The themes of pro-war cant

The case for war was a complex tapestry of fabrications, exaggerations and misrepresentations. It was based on the conflation of several key themes, all of which represent serious international concerns, but none of which actually applied to the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein.

Let’s take these themes one at a time.

First, there was the allegation that Iraq possessed “massive stockpiles” of WMD. Certainly, the proliferation and use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is a major international concern, and there is widespread public support for the banning of such weapons.

Yet there are many countries that do, in fact, possess, develop and produce such weapons. These countries include the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel.

While Iraq did use chemical weapons against the Iranians during the 80’s Iran-Iraq war, at a time when the US was providing moral and material support to Iraq, it is now widely recognized that Iraq was effectively disarmed in 1991, following the first Gulf War.

The disarmament of Iraq was part of its punishment for invading Kuwait in 1990. There were also harsh economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations against Iraq, which made it almost impossible for Iraq to rebuild and modernize its industrial base. The people of Iraq suffered much hardship as a result of these sanctions. But in March, 2003, Iraq did not possess WMD, nor was it actively developing WMD.

Predicated on the incorrect assumption that Iraq continued to retain, possess and develop WMD, was the accusation of Iraqi noncompliance with UN Security Council resolutions. For example, on September 16, 2002, prime minister Howard told parliament:

The central issue in front of the world community now is Iraq’s failure to comply. That is the issue; that is the matter that should be of concern not only to this parliament but to parliaments around the world. The ways and means of ensuring that Iraq does comply with not only past but also future obligations established by the Security Council should be the preoccupation of the world. It is fair to say that has been the theme that has emerged from the statements of many over the past week.

But you don’t enhance the authority and credibility of international law by punishing a country for supposedly developing WMD when they aren’t, while turning a blind eye to countries that are. And in the absence of evidence to prove guilt, such punishment is unjust.

In March, 2003, Bush, Howard and Blair were all aware there was no evidence to support their charge that Iraq did in fact possess WMD, which is why they needed another angle, another set of accusations.

Next, consider the claim that Iraq was likely to give its (nonexistent) WMD to “terrorists”. This charge was very effective, not because there was any evidence to support it, but because it played on the post-911 fear of terrorism.

Bush, Howard and Blair accused Iraq of providing support for al Qa'ida and conjured up images of terrorists armed with nuclear bombs, but they offered no evidence to support these grave allegations against Iraq, because the truth is, there was no such collaboration between Iraq and al Qa'ida.

It is, however, common knowledge that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States all provided weapons, training and finance to al Qa'ida throughout the 80’s and 90’s.

So again, we have a strong argument for muscular action, but not against Iraq. And so, another element was brought into play, a tactic familiar to all the political protagonists in this monstrous charade, the practice of character assassination.

Saddam Hussein and his regime would be subjected to a campaign of unrelenting abuse and vilification. They would be accused of torture, aggression and mass murder. The Iraqi government would be accused of lying and cheating and scheming, and their representations would be dismissed out of hand.

Saddam Hussein was accused of flouting international law and displaying a studied contempt for the world community. The Iraqi’s were alleged to be actively obstructing the UN weapons inspectors.

The invective extended to any who dared oppose the push to war.

But while Iraq was actually complying with the UN inspectors, Bush, Howard and Blair were preparing to thumb their noses at the Security Council if it did not authorize their plan to attack Iraq.

Apparently, Bush, Howard and Blair believe that while Iraq should comply fully and unreservedly with the rulings of the UN Security Council, Anglo-American powers (including Australia) should be exempt from such constraints.

There has been no admission or even recognition of this inconsistency by the politicians and pundits who made the case for war. Of all the themes involved in justifying armed aggression against Iraq, this theme was the most hypocritical.

We need only reflect on the Australian government’s ambivalent attitude toward UN agencies like the Human Rights Commission, the World Court and international conventions like the Kyoto Protocol. The US record on international treaties is no better, and indeed, many countries show scant regard for international law.

The notion that the very legitimacy of international law was jeopardized by alleged Iraqi non-compliance was overblown to the point of absurdity. The fact is, Iraq had endured 12 years of the most severe and comprehensive sanctions ever applied to a nation.

Iraq had been disarmed and reduced to a state of abject poverty. Iraq posed no threat to any other nation and was essentially defenseless. Iraq had already been stripped of the sovereign rights most countries take for granted. It certainly had no power to protect itself.

In the absence of any real evidence to prove the most damning accusations against Iraq, and given the highly dubious and ethically challenged arguments for invading Iraq, the warmongers attempted to construct a legal argument to justify aggression. This argument was based on the reinterpretation of Security Council Resolution 678, which authorized “all necessary means” to evict Iraq from Kuwait.

The pro-war lobby claimed this authorization was still applicable because Iraq had not fully disarmed and was therefore in breach of the ceasefire agreement. This argument clearly fails the test of logic in light of the fact that, in 2003, Iraq did not possess and was not developing banned weapons.

All these themes were clearly specious at the time they were presented and all have since been proven false, yet still the war supporters and their apologists in the media imply that taken together, these themes provided a compelling and convincing case for war.

This is not just an example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. This is a case of intentional deception for the purpose of misleading the public about the reasons for invading Iraq.

A tangled web of deception

In the US, independent bloggers are forcing the mainstream media to belatedly take up the task of unraveling the tangled web of deception spun from the White House and lately, US journos have begun writing about issues that should have been raised three years ago.

But in Australia, the Murdoch Packer dominated media is still woefully remiss in its reporting of the political fraud that led to an illegal invasion and culminated, to quote retired US Army General William Odom, in the “greatest strategic blunder” of modern times.

Instead, the Australian media dutifully regurgitates the “stay the course” mantra, a “course” that former CentCom Chief, retired US Marine General Anthony Zinni, said is “headed for Niagara Falls”.

For example, consider this recent piece by The Australian journalist, Paul Kelly, an article entitled “In Iraq for a long haul”, in which Kelly debunks the notion that withdrawal from Iraq is likely any time soon.

“It is wrong,” Kelly writes, “to believe that Prime Minister John Howard and [Foreign Minister Alexander] Downer are looking for a quick departure from Iraq. Quite the reverse. [...] Howard’s message on Iraq is clear: to see the job through.”

But nowhere in his 1200 word opinion piece does Kelly address the crucial question, what is the “job”? Does anyone have a clue, apart from “talking up the training of Iraqi security forces”, what we are actually doing in Iraq?

Is there some way to gauge the progress of our “job” in Iraq?

Before the invasion, Kelly was writing about the threat of Iraq’s WMD and the need to disarm Saddam. Now he is writing about the need to stay in Iraq indefinitely, in order to “see the job through”, but what job? Certainly not the job of disarming Iraq.

The mediocrity of Kelly’s analysis would not be so disturbing if he was just some regular media hack, but Kelly is widely considered to be an authoritative journalist. His failure to scrutinize the ever shifting rationales and political manouvering of the war party highlights the pitiful standard of mainstream commentary in this country.

When Howard says “we won’t cut and run until the job is done”, is there a journalist who will dare or bother to ask, “exactly what job is that?” They probably won’t get a straight answer, but it is their job to ask. They never do.

