Australia and Iraq.

Then this:


Full story here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1124382.htm

Latham brushes off Bush attack
The Federal Opposition is standing by its promise to withdraw Australia's troops from Iraq by Christmas if elected, even though United States President George W Bush says that would be "disastrous".

In a joint news conference with Prime Minister John Howard, Mr Bush has attacked the Labor plan saying it would crush the spirits of Iraqis and embolden the enemy.

In a statement, Labor Leader Mark Latham has restated that Australia should not have sent troops to Iraq.

Mr Latham says the Opposition supports Australia's alliance with the US, but he says it is not a rubber stamp and he will not be swayed by President Bush's comments.

Federal Labor MP Nicola Roxon says Labor's stance is unchanged when it comes to pulling Australian troops out of Iraq.

And, as if that wasn't enough, we have even been pulled into the Abu Ghraib scandal!

Defence Dept to investigate prisoner abuse knowledge
The Defence Department has announced an internal investigation after revelations earlier this week that military officers were aware of concerns about the serious mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners last year.

On Tuesday, the secretary of the Defence Department and the chief of the Defence Force retracted claims that no Australian knew of the abuse until this year and apologised for embarrasing the Government.

Prime Minister John Howard has said he is very disappointed about the communication breakdown.

The inquiry will examine the extent of what Australians knew about the abuse claims and a report will be released within a fortnight.

The chief of the Defence Force says he is confident that the public will not judge Australia's soldiers for any breakdown in communication in the Iraq prisoner abuse affair.

General Peter Cosgrove was in Brisbane this afternoon to welcome home the last infantry contingent from East Timor.

He says the investigation will sort out any problems.

"We've obviously had an information problem in our bureaucracy and we've go to fix that," he said.

"From that point of view I think the public are very discriminating, they work out that in this whole affair, that Australians have behaved honourably and properly in their dealings in Iraq."

General Cosgrove also says with hindsight more attention should have been paid to the allegations of prisoner abuse in Iraq.

He says it was hard to tell how important the information was at the time.

"They were seen by the cryptic nature of the reports as being something that was probably important but was being dealt with by the people on the ground," he said.

"Now that we know that of course what this was, signs of very serious abuse in one of the detention centres, then plainly it's an important issue."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1122217.htm

And this reaction:
Labor, Greens criticise prisoner abuse probe
The Federal Opposition and the Greens have little confidence in an internal Defence Department investigation into the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

The investigation was sparked by revelations several government departments learned last year of the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, and failed to pass that information on.

Defence Minister Robert Hill is promising a thorough inquiry, but Labor's Defence spokesman Chris Evans doubts that.

"I don't have much confidence in it," he said. "It's certainly belated and I'm not sure it will solve all the problems."

Greens leader Bob Brown agrees.

"This is a Minister seasoned in fobbing off both the Senate and the Parliament and public inquiry into matters like this," he said.

"There'd be much more confidence had there been an independent inquirer announced."

Labor and the Greens are also unimpressed Senator Hill has again been unable to produce documents dealing with custody arrangements for Iraqi prisoners captured by Australian soldiers.

Senator Hill says Australia struck a deal for the US to take responsibility for prisoners captured in the war on terror in Afghanistan, and says that deal also applied to the war in Iraq.

He insists the arrangements fully comply with international law.

A Liberal backbencher says Australia's defence chiefs should have offered their resignations, for providing misleading information about when military officers knew about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq.

Defence Secretary Ric Smith and the Chief of the Defence Force General Peter Cosgrove have both apologised for embarrassing the government over the matter.

Liberal MP Peter King thinks they should have gone further than that.

"In these situations, responsibility does need to be taken at some stage in senior levels," he said.

"There was an opportunity for the CDF and possibly the secretary of department to offer their resignations, I'm sure they wouldn't have been accepted, having regard to their service."

Well, I hardly think that the military situation in Iraq would be materially affected by Australia's withdrawal - lol.

So - we are talking here about symbolic effects.

I - as a staunch opponent of the war - find myself in the bizarre position of believing we should not withdraw - just as I do not believe the big folk in the coalition should do so until every effort to create a stable situation in Iraq has been made.

This is a pain in the bum position for me, believe me. I sooooooo wanna go with Latham, who has clashed with the US before over Iraq. Go!

