supporters now believe the war was worth it, with 46 per cent saying it wasn't and 43 per cent saying it was.

Overall, 27 per cent of voters across the spectrum said they still supported the invasion, against 32 per cent for the same time last year."

Looks like the greater majority of Australians support the terrorists, or is it Saddam, or is it the resistance? Gets all so confusing, doesn't it, CP, but do I feel guilty? Not on your life.

It's a funny thing, CP, when it comes to polls I'm sure you are aware that there are many variables. I won't go into detail for I suspect a person of your intelligence knows exactly what I mean.

So once again I return to my original question; Who do you trust?

 I suspect that in this case we both share in a touch of the Diogenes so if we are really going to find out the truth about polls, the resistance and all things Iraq then we will have to bloody well go there ourselves and conduct our own research. Wadya reckon? But then again this my be a desperate attempt by yours truly to get my hands on your Halle Berry lunchbox or is it Halle Berry's lunchbox ;-)

As far as the Hamas thing goes I'm afraid I am wisdom's amateur. I trust that you are far more qualified than me to comment on same. I will, however, say that until the Jewish people can be assured of their security then peace in this area of the world will be just a dream.

Once again, CP, thank you for your input and take care, old boy.

C Parsons, you've posted that BBC press release before. I responded then, and you responded to me.

You didn't respond to any of the issues I raised with the survey and its reporting, just to my assertion that "Until the Americans withdraw, there can’t be peace in Iraq". That reply, by the way, was not asserting that I was wrong, but rather that things would be even worse without the COW. More or less what you are asserting now.

But I didn't respond to you then. I'll do it now.

The recent Iraqi election provides an opportunity for the Iraqis if they, the international community and the USA can take it, to get the USA out without a descent into bloodier civil war.

My proposal is this: The new Iraqi government, after appropriate negotiations, requests the UN, in association with the Arab League, maybe the EU, ASEAN and others, to relieve the COW of their security responsibilities and presence in Iraq (with thanks, if necessary). Not of their responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure, which would still require billions of dollars (USD & AUD) and pounds. The COW troops return home and are replaced with mainly Arab/Muslim troops, and professional peacekeepers from Fiji, NZ, Canada and the EU etc.

There would be a problem with corruption and waste, but maybe less than when you have Halliburton and the USA Army. There would also be a problem with "cultural insensitivity" and the peacekeepers acting like gods, but that would be much reduced compared to the current situation.

The UN would be very nervous about going in, but that is what the "appropriate negotiations" are for. To establish a bit of confidence that the whole thing would work.

So, CP, there is a reasonable path to take that would remove a large part of the grievance of the Iraqi "resistance". It might actually lead to lead to peace and democracy in Iraq. Should they take it?

It ain't going to happen!

The Americans can't bear the loss of face, strategic position and economic opportunity that it would mean. Bugger the democratic wishes of the Iraqi people, they ain't leaving.

Phil Moffat: "If you can supply polls that support Iraqi preference for occupation then please do."

"An opinion poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC News and other international media organisations suggests that security is a major concern in the lives of most Iraqis, two and a half years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein - although it also reveals a high level of optimism about the future."

"An overwhelming majority of those questioned said they considered improved national security to be the main priority for the next 12 months, although many felt secure in their own neighbourhoods."

"And while many wanted to see American and other foreign forces leaving Iraqi soil, a majority said they should not go until security had been restored, or until the Iraqi security forces were able to operate independently."

(my italics)

So, Phil.

Quite clearly, the Iraqi public distinguish between their wellbeing and that of the so-called "resistance". And they make it abundantly clear whom they have more reason to fear.

The main focus of "resistance" attacks has been the Iraqi people themselves. Over and over and over.

So, to merely equate the "resistance" with its principal victims just to mitigate any qualms you or other people might have felt about supporting the "resistance" is a piece of casuistry.

This is clearly intended to mitigate the guilt feelings of you and others who enthusiastically embraced the "resistance" in the days after Saddam's overthrow?

But understand, nobody's being deceived. Okay?

A similar re-write is underway already with respect to Hamas.