When Howard says, “everyone agreed Saddam had WMD”, is there a journalist who will ask, “what about the UN weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Al Baradai, did they agree?” No, they won’t ask that, because the honest answer might embarrass the prime minister.

It is perhaps not surprising that our mainstream media hacks have remained silent for so long on the question of how and why we were dragged into the unending occupation of Iraq.

After all, they helped get us there, though they’re loath to admit it. Murdoch himself inveighed against caution and common sense in an interview with Packer’s Bulletin magazine, when he predicted that the greatest thing to come from war in Iraq would be $20 a barrel for oil.

The litany of lies the government used to mislead our nation to war cannot be simply waved aside or swept under the carpet. The pattern of fabrication, exaggeration and misrepresentation is far too complex and deliberate to be dismissed as just the result of faulty intelligence.

There was clearly a coordinated campaign to betray honesty, decency and reason in pursuit of an ideological agenda, a blatant geopolitical scam devised with reckless disregard for the consequences, certainly a crime by any civilised standard.

The free press, which likes to portray itself as some kind of watchdog for the public interest, has behaved more like a lapdog for the vested interests that profit from war.

Still to this day, the mainstream media in Australia is reluctant to review its own performance in the lead up to war, or admit the role it continues to play in protecting the government from criticism and maintaining support for our involvement in the occupation of Iraq.

It is no criticism of our armed forces to point out that Australia’s contribution in Iraq is little more than a token gesture of Howard’s devotion to Bush and a demonstration of our subservience to the US.

But where, in the Australian press, will you find an intelligent, objective analysis of the economic and geostrategic consequences of defining Australia’s foreign policy to suit US national security interests in general, or the Bush Cheney agenda in particular?

It’s not there, because it would be deemed “anti-american” by Downer and “unaustralian” by Howard, and therefore not fit for publication. The journalists and editors, apparently, know whom to please.

The legacy of John W. Howard

Howard lovers never tire of lauding the PM’s economic management credentials, his strong and decisive leadership, his steady, experienced hand on the tiller in these troubled times. But many of us have a different take on the leadership qualities of John Howard, an appreciation acquired by peering behind the facade of fiscal responsibility and taking a good hard look at his record.

Howard won office with a guarantee to “never ever” introduce a GST, a regressive tax that unfairly burdens the poor, and he promised to govern for ALL Australians. It wasn’t long before the “Beazley black hole” was unearthed to justify Costello’s razor gang, which set about cutting millions from public sector spending.

Howard wasted no time expanding the uranium mining industry in Australia, giving the green light to Roxby Downs, Ranger and many others, including acid leach mines. The multinational group Pangea was invited to look at Australia as a possible international high-level nuclear waste dump, and recently, the Howard government illegally commandeered a site near Woomera for a national radioactive waste repository.

Then came zero tolerance on drugs, opposition to needle exchanges, injecting rooms, harm minimization and more recently, a proposal to legalize discrimination against drug addicts. There was Howard’s refusal to halt the homophobic smear campaign against Justice Kirby, which contrasted starkly with the PM’s high praise and moral support for Bishop Pell and the GG when they were under public scrutiny.

Howard’s regard for the original inhabitants of this country became apparent long before his ten point plan to nobble Wik, no apology for the stolen generations, the demolition of ATSIC and Wilson “Ironbar” Tuckey’s repeated assaults on the Aboriginal Tent Embassy.

Another defining characteristic of the Howard government has been its concerted attack on workers rights, unions and unfair dismissal laws. The unemployed and disadvantaged have faired no better, often referred to as work shy, job snobs, dole bludgers and welfare cheats, their rights have been systematically eroded with work for the dole schemes, onerous administrative requirements and punitive breaching regimes. Cutting people off the dole may lower the unemployment rate, but it leaves the individual without any assistance at all, possibly hungry and homeless.

When it comes to dumping on the defenceless and blaming the victims, those poor refugees who sailed into our waters have worn more than their fair share. The current Immigration Minister, Senator Amanda Vanstone, has implied that indefinite detention of child refugees is necessary to send the “right” message to people smugglers.

From Tampa to SIEV-X, from the Pacific Solution to “children overboard”, asylum seekers have been treated with contempt and cruel indifference. And all the while, then Minister for Immigration, Phillip Ruddock, was quietly accepting Liberal Party donations from influential persons seeking favourable immigration outcomes, and DIMIA was secretly smuggling refugees out of Australia.

After 9/11, the Howard government introduced some of the most draconian anti-terror laws in the western world. Though slightly improved by the Senate, they remain a serious blight on the civil rights of all Australians. And if anything undermines our national security, it has to be Howard’s fawning endorsement of preemptive war and his high-profile role as deputy sheriff to George W Bush.

With extraordinary enthusiasm, the Howard government peddled faulty intelligence and fueled the demonization of Saddam Hussein, whipping up fear and loathing in an effort to generate public support for the invasion of Iraq, with little thought for the victims of war and the mayhem it would cause.

Since then, the government has routinely attacked senior public servants who depart from the Liberal party line, the ABC for “anti-Americanism” and “left-wing bias”, the National Museum for being too “politically correct”, state schools for being too “values neutral” and church leaders who dare to speak out on “political issues” like refugees and war.

During the last election campaign, the Howard government bribed voters with tax cuts for the rich, extravagant handouts and cynical policy backflips on temporary protection visas, all the while sharpening the wedge and shovel, busy with the muck raking and character assassination, hoping most Australians would remain ignorant of the truth.

Tony Abbott once warned Australians not to become so tolerant that they tolerate the intolerable. I fear we have already reached that point, we are tolerating an intolerable government.

Terrorist war hysteria

profits despotic regimes.

Terrorist war hysteria

creates a climate of fear and insecurity

which despots use to justify draconian laws

increase the power of the executive branch

promote public acceptance of intrusive policing

foster submission to state authority and a

willingness to surrender personal rights

    *     *     *     *     *

Terrorists hate our freedoms

they hate our values

so let’s surrender them

let’s discard our civil rights

let’s capitulate to the terrorists

let’s forgo our liberties, in the name of terror

let’s accept random bag searches, random body searches

let’s embrace summary executions, torture

presumption of guilt, detention without charge ...

Our governments want to hand victory to the terrorists.

They willingly surrender our rights to the terrorists.

The terrorists are no doubt greatly encouraged

to see how easily we surrender our rights and freedoms.

It looks like our governments are helping the terrorists win.

Or are the terrorists actually helping our governments

providing the authorities an excuse to increase control

Are the terrorists actually government black-ops

designed to provide cover for the preparations

in anticipation of impending calamity

the inevitable depletion of oil

Do the anti-terror laws have a more sinister purpose?

Are they to be used to silence dissent and intimidate critics?

Will they be used to suppress and disrupt civil protest?

As oil depletion constricts supply and energy prices soar

as factories and airlines and transport companies flounder

as farmers go broke and labourers are laid off

as the public rails against inflation

as the ranks of the homeless and unemployed swell

as protests and general strikes and civil unrest erupt on the streets

will the government be disappearing the trouble makers

with these anti-terror laws

The Great Downer

Australian foreign minister, Alexander “The Great” Downer,
has been making a fool of himself again at our expense.

Downer let fly a bucket load of sanctimonious hogwash at the United Nations last week, exposing the feeble minded backwater of contemporary Australian politics for the whole world to witness.