Still, sadly, I think he is wrong - though, given the only symbolic nature of our forces, is he.

What do you think?

Do you care?

Do you know we are not Austria?

BTW - is "dispirit" a verb?

The Aust Govt has 'forgiven' Iraq the US$500 (AU$700) debt for sales of wheat. We have also pledged tens of millions for grain unloading facilities in Iraq. We're generous? No?

Meanwhile:


http://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/news/news-NG.asp?id=52257

Yes, it's a verb. dlowan, I'm in about the same position as you are on this mess in Iraq. I was totally against this war, but feel this administration has handled everything in the wrong way from beginning to end. I also feel it would be a huge mistake to just pick up and leave Iraq. They will certainly have tribal and terrorist wars, and the region will be less secure. At least now, we have some semblance of security in most of Iraq and in the region. We must consider the long-term outlook. Giving a win to the Taliban and al Qaida will only make them more brazen in other parts of the world - knowing that nobody will defend what they do. That would be catastrophic.

Dlowan

Latham has always qualified his "withdrawal by Christmas" statement with the proviso that stable government be established in Iraq before withdrawal. Not much chance of that happening before Christmas, is there?

No - interesting to see Bush on the telly just then.


Quite incoherent with......aaaah...er....Bushness, he was.


Latham still saying that?

Apparently Latham's consistently said that, dlowan. I didn't realize till it was discussed local ABC radio this morning. Seems it's rather a symbolic statement, yes?

If nothing else, at least we can be totally sure in which city this nations policies are being decided-and it's not Canberra.

Wilso

You just realized? :wink:

You know - I think that sort of true/not true.

Firstly, the government simply holds the policy that going along with the US is good policy - for obvious reasons - so we decide Oz policy here - it is just that it is our decision to support the US!!!! We are still deciding...if you get what I mean.

That is pretty bi-lateral, too - always has been - Labor just tends to be a little more independent - and not so revoltingly lick-arsey. Howard and his crawling are a horrible sight, as are Bush's comments - "man of steel", "deputy sheriff" - a woman needs a sick bag. I doubt that our foreign policy will change much under Latham, if he gets in. Mind you, even a soupcon more independent thought would seem like heaven from here.

Also - much as I disagree with it, I think that Howard - and much of the cabinet - really believed that going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

Heehee - this is getting interesting - maybe people are not going to like Bush's comments:


Prime Minister John Howard looks on as US President George W Bush addresses the media. (Getty Images)

Howard departs US defending Bush
Prime Minister John Howard is on his way to London for talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, bidding farewell to Washington by playing down the US President's comments about troop withdrawals from Iraq.

Yesterday at the White House, George W Bush described a troops withdrawal by Christmas, as proposed by Opposition leader Mark Latham, as "disastrous".

Former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser has added his voice to criticising Mr Bush, accusing him of interfering in Australian domestic politics.

Mr Howard said Mr Bush's attack on Mr Latham was warranted and not an interference in Australian domestic politics.

"I don't think he did weigh into our domestic political climate," Mr Howard said at the National Press Club in Washington.

"I might, for the record, make the observation that at no stage in my discussion with President Bush was the subject of the Australian Opposition's position on Iraq raised."

Mr Howard said Iraq is nearing a crucial phase as the final countdown to June 30 and the return of Iraq's sovereignty draws near.

"We're approaching one of the most crucial phases of this operation," Mr Howard said, adding that Australian troops would not depart Iraq until their mission was finished.

"We intend to leave them there until the job assigned to them is completed," Mr Howard stressed.

Mr Howard and Mr Blair are expected to hold further talks on Iraq.

The Prime Minister will travel on from Britain to France, joining other world leaders including Mr Bush, Mr Blair, French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Queen Elizabeth II for the D-day commemorations on Sunday.



And - the Liberal's most hated man - (remember, foreign friends, the Libs are the conservatives over here) their ex-leader and Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Frazer:

Bush treating Australia like 51st state: Fraser
Former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser says the United States President George W Bush should not treat Australia as though it is a US state.

Yesterday at the White House, Mr Bush described Opposition leader Mark Latham's troop withdrawal by December proposal as "disastrous".

Mr Fraser joined those criticising Mr Bush for his comments on Labor's plan to have Australian troops home from Iraq by Christmas.

