Skip to main content

Parallel Universes

As always, Mike Carleton in his weekly op-ed piece in the SMH hits the nail on the head:

"... nothing of any moment has emerged from the Prime Minister's triumphant progress along the Potomac.

The bands played, the flags flew, the guns went off and the mutual schmooze flowed like molten lava, but unless there was something interesting we haven't been told - a secret Oval Office pact to eventually bomb Iran, say - it was froth and tinsel.

There was a surreal air to the carryings-on, as if Howard and Bush were travelling in some parallel universe. Here was this nincompoop President, his domestic popularity at a record low and his global credibility in shreds, pathetically, embarrassingly eager to wallow in the fulsome praise showered upon him by his dear friend.

The word "courage" was tossed around like confetti. "Firm leadership … the liberty agenda … sense of optimism" - you'd have thought the Iraq war had brought some tremendous Churchillian victory rather than the endless quagmire it has become.

Perhaps the best appraisal of this circus came from the mainstream US media who, apart from a few gossip paragraphs, barely noticed a thing."


Nothing more need be said!

Mark Baker, diplomatic editor of The Age says:

"The PM's declarations of affection for George Bush look bad for Howard and demean us in the eyes of the world".

And this:

"It also seems to have escaped those thrilled by the warmth of Howard's reception that it might in part be related to the fact that fewer and fewer Western leaders appear willing to come calling as Bush stumbles deeper into the domestic and international mire and his certain obituary as one of the worst presidents in US history. The American alliance remains very important to Australia, but at what price?"

Read Barker's insightful article "All the way with GWB" here.

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...