Downer is the prototypical postmodern politician; smug, arrogant, petulant, lazy, complacent and incompetent. He exhibits about as much political acumen as the tar baby.

He is completely impervious to rational thought and utterly intolerant of criticism. He can be condescending, haughty and hurtful at times.

His innate ability to avoid public debate and parley nonsense rivals that of his fellow western leader, friend and coconspirator, George W Bush, president of the United States.

Downer suffers from an incurable case of self-importance, which has been exacerbated by ten years of ministerial privilege and preening.

He fancies himself as a great statesman, striding the world and dispensing pearls of wisdom. But those pearls are plastic imitations.

He is in fact, a phoney, a fraud, a laughing stock. He’s a prancing pony, a flamboyant fruit cake, a perfumed powder puff.

Downer is the political equivalent of a loose cannon with a screw loose.

He is a bumbling, fatuous half wit with unbounded pretension.

Radio shock jock Ray Hadley once called him “a pompous dope”.

Downer exemplifies the shallow absurdity of the pro-war, anti-democratic, neoconservative, post-9/11 terror-crazed, groupthink mindset that as become de rigueur in the current political climate.

His performance at the UN provides an illuminating illustration of just how lame brained and ill informed our foreign minister really is.

Downer launched a scathing attack on the UN for failing to prevent the spread of nuclear technology and get tough on terror.

He criticised the “outdated ideology” of some UN delegates who believe that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.

Wasn’t that the ideology of Reagan and Bush senior, whose CIA financed, trained and armed with stinger missiles, the anti-Soviet Afghan Mujahedin “freedom fighters” throughout the eighties.

But wait a second, aren’t Bush, Blair, Howard and Downer currently supporting the Northern Alliance “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan and the Peshmurga “freedom fighters” in Kurdistan?

Downer said it was important to criminalise “terrorist organisations and their foot soldiers - like those captured in Afghanistan - who bear arms on a battlefield but pay no heed to the laws of war, fight for no regular army, wear no uniform, and no recognisable insignia”.

But wait a second, isn’t that an exact description of the two British spies caught in Basra last week. Isn’t that pretty much an exact description of the American and Australian spies operating in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere round the world. And isn’t that an accurate description of all those mercenaries employed by private security firms in ever greater numbers.

“How can some nations continue to assert that the deliberate maiming and targeting of civilians is sometimes justified?” Mr Downer asked.

But wait a second, aren’t we one of those nations that asserts it is justifiable to deliberately target, kill and maim civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to spread freedom and democracy?

And just who was responsible for the failure of the UN summit to reach an agreement to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons? Well of course, it was Downer’s good friend and ally, George W Bush, who, according to senior diplomats quoted in the Observer, “sabotaged” the agreement by refusing to countenance any form of disarmament.

Downer desperately needs a reality check. His conception of the world bears little relation to the situation he helped create in Iraq and Afghanistan.

His rhetoric about “staying the course” and “getting the job done” is meaningless drivel, errant nonsense, misguided, misleading and deluded tripe authored by the White House.

His stubborn refusal to consider any viewpoint other than his own, his denial or ignorance of pertinent facts and his blasé rejection of expert opinion, leaves him with very little to recommend his attitude or substantiate his position, apart from his title of foreign minister.

But these days, political office is sufficient to garner credence.

An historic victory

Speaking at the Pentagon yesterday, Bush reaffirmed his commitment to the US occupation of Iraq. Withdrawing US forces from Iraq, he said, would let “terrorists claim an historic victory over the United States.”

“The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission. For the safety and security of the American people, that’s not going to happen on my watch,” he said.

But actually, that’s not the only way the “terrorists” can win. Ironically, Bush has put the “terrorists” in a win-win situation. For sure, if America retreats, it will look weak and ineffectual. This will be a great loss for America, and an equally significant gain for its enemies.

On the other hand, while America remains in Iraq, its reputation crumbles, its enemies multiply, its resources are depleted, its debt climbs, its “best and brightest” die in vain while Bush and his cronies reap enormous profits.

This is clearly a loss for America, even if it benefits Bush and his ilk.

Equally, it benefits America’s enemies, rivals and competitors.

Whether by coincidence or design, the Bush-Cheney agenda has reaped immense personal benefit for a select few at home, while the power and prestige of America abroad has dramatically declined.

Bush is the one who has given the so-called terrorists the opportunity to benefit from Americas trouble in Iraq, and he is the one who has left America with no alternative but to eventually leave Iraq, stained with humiliation and defeat.

With each passing day and every brutal killing, the role of the US in Iraq is questioned anew, their motives and objectives are reconsidered, the outcome is queried, strategy is scrutinized, tactics are criticized, principles are compromised, credibility is strained and trust is frayed.

Every day, the task gets harder, the resistance grows stronger, the losses accumulate, the costs rise, the opposition gets louder, the leadership loses direction, the rhetoric becomes repetitive, the assurances ring hollow, the killing continues, the grieving mounts, anger rises and Bush shrugs.

Bush doesn’t care, he doesn’t get it, he’s useless, incompetent, immoral and corrupt. He is a liar and a cheat, a mass murdering warmonger who has dragged his country into the mire of Middle Eastern conflict for secret reasons and personal advantage.

When America finally wakes up to the reality of what Bush has done, it will be shocked at how badly its system of government has failed to protect itself, its constitution and its people from the sort of criminality that pervades the Bush-Cheney regime.

Fall of the Lying Criminals

Bush, Howard and Blair told lies to justify their attack on Iraq.

They told lies about Iraq’s ties to al Qa`ida and support for terrorism.

They told lies about “massive stockpiles” of chemical and biological weapons, including anthrax, sarin and VX nerve gas.

They told lies about aluminium tubes and mobile laboratories, and they told lies about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa.

Those who tried to expose the lies were either ridiculed or ignored by the pro-war corporate politico-media establishment.

The lying criminals that conspired to attack Iraq really did not care about lying to the public, nor did they hesitate to lie to their parliaments. The power of executive privilege would protect them, or so they believed.

Those who spoke out against the lying criminals were quickly silenced, some permanently. Smear and fear are the tactics most commonly used by the lying criminals to silence and intimidate critics, but not all critics can be silenced, and some are simply too credible to ignore.

Former US ambassador Joe Wilson was not afraid to challenge the lying criminals. The CIA sent Wilson to investigate the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. He found the claim was false and based on forged documents. He later wrote an editorial in the New York Times that exposed the “uranium from Africa” lie. The Bushites knew they had a problem on their hands, and being inveterate liars with very few scruples and too much power, they responded in the usual way, the only way they know, with lies, smear and innuendo.

Karl Rove is principal political strategist, right-hand man and bossum buddy to the president. Bush dubbed him “Turd Blossum”, due to his skill at dirty politics. Others simply call him “Bush’s Brain”, due to his crucial role in the Bush ascendency.

Rove is the master of smear and character assassination. When Bush ran against fellow Repug John McCain in the 2000 primaries, Rove spread rumours that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child.

Rove probably orchestrated the bugging of the UN building in New York and the salacious smear campaigns against Hans Blix and other UN weapons inspectors.

When former Counter Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke resigned and then criticised the Bush administration, Karl Rove launched a vicious smear campaign against Clarke.