"I'm quite sure all Australians know Mr Bush's views but he really should try to preserve protocol and not treat Australia as though we're a state of the United States," he said.

"President Bush should keep out of Australian politics, his comments were partisan and unnecessary.

"His views on the subject are well but Australia will have its own political debate and Australians will make judgement accordingly."

Labor leader Mark Latham has released a statement defending his plan to bring Australian troops home from Iraq by Christmas but is keeping a low profile after Mr Bush strongly criticised the plan.

The Government says Mr Bush's comments are broader than a criticism of Labor.

Mr Howard said Mr Bush's attack on the Opposition leader was warranted and not an interference in Australian domestic politics.

"I don't think he did weigh into our domestic political climate," Mr Howard said at the National Press Club in Washington.

"I might, for the record, make the observation that at no stage in my discussion with President Bush was the subject of the Australian Opposition's position on Iraq raised."

A federal Labor backbencher has also warned Mr Bush to "mind his own business", and not speak on Australian domestic political issues.

Tasmanian Labor MP Sid Sidebottom hit back at Mr Bush and says Mr Latham has better things to do than publicly respond to the Mr Bush's comments.

"Mark never ducks for cover," he said.

"No doubt he's got more important things to be worrying about that what George Bush is saying in the presence of John Howard."

"He should mind his own business".

Head of the Australian Defence Association Neil James is not surprised by Mr Bush's comments.

"Some elements of the Labor Party have been having a go at the Americans lately and this is obviously a reasonable opportunity for the Americans to lash back," he said.

"You'd have to assume that a Republican President and a Liberal Prime Minister are going to ideologically agree on a few things."

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says after Spain's decision to withdraw its troops from Iraq, Mr Bush's comments are bigger than an Australian domestic debate.

It's interesting, this Oz/US thing: If Latham (or anyone else, for that matter) is critical of what's happening in Iraq (& our involvement there), they're labled "anti-American" by Howard & co. .... As if this is a dreadful, dangerous position to hold! And might destroy our "special relationship" with the US. Very rarely is the distinction made between being anti-Bush policies & anti-all things US. This, of course is very convenient for the Liberal Party, who have blindly followed Bush.

I have this sneaking suspicion that Latham is gaining ground - the more unpopular the war in Iraq has become, the more his comments are perceived to be pro-Australian, as opposed to anti-US. I know his position appeals to many young people, & keeping a close eye on the feedback to Bush's comments, I suspect that Latham is gaining ground with other voters, too, on this issue. There is a lot of anger at what is perceived as Bush's innapropriate interference in Australia's domestic affairs to support Howard & undermine Latham. Howard's position on the US is starting to look as embarrassing as "all the way with LBJ" was.

I think we should send the shrub a thankyou card. He's done more for the opposition than Latham could ever do. IT's making people open their eyes and see who's really running Australia.

Labor call for Hill's head
19:26 AEST Wed Jun 16 2004


The federal opposition has called on Defence Minister Robert Hill to resign after his long-awaited statement to the Senate on the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

Opposition Senate Leader John Faulkner said Senator Hill's statement was a whitewash which did not address the real and uncomfortable issues that the matter had raised.

"This much-heralded statement, this comprehensive explanation promised two weeks ago by the prime minister Mr Howard turns out to be an absolute disgrace," Senator Faulkner told parliament.

"It's a damp squib, it's not an explanation, it's a complete whitewash.

"He blames defence for providing inaccurate information to the government. He blames everybody but himself.

"This is a minister more concerned about self-preservation than decent standards.

"This statement is full of excuses. There's nothing about consequences and the logical consequence of a fiasco such as this ... of course is Senator Hill's own resignation."

Mr Howard ordered the investigation a fortnight ago after the Defence Department was forced to admit it had been wrong to say no Australians had known about the abuse until February this year.

Senator Hill told parliament that Australian forces in Iraq had no detailed knowledge of the prisoner abuse at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

Senator Hill said the Red Cross working paper passed to Australian defence lawyer Major George O'Kane in October contained no allegation of serious abuses of the type which emerged when photographs were published in late April.

The document had not been passed up the chain of command to Australia, he said.

Hill resists calls to resign
21:52 AEST Wed Jun 16 2004


Federal Labor called for Defence Minister Robert Hill to resign after his long-awaited statement on when Australian officials first knew of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal failed to make the issue clearer.

