Tuesday, September 12, 2006

A load of pompous twaddle

Australia's apologist for all things neo-con, Gerard Henderson, has an interestingly Rovian take on the 9/11 anniversary.

Curiously he writes, in the SMH: After September 11, taking Saddam Hussein at his word was far too great a risk. Oh how short and selective are those right wing memories?

That is the very same Saddam Hussein who was receiving kickback that if not approved by ministers in Howard's government, were at least politely ignored.

Well after 9/11 the Aussie monopoly wheat exporter, AWB, was continuing what it began in the late 90s, and funnelling hard cash through to the treacherous dictator.

But then it is probably more convenient for Henderson to accept the government's approach to this sleazy issue and just fall back on bad memory and lack of interest in the affair.

If that's not enough for this oxymoronic right wing intellectual, try this: Most critics of the decisions taken in response to September 11 by George Bush in the US, Tony Blair in Britain and John Howard in Australia were commentators, lawyers, academics and the like.

What unites the critics is that virtually none is in a position where they have to make decisions - or not make decisions - for which they will be held responsible by their fellow citizens.

Did you get that? The great unelected, according to Henderson, are disqualified from having an opinion because they don't make the political decisions. Bullshit!

Amusing because Henderson goes on to conclude that there was no risk, but insists we could not take Iraq's word for that. So the great unelected were right, but their view still does not count.

I do hope a few of Australia's legendary lefties of the media rip Gerard to shreds for this pompous twaddle.


Praguetwin said...

Have you noticed how the AWB story gets almost no press coverage while we have to hear over and over how France and Russia were against the war because they were involved in the oil for food scandal?

Cartledge said...

The US Admin are scared of the AWB issue catching fire, because it implicates them as well.
The whole OFF issue is kept suppressed because it does not reflect well on the coalition.