The 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign against presidential contender John Kerry was a brainchild of Karl Rove.

And when Joe Wilson exposed the uranium lie, Rove leaked the identity of his wife. Rove told reporters that Wilson was sent to Africa by his wife who works for the CIA, a lie which implied that nepotism was rife at the CIA.

Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked undercover for the CIA in a front company called Brewster Jennings and Associates. This firm posed as an energy consultancy with offices and contacts all round the world, but it was secretly gathering intelligence about nuclear proliferation.

When Rove leaked Plame’s identity, he also exposed the true identity and nature of the firm she worked for, effectively destroying an entire clandestine network, an important national security asset that had taken years to establish. The CIA was mighty pissed off.

George Tenet, then head of the CIA, demanded an investigation into who leaked the identity of an undercover CIA operative. The White House lie machine went into overdrive. The lying criminals were in a panic. Bush insisted that he would tell the truth, he would demand that his staff tell the truth and cooperate fully with the investigation.

Of course, that was just another lie, he can’t stop lying now, even if he knew how to, because the truth will destroy his presidency. And so, Rove lied to the FBI, and he lied to the grand jury, and Bush lied, and Cheney lied, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff, he lied, they all lied and lied, that’s what they do, they can’t help themselves.

But you know, it’s illegal to lie to the FBI, and it’s illegal to lie to the grand jury, and it’s illegal to lie to Congress and it’s illegal to leak classified information to the media. And in war time, the penalty for leaking classified information relating to national security, is death.

That’s right, the death penalty, or any term up to life in prison.

The Grand Old Party, Joe Conason opines, has “became a front for sleaze, corruption and cynical criminality. Across the country, from the Capitol to statehouses, Republican officials are under indictment, under investigation or under suspicion.”

These lying criminals have conspired to commit very serious crimes, not least of which, the bombing of Iraq and the slaughter of thousands based on the fabrication of evidence; perjury, treason and espionage; obstruction of justice and very shortly, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury will begin presenting indictments against Bush administration officials.

And then FBI agents will begin arresting them.

Hold onto your seats, this will be big!

Peak Oil: a matter of opinion

Despite the growing public awareness of Peak Oil, the mainstream media continues to portray the issue as a polarized debate between doomsayers and techno-optimists. For example, an opinion editorial in the New York Times opens with the views of Mr Pickens, a reputable Texan oilman, who has “taken sides in a surprisingly heated debate” because he “subscribes to what is being called the peak oil hypothesis”.

The Times editorial declares the “peak oil hypothesis ... holds that there simply isn’t very much new oil left to be found in the world. As a result, we are currently in the process of draining the proven reserves that are still in the ground.”

The Times editorial characterizes the world view of those it terms “peakists” with a quote from Matthew Simmons, that energy demand is about to outstrip supply and “we are in a serious energy crisis”.

Opposing this view, of course, is another group, “who argue with equal vehemence that the world is not in an energy crisis and it probably won’t face one for a very long time.”

Notably, this other group is spared the trite epithet “theorist”. Their arguments are never labelled “hypotheses”. Perhaps that’s because this group rallys to the mantra, “Price is the only thing that matters.”

That’s right, “It’s the geologists on one side and the economists on the other side”, energy analyst Seth Kleinman explains.

Not surprisingly, given their god-like status these days, the economists are revered with child-like credulity, while the geologists are deemed mere theorists. Moreover, the issue is not so much about scientific fact as it is about opinion.

Does it surprise you, that the issue would be portrayed as an argument about whether or not we are facing a crisis? It shouldn’t.

This representation of the Peak Oil debate exemplifies the fanfare and pretension that characterises much of the mainstream commentary on most issues. It reveals a lack of intellectual rigour and an inability to comprehend some fairly basic science.

For a start, Peak Oil is not a theory or hypothesis, it is an observable phenomenon. Peak Oil is simply the point at which oil production from a notional deposit ceases to increase and begins to decline. If oil production from a typical field is graphed against time, it follows a bell curve, the familiar pattern of a normal distribution. The peak in oil production is that portion of the curve tangent to maximum production.

Peak Oil applies equally to individual well heads, oil fields, basins, producer states, regions and the world as a whole. There is no dispute about the fact that Peak Oil is an intrinsic attribute of oil production.

Indeed, every single oil producing country outside OPEC and the FSU has already peaked and is now in terminal decline. For example, Germany peaked in 1967, the US peaked in 1971, Indonesia in ’77, India in ’95, Malaysia in ’97, Columbia, Equador and the UK in ’99, Australia in 2000, Oman and Norway in ’01. Peak Oil is a fact!

By comparison, the economists’ arguments really are pure theory, with very little relevence to the real world beyond the rarified climes of financial institutions. So let’s take a look at their theories.

The economists describe two possible consequences of escalating oil prices; one is that higher energy prices will make it viable to invest in more expensive and less profitable energy sources, such as deep water reserves, shale oil and tar sands. The other possibility is that higher energy prices will dampen demand and reduce consumption, which will lower the price of oil.

The dilemma for investors is the risk that major capital investments could prove unprofitable if energy prices fall. Proven short term profits are substantially more attractive than possible longer term losses. Hence the energy industry prefers to maximize the profit making capacity of proven reserves while minimizing exposure to future losses.

There is a temptation to postpone major capital investment in the face of future economic uncertainty, and focus on the near term advantage of high profits. This approach ensures future supply constraints and prices hikes, which in turn raise the likelihood of economic recession.

The free market forces of supply and demand form the fundamental framework of neoliberal economic theory. The profit motive is the prime mover of all transactions, in a game plan where self interest is the ultimate goal.

Three basic assumptions are axiomatic to economic theory; resources are limitless, knowledge is perfect and markets are rational. Of course, in the real world, resources are very much limited, knowledge is never perfect and markets do not always act rationally.

The challenges posed by the inevitable depletion of world oil reserves represent a set of circumstances for which contemporary economic theory has no logical solution. The techno-optimist fantasies of hybrid cars, nuclear reactors and fuel cells are about as plausible as the clean green dream of corn and sunflower powered trains and planes.

The real debate is about the precise timing and consequences of Peak Oil. The Times editorial alludes to this fact, but nowhere makes it explicit. Instead, it presents an argument that is completely irrelevant and actually misleading, an argument that serves to confuse and obscure the fundamental dilemma posed by Peak Oil, an argument that stifles and obstructs the development of strategies for responding to the inevitable and predictable consequences of Peak Oil.

Like much of the mainstream commentary on Peak Oil, the New York Times erroneously portrays the Peak Oil debate as a political battle, a matter of opinion, devoid of real world certainties. This approach to news reporting is becoming increasingly popular, since it requires so little thought or research. Journalists are encouraged to champion conventional wisdom and obscure unpleasant facts.

Natural limits, ignored by economic theorists but recognised and studied by ecologists, biologists and geographers to name a few, clearly apply to humankind as much as to any other species, notwithstanding our sophisticated technology and ability to manipulate the environment.

The ecological carrying capacity of the environment is a natural limit that cannot be ignored with impunity. Any species which exceeds that limit risks calamity and mass starvation. For this reason, in nature, most species are limited in range and number. Humans are unique in that our population has hitherto grown exponentially, a trend that is clearly unsustainable.

