Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Sid Walker I have a better idea - why not open up new tv, cable and radio licences, and encourage the startup of more papers? This way we don't have a People's Commissar telling us what to watch, or how good particular things are to watch. (You would have a different opinion on Fairfax and Murdoch papers than myself, indeed, you would find many people on both sides, though if circulation figures mean anything more people like and/or trust Murdoch's papers than Fairfax).

Rather we would have an open market - where the people can decide the truth. I don't think they need you, or anyone, to tell them. Just as they can make up their minds regarding the advertising they see.

A freer market, rather than a more regulated one you desire, would bring both diversity in views and depth as quality would be raised by the competition.

Margo: Hi Stuart. Agreed. But there's ZERO chance a government, Labor or Liberal, would unravel the cosy oligopolistic arrangements the TV proprietors have. The spectrum is the public's - how about auctions for all available TV and radio stations, to the highest bidder, on condition Oz content levels are maintained. No current owners need apply. How about open slather on datacasting and all that stuff too, and let it rip! The public gets the cash, the market sorts out the winners and the losers, and the ACCC ensures predatory practices and anti-competittive mergers don't happen. Don't hold your breath. The cosy big media-big party club won't have it. Their words are empy, Stuart.

And you are calling the ABC biased towards the Coalition? Wow. I guess you haven't watched the 7:30 report or Lateline for a long time. Nor have you watched most of the 'documentaries' on SBS. Indeed, I would find your proposition that the ABC ran a government agenda nigh on impossible to defend, or substantiate. I mean, these people call Hamas an 'activist organisation', for crying out loud. Let alone their discontinuation of the phrase 'terrorist attack' in favour of more politically correct terminology.

Stuart, when you were last in Iraq assessing the political situation on the ground, what was the condition of the electricity, infrastructure, water supply, sewerage treatment and disposal? Also, how are the hospitals and schools going? A report please! It doesn't need to be as comprehensive as Paul McGeough's efforts - after all he only visits the nasty parts, outside of the green zone.

David Candy, when I said it wasn't worth planning for, I was referring to the specific threat of nuclear suitcase bombs that d'Hage mentioned. If these devices had been stolen from the Russian nuclear arsenal after the end of the Cold War, they are now useless and also highly lethal to anyone in close proximity of them. In an unmaintained state, the decayed parts within them would be throwing out massive doses of radiation.

There is no way a suitcase bomb could be smuggled into the country without a) being instantly detected by the Geiger counters and various radioactivity detection devices in our airports and ports b) expeditiously killing the poor bugger/s with the job of transporting it here.

And even if they managed to somehow get the leaky nuke through customs without killing a bunch of their mules in the process, the bomb allegedly takes half an hour to set off. The guy who's tasked to do that wouldn't make 5 minutes with the bomb in that kind of state.

It is, of course, worth preparing for the possibility of a nuclear attack, but that's not what I was getting at.

And I think you're a little off base if you reckon that China or Russia would attack us; they have too much to lose. I'm not sure what you mean by "goading". Iran's missiles don't have the range to hit us, and even North Korea's next generation Taepodong-2 class ICBM (that is untested and several years from release) couldn't make the distance.

The three stage Taepodong-3 ICBM could, but I think there's more chance the North Korean regime will have collapsed before that gets off the drawing board. And despite Pyongyang's rhetoric, it's unlikely they have a nuclear warhead to stick on the end of the Taepodong-1 at this stage, anyway.

Iraq is not experiencing civil war. We are seeing some Sunni insurgents (though certainly not all) and the foreign al-Qaeda sponsored insurgents striking out at Shias and the Kurdish Pershmurga. As yet, the Shias nor Kurds have formed substantial militias to combat these foreigners. If that happens on a large enough scale, then it's a civil war. Most notably, in a sign that the insurgency is starting to falter, the Iraqi Sunni insurgents and the foreign jihadis sponsored by al-Qaeda are increasingly at each others' throats. See here. How long will al-Qaeda be welcome in Iraq? As this article notes, al-Qaeda's aims and those of the local insurgents differ markedly. These differences are starting to provoke major tensions between the erstwhile allies.

David Messiter and Marylin Shepherd, McGeogh isn't the only journo who's been in "the shit" in Iraq - yet he's the only one who's cried wolf about civil war god knows how many times. Stuart is dead right; McGeogh isn't worth taking any notice of anymore.

Stuart, the world does know about the civil war in Iraq, what do you think we see on the news each night? Love pats?

For God's sake young man, Iraq is a catastrophe.

"Iraq has a bunch of desperate Baathist thugs and jihadist wannabes trying to provoke a civil war, and failing."

I wonder how long you will cling to that outdated view Stuart?. This, from the Project on Defence Alternatives away back in July sees it rather differently. In part:

Indeed, the available empirical evidence indicates that the breadth and persistence of the insurgency depends substantially on popular disaffection with the occupation and its practices. The insurgency has grown in tandem with anti-occupation sentiment among the Iraqi public, as measured by opinion surveys Large majorities in both the Sunni and Shiite communities oppose the occupation and want to see it end within a year or so. Indeed, the proportion of Iraqis who countenance anti-coalition violence, although a minority, is disconcertingly large. (In Sunni areas, it is a majority.) Poll results, as well as numerous journalist interviews with insurgents, tend to support the contention that US withdrawal would reduce the insurgency's support base as well as its ranks, leaving the "diehard" elements more isolated and vulnerable

A reasonable hypothesis is that as much as 75 percent of insurgent activity depends significantly on high levels of popular opposition to foreign occupation and military activities. Relevant to this is the fact that the initial level of insurgent activity was less than 25 percent of the level in June 2005, as measured in terms of attacks per month: that is, less than 400 attacks per month circa June 2003 versus more than 1800 per month circa June 2005.

The first surge in the level of attacks followed the initial efforts of the coalition to extend its military control to the local level throughout Iraq, which occurred during June and July 2003. Following almost every major coalition offensive, insurgent activity has climbed to and then sustained a higher level. (An exception is the spike in attacks that accompanied the 2005 election period, which was followed by an ebb before attacks returned to late 2004 levels.)

None of the coalition's successes in killing or capturing foreign terrorist leaders or former regime members have dented the insurgency. Those neutralized without apparent effect include Saddam Hussein, his sons, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan (purported to be a key financier of the insurgency), dozens of other former leading Baathists, and several high-ranking associates of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi. During the past two years, thousands of insurgents have been reported killed and many thousands more Iraqis have been imprisoned and interrogated. And yet the insurgency has not only persisted, but grown. In other words: American success at the tactical level, which is undeniable, has not led to progress at the campaign or strategic levels. Indeed, military operations seem to be having a negative effect, on balance. This tends to disconfirm the Bush administration and Pentagon view that the insurgency is narrowly based.