The rise of Hamas will force those previously posing as "anti-Zionists" - but not calling for the elimination of Israel - to compromise their stance and so pretend that Hamas itself is not really anti-Semitic and indeed is merely anti-Zionist.

And not really calling for the destruction of Israel or the Jews at all.

Oh, golly. Look...

"Hamas, however, is not a terrorist organisation but a mass-based, Palestinian resistance movement established in 1987 at the start of the first intifada, with the aim of liberating Palestine from the Israeli occupation. According to Hamas, this does not mean the expulsion of Jews from historical Palestine, but the realisation of the right of return for the Palestinians expelled from the towns and villages they lived in before 1948, in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194." - Green Left Weekly

What chance Jews surving in a "Greater Palestine" run by Hamas, Phil?

About as much chance as them surviving in Saudi Arabia (where they're actually illegal) or in Iran where they have been reduced by over 90 percent in 50 years).

But suddenly, there's Green Left Weekly pretending Hamas is not a terrorsit organisation but some kind of social club, and that there'd be two chickens in every pot for any Jew lucky enough to live under a state ruled by Hamas.

And look here, already. Just today.

"...anyway, it's understandable that the Palestinians elect, at present, a Government unafraid to defend them, unafraid to oppose their oppressors, capable of striking back at them, and with the interests, dignity and honour of the Palestinian people genuinely at heart.

The State of Israel first and foremost must behave honourably and end the humiliation of the Palestinian people in all the forms that this humiliation takes, if it ever wishes to have credibility in these matters, or if it expects to be treated as a credible, honourable entity."

This is Hamas, they're talking about.

And already they've begun to compromise with, and lickspittle to it.

That's how the "peace" movement works. Slurp. Slurp. Slurp.

A future for Jews in a state ruled by Hamas?

You may as well pretend that the bloodied, crushed victims of the "resistance" are the "resistance".

But I forgot. You do think that.

CP, your reply is a little bit embarrassing for I truly expected something better from you. Your non sequitur has done nothing to advance the level of discussion regarding the reality of the occupation and the Iraqi people’s distain for same. If you can supply polls that support Iraqi preference for occupation then please do.

“The Left will redefine the Iraqi resistance at its convenience. Just like everything else when things come unstuck.”

Or

The right have redefined the reasons for war at its convenience. Just like everything else when things come unstuck.

All sounds rather childish, hey CP, for we can both play that game until the cows come home, especially when we compare left and right. I've been around too long now to waste my time with petty politics.

I was sort of hoping we could  work together on this in a constructive manner, but it would appear you prefer to play with me.

Over the years I have discovered what people don’t say is quite often of equal or greater importance than what they do say. Your last two comments to me is a fine example. And in this respect I can only assume that your resistance to answer a very simple question probably puts us in agreement.

So once again my dear CP (no irony intended) I shall repeat myself:

Now that brings me back to the mood of this thread and my earlier question which you, for what ever reason, have not ventured an answer or opinion. Who do you trust to solve these problems? Our politicians who lie to us? Our business leaders who lie to us?  Who can we really trust to put things right in the best interests of the Iraqi people?

If you wish to work with me on this one then your reply would be sincerely appreciated however if you wish to use me as a play thing well I will look forward to reading some of your more astute contributions elsewhere.

Thanks CP and take care.

Phil, There is absolutely no point in trying engage C Parsons in any kind of discussion.

He only spends time on Webdiary to foster hatred of anything that deviates from his right wing ideology. He broadcasts a meme that tags anything left of extreme right as evil, dishonest and counterproductive. Much as Damain Lataan does in reverse.

C Parsons is a poster with an admirable knowledge of history, there can be no doubt about it. Unfortunately, he cherrypicks history to suit his own campaign of calumny.

He does not come here to offer a different perspective, he only comes here to destroy and derail debate.

I encourage you to read his post on the new "Katrina" thread and realisehis agenda.

Phil Moffat: "So what is the resistance? You offered a number of choices yet the resistance is not just the flesh and blood of those factions you mentioned; it is also the collective will of a people."

