Skip to main content

Compelling and telling reasons for a change of Government

That Mike Carlton has no time for the present Howard Government - and makes some telling points as why there ought to be change of government at next weekend's election - comes through loud and clear in his weekly column in the SMH:

"Of all reasons to be rid of this rancid Howard Government, surely its failure in national security matters must be foremost.

The record is appalling. We have had the grovelling to George Bush, which dragged us into the quagmire of Iraq on intelligence assessments which were hopelessly wrong at best and cynically confected at worst. Despite the assurances, this war has left us more exposed to terrorism, not less.

There was the AWB scandal, in which the Government blithely protested that it had not a clue about the $300 million in sanction-busting bribes to the Saddam Hussein regime. This at the very time ships and sailors were going into harm's way to enforce sanctions in the Persian Gulf.

Then on to the black farce of the Tampa affair and the so-called Pacific Solution, with traumatised children trapped behind the razor wire. More incredible still, Australian citizens and others with valid residency visas were also unlawfully banged up in detention centres.

Add to all this the cases of David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib and, more recently, the disastrously bungled prosecution of Dr Mohamed Haneef.

The only possible conclusion is that, for all its sabre-rattling on national security, this is a government mired in incompetence, negligence and deceit.

Who do you trust, again?"

A sober reflection makes it hard to argue with Carlton's proposition.

Whilst reading Carlton's column don't forget to read his comments on Izhar Ul-Haque's story and Australia's "wonderful" ASIO.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...