Read that last paragraph again. "Bunch of desperate Baathist thugs and jihadist wannabe's?" I don't think so. Even the most blinkered accept that such a continued and growing insurgency cannot exist in a vacuum. Scott Ritter in the Nation puts it this way:

Iraq is a nation that's on fire. There's a horrific problem that faces not only the people of Iraq but the United States and the entire world. And the fuel that feeds that fire is the presence of American and British troops. This is widely acknowledged by the very generals that are in charge of the military action in Iraq. So the best way to put out the fire is to separate the fuel from the flame. So I'm a big proponent of bringing the troops home as soon as possible.

As I posted earlier, The Scotsman is reporting a clash (killing 15) between Sunni and Shia militias. These Shia, Sunni and Kurdish militias now effectively run the policing and security apparatus in their respective "regions". Further to that Scotsman article:

The incident underscores tensions among hard-line elements in Iraq's rival religious and ethnic communities at a time when the United States is struggling to promote a political process seen as key to calming the insurgency.

Yesterday's gun battle appears to have been the first such clash between Sunni and Shiite militias. Earlier this week, Sunni insurgents mounted attacks on Kurdish targets in northern Iraq.

Two "citizen militias" killing each other – just a bad disagreement? As Scott Ritter points out, one of the three problems (the others being the Sunni and the Kurds who have the idea they are to be autonomous in their own "mini State" – something that will necessarily invite Turkish reaction) is:

…the Shia, and I'm not talking about the mainstream Shia of Iraq. I'm talking about this political elite that's pro-Iranian that has conducted a coup d'etat. They're running the government today.

Bingo! From where do many of these (Shia) militias draw support? The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq is a good start. During Hussein's rule where did such organisations find sanctuary, support and money? Iran.

The Saudi foreign minister seems not to share your dismissive view:

A permanent government will be elected Dec. 15, inevitably controlled by the Shiite majority. Many fear this will lead to clashes between Sunni and Shiite armed groups, transforming the Sunnis' long-running anti-U.S. insurgency into a civil war.

A key neighbor has voiced urgent concern."All the dynamics are pulling the country apart," Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said of Iraq. Speaking with Washington reporters on Sept. 22, the Saudi also warned that Iraq's disintegration would "bring other countries in the region into the conflict."

Turkey and Iran top that list. The Turks might be tempted to intervene in Iraq's north to keep its autonomous Kurds from supporting Turkey's own Kurdish separatists. Shiite Iran might act - with arms, intelligence, even "volunteers" - to ensure victory by a friendly Iraqi Shiite leadership in any civil war, analysts say.

With all the thousands of arrests and killings of these "desperate Baathist thugs and jihadist wannabes" over the duration of occupation, you'd think they'd be running low on manpower. Appears we either arrested or killed the wrong ones or – shock, horror – there are a hell of lot of them.

Michael Park, firstly, isn't this the same Scott Ritter who wrote Endgame a while back? Was he lying then or now? Or mistaken then or now?

Secondly, while you can have one analysis, I can have another. From The American Enterprise Institute:

'Iraq has come far in the two and a half years since the fall of Saddam Hussein. There has been considerable political progress in Iraq, evident not only in the electoral and constitutional milestones, but also in the Iraqi willingness to compromise and complain. The political process may not be efficient, but most democracies are not. Rhetoric may be shrill. The politics of brinkmanship often invites such positions. Brinkmanship in and of itself is not a threat to Iraq's stability, so long as Iraqis political factions ultimately respect the primacy of the rule of law. For Iraqi political factions--especially the predominantly Sunni Arab parties which may feel themselves the losers in the new Iraq--to uphold the rule of law, it is essential that U.S. policymakers do not pressure Iraqis to compromise or reach consensus. In politics and democracy, some factions win, others lose. So long as each has a chance to reverse their political fortunes through the ballot box, there should be no need to threaten, let alone resort to violence. By responding to threats and seeking to impose a political solution to Iraq's insurgency, U.S. policymakers encourage violence, enable factions to augment their demands, and generally undercut Iraq's political development.'

The article is well structured, well put together, and referenced fully.

And you have probably heard of Arthur Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq

He ended blogging in September (due to a new job) but the series is being continued at The Opinion Journal, which is the sister website for the WSJ. This provides the counterbalance to most of the press we recieve - the good news that is buried under the bad (because bad news is good news, as you know). That might give you a different perspective of the efforts being made and strides being taken forward in Iraq.

And even Robert Fisk in this interview (you know, that other guy who travels around Iraq, and Afghanistan while being beaten by righteous Afghanis for his sin of being white and Western), on the ABC no less, where he says the following:

"But I haven't met any Iraqis who think there will be a civil war. I've met lots of Americans who think there will be a civil war, that's what's odd about it. You know, the first warnings of civil war came from the occupation authorities as early as 2003, and it was always couched in the following terms: if the occupying powers who brought you freedom leave you will have a civil war.

And I remember not long ago going to the funeral of a Sunni Muslim doctor, who was killed, I think, by a Shi'ite Muslim gang because he opposed a mosque at the end of his street. And I went to the funeral, and afterwards I was sitting at the funeral feast on the floor of the house, and I was sitting next to the doctor's brother, and I said: will there be a civil war? And he said: why do you Westerners keep wanting us to have a civil war? I'm married to a Shi'ite woman. Do you want me to kill my wife?"

Hmmm.

Even the BBC says that Iraq isn't a civil war yet. They leave open the option it could be, but they are definite about its non status. And as you know, the BBC isn't exactly the most unbiased of papers either, and I don't mean pro-American either.

So there we go. If I was going to put money on it (something I wouldn't do due to ethical reasons, but the phrase is useful) I would predict a slowing insurgency as more and more start participating in the democratic processes available in Iraq. The Sunnis missed out last time, and paid for it with the Constitution that was made (one not to their desires). Their turnout at the last election, just like the general turnout at the January elections, both shows an acknowledgement of how important participation is, and how so many are willing to ignore or overcome the violence to participate. Even those who voted against it showed one important thing - they saw their votes both as important and effective in showing what they want. And that is vital to the future good govenance in Iraq. There are those who support the insurgency, both at home and abroad, however the participation numbers show that they are far from a majority. And that is the important thing.

Hi. "Stuart is dead right; McGeogh isn't worth taking any notice of anymore." Did you really write that? James,the two statements in that sentence show me that you have a terrific sense of humor or difficulty with reality. Split the sides it did.

Hi James W., do you think someone of Adrian D'Hages' experience and knowledge/updating/sources would bring up "Suitcase Bombs" if they were such an impossibility?

Why do you not think there would not be shielding for the components of such bombs that are corruptable-by what, the gamma/electron/alpha?- not so hard isn't it really? Done all the time in industry now. Besides, my understanding is that such nasty devices are assembled when needed, rather than sitting in a closet somewhere with the coats.