No, that was the elections, Phil.

The resistance spent most of its time trying to prevent the elections, remember?

Watch everyone.

The Left will redefine the Iraqi resistance at its convenience. Just like everything else when things come unstuck.

CP, Yes so many choices, yet it was inevitable to many, including George H W Bush, James Baker and even Dick Cheney to invade and occupy Iraq “would have been disastrous” to quote GHWB. A “quagmire” to quote DC. Of course that was back in 1991. Yet since 1991 Saddam and his power base, owing to sanctions and the previous years of warfare, were left a sad and sorry military power and not a clear and present threat to other nations.

So let’s accept the fact,  that for what ever reasons GWB had for going to Baghdad, any reasonable person would agree that it was going to be an adventure fraught with risk. War always carries unknown risks and consequences and the earlier concerns of GHWB and DC were somewhat prophetic.

I don’t intend to get into the reasons (or legality) of why we went to war for they have been discussed at length already. For the sake of this discussion we now have to accept that war is the reality. And the reality is, at this point in time, the COW is experiencing the worst of all possible worlds.

We have a resistance and domestic terror facilitated by the various Iraqi factions and fuelled to a lesser degree by external participants, such as al Qaeda. The prophetic warnings of GHWB and DC were most certainly valid yet went unheeded by the current US administration including DC himself. Too many innocent people have been killed and Graeme Hastwell’s comments and astute posts on the “Yet another core promise” thread regarding same are worth a read.

So what is the resistance? You offered a number of choices yet the resistance is not just the flesh and blood of those factions you mentioned; it is also the collective will of a people. And from all reports and polls, even those taken by the US military, it would appear that the greater majority of the Iraqi people want their invaders and occupiers to leave. They want to sort out their own problems without having to put up with ignorant young grunts kicking their doors in while humiliating and hurting their loved ones and neighbours.

Sadly as this war was ill considered and approached in such an amateurish manner the so called peace keeping has been left to mostly kids who have neither the urban peacekeeping skills nor maturity to fully comprehend the task at hand; especially in a land and culture that is so foreign. These kids are out of their depth, frightened and just want to get home alive and in one piece. Every mistake they make, every door they kick in, every physical and mental insult dished out by these frightened kids will only fuel the collective will of the Iraqi people. Please go home.

So what do we do and how can we both respect the wishes of the Iraqi people and at the same time help them build a working democracy. Not the two wolves and lamb variety but a true democracy that works in the interests of all.

Now that brings me back to the mood of this thread and my earlier question which you, for what ever reason, have not ventured an answer or opinion. Who do you trust to solve these problems? Our politicians who lie to us? Our business leaders who lie to us?  Who can we really trust to put things right in the best interests of the Iraqi people?

I’m running low on trust at the moment, so if you can help me out on this one CP, I would be very grateful.

Phil Moffat: "So when we talk about the Iraqi Resistance it is best to clarify exactly what we mean."

Yea, I think it's got to that point now, too.

Having to backtrack on our earlier unqualified support for the glorious resistance.

And then choosing between the factions now murdering Iraqi civilians on a daily basis.

Now, let's see...

Do we mean the faction that has declared open warfare on the Shiite majority population and wants to exterminate it?

Or just the bit that's just opposed to democracy on principle because its allegedly not consistent with Islam?

Or the bit that is merely opposed to the Sunni factions giving up their monopoly on political power in Iraq, and who have agreed to call a halt to the attacks on civilians while negotiating a power-sharing arrangement with the elected government?

Or do we mean the al Queada faction?

Choices. Choices.

Geoff Pahoff says, "My question is have you ever criticised this racist lying fascist monster?"

My hat's off to you Geoff. A four word concentrated news banner.  Racist, lying, fascist, monster + whose photo? Saddam, George W, Osama, Rupert, George G, Elvis, the next door neighbour? Was Kerry Packer really the Goanna?

Then you've resurrected McCarthy's ghost. It's not enough to be loyal, one must be constantly demonstrating the fervour of that loyalty by criticising the nominated Demon of the Day.