The single most important limiting factor for any species is the availability of energy. Sunlight is the primary source of energy for life on earth. Seasonal fluctuations in plant growth and animal reproduction correlate with variations in the amount of solar energy available from one season to the next.

Humans have been able to exceed the natural ecological carrying capacity of the environment by exploiting energy reserves that have accumulated over millions of years. There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about this, but it is important to realize that there is a cost associated with exceeding natural limits.

In our case, the cost could be as high as mass starvation, or as low as a simple change in attitude and lifestyle. The determinant will be global political leadership. If the risks are recognised in time and the appropriate solutions are devised and implemented, it is possible that future generations will be spared the worst consequences of Peak Oil, the twin perils of energy scarcity and environmental degradation.

But while our leaders maintain their current stubborn delusion and misplaced faith in economic theory, while they continue to ignore the warning signs and scientific studies, the prospects of a brighter future fade by the day.

Potus calls kettle black

Last week, Bush told the UN that it must be “free of corruption and accountable to the people it serves”. This is of course, good advice, but coming from Bush, it smacks of hypocrisy.

Consider for a moment, the corruption of process that led to the war on Iraq, the fabrication and exaggeration of evidence, the disinformation and propaganda used to justify aggression.

Consider the multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts given to leading US corporations with close ties to the Bush administration, firms that have engaged in fraud, bribery and other corrupt practices in Iraq.

Is anyone in the US government accountable for the loss of life and limb or the destruction of towns and villages in Iraq? Is anyone accountable for wasting $200 billion on a war of aggression?

Bush also told the UN it must “live by the high standards it sets for others”. But presumably, that is not a goal Bush sets for himself.

In fact, quite the opposite. While Bush preaches freedom and democracy, praising respect for human rights, equality and the rule of law, his government and their allies are systematically eroding those very principles, both at home and abroad.

Consider the “free speech zones”, the suppression of dissent, the obsessive secrecy, the cronyism, the hidden agendas, the contempt for government agencies like the CIA, FEMA and the EPA.

Witness the prison camps in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, the torture and humiliation of detainees, the legal void in which the accused are deprived due process, all by presidential decree.

The use of collective punishment, summary execution and torture are the hallmarks of brutal dictatorships. They are not compatible with the high standards championed by the United States. And yet this is the standard that Bush has achieved.

The divergence between the rhetoric and the reality of US foreign policy under George W Bush is stark and pronounced. With every escalation of his skillfully crafted flourishes and grandiose speeches, there is further descent into fear and destruction as Bush employs his forces in Iraq.

Sure, it is easy to criticize the United Nations, an improbable organization with an impossible task. As a force for peace and collective security, it could not protect one of its members from unprovoked aggression and it has since failed to confront the aggressor, restore order or provide security in Iraq.

At the same time, the UN has been attacked by the US for failing to support US aggression. The US exhibits a curious ambivalence toward the UN, which it views as an important instrument for pursuing and legitimizing US national security and foreign policy goals, but also as a threat to US ambitions when the UN opposes or fails to comply with US demands.

Perhaps the best thing would be for Bush to stop lecturing the UN and take time to reflect on his own performance, and that of the United States, and see if he can make some use of his own advice.

Erasing Standards

A report on the ABC’s evening news and current affairs program, PM, about the plight of Australians stranded in New Orleans and the slow response by government, is typical of many news reports where the treatment of important issues is reduced to, or subsumed by, petty theatrics and party political point scoring.

This is exactly the sort of “news story” that reflects poorly on both politicians and journalists.

It seems every issue has to be portrayed as a party political struggle, right versus left, us against them, with a winner and a loser. There is little intelligent debate based on factual evidence or rational thought, instead there is a steady stream of personal abuse and character assassination.

Consequently, both journalists and politicians end up losing respect and credibility.

Even worse, the public remains ill-informed and disempowered.

The media likes to absolve itself by claiming it is simply the messenger, but it is the selection of news stories and the focus of attention that ultimately determines public perception.

For example, in the story referenced above, the producers may well claim that they were simply highlighting the “poor behaviour” of politicians in general by giving airplay to parliamentary antics.

Such an argument would carry some weight if there really was an effort to analyze and critique the behaviour in some way, but there never is. Instead, political rhetoric and partisan grandstanding is simply piped wholesale, with very little relevance to anything at all.

There seems to be an aversion to critical thinking when it comes to dealing with current affairs and political issues in general, with a tendency to trivialize or ignore serious concerns about some issues (eg. the effects of western aggression) while enflaming passions on others (eg. the threat of terrorism).

There appears to be little rhyme or reason to the waft of daily news, with very little thought given to the role media plays in portraying reality, nurturing fantasies and promoting conformity.

The media is not a passive player in shaping public opinion, and nor should it be. But if the media is to truly serve the public, it must operate on a moral basis. It must clearly differentiate between truth and falsehood, between the trivial and the significant.

The media - reporters, journalists and editors alike - share a great responsibility to serve the public good, not just by accurately reporting events, but equally important, placing those facts into context, whereby they make sense and provide useful information.

In the matter of the story referenced above, the debate could have focused on the lessons we can learn about how and why human systems fail under extreme circumstances, and how best we can translate those lessons into methods for preparing and dealing with future disasters.

Instead, the debate degenerates into the tired old charade of empurpled politicians abusing each other across parliamentary benches.

If journalists were not entirely comfortable with such a puerile performance, surely they would find more important stories to report, or at least treat it with the disdain it deserves.

But the fact that AM, PM and the World Today routinely channel this sort of political bombast, without ever intelligently addressing the practice, suggests that many ABC journalists simply don’t realize how low standards have dropped.

Unfortunately, journalistic standards do not appear to be very much better than parliamentary standards, and neither journalists nor politicians seem to care much about raising their standards.

Raising Standards

I listened to an interview with Liberal Senator Russell Trood on The National Interest this week, and I was startled to hear something so unusual as to be almost unique.

What I heard was a pro-war politician actually being asked challenging questions about why he supports war in Iraq.

At first I was amazed, excited and impressed, and even felt some grim satisfaction that at last a war supporter was being put on the spot.

But as the senator’s responses reverted to the impenetrable dissembling and obfuscation that has characterised pro-war propaganda from day one, the memory of the nightmare that was “the making of the case for war” came back and hit me like a Mack truck.

Half-baked, flimsy, incoherent arguments and unsubstantiated allegations, absurd and irrelevant analogies, outright conceit and deception. Twisting the truth, rewriting history, this is how war was and is justified.

The spin, the hype, the lies, the blood lust that spread and engulfed the mass media, the corruption embedded at the highest levels of government, the disdain for the United Nations and international law, the catastrophic loss of life ... all this and so much more has been buried from view, rarely mentioned in the mainstream media.

The architects and perpetrators of this stupendous scandal remain revered and protected from public scrutiny by a servile, complicit mass media establishment.

Pro-war politicians have been allowed to shift all responsibility for the war in Iraq to “faulty intelligence”, without so much as a peep from mainstream media commentators.

Government inquiries have cleared their governments of any wrong doing and ministers have dismissed claims they manipulated intelligence to support the case for war.