Still, feel free to educate us if you have better placed souces. Interestingly, wasn't Valerie Plame involved in trying to purchase the "sale" of ex soviet nuke weaponry in competition with Russian mafia types before cover was broken? If half of what is said about the "Russian mafia" is true they are the group to watch more than any cavemen Moslem patsy fanatics.

Personally, if someone like D'Hage was concerned about a form of weaponry, then I sure would be too.

What a coup to have someone like him on board Webdiary...Why are all the good guys relegated to the wings now?

As to North Korea, James, I agree. Who would bother about us when Japan is so close? However, do you really think they haven't nuclear weapons by now? I thought that was fairly accepted, as much as anything in these times of game playing can be. Reckon if we (the US and playthings) left the Koreas alone they would be at peace and the South happily exploiting the cheap labor market and land up north by now. And think what the US base land in Seoul would bring.

Fairfax papers? F2 with it's ridiculous registration? Too annoying. I think the internet is the future of news and information and this may be good for trees. Unfortunately also so much easier for Winston to go back and change. pros and cons.

The difficulty is, just as in print, that one reads something and wonders about the veracity if it is not in one's field of expertise, or one's friends in the know are away or too sensitive to talk about. It would be nice to have somewhere to debate such claims/treatises of events of actions with commentary from other readers. Already, from reading here, I can think of a few knowledgable persons that I would rely upon for areas outside my area. And a few that I read just to know what not to accept, thanks.

Lovely to see you back, Margo, right on time for action. And a press gallery roundtheneckthingy,yes. Be careful what Tshirt you wear, you may be asked to take it off, all publicity is good publicity they say, how about one emblazened with your book?

"As yet, the Shias nor Kurds have formed substantial militias to combat these foreigners. If that happens on a large enough scale…"

I assume James Waterton, the above means "the Shias nor Kurds have notformed substantial militias?"

That wouldn't then include these militias that George Bush felt the need to proscribe?

On 7 June, CPA Administrator Paul Bremer promulgated an order making illegal those militias that fall outside a reintegration and (partial) disarmament plan.9The list of sanctioned militias, announced by the IGI on 8 June, pointedly excluded Sadr's Mahdi army and the Falluja Brigade. Also by virtue of Bremer's decree, all members of illegal militias -- including the very popular al-Sadr -- are banned from public office for three years after they leave their militia.

Possibly the "paramilitaries" and militias (such as SCIRI's Badr Brigades) mentioned in Dr Gareth Porter's essay are "yet to form".

But the escalation of politically motivated violence by police and paramiliatary units against each others’ leaders and political and paramilitary agents has been an even more direct cause of the descent into sectarian strife. Before the handover of power to the new government in May, the strongly U.S.-influenced interim government was forced to admit that its police had tortured and killed three Shiite militiamen while they were in custody. Upon taking office, Shiite leaders reportedly purged Sunnis from middle- and highlevel positions in the Interior Ministry and the military and replaced them with officials loyal to the two leading Shiite parties. Within days of the takeover of the Interior Ministry by a Shiite appointee, Sunni clerics accused Shiite militia, the Badr Brigade, of killing some of their number. Now the Badr Brigade and the Wolf Brigade – a 2,000-strong force mostly poor Shiites under the command of a militant Shiite member of SCIRI – have become key paramilitary elements deployed in Sunni zones. There is now credible evidence that such paramilitary operations have involved mass arrests, torture and in many cases, killing of Sunnis, all outside any legal framework.

Even Iyad Allawi seems to think these not yet formed militias are precipitating "stage one" of civil war (whatever that may be).

Former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi warned in July that Iraq is “practically in stage-one of a civil war as we speak.” The emergence of an unacknowleged war by Shiite paramilitary forces against Sunnis alongside the officially sanctioned war against the insurgency waged by U.S. forces means that American troops are fighting on behalf of one side in a sectarian civil war.

Now, I'm not so sure that Mr Allawi is all that trustworthy a conveyance, but I should think he probably has a reasonable handle on who is killing who from where he sits.

Stuart please don't quote me The American Enterprise Institute, that's about the same as asking the car salesperson to explain why the car your being sold is a pup – your not likely to be told. Ditto (for the greater part) Chrenkoff (who's had his credibility problems).

As to Fisk – who you seem petulantly prepared to put down or dismiss at a whim (at least he's there to be smacked in the gob, when's Ackerman going?) – his analysis is most likely correct. As it was when I quoted him to you earlier this year:

Well I got Iraq right. I got Iraq right in April 2003, I said there'd be an insurgency, and that the real story starts now, and that's exactly what's happened.

It all depends on how you define a "civil war". Fisk has seen enough to make up his own mind. I'd more likely define this state as the ancient Greeks did: stasis. A state of political/partisan change or unrest. A great description can be found in Thucydides: The Peleponnesian War, X 69(about half way through the chapter). I don't know how you find history Stuart - boring, last week's news – or fascinating as I do. It is worth a read though.

Now, there will be some who'd argue you can't have a civil war unless it looks like the US civil war: all a big clash of uniformed armies. I don't buy that. The idea of stasis is just about perfect. Rigidly aligned groups – "parties" (most often democrats/oligarchs in the ancient experience) – creating civil disturbance with the aim of destroying/gaining political power. Often going so far as to murder the opposing side.

Substitute democrats/oligarchs with Shiite/Sunni (with not a small helping hand from Iran as with Athens in the above example) and you have it. They just don't wear Union/Confederate uniforms. Those killed are just as dead.

James Waterton, I didn't realise you accompanied Stuart to Iraq, so I assume you speak for him. Just how was all the infrastructure?

Can you provide any insight into the reports of the US replacing Australia as the major wheat supplier to Iraq, to the tune of one million tons every forty days. Nice little earner for the Yanks, pity about our farmers. Funny how Volcker singled out the AWB as part of the oil for food corruption scandal. No mention of Haliburton, Kellog Brown and Root et al.

Very strange indeed. As US supporters perhaps you and Stuart wish to comment on whether this treatment of our wheat producers is un-Australian, or am I just being anti-American.

Margo, you're back. Not a day to soon. Good onya! You are a tonic!

The slight of hand employed by our Government in respect of both the IR and anti terrorism legislation is the crowning glory of Howard's years of deceipt and deception. Howard has been at the helm for ten years - you have to force yourself to dwell on that one because the fact is that's a lot of time to make changes that cann't easily unravelled and break things that just never go back together.

I never thought Howard would last more than one term. How wrong can you be. As every election came I convinced myself, in spite of the evidence and every cheap trick and stunt he pulled on the Australian public, that Howard would be seen for what he represented. Wrong every time. The Australian electorate is yet to punish him at an election. No wonder he feels there is no need to consult with the electorate.

If we can go to war, an illegal war against a soveriegn nation (no matter how odious or oil rich) invade that nation and be part agent in untold deaths to their citizens, hiding the truth of a bit of legislation is small bananas from where they sit.