To Geoff and all the other lofty, ritey, middly piddly dichotomists on Webdiary, I'm sure you're all very nice people. If you look into your own heart, or the hearts of loved ones, you'll notice a tiny warm flame of human spirit.

Pay attention to that flame. Nurture it. Come to understand that every human being has one just like it.

Racist, lying fascist monster? No, John's not like that.

Geoff Pahoff, your "no higher form of official investigation in this country" is Restricted to the "Terms of Reference" of the Commission.

The Commission is created by Cabinet, you know that body of high-ranking members of Howard Government. Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Alexander Downer MP, is just one of those that has help set the terms of reference and you call that due process?

I never really get to Newtown. Good to know the comrades still keep the flag flying.

Michael de Angelos, Andrew McCrae

Boy, you fellas have really made an artform out of reading between the lines haven't you? How does this work? Something somebody has written does not quite fit your notions and off-the-shelf ideas and assumptions? Simple. Just read in to it what you need and want to make your answer coherent. Put the target where the arrow has fallen. Retroactively. And then accuse your target of strawman diversional tactics to thoroughly muddy the water. Afterall, somebody has to be guilty. May as well be him.

Impressive. Is there some kind of school somewhere that teaches this sort of thing?

Let me try an answer in point form :

• I have said that this AWB thing is grave. Even now it looks to me like it may be more serious than the so-called "Loans Affair" or the "Iraqi Breakfast Affair" of the early seventies. It must be fully investigated. Everything must be made public. What else do you want me to say?
  
  
• It is now the subject of an inquiry with Royal Commission powers. There is no higher form of official investigation in this country. There is such a thing as due process. Looking forward to its report before making up my mind and commenting about what may or may not have happened is neither timid or strange.  Maybe it's the old lawyer in me, but for me it's just sheer bloody commonsense.
  
  
• On the other hand Galloway has already been fried and served up on toast by himself long ago.
  
  
• I thought this thread was about bribery and Iraq. Surely that covers Galloway as well as the AWB matter. Mind you sometimes I have a problem with cartoonists. I thought I kind of understood Leunig until reading his recent article.
  
  
• The behaviour of the modern "left" and the old "left" (once the "New Left" - looked in a mirror recently old comrades?) is always on-topic around here as I understand it. So is the "right".

Andrew, I did not make any comments in my earlier post that were specifically aimed at you nor did I make any assumptions. If you see yourself in the subject of my criticism then that is entirely a matter between you and your conscience. You have cut and worn the suit on your own, my friend.

CP, for what it's worth I have no problem with the “Iraqi resistance”. If a foreign power invades a sovereign nation then many would sympathise with the resistance of that invasion and occupation. This is par for the course.

Blowing the arms and legs of the COW occupiers does sound like resistance and I feel that this is quite reasonable under the circumstances. History supports this well.

Suicide bombers blowing up women and children in market places does not sound like “resistance” to me. Maybe we could simply call it political motivated murder, but the accepted definition is “terrorism”.

So when we talk about the Iraqi Resistance it is best to clarify exactly what we mean. For at this present time in Iraq it would appear we have both resistance and terror which for the COW is the worst of all possible worlds.

Finally this Iraqi war and current bribery scandal which involves all and sundry reinforces two things (to me):

1-We can’t trust our politicians who are motivated by power and greed.

2-We can’t trust our business leaders who are motivated by greed and power.

It would interest me to know, who do you trust CP?

Michael de Angelos: "The warmongerers have a dilemna with this one: How to find something worse they can pin on someone else when it is discovered that Australians have been financing the man claimed to be the greatest threat to the world."

Well it cannot be any greater than the dilemma the, cough, cough, "peace activists" now face, hey Michael?

How to now reverse their earlier insistence that the Oil for Food scandal was a right wing beat up to make people like Galloway look bad?

Remember? It was just an "excuse" to explain away the "500,000 dead Iraqi babies"?

It was an baseless attack on Kofi Annan and the UN with no better purpose than to embarass the French and Germans and others opposed to the invasion?

What? Have the "peace activists" forgotten all that?