The mainstream media has not challenged the official denial of government culpability in the decision to attack Iraq, nor has it seriously reviewed the case for war.

Sure, they want us to move on, put all that behind us, what’s done is done, mistakes were made, blah blah... but of course they would say that, because in truth, they know their actions were illegal, immoral and unjust, and of course, they are shit-scared of the consequences should the depth and extent of their crimes of complicity ever surface to public view.

Which is why we so desperately need the sort of quality journalism offered by shows like The National Interest, Late Night Live and a (very) few others. Keep up the pressure, don’t stop questioning, it’s really important we get to the truth and expose the deceit and corruption that has led us to war.

Nature, politics and disaster

The chaos that befell New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina is a foretaste of the calamity that will engulf thousands of cities around the world in the wake of peak oil.

The political failings that made worse the inevitable and predictable disaster in New Orleans, as in Iraq, are the very same flaws that will help ensure a much worse global catastrophe some time in the not too distant future.

These political failings range from permitting gross social disparities to ignoring human induced environmental harm, from denying the depletion of natural capital to wasting resources on weapons and war.

The combination of short-sighted profiteering, a reckless disregard for predictable risk factors and a refusal to consider the legacy we are leaving our descendents, constitutes a lethal political failing.

A few simple precautions and commonsense solutions could prepare us for the imminent global catastrophe, but politicians will continue to ignore the warning signs until a few days after disaster strikes.

That’s because their corporate task masters want to maximize profits from the dwindling resource base. Any reduction in consumption or demand will bring prices down and cut corporate profits.

The economy must continue to grow and devour more resources in order to increase wealth and prosperity, the economists preach. Natural limits are not permitted to interfere with this ideology.

Evangelical techno-optimists prophesy miraculous inventions to solve every problem, but their snake-oil cures and whimsical charms are comfort only for the ignorant and deluded.

The problems we face are wide ranging and far reaching. There is no quick fix, no simple solution to the problems of oil depletion, climate change, toxic waste, species extinction, mass starvation and war.

Our best friends are foresight, forethought and forewarning, which may enable us to take precautions and make preparations for the inevitable collapse of the global industrial economy.

In New Orleans, had thought been given to the likelyhood of massive flooding, effective preparations could have saved thousands of lives. So too, around the world, if thought were given to the prospect of global petroleum shortages, life saving preparations could be made.

But the task falls to the people, because our politicians are working for big business and the military industrial complex. We know the ruling elite will protect itself at any cost, even if that means marshal law, mass murder and environmental devastation.

Trusting governments, corporations and politicians is the worst mistake we can make. If we hope to survive the coming crisis, we must work toward local self sufficiency in food, fuel, fibre, basic services and security. If we wait for government to provide solutions, we’ll end up like those stranded in New Orleans.

Politically expedient hypocrisy

Behold the colossal hypocrisy of pro-war politicians accusing others of inciting “terror”, and demanding that others denounce the use of violence. Recall the words used by Bush, Howard and Blair et al to argue the case for war, words contrived to incite violence.

We’re talking about a regime that will gouge out the eyes of a child to force a confession from its parents. This is a regime that will burn a person’s limbs in order to force a confession ... a cruel and despotic regime ...

John Howard - March 13, 2003

On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

George W Bush - October 7, 2002

Saddam Hussein is a threat that has to be dealt with. Saddam is unrivalled as the world’s worst regime: brutal, dictatorial, with a wretched human rights record.

Tony Blair - September 10, 2002

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.

Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons ... he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.

Colin Powell - February 5, 2003

The language used by the war party and its supporters to vilify Saddam Hussein and his regime was designed to rally support for war. The denunciations and fabrications used to justify the attack on Iraq were intended to arouse hatred toward Iraq and induce indifference to the impact that armed aggression would have upon the citizens of Iraq. And clearly, the mainstream media participated in the promulgation of this pro-war propaganda.

It is hypocritical in the extreme for our political leaders to promote and justify the enormous violence of war and occupation, while at the same time demand that others denounce violent resistance to aggression.

Our leaders claim the right to use violent force against a perceived threat, preemptively and unilaterally, without regard to established international law, in a manner completely disproportionate to the actual threat and utterly devoid of concern for human life or the environment, but they wish to deny those they attack, the right to respond with force.

It is as if they are saying, we have the right to attack others without just cause, but they have no right to defend themselves. This absurd proposition is a contradiction of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states in part ...

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

The mainstream media routinely ignores this apparent double standard. The prevailing assumption seems to be that Anglo-American military action is inherently benign, presumably because it represents the supposedly legitimate and well-intentioned aspirations of “western civilization” or “liberal democracy”. This commonly accepted premise receives very little media attention or analysis.

It is not sufficient to loudly condemn atrocities committed by others, while remaining silent about atrocities committed by our own. Yet that is how our media and government behave. While politicians and pro-war pundits readily denounce what they call “acts of terror”, very few of them ever condemn the use of violent force by our governments, even when that use of force is reckless, unlawful and results in the death of innocent civilians or the destruction of civilian infrastructure.

Opposition to violence requires more than politically expedient rhetoric. High flown sentiment alone cannot enhance international security or reduce conflict. It is necessary to recognize that Anglo-American violence and aggression is perceived as a threat by others, and that others have a right to defend themselves.

The United States and its allies have flouted international law and jeered at the Geneva Conventions, they have lied to the United Nations and their own people, they have ignored all opposition to their war plans and completely trashed the notions of universal human rights, due process and the rule of law. Their actions have betrayed the values they claim to uphold and severely undermined their moral legitimacy and credibility.

The corporate media has generally failed to challenge or even recognise the deceit, hypocrisy and corruption that permeates and flourishes throughout the highest levels of government. Consequently, the mainstream conception of the real world is fragmented, confused and ill-equipped to deal with the rapidly deteriorating circumstances currently facing humanity as a whole — the scourge of war, resource depletion, climate change, starvation and species extinction to name just a few.

The media as a whole, and journalists individually, share a responsibility to serve the public by scrutinizing the use and abuse of political and corporate power, by exposing corruption and wrong doing, by providing an accurate, objective account of the truth for the benefit of society at large.

When the media adopt the role of mere mouth-piece for the powerful and act as apologists and supporters for the government, irrespective of the merit or behaviour of its leaders, hesitant to question or confront conceit and deception, reluctant to grapple with the complexity of political intrigue, incapable of formulating comprehensive models for understanding and analyzing contemporary affairs .. when the media act as a conduit for government propaganda, promoting conformity of opinion and reducing complex issues into unchallenged, meaningless catchcries (eg “we won’t cut and run, until the job is done”), the media is facilitating governmental misconduct, failing society and betraying the heritage and principles of a free press.

Given the reek of violent death and destruction that haunts the administrations of Bush, Howard and Blair, and given the tendency of the corporate media to appease these governments, to give them the benefit of every doubt, to ignore stories that contradict the official version and refrain from drawing unfavorable conclusions, the idea that their collective declarations bare any relationship to real world events, or that their pronouncements should be given any credence at all, is simply risible.

No morality or equivalence

In March 2003, Australia joined Britain and the United States in a campaign of violence that would result in large scale destruction of civilian infrastructure and untold thousands of casualties. On the first day of “shock and awe”, coalition forces dropped several hundred tons of high explosives on Iraq.