We mean nothing. You wonder who Howard really serves. I know one thing; one day the international community will call Howard, Bush and Blair for what they are - guilty of war crimes, if not crimes against humanity. What else could they be?

Ministers are deaf to the notion of ministerial accountability. Why? Because it is no longer a requirement of the Howard government to be anything but accountable to themselves. It is absolutely shameful.

Democracy - what democracy? Little separates us now from so many of the nations around the globe that we once despised - we just haven't yet found the appetite for domestic violence. We have christian fundamentalist religious fervour to keep us warm.

Our community is divided in ways that can only lead to real civil unrest and the IR legislation will expose the frailty or veneer of civilisation in this nation. When the anti terrorist legislation is brought to bear on Australians who become characterised as a danger to our community because they have a different view, the two ends of unholy legislation will be joined. Then its chaos.

But you and I will not know the truth of it, because the media will be concentrated in the hands of a few, a lucky few, who are part of the brave new world.

We will pass in ignorance. Stupidity is where we are at now and have been every election thatHoward got back into office. Howard's way is no way at all.

Margo: Hi Peter. Interesting that an Australian company with the tick from DFAT provided 15 percent of the kickbacks to Saddam's regime before we invaded it, isn't it.

Right guys, no civil war in Iraq, it's all love and f...ing roses.

Has it ever occurred to you two to consider that McGeough is one of the few with the guts to call it like it is while the rest, including the BBC, run and hide?

I guess on your next trips together you will have a look at the putrid water supplies or wander off to Fallujah for a tourist junket.

My friend Amir's sister and brother in law did that about 70 days ago and have not been seen since - it is believed they are in Abu Ghraib.

Hi Angela Ryan. I'm glad you find me so amusing. I also found mirth in the lack of argument contained within your relevant post; admittedly the aforementioned mirth was of the derisory kind, I must confess. Now:

However, do you really think they haven't nuclear weapons by now?

We only have their word for it. It's possible they do have a small arsenal. Still, making a nuclear warhead isn't like making a bowl of two minute noodles. It takes a lot of time and enormous resources - the latter of which N Korea isn't particularly blessed with.

Do you think someone of Adrian D'Hages' experience and knowledge/updating/sources would bring up "Suitcase Bombs" if they were such an impossibility?

Yes. Over the years I've seen lots of smart and ostensibly well informed people chase their tails over all kinds of issues. I don't see why d'Hage is immune from this.

Personally, if someone like D'Hage was concerned about a form of weaponry, then I sure would be too.

Well, enjoy those sleepless nights, Angela.

For more information on the suitcase bombs, please examine these two links that will corroborate what I'm saying - here and here.

Fantastic. Now, onto David Messiter:

Just how was all the infrastructure?

Sounds as though you don't need me to answer that question for you - apparently you already know. So, tell me, how was Iraq for you?

Nice little earner for the Yanks, pity about our farmers.

Well, production's been down due to the drought. Maybe we don't have enough wheat to supply the Iraqi market? Did that thought ever cross your mind? How much Australian wheat is sitting unsold in silos?

Funny how Volcker singled out the AWB as part of the oil for food corruption scandal.

Funny how Volcker also explicitly said there was no evidence of the AWB knowingly committing any wrongdoing. Do you see conspiracy in everything?

Michael Park raises some sound points, however it's still too soon to call the tension a civil war - the say so of a few pundits isn't enough to trump the ratification of the constitution which on its own is symbolically powerful act. Its provisions have the potential to spark a bout of unification on a practical level. A few sporadic attacks here and there don't make a civil war.

And the Sadrist militia was formed to fight the Americans, not the Sunnis.

Stuart Lord: "Michael Park, Chrenkoff's credibility problems only came from Media Watch..."

And yours only come from much of what you have posted in your time at WD. Yet you cast judgment on other people's grasp of facts!

You comment on what you see and don't see. Many of us are well aware of that particular problem of yours. Ever see the Downing Street Memos? Ever see the Gulf War I armistice? Among many others.
Credibility? For you, non-existent.

Angela's earlier post put it so beautifully succinctly: "Hi. Stuart is dead right; 'McGeogh isn't worth taking any notice of anymore'. Did you really write that? James, the two statements in that sentence show me that you have a terrific sense of humor or difficulty with reality. Split the sides it did."

If only you would actually try to engage in an honest debate instead of undisguised propaganda. But that is not what you are about, is it?

Michael Park, Chrenkoff's credibility problems only came from Media Watch, a show so accurate it couldn't even find a damned webpage, nor read the heading of The Opinion Journal ) to work out that the site was the sister site of the Wall Street Journal, with the opinion pages from the WSJ on it. That was about it. Media Watch got it wrong, then said they didn't, then said they kinda did, but not really, but lets talk about something else.

And as for the AEI, well, could you give an explanation for a credibility crisis?

And as for the civil war - no, you don't need uniforms. However, you do usually need two active sides fighting eachother. I don't see that major level of activity, especially with the attacking of Sunni targets, from the Shia population, at least not on a level that I would equate with a civil war.

My definition would be that in a civil war, it takes two to tango. I don't either see the Kurds or the Shia joining that particular dance. It isn't in their interest, is it? They can control some power through elections, through the political process. I see the same realisation happening with the Sunni's. And while the political process continues, I don't see a civil war breaking out.

Stuart Lord seems to think the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) actually has credibility. In reality the AEI is a warmongering neoconservative propaganda think tank whose credibility was all washed up the day the lies they were responsible for that got the war started against the people of Iraq were exposed.

Virtually all the liars at the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon that put together the completely false ‘intelligence’ about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs, including the garbage about Uranium from Niger, came from the AEI. These include Abram Shulsky, David Wurmser, Michael Rubin, and William Luti among many others. All of whom have since been discredited as liars and neocon warmongers.

Other right-wing lunatic neocon warmongers from the AEI include Richard Perle, John Bolton (the UN hater who is now the US ambassador to the UN where he is trying his hardest to destroy the UN from within) and Michael Ledeen, a leading warmonger who thinks that the US should immediately attack Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.

James Waterton, it’s not about me or my credibility. It’s about the credibility of the neoconservatives that served in the top echelons of the Bush administration; those that came up with the lies that resulted in the disaster that has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and is likely to continue to so for some considerable time to come – or at least until the American people wake up to themselves and throw this President out.

The neoconservatives responsible for these lies, including the likes of lunatics like Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle and David Frum, will eventually have to answer for their war crimes either in court or in history.

With the exposure of the arch-neoconservative I. Lewis Libby as a liar the entire neoconservative movement will now begin to crumble into oblivion taking with it the disgusting regime led by Bush and his corporate oil cronies. Eventually, of course, it will all come back to haunt Howard himself. Unfortunately, he too will probably only have to answer to history, but for this self-righteous war criminal and proven liar that may well be punishment enough.

Bob Wall: "If only you would actually try to engage in an honest debate instead of undisguised propaganda."