Senator Hill told the Senate that Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel in Iraq had no detailed knowledge of the prisoner abuse at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

But he did not explain why it took defence officials almost three weeks to realise that they had copies of vital Red Cross working papers.

Senator Hill also failed to apologise for misleading the parliament and the public, saying only that he regretted his department had given him bad advice.

"I regret that incorrect information was provided to me and, through me, to the prime minister," Senator Hill said.

Opposition Senate Leader John Faulkner said Senator Hill's statement was a whitewash.

"This much-heralded statement, this comprehensive explanation promised two weeks ago by the prime minister Mr Howard turns out to be an absolute disgrace," Senator Faulkner told parliament.

"It's not an explanation, it's a complete whitewash.

"This statement is full of excuses. There's nothing about consequences and the logical consequence of a fiasco such as this ... of course is Senator Hill's own resignation."

Prime Minister John Howard ordered Senator Hill a fortnight ago to investigate the chain of events surrounding Australian knowledge of the abuse, after the defence department admitted it had been wrong to claim that no Australian had known about the issue before January.

In fact, some time after November 12, Major George O'Kane, an ADF legal officer working with the coalition force headquarters in Baghdad, had access to working papers from Red Cross inspections of two prisons a month earlier.

But Senator Hill said the papers did not contain any reference to the torture and humiliations shown in shocking photographs which were published in April, or any reference to the prisoners being photographed.

"It is a matter of record that these abuses all happened. We have seen the photos that prove it," Senator Hill said.

"But to suggest that Australia had knowledge of the extent of the abuses at Abu Ghraib through the October working papers is a nonsense."

Major O'Kane was not present at the inspections and defence had confirmed that there was no record of those working papers being passed up through the chain of command back to Australia, he said.

New happenings afoot:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/07/1091732143101.html?oneclick=true

Melbourne's Age newspaper, in the person of one of the most respected journalists in the country, reports:

"Military, diplomatic elite attack PM
By Michelle Grattan
August 8, 2004



"A who's who of Australia's former military chiefs, departmental heads and top diplomats is set to launch a scathing attack on John Howard's foreign policy and call for "truth in government" from whichever party wins the election.

It is believed a statement from more than 40 former military and diplomatic officers will condemn Australia's commitment to the Iraq invasion as based on deception, and call for Australia to stop rubber-stamping US policies.

The gathering of names has been under way for weeks. Signatories are believed to include two former chiefs of the Australian Defence Force, Admiral Alan Beaumont and General Peter Gration, two former navy chiefs, Vice-Admiral Sir Richard Peek and Admiral Mike Hudson and a former air force chief, Air Marshal Ray Funnell.

On the list are also expected to be six former department heads: Paul Barratt (Defence), John Burton (External Affairs), Stuart Harris (Foreign Affairs), John Menadue (Prime Minister's Department), Alan Renouf (Foreign Affairs), and Richard Woolcott (Foreign Affairs).


The former heads of mission have represented Australia in all the major posts, including the US, China, Japan and Indonesia, as well as in Middle Eastern countries. Three former heads of mission to Iraq are believed to be on the list.....


..... from the intelligence community are expected to be Robert Furlonger, former director-general of the Office of National Assessments, and head of the Joint Intelligence Organisation (who was also ambassador to Indonesia); Gordon Jockel, former chairman of the National Intelligence Committee (who also served as ambassador to Thailand and Indonesia); and Roger Holdich, former director-general of intelligence (and ambassador to Korea)......"

Coming not long before an election, this most unusual event may be a blow for the Prime Minister.

"The sheer number of signatories and their prominence in the nation's diplomatic and military life of several decades give the declaration great weight......

..... It is expected to strongly condemn the misleading of the Australian people about the reasons for invading Iraq, and carry the message that if what the Australian Government says cannot be trusted by its own citizens, Australia cannot expect its word to be trusted internationally."

Hear hear!

"They believe the invasion and occupation of Iraq have led to an obvious increase in terrorism rather than the predicted decrease. The outcome has been to considerably raise Australia's profile as a terrorist target.

The group is also expected to call for the post-election government to review the balances in foreign and security policy to get a better weighting between the relationship with the US, regional engagement and Australia's role in the United Nations."

Hmmmmmm - this is an interesting event.