Talking about dilemmas, have you still got any of those "Why we support the Iraqi resistance" posters Socialist Alliance was pasting up around Newtown before the last elections?

Especially now the Sunnis are talking about joining a governing coalition in Iraq?

An elected government, Michael.

Should we still be cheering on the bomb throwers and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi?

Hmmm?

Andrew McRae: "I say this having never defended George Galloway or denied the existence of an oil for food corruption scandal, and quite interested to read C Parsons' serious analysis of the AWB corruption case if he were able to produce one."

Oh, gosh, Andrew. Please forgive me for being so unfair as to suggest that anyone in the, cough, cough, peace movement would be so tawdry as to defend George Galloway or play down the Oil for Food subversion stunt.

Heavens? Where could I, or perhaps millions of others just like me, have got that idea?

My take on the AWB corruption case is that the malefactors be treated as major war criminals and, if we could rush an extradition treaty through in time, they be handed over to the Iraqis for trial.

And perhaps execution.

(I'll leave that up to the Iraqis to decide).

Anyway, if that judge who's understandably getting sick and tired of Saddam's antics would like a change of routine, then fair enough, I say.

Give him the AWB boys to deal with.

He seems like a nice bloke and probably knows his law.

Indeed, while we are on it, I think anyone giving aid and comfort to the Sunni militias, or so called "resistance", should be sent over, too.

I haven't made up my mind about those who merely felt morally bound to help play down the Oil for Food scandal, like Green Left Weekly and AlterNet and the like, but seeing as they also harbour people like John Pilger, who does support the "resistance" militias, perhaps they should be arrested, too.

I mean, as late as August 2004, Pilger was describing these thugs as "nationalists defending their homeland", his support even extending to expressing a frank disapproval of them being described as "militias" in western media.

No, they're heroic freedom fighters and poets of the revolution or some such.

Hooray.

But anyway, what does it matter?

How morally different are they from the AWB guys who also illegally backed the fascist militias, admittedly when the militias were the actual government of Iraq, and also downplayed the the extent of the Oil for food subversion?

Except they now have no choice but admit it - and don't pretend they were somehow all along helping Iraq's transition to democracy.

Anyway, the Australian Wheat Board bozos and anyone else backing the Sunni (or even Shi'ite) militia campaigns are war criminals if you ask me.

I realise certain allowances have to be made in the name of reconciliation. So, I might be prepared to accept a bit of pussy-footing with that Iranian fellow, Mogtadr, seeing as he now lives in Iraq and, well, I cannot imagine his missus is too keen to go home to Iran even if her dad used to run the place.

But I'd keep an eye on him anyway.

But as for the AWB?

Hang 'em.

After all, food is a strategic commodity. An army marches on its stomach, as they say.

And if that Dutch bloke can end up facing war crimes charges for supplying gas and chemicals to Saddam's "nationalists defending their homeland" or whatever, why not send the board and manangement of the AWB over to Iraq, too?

I would.

I hope this doesn't put us on opposite sides of this important issue, Andrew? Yet again?

So we know Galloway was on the take from Saddam Hussein do we Geoff Parhoff? Nothing has been proven apart from constant repetitions of the same claims by the hard right and Blair's New Labour despite being proven false. Scotland Yard seems to be pretty slack bringing any criminal charges against the man and the reason he was kicked out of Labour was because of his anti-war/Blair stance.

You  give him too much credit for the anti-war movement in the UK. Over a million marched in the London to ask Blair not to illegally bomb Iraq in Britain's name and every poll has always found this war was not wanted by the majority. Fortunately for the war criminal Blair, the UK's system hands him government with 25% of votes.

Linking Galloway to the AWB scandal does raise questions. If he is the monster his critics claim he is and one reason being he took Saddam's money then how evil are those who supplied Hussein with the funds to bribe? The warmongerers have a dilemna with this one: How to find something worse they can pin on someone else when it is discovered that Australians have been financing the man claimed to be the greatest threat to the world.