Propaganda, Bob? I'm only stating my point of view. When someone doesn't agree with you and says so, they could only be spouting propaganda, right? Great broad-minded attitude you got there, Bob. Funnily enough, you seem to be the one who isn't willing to engage in debate. All I know of your opinion is that you don't agree with me. I don't know why or how, because you wouldn't say. Perhaps you could take some of your own medicine, stop propagandising and actually discuss the issue? That would be great.

Margo: James, Bob was having a go at Stuart, not you. It's a bit of a Webdiary tradition.

Damian Lataan: "Other right-wing lunatic neocon warmongers..." As opposed to left-wing lunatic conspiracy theorists? I'm sure that all of the people you named will be disappointed to hear that they no longer enjoy your support.

Especially Michael Leeden. No doubt he would appreciate it if you pointed out to him (and myself) precisely where he advocated "immediately attack[ing] Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia."

Forget the American Enterprise Institute. Sounds like you're struggling with a few credibility problems of your own.

Margo: OK all, let's get on with constructive engagement, OK?

Margo, Bob may have been having a go at Stuart, but he was responding to a quote directed at me.

Damian: "The entire neoconservative movement will now begin to crumble into oblivion."

Sorry to say, but that sounds like wishful thinking to me. Oh, and an indictment proves nothing. There's still a fairly strong chance Scooter (and far more importantly, Rove) will walk. What will you do then?

"It’s not about me or my credibility."

I asked you before to back up what you said about Michael Leeden. I noticed you didn't - no, I'll even go out on a limb and say couldn't. Why so confident? Because, beyond the odd inventive conspiracy- theorising website, Leeden has never said anywhere that the USA should "immediately attack Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia". Or anything remotely close.

I find this all very intriguing, Damian. You talk a lot about a lack of honesty in, and credibility of, some people. What gives you the right to demand credibility and honesty from these people when you are so reluctant to apply these traits to yourself? You openly falsify aims and statements of others; like Leeden, for example. Then, when caught out, you attempt to deflect your dishonesty by accusing others of being dishonest - all the while giving yourself a free pass to play hard and fast with the truth by claiming your own lapses of honesty aren't in question. Yes, Damian, they are. You know, you're absolutely right. It comes down to credibility.

Margo: James and all, please don't be so quick to imput bad faith by others. If you think someone got it wrong, say so and seek to prove your case.

James Waterton, just for the record there’s this that may be of interest to you with regard to Michael Ledeen’s assertion that there should be “…total war against ‘terror’ – with ‘regime change’ for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority.”

Or how about this quote from the National Review Online (6 August 2002):

“Scowcroft has managed to get one thing half right, even though he misdescribes it. He fears that if we attack Iraq ‘I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror.’ One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists. That's our mission in the war against terror.”

And while we’re on about conspiracy theories, this is the same Michael Ledeen that reckoned the KGB was behind the 1981 assassination attempt on the Pope, would you believe!

Now, you were saying about credibility…?

Damian Lataan, the conversation ends here. I can see from what you're writing that you aren't interested in dealing with your own misrepresentations of Leeden (and me pointing them out to you isn't "spin"), you just keep complaining about the misrepresentations of others whilst reading off the same old script about the Great Neocon Conspiracy (TM).

You need to ask yourself, however, what if your predictions about the end of Bush are wrong - as I strongly suspect they are. How are YOU going to portray your victorious sounding spin about Bush collapsing in a heap if he continues to stamp his doctrine over American policy, at home and abroad?

You're so far out on a limb here; aren't you worried about looking more than a little silly if it turns out you're wrong?

Like I said James Waterton, it’s not about my credibility. It’s not about ‘me’ at all. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in what you think about my credibility. I’ll let others judge for themselves.

However, the warmonger, Michael Ledeen, clearly does have a credibility problem when it comes to his lies about WMDs and his pathetic rantings about ‘regime change’ and ‘caudronising’ throughout the Middle East. You may spin and squirm any way you like, it doesn’t change the essence and validity of my argument about Ledeen and the rest of his motely lying and warmongering comrades at the AEI and in the Bush administration.

I guess you’ve read the book, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, by Richard Perle and David Frum, two other supporters of Ledeen’s lunatic ideas. They express in their book similar ideas to Ledeen about regime change throughout the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia. But then they would, wouldn’t they – what with Ledeen having been a close associate of Perle at the AEI. And, of course, there’s the connection with the recently indicted liar Lewis Libby what with him having also worked with Perle.

The war is falling to bits, the insurgency’s gaining strength, the majority of Iraqis want the US to leave, the liars are being exposed, the neoconservatives are being discredited daily – it’s all going down hill very rapidly. You’ll just have to face reality James Waterton – the game's up. It’ll all be over just as soon as the American people wake up to themselves and rid themselves of Bush and his lying cronies.

Maybe then the rest of the world can help the Middle East sort out the mess left behind after the ‘Great Neoconservative Experiment’. No one's interested any more in the neoconservative’s brand of American Exceptionalism! It’s been exposed to be built on nothing but lies. The quicker we’re rid of it, the better for the world.

Damian Lataan: Thank you for your links. And thanks for proving my point. Firstly, I'd like to say that even in those articles you linked to, there is still no reference to Leeden saying that he wants the US to "immediately attack Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia". I know you made this up, because why would the USA want to attack Lebanon, which is one of its most promising new allies? I also read quite a bit of Leeden, (although I don't tend to agree with a lot he says) so I know what his position is based upon his own writing, rather than what I've gleaned from some ranty website or diametrically opposed journo who needs some nasty neocon chickenhawks to write about. Like I said earlier, NOWHERE will you find Leeden stating that he wants the USA to immediately attack Iran, etc. Even the bits about the "cauldron" don't mean what you want them to. He's referring to the widely held view at the time that if Saddam was toppled and a democracy was allowed to flourish, the states surrounding Iraq would rise up and throw out their ugly leaders. To this moment, he is wrong about this belief, but that doesn't give you a right to go putting words into his mouth.

Leeden obviously wants regime change in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Come to think of it, I'd like to see the back of those governments, too. I'd even go so far to say that you would, too. Obviously where you differ from Leeden is in the manner of how this change is to be brought about. I know you really want Leeden to be a raving warmongerer with his finger on the button 24/7, but here's what he has to say about affecting regime change in Iran - and guess what, it has nothing to do with military warfare. In fact, he explicitly backs away from it. Oh, and I've taken this direct from an article in the National Review, not some dodgy web page whose stock in trade is pulling things out of context:

"We can still lose this war. And we cannot win it so long as we are blinded by our potentially fatal failure of strategic vision: we are in a regional war, but we have limited our actions to a single theater. Our most potent weapons are political and ideological, but our actions have been almost exclusively military."