The mainstream media gloated over this display of hi tech savagery as if it were a New Year’s Eve fireworks spectacle. Armchair generals and pro-war commentators waxed lyrical about the sophistication of US military power, seemingly indifferent to the carnage and human misery unfolding before them.

The politicians responsible for inciting this callous act of aggression assured us that civilian casualties would be minimal, thanks to the exquisite precision of satellite guided munitions. The people of Iraq, we were told, would greet us as liberators and shower us with flowers.

Toward the end of May 2003, Alexander Downer stood atop the newly “liberated” roof of Saddam International Airport and marvelled at the smouldering ruins of Baghdad. “It feels good” he told his entourage of reporters, “to look out upon a liberated city”.

That night, millions of Iraqis went to bed fearful, hungry and cold. Their city had been shattered, telephone and power lines were down, water and sewage pipes were broken, medical supplies were scarce and security was nonexistent. Thousands of Iraqis had lost jobs, friends, family, limbs and lives.

Not many politicians spoke out against this illegal, unjustified aggression. Very few journalist dared condemn this atrocity or admonish its architects. Nor did they show much concern for the innocent victims of our violence.

But when a few pounds of high explosives were detonated in the London subway, journalists and politicians recoiled in horror, declaring it an evil and barbaric attack by “sub-human filth who must be captured and eliminated”, as Kim Beazley so eloquently put it.

Predictable outrage and hypocritical rhetoric spread like wildfire, “terrorists hate us because of who we are, not what we do... they hate our values, they hate our freedom.” Any suggestion that “terrorist attacks” are inspired by our own acts of violence is vehemently denounced as “moral equivalence”.

There can be no justification for such terrible violence, our politicians declare with an air of righteous indignation. But justifying violence is what our governments and pro-war pundits do all the time, they seek to justify our violence in terms of “defending our values”, “responding to acts of terrorism”, “liberating oppressed peoples”.

The truth is that our violence is all about imposing the neoliberal ideology of  “free market” capitalism, controlling resources vital to the advanced industrial economies of the world and asserting authority via military force.

Indeed, there is no morality here, nor is there any equivalence. A thousand tons of high explosives used in Iraq, a few kilos in London. Whole cities smashed in Iraq, minor structural damage in London. Ten thousand deaths in Iraq, less than a hundred in London. Simply no comparison.

Our tough talking politicians seem to think the best way to deal with “terrorism” is to up the ante, escalate the violence, bomb more towns, level more homes, kill more individuals. The pro-war moralists want to believe that our violence is noble and legitimate. They talk about spreading freedom and democracy as a justification for mass murder. Collateral damage is unfortunate, they say, but not morally wrong, because our intentions are good.

Of course, such distinctions are academic. It is the type and quantity of explosives that determines a bomb’s lethality, not the intentions of the bomber. Our bombs cause more harm than “terrorist” bombs, because ours are bigger and far more numerous. Our “values” and “intentions” do not in anyway ameliorate the harm done by our bombs.

It is about time our warmongering politicians and their media hacks realized this fact. Their turgid love of military force is reaping conflict and provoking hostility. Their reckless, ill-conceived “War on Terror” is undermining international security and exposing our social and economic systems to the vagaries of fourth generation warfare.

We cannot hope to protect our way of life by escalating violence without regard for the human cost on both sides of the conflict. If we are a civilised democracy, as we claim to be, it really is our collective responsibility to demand an end to our part in this spiral of violence.

And if we fail to challenge our governments and hold them to account, if we continue to ignore the effect of our violent and predatory foreign policy, then we can expect evermore “terrorist” violence.

Lies, Laws and the Media

The exposure of deception that triggered the spat that led to the outing of Valerie Plame has landed someone in jail. It is a delicious irony that journalist Judith Miller, who worked so hard and did so much to help promote the Bush administration’s fantasy about WMD in Iraq, ends up the first to go behind bars in this whole sordid affair.

Not surprisingly, the self-obsessed navel-gazing acolytes of the mainstream media think this story is about them, their privileges as the honest broker, the courageous, objective, impartial warriors of news gathering, scouring the horizons for information, fearlessly challenging authority, reporting with fairness and independence.

In fact, most of them sit at their desks all day, pampering themselves with donuts and milk coffee, flirting, farting and waiting for a phone call from their “confidential sources”, red hot tips, straight from the lips of a “senior official who wishes to remain anonymous”, and we’re supposed to swallow this crap and marvel.

Give me a break. If these guys think it’s more important to protect their sources than assist the investigation of a crime, then perhaps they need to change their occupation. Isn’t it bad enough that we have to put up with this sort of anti-social, anti-democratic behaviour from our political leaders? Do journalists expect the public to simply accept being lied to, misinformed, hoodwinked, led up the garden path... by journalists who are more concerned about currying favour with the “powers” than with exposing deceit and corruption in high office.

Anonymous sources do not automatically bestow credibility. As Richard Stengel at the Philadelphia Inquirer opined, such sources “should be used to level the playing field between the powerful and the powerless... But more often than not these days, they have become a device to preserve and enhance power rather than question it - a tool journalists use to advance their own careers rather than the disinterested pursuit of the truth.”

Journalists need to lift their game if they wish to regain credibility for their profession. Their appalling collective malperformance during the pre-war phase of operation Iraq has seriously undermined public confidence in the ability of journalists to discern fact from fiction, let alone penetrate the obfuscation that passes for “media management” in the contemporary political environment. The Valerie Plame affair is a classic example of this “media management” by government.

Frank Rich, writing for the New York Times, compares the scandel to Watergate, noting that “the most important difference between the Bush and Nixon eras has less to do with the press than with the grave origins of the particular case that has sent Judy Miller to jail.” Those origins being the litany of lies Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Rich concludes his editorial with a pertinent question and an astute observation... “has [special prosecutor] Patrick Fitzgerald moved on to perjury and obstruction of justice possibly committed by those who tried to hide their roles in that outing? If so, it would mean the Bush administration was too arrogant to heed the most basic lesson of Watergate: the cover-up is worse than the crime.”

Exposing the name of an undercover CIA operative is a federal offence under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The fact that Ms Plame worked covertly on WMD nonproliferation makes the disclosure of her identity all the more treacherous, since many if not all the “clients” and “contacts” of the clandestine network she worked with in the CIA front company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, and their role of gathering information to help defend America, have now been placed in jeopardy and rendered useless to the CIA. By revealing Ms Plame’s identity, certain individuals have done real and irreparable harm to US national security. This is exactly the sort of misconduct the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was designed to combat.

But it’s not the only statute applicable in this case. As Citizen Spook has noted, the indictment brought against Larry Franklin last week for conspiracy to communicate national defense information in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, could equally apply in the case involving the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity. And given that the disclosure occured during a time of war (the Global War on Terror), the matter could even attract indictments under Title 18, USC, Section 794, which stipulates in part b)...

Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, communicates, or attempts to elicit any information ... relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

Which should give an indication of just how serious this matter really is, and may explain why the adminstration has decided to redefine the “war on terror” as the “struggle against violent extremism”.

