Sunday 20th of September 2020

feral flunky .....

feral flunky .....

from the ABC .....

Iraq never about oil: Nelson

Today Dr Nelson said resource security was a separate issue.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has distanced himself from comments he made yesterday about a link between oil security and the need for Australian troops to stay in Iraq.

On Wednesday Dr Nelson said oil security was one of the reasons Australian forces should not leave Iraq.

But today, while he was visiting Indonesia, Dr Nelson said resource security was a separate issue.

"Iraq has never been about oil," he said.


Gus: As a letter-writer asked in the Sydney Morning Herald today (07/07/07), if Iraq's main export was tofu, would we have gone in there?

rattus ring tones .....

The phone calls from John Howard's office to the head office of Rupert Murdoch's News Limited in Sydney yesterday were less than pleasant.

The website, the main portal for Murdoch's network of Australian newspaper websites, reaching some more than 1.5 million Australian readers per day, ran a number of headlines claiming John Howard had said that oil was now a key reason to stay in Iraq. Some of the headlines said the Iraq War was a war for oil. Just like all those protesters back in early 2003 claimed it would be.

By the time Howard moved to deny he said anything such thing, it was too late. The story was out, columns and articles had been written and sent to the printers for today's news racks, and there was no going back.

The furore started early yesterday morning when online news stories began appearing claiming that John Howard was going to unveil a new defence strategy for Australia, and mention would be made that we had to secure oil supplies in Iraq, as part of that strategy.’

Howard Hits Oil Slick As Truth Becomes A WMD

Slick oil

From the NYT

The Road Home

Published: July 8, 2007

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

Gus:  The main problem here is the oil, which according to our leader-porkyists, from Bush to Howard — apart from underling Nelson-the-cat in a moment of clear-minded-madness that sent shock-waves through the layers of the liars-in-chiefs — we're not in Iraq for...

Securing important resources in the democratisation of Iraq enters the stupid war equation since there was no WMDs — WMDs, the main porkied reason to invade in the first place. So despite all the rhetoric of having to let Iraq be Iraq... can "we" (at least our glorious lying leaders in disasters)  let the oil slip through...? Can the Yankees let the oil alone, or manage an advantageous deal that does not seem to be an advantageous deal by not appearing to be after an advantageous deal?.. Like letting the Iraqi decide the slick oil deal with a bit of discreet but forceful nudging...?
    Once the deal is done by the Iraqi puppet government, one may see a retreat of "reduced" Americans forces towards the oil-fields and the rest of the Iraqi populace can go to smithereens, in search of the pieces of their country... The permanent bases, designed to house about 50,000 US troops, will do the job to secure "vital resources for the rest of the world"... The trick is complete. Appearances are maintained as should the Iraqi not give their oil away to the US, they will be made to appear selfish and not worthy to live... which considering the body count is not far from the present situation. Morality is "preserved" by being balanced with "national interests"... and we can carry on driving our SUV with abandon. Amen...

Puss puss puss...

How Nelson gagged researchers

October 29, 2007

Letters to academics who missed out on grants provide the first evidence of what research the Government was so loath to fund, writes Harriet Alexander.

Lindsay Barrett's research was so obviously controversial that he was convinced no one would dare try to block funding for it because of political sensitivities.

It was 2005, by which time enough had been learnt of the "children overboard" affair to leave the Howard Government jumpy on the issue, and Barrett wanted to research the way politicians had managed the media during it and four other scandals.

But when the Australian Research Council informed him that his proposal for funding had been unsuccessful, he put it down to tough competition between more than 4000 academics who vie for 800 grants.

Even after it transpired that the then education minister, Brendan Nelson, had taken a guillotine to the research that the ARC had recommended for funding, still Dr Barrett was sure the minister would not have vetoed his proposal, even as many academics were convinced they were victims of political interference.

"I never thought that I could have been, because surely it would have been too obvious to veto a project that was potentially critical, so they wouldn't do it," Dr Barrett says.

But two months ago, Dr Barrett, from the University of Western Sydney, and Tim Doyle, from the University of Adelaide, received letters from the ARC that appear to confirm they were among nine academics whose projects were stopped by the minister, who instituted a purge of research he believed did not advance the national interest.


Gus: Even in Russia, the deed would have not been done so stealthily. Lindsayko Barrettsky may have been told bluntly that his research was not in the national interest, but under the Orstralyan former Minster for Non-Educashun, the process was submarined. not even FOI-ed!... As most journalists would know the Freedom-Of-Information in this country means that on sensitive issues, the government only give out a few adverbs and some adjectives between the blacked out bits.

Now the Minster for Illegal Invasions and Wars-for-Oil has been caught out. In year passed, this single affair would have demanded the suspension of the minister till an investigation cleared him or dammed him... Under John Howard, such rotten deed gets a pat on the head and possibly a promotion to Hole-in-The-Head, in Chief...

Hear the purr-purr from the cat-Minister who's "done the job" asked of him and got his bowl of milk.... see the cartoon at the head of this line of articles...