Read the whole article if you like, I'll even do you the courtesy of linking to it rather than just mentioning which article it's from.
There you can find a bunch of other articles that Leeden has written where he talks about how the United States should use its diplomacy more aggressively to try to harness the popular hatred of the mullahs he perceives in Iranian society and get them to overthrow the theocracy. Once again, he may be wrong on this fact, but it's still a far cry from an immediate US attack on Iran. See what I'm getting at?

And I really think you should go straight to the horse's mouth to lift quotes, rather than to scurrilous websites who - especially in the case of Fisk - have taken a bunch of stuff out of context. And even then, he still hasn't proven your point! I hope you now understand what I'm getting at when I talk about credibility.

History, of course, will be the ultimate judge of the neoconservative criminals that started the wars against the Islamic peoples with lies and falsehoods for no other purpose other than to glorify and enrich their self-righteous and self-centred lunatic ideas of American exceptionalism.

Their delusions began to crumble the day the Iraqi people began to fight back against the invaders, occupiers and plunderers of their nation. As I have said, the exposure of Libby as a liar is just the beginning.

Indeed, the corrupt nature of the Bush administration may well allow him to walk away from any legal action that may be taken against him, but he and the rest of his neoconservative comrades will never be able to turn their back on the judgement of history that has already called Libby out as a liar, warmonger and war criminal. The others will soon follow.

Sorry Stuart. Bit late getting back … spent the day at Westmead Children's Hospital. A hospital where my son received prompt and excellent attention from marvellous staff (even though in took near seven hours to get through it all). What chance that help in Baghdad at the present?

"And as for the AEI, well, could you give an explanation for a credibility crisis?"

Four letters Stuart, four letters. PNAC. You may as well call one an off-shoot of the other – either one first, doesn't really matter – the same personnel and wow, all administration connected! This joint is the Bush administration Stuart.

In fact, AEI knew it was going to play a prominent role in the Bush administration even before George W. took office. In a December 2000 Washington Post article, "White House Hopes Gas Up Think Tank," Dana Milbank wrote: "It's noon in the American Enterprise Institute's 12th-floor dining room, where Irving Kristol, Norman Ornstein and other luminaries lunch. On the menu is swordfish and white wine. On the agenda is a Bush transition. If George W. Bush becomes president, says AEI scholar Douglas Besharov, beckoning to the dining room, 'this whole place empties out.'"

I mean really Stuart, it's like asking Philip Ruddock to tell us how well run DIMIA was under his time. Just as (near enough to) everything written about the Persians and the Achaemenid Empire comes to us from Greek sources – so we have a Greek view – anything written by the AEI has a distinctly plenary Bush view. I'd suggest you find a – shall we say – more independent source?

James Waterton, you may find this list and description of the well formed Iraqi militias illuminating. As you can see, there are several and they've been formed for some time.

As to whether or not it's "too early" to call what's happening in Iraq a civil war well as I've said, I'd prefer the term "stasis". To me it indicates a civil war but not in what is perceived to be the classic sense of two easily distinguished sides with clearly enunciated programmes. In the current instance that would better be put as clearly perpetrated pogroms.

These militias have been very active though in achieving their political ends. Back a couple of months ago I wrote about the wrangling over the Iraqi constitution and posted this interesting article on the activities of some of the Shiite militias:

Baghdad - Armed men entered Baghdad's municipal building during a blinding dust storm on Monday, deposed the city's mayor and installed a member of Iraq's most powerful Shiite militia. The deposed mayor, Alaa al-Tamimi, who was not in his offices at the time, recounted the events in a telephone interview on Tuesday and called the move a municipal coup d'état. He added that he had gone into hiding for fear of his life. "This is the new Iraq," said Mr. Tamimi, a secular engineer with no party affiliation. "They use force to achieve their goal."

The group that ousted him insisted that it had the authority to assume control of Iraq's capital city and that Mr. Tamimi was in no danger. The man the group installed, Hussein al-Tahaan, is a member of the Badr Organization, the armed militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as Sciri.

At the same time, the Washington Post was reporting the fear being created by these militia which had infiltrated the Iraqi security forces and operated with them or independently – at their whim:

While Iraqi representatives wrangle over the drafting of a constitution in Baghdad, the militias, and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that control them, are creating their own institutions of authority, unaccountable to elected governments, the activists and officials said. In Basra in the south, dominated by the Shiites, and Mosul in the north, ruled by the Kurds, as well as cities and villages around them, many residents have said they are powerless before the growing sway of the militias, which instill a climate of fear that many see as redolent of the era of former president Saddam Hussein.

Now, is it civil war? How many do you need per side of the conflict before it fits the neat definition? To my way of thinking, the Shia and Sunni dead are just as dead – and for the same reasons: political power. Stasis? Definitely

For another detached view (as apposed to the AEI), the Council on Foreign Relations has the opinions of six experts. The vote is fairly evenly split with two having an "each-way" bet, two yes and two no. An excerpt:

There’s no evidence, for example, the Sunni insurgents are deliberately targeting Kurds. But I’m beginning to see elements of a civil war. No doubt the insurgents are targeting Shiites, and there were also some reports after these last few bombings [in Baghdad] that Shiite militias have been deployed along with the Iraqi army, which, while understandable under the circumstances, would indicate the beginning of a situation toward civil war.

---

Civil war is organized violence designed to change the political structure or governance within a country, or internal conflict within a state. For example, Nicaragua’s contras [back in the 1980s] were conducting a civil war. In the Middle East, in this context, it’s taken to mean war between ethnicities. But any insurgency against a government is, in my definition, a form of civil war.

Again, how many are needed to constitute civil war? I think we're there already, just depends on whether you need it to look like 1864 or not.

James Waterton says: “You're so far out on a limb here; aren't you worried about looking more than a little silly if it turns out you're wrong?”

It’s not me out on a limb James Waterton, it’s George Bush. He’s in his final term – and he may not even last the distance the way things are going at the moment. I doubt very much if the GOP is going to get in again at the 2008 elections. He may even come unstuck Congress-wise at the mid-terms next year.

Either way it’s the end of the neocons. Their warmongering days are almost over. They’ll never be trusted again!

One more for you Stuart. The Carnegie Endowment's Foreign Policy has a marvelous article deconstructing the excuses being blissfully bandied about as to why the Iraqi adventure is going badly. Something I believe you should read (rather than AEI polemics). Have a squiz at some excerpts (not certain if you need a sub – I recieve these via e-mail sub):

The United States’ involvement in Iraq just keeps getting messier every day. The insurgency is as potent as ever, and U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians are dying at a higher rate than they were a year ago. Efforts to reconcile Iraq’s ethnic and religious divisions have failed, and progress on building competent security forces has been painfully slow. A series of supposedly decisive “turning points” have come and gone—including the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004, national elections in January 2005, and the drafting of a new constitution in August 2005—but the country is no closer to stability. Public support for the war is plummeting in the United States, and current U.S. troop levels cannot be sustained without breaking the Army, the Reserves, and the National Guard. Once U.S. forces withdraw, a full-blown civil war is likely. Although our armed forces have fought with dedication and courage, this war will ultimately cost us more than $1 trillion, not to mention thousands of lives. And what will the United States have achieved? Remarkably, we will probably leave Iraq in even worse shape than it was under Saddam Hussein.