Michael de Angelos, you're correct, it's the use of a diversion - a variation, perhaps, of the straw man fallacy, which is one of the vehement right's favourites. Yes, the left can do it, too. But the blogosphere and the mainstream media are bursting with the sarcastic derision and disparagement of the triumphalist right - somehow connected to believing the long ago collapse of communism proved something about everybody who doesn't now support Bush or Howard?

Straw man fallacy: when someone ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of his or her position. In the present case, a concocted version of a person's views on another issue, perhaps deduced from a remembered, generalised dislike of what a few 'lefties' are supposed to have said ('the standard left line'). Thus, Person A says X. Person B presents position Y (a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is wrong! Or in this case has double standards, and therefore there's no issue. QED.

C Parsons, therefore, probably knowing nothing of the artist's views on other issues, and having nothing to say about the cartoon or the political and ethical issues surrounding the AWB or the Australian government, in fact believing there was simply no need, acted fast to divert the issue to that of the double standards of the tired old left (actually, anyone who criticises the Australian government). Throw in the usual amount of sarcasm, and he's triumphed - in his own mind.

I say this having never defended George Galloway or denied the existence of an oil for food corruption scandal, and quite interested to read C Parsons' serious analysis of the AWB corruption case if he were able to produce one.

C Parsons, join Jay White in the 'sin bin'.

A favourite trick of the hard right. Divert attention from the true scandal or go on the attack first. Choose an obvious target like George Galloway and when it's finally shown to be false just repeat the allegations all over again until the mud sticks.

Trying to dredge up comparisons from the past won't detract from the AWB scandal. Better off creating a diversion. Perhaps some suspect powder discovered in a foreign Canberra embassy. Worked a treat last time.

In this Green Left Weekly article, the US is blamed for delaying and blocking and hampering " the on-again off-again oil-for-food deal, whereby Iraq can sell a limited amount of oil for food and medicine."

However, in this Green Left Weekly article, the "the fact is that oil for food has sustained the humanitarian crisis" in Iraq.

In this Green Left Weekly article, the suspension of the oil for food programme was causing a humanitarian crisis.

In this Green Left Weekly article, Dick Cheney was among those principally benefitting from the Oil for Food programme.

In this Green Left Weekly article, the US 'wants the “food for oil” program phased out and the income from Iraqi oil sales placed under the control of a US-appointed Iraqi interim authority.'

Must be hard keeping track of just which Cuban Information Ministry or Ba'ath Party press release to use, or something?

Michael de Angelos: "...the U.N. is populated by corrupt, inept and hostile anti-American bureaucrats" ...now joined by John Bolton who should feel right at home.

My God. We finally agree on something.

"...the U.N. is populated by corrupt, inept and hostile anti-American bureaucrats" ...now joined by John Bolton who should feel right at home.

Sorry, but I just cannot resist this:

"What could you buy with the proceeds of what the right calls 'the biggest corruption scandal in recorded history'? (Hint: not a Ferrari.)

"Routine distortions, exaggerations and unreported context about the United Nations Oil-for-Food program (OFF) makes it arguably one of the worst-covered stories of our times."

"That's hardly an accident. The story confirms a cherished piece of the conservative worldview, namely that the U.N. is populated by corrupt, inept and hostile anti-American bureaucrats whose sole purpose is to constrain the United States from using its unrivalled -- but wholly benevolent -- power to influence world affairs."

- Joshua Holland, AlterNet

This unfolding scandal about how the Australian Wheat Board was one of the parties responsible for massively subverting the Food for Oil programme and the UN Sanctions on Iraq creates some interesting dilemas all round, doesn't it?

For ages, the standard Left line was that US investigations into the subversion of the Food for Oil programme was just a ploy to incriminate such darlings as George Galloway, the Bath Party MP for Bethnal Green. or to discredit Koffi Anan.

"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime," bleated George.

The scale of the corruption of the Oil for Food programme was being played down to diminish its significance.

It was just a "beat up" by right wing Americans to explain why the Sanctions programme against Saddam failed.

Now, suddenly, there's a chance to smear an agency of the Australian government with the scandal.

What to do?

I know. Why not just lie about the earlier stance you took on this matter and pretend you were actually outraged about it all along.