---

With prospects for victory fading, the people who led us into this bastard conflict are already devising various rationales to explain the failure and deny their paternity. As the debate over “who’s losing Iraq” heats up, the American people should not be hoodwinked by these after-the-fact alibis. The architects of defeat must be held responsible.

---

Pro-war hawks offer a different set of excuses. Some assert that going to war was the right idea, but the operation was bungled by incompetent leadership in the Pentagon. William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, wants Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign, yet the pundit simultaneously claims that the debacle in Iraq vindicates his earlier call for vast increases in U.S. defense spending. In this view, we are losing because we don’t have a big enough army to run an empire and because civilians at the top were never serious about winning.

This excuse suffers from two glaring weaknesses. First, the war may not have been winnable no matter what we did, because Iraq was a deeply divided society from the onset, and occupying powers almost always face fierce resistance. That the occupation was badly executed is indisputable, but it is by no means clear that any occupation would have succeeded. Second, if hawks such as Kristol thought we needed a bigger military to perform a global imperial role, they should have withheld their support until adequate forces were available. Instead, they did everything they could to get us into the regime-changing business as quickly as possible.

For their part, Secretary Rumsfeld and other administration officials blame our problems on Baathist “dead-enders” and radical jihadis, aided and abetted by Syria and Iran. It’s not the Bush administration’s fault we’re losing, we are told; it’s our enemies’ fault. That is no defense at all, of course, because it merely reminds us that the Bush team failed to anticipate what would happen once Saddam was gone and we “owned” Iraq…

---

The most scurrilous alibi, however, blames our difficulties on eroding public support at home. Grieving antiwar mother Cindy Sheehan gets pilloried by right-wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and President Bush declares that Americans who favor withdrawing “are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States.”

This argument is a clever bit of political jujitsu, because it in effect blames any future defeat on the people who have long contended that the war was unnecessary and unwise.

Evidently, the people at Foreign Policy don't read the right pieces either.

Michael, hope your boy's doing okay. I see the 'dialogue' continues with Stuart et al over the merits or otherwise of the Iraq invasion we had to have, whatever the 'real' reasons were. I think the pro-war camp has pretty much settled on regime change (which our PM opposed categorically) for the very noblest of motives. Bob correctly draws attention to the often conveniently overlooked Downing Street Memos, etc, as having a bearing on this question.

At any rate, triumphalism has a penchant for focussing on the positives, and in this case, despite widespread insurgent activity, it's true (thank God!) that technically speaking there's as yet no civil war in Iraq. The 'hot' civil war ceased in May 2003, when Baghdad fell to the Iraqi people's self-proclaimed 'proxy forces' (ie, namely the Coalition of the Willing forces - I characterise it thus in deference to the pro-war puppies' preferred view of the motives for the invasion). The 'cold' civil war continues, of course, and perhaps shall until Coalition troops leave the scene whether next year or, as Rummy said not so long ago, up to ten years hence.

It's probably correct that the presence of Coalition forces is all that prevents the place from going 'hot' again. Yet, as various perspectives have more than suggested, the Coalition forces are the major impetus for the insurgency. What obtains after Coalition forces finally leave is clearly contingent on various factors - eg. the degree to which insurgent forces have been pacified/annihilated, the degree to which the Sunni minority embraces the political process despite its loss of historical privilege.

Well we live in hope - but little else - because the science of regime change (with attendant surgical warfare, ie, 30-100 thousand needless dead and [not] counting) is still in its infancy.

Michael Park, it's clearly not a civil war at present. Ethnic tensions exist and sometimes flare up, certainly. When this happens, people can and do die. (Incidentally, I don't understand why you keep making the same point about Sunni and Shia deaths still being deaths, as if anyone wasn't aware of that fact.) And of course there is jostling for position in the new power structure - you can't depose a long-serving strongman like Saddam without leaving a power vacuum behind. And in a land that is, in places, quite lawless due to the chaos of war, such jostling is hardly going to be subtle. Hence we witness scenes like armed soldiers rocking up and unilaterally claiming Baghdad city hall. Wonder how long they'll last in there?

Michael Park, we might be seeing the genesis of civil war in Iraq now. Then again, we might not. I stand by my earlier statement - it's too soon to tell. I think it's indulging in hysterics to suggest that what we have is civil war. Using your definition, the LA riots constituted civil war. Ditto the riots in Paris we're hearing about at the moment. Hell, how could I forget the recent Redfern riots? All cases of civil war? Are you willing to make your definition of civil war that broad?

It’s a nonsense to say that there is little or no civil war going on in Iraq. The Iraq security forces, backed by huge amounts of money and weapons from the US, are fighting an insurgency of Iraqis that do not want the US and their allies in their country. The civil war that is going on is between the IRAQI security forces and the IRAQI insurgency.

Within both the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi insurgency are factions that occasionally fight each other as various warlords, local gangsters, clerics, local sheiks, etc, jockey for position readying themselves for the inevitable day that the COTW leave Iraq.

To say there is no civil war in Iraq is ludicrous.

The dead still being dead is a throwaway line James, denoting that to those individuals killed in civil violence, your definition or mine is somewhat irrelevant – they're still dead. As it rankles so, the above is the last time I'll run it.

Your examples (including the "Redfern riot") self evidently do not match my definition. Such definition to be found below:

Now, there will be some who'd argue you can't have a civil war unless it looks like the US civil war: all a big clash of uniformed armies. I don't buy that. The idea of stasis is just about perfect. Rigidly aligned groups – "parties" (most often democrats/oligarchs in the ancient experience) – creating civil disturbance with the aim of destroying/gaining political power. Often going so far as to murder the opposing side.

Substitute democrats/oligarchs with Shiite/Sunni (with not a small helping hand from Iran as with Athens in the above example) and you have it. They just don't wear Union/Confederate uniforms. Those killed are just as dead.

The point being that the violence and civil disturbance is aimed at changing/replacing the ruling elite/party/ideology. Evidently you did not read the link. Fair enough, Thucydides is not for everyone. The Aboriginals in the "block" had, I think, designs. Such designs did not include the removal of the government in Canberra. Ditto LA. I've not read the Paris example, but if the same as most French political argy bargy over recent decades, I doubt there are gun carrying militias deposing the president.

My view would be closer to Kenneth Katzman, senior Middle East analyst for the Congressional Research Service:

Civil war is organized violence designed to change the political structure or governance within a country, or internal conflict within a state. For example, Nicaragua’s contras [back in the 1980s] were conducting a civil war. In the Middle East, in this context, it’s taken to mean war between ethnicities. But any insurgency against a government is, in my definition, a form of civil war.

This week it’s definitely become clearer that we’ve entered civil war, but whether it’s a sustained or permanent feature, we don’t know. Also, I wouldn’t say it’s full-blown, that is, where it’s neighborhood against neighborhood. We have seen a low-level Shiite reaction using militias, not full-blown reprisals, but I don’t think you need that to meet the definition; just because you don’t have one side fighting back doesn’t mean you’re not in a civil war

"And of course there is jostling for position in the new power structure - you can't depose a long-serving strongman like Saddam without leaving a power vacuum behind. And in a land that is, in places, quite lawless due to the chaos of war, such jostling is hardly going to be subtle."

Yes. About as obvious as the gonads in one's groin with a hormonal gush. A pity it wasn't so obvious to the criminally incapable pair of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld when they dismissed a far more informed and capable General Eric Shinseki for pointing out what was between the pair's legs during their hormonal rush to war. Of course, the PNAC pair knew much the better and dismissed him (sorry, accepted his resignation) for having the temerity to point out what you have so eloquently stated.

Stuart took the same dismissive attitude to Fisk when before the war he (Fisk) pointed put that the result would be a virulent and ongoing insurgency. Going on to say that a journalist's job would then begin. A job the occupying forces have made somewhat difficult to do.

As far as I'm aware (I haven't checked) the Baghdad mayor is still where he was placed by SCIRI – some two to three months back.

We're not at all sure Jacob. He collapsed yesterday whilst relieving himself of his overnight storage capacity in the loo. Total faint – out to it for some three to five minutes (hard to tell). Poor bastard's gone to school all wired up with a mini ECG to capture a "picture" of his ticker over a twenty-four hour period. Heart rate too slow and an "irregularity". I suppose we'll know more after the results are looked at. Staff at said hospital need to be seen to be believed. Next time the "bandaged bear" appears to throw some money its way!

As to the "Downing Street Memos", the pro war crowd have mostly rationalised that away on the basis of language/context/meaning. Some of it is near as good as Clinton's "depends what the meaning of 'is' is." The semantic wrangling over the word "fixed" is like watching Greco-Roman wrestling at the Olympics.

Possibly a new Python movie? The Meaning of Fixed

In reality the memos simply demonstrate the decision to go to war was made very early. Said decision was not about to be changed and the "facts" (so called intelligence) had best fit the decision. This is what happens in a democracy before the sorts of "Anti-Terror" laws being championed here by Ruddock come into force. How much easier to "fix the intelligence around the detention" once they are in force?

James Waterton, I’m really about as interested in what Max Boot has to say in his articles as I am in what a five year old would have to say about Noddy and Big Ears – it holds about as much weight as far as I’m concerned. I certainly shall not be wasting any of my time commenting on what Boot has to say. Try harder. Anything but Boot!

Michael Park, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, then. Glad to hear your young one's back up to speed.

Damian Lataan, if any of the authors you mentioned wrote something I strongly disagreed with, I would ensure that - upon discussion - there were particular points contained within that I took umbrage with. Just because I usually disagree with them doesn't mean it's intelligent to disregard everything they write without even reading it. So with that in mind, which parts of the article are you saying Max Boot is wrong about? Or, more interestingly, where he's lied?

Please be specific.

You really need to start tackling the issues, rather than just reiterating what you said earlier whilst ducking the counterargument. This is pretty much exactly what you've done throughout this thread. Shrieking "Lying neocon!!!" or "Bush is finished!!!" then running away just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid, Damian.

Margo: James, could you and Damian calm it down a bit, please, and at least settle on the key disagreements and stick with working them through? No more abuse from either of you, OK? Otherwise, let's move on.

"And please, coming back with 'no, you're wrong, it is civil war, and these people agree with me...' is not going to convince me."

No James, that was not what I was doing in that last post. Nor was it the intent. It was a reply to your post.

My last post was more addressing your question with respect to my definition of "civil war". The quote from Katzman was to illustrate that which would near enough approximate to mine (which was again provided in the post: "stasis"). No "convincing" in it; just another point of view

A reading of the Council on Foreign Policy link in the original post will demonstrate that the view offered by the link was balanced. Meaning two for, two against and two a bob each way. It was not quoted to bludgeon the point rather bolster discussion

More for Stuart's edification, but may as well share them around, this Steve Bell cartoon as well this oneare quite on the money I'd think.

Thanks for the hopes for young Josh. The lad's happy to have the bloody portable ECG monitor off his bloody chest and hip. Looks totally different today – 'specially having had a swim in the pool after school!

James Waterton, linking me to an article by Max Boot is about as impressive as linking me direct to one by William Kristol at The Weekly Standard or Norman Podhoretz at ‘Commentary’.

Max Boot is a bigger liar and warmonger than Michael Ledeen for crying out loud! He’s been peddling his ludicrous neocon views for years. As for the article you linked to – just pure desperation and child-like delusional neocon spin. The ‘Uranium from Niger’ yarn has been proven to be a lie and Boot's attempt to rebut it will be seen as the same. No one takes Boot seriously any more.

PS. Michael Park, here's hoping that your young fella makes a full and expeditious recovery.

Regards.

Michael Park, vivil violence, yes. I still disagree that we're seeing civil war. The scale just isn't large enough yet. Like I said earlier, what we're seeing is perhaps the genesis of civil war, which could erupt if the situation escalates. I just think labelling it a civil war at this stage is an over-reaction.

And please, coming back with "no, you're wrong, it is civil war, and these people agree with me..." is not going to convince me.

Damian Lataan, I know I said I wasn't going to discuss this with you anymore, but I found an interesting article for you.

I think you'll have to register with the LA Times to access it, if you haven't already. Sorry, but it's probably worth registration as the LA Times frequently print articles that you and I would both find worthy.

If you're keeping a dispassionate eye on American politics, you'll notice that the Plamegate affair is running out of oxygen at a million miles an hour. Bush's new nominee to the Supreme Court is an adroit choice. The process of confirming Scalia-like conservative Samuel Alito is bound to spark a partisan stoush - precisely what Bush wants. If Bush wins (the odds are he will, Republicans control the Senate) and the man is confirmed, Bush is well and truly back in the saddle. You forget that there is a huge - and growing - constituency within the USA who are conservative and naturally support someone like Bush. They aren't the hitherto duped swinging voters who just need to be convinced that Bush is a liar to embrace the other team - like you make them out to be. Bush had a terrible week last week; easily the worst of his presidency. However, writing him off now is ridiculously premature, as Bush's subsequent actions are proving. Your insistence on civil war in Iraq is also premature. Hrm. I see a pattern forming...

I don't expect you to deal with the above in any meaningful way. I imagine you'll just skip over it and trot out the old "Bush is finished!!" line that you've been peddling since I first engaged you.

Thanks for proving my point, Damian.