What the mainstream media needs to realize is that this story is not about them, it’s not about their precious sources, it’s not about the First Amendment, it’s not about free speech or confidentiality, or loyalty, or favours... it’s about something far more tangible and a lot more important than Ms Miller and some of her colleagues seem to appreciate - it’s about crimes in high places ... get it!?

It’s about an administration that has no regard for the truth and zero tolerance for dissent. It’s about an arrogant, corrupt administration that has lied us into war, plundered the coffers, desecrated civil liberties... it’s an administration that slinks around in armoured convoys and displays a pathological obsession with secrecy. It bullies, bribes and coerces without qualms, showing nothing but contempt for human rights, labour rights, international law, the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions.

Media darlings, get with it. Wake up to the real world, have a good hard look and a long hard think about the way you’re reporting it.

War for oil reaps disaster

A little over two years ago, Tony Blair told a packed parliament that the impending invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil, adding that if we really needed the oil, it would be much easier and cheaper to simply buy it from Iraq. At the ABC’s Munster Forum six months later, pro-war columnist Greg Sheridan declared the “war for oil” accusation was an “undergraduate conspiracy theory” peddled by anti-american elements of the lunatic fringe.

These arguments are still used by those who believe the war in Iraq has nothing to do with oil and that spreading freedom and democracy in Iraq is an act of pure altruism. The countless dead and wounded, the leveled towns and broken homes, the $200 billion spent so far are a testament to the incomparable philanthropy of George W Bush.

It is, of course, either naive or misleading to imply that mere access to oil was the sole motivation behind the Bush administration’s desire to attack Iraq. Clearly, the plan was to establish a permanent military presence at the center of the world’s most important oil producing region. US military dominance of the Persian Gulf is an essential component of America’s geostrategic agenda, which, it should be noted, enjoys bipartisan support in Australia. The goal is to secure and ensure the flow of Gulf oil. Why? Because, as Bush recently put it, “We’re hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem.”

America is not just the world’s greatest consumer of oil, devouring in excess of 20 million barrels a day, it is also a significant oil producer. For more than a hundred years, America prospered as the world’s leading oil producing nation. That began to change in the 1970’s, following the peak in US oil production. Since then, the depletion of US oil reserves has led to a decline in America’s domestic oil industry. Compared to the giant Saudi and Iraqi oil fields, which can produce oil for less than a dollar a barrel, US oil fields are simply not competitive.

It would be a mistake to assume that the Bush plan was to hand Iraqi oil fields over to US oil companies, who would then rapidly develop those oil fields to boost production and thereby lower the price of oil. This seems to have been the reasoning behind Rupert Murdoch’s prediction that “The greatest thing to come out of this [war] would be $20 a barrel for oil”. But such a course was never really viable. For a start, Bush has no authority to appropriate Iraqi oil. Companies that collude in what amounts to theft would be exposed to litigation, and Big Oil may not share Bush’s cavalier disregard for the law.

The United States’ need for oil, according to economist Henry Liu, “is not a credible justification for war [because] the US already controls most of the world’s oil by virtue of oil being denominated in dollars that the US can print at will with little penalty.” However, Liu notes, “war spending is an economic stimulant, so long as collateral damage from war occurs only on foreign soil. War profits are always good for business, and the need for soldiers reduces unemployment.”

Furthermore, increased oil production and lower oil prices would not benefit the oil majors. As Liu explains, “oil in the ground is now more valuable than oil above ground because it can serve as a monetizable asset through asset-backed securities in the wild world of structured finance... while there is incentive to find more oil to enlarge the asset base, there is little incentive to pump it out of the ground merely to keep prices low.”

Another obstacle for Bush is the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), of which Iraq is a member. The privatization of Iraqi oil reserves would be seen as a direct challenge to OPEC’s authority and credibility, and a threat to OPEC’s oil revenues. OPEC would certainly resist any attempt by Washington to reduce the power and influence that OPEC currently enjoys. And let’s not forget, any reduction in the price of oil would also make it harder for the embattled US domestic oil industry to compete on the world market.

Bush and Cheney are Texan oil men and Condi Rice sat on the board of Chevron for eight years before joining the Bush administration. These people have close ties to the US oil industry, they are aware of its difficulties and they understand the geostrategic importance of oil. The security and control of energy resources is, and always has been, the single most important aspect of national security. Without a guaranteed supply of fuel, even the world’s greatest economy is vulnerable.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that America intends to maintain its “sole superpower” status indefinitely, and for that reason it will continue to disregard world opinion and the rule of international law. The hubris associated with this attitude has the unfortunate side-effect of suppressing rational thought and discouraging intelligent discourse. Such uncompromising self-certainty and contempt for reason can have disastrous consequences. Already we are witnessing a diminution in the power and credibility of the US administration.

Targeted assassinations, indefinite detention without trial, summary executions, torture and other crimes committed by US military personnel, hired guns and intelligence agents operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, have tarnished America’s reputation as a champion of human rights and raised doubts about the United States’ commitment to justice, due process and the rule of law. Senior administration officials are facing increased scrutiny and criticism of their role in leading the nation to war. The threat of legal indictments and presidential impeachment appears to be mounting.

The occupation of Iraq places huge financial burden on the US budget and puts enormous stress on the US military. The constant loss of personnel and equipment is draining the morale and resources of US forces, causing great consternation among senior military officials. The public is getting sick of the daily carnage and there is a growing demand for some kind of exit strategy. But Bush has no such plans. He cannot possibly withdraw from Iraq. The puppet regime will not survive without US military support, and having already invested many billions in the construction of fourteen hi-tech military bases, the US is obviously not planning to leave Iraq any time soon.

As the costs mount, the fight gets harder. For two years now, US forces have been attempting to impose their authority on the people of Iraq. But all the while, resistance has grown stronger. Part of the problem is the calculus employed to measure success. From the military’s point of view, flattening a village is a “small victory”, killing Iraqis is the way to “win”. By systematically destroying towns and killing Iraqis, the military hopes to win the war and achieve total victory.

But to be fair, not all military minds think this way. Tom Lasseter quotes Marine Major Nicholas Visconti as saying “If it were just killing people that would win this, it’d be easy... Killing people is not the answer; rebuilding the cities is”. Unfortunately, such level headed logic eludes the civilian leadership and military brass at the Pentagon.

The occupation itself is a catalyst for violence and a guarantee of further conflict. The continuing bloodshed serves to entrench anger, hatred and fear. This vicious spiral into death worship and chaos creates its own vortex, a tornado of madness, a furnace of horror that consumes civilians as well as combatants. It spreads terror and breeds violence. The CIA is now warning that Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries will have to contend with militants who leave Iraq equipped with considerable experience and training.

Extricating ourselves from this nightmare will not be easy, and it won’t happen while our political leadership conducts the business of state in secret, unaccountable and unsupervised. The occupation of Iraq is yet another product of an aggressive industrial paradigm that promotes the exploitation and desecration of earth’s riches - a mindset that destroys life and poisons the soul. The lifestyle we take for granted, the comforts and convenience of the modern world, this “culture” demands massive and unsustainable energy consumption. Our dependence on finite, nonrenewable energy resources is a huge vulnerability, one we must confront openly and honestly.

Bush and his team rant about freedom and democracy but their actions betray greed and hypocrisy. It is unlikely that his administration or their local counterparts or any of their successors will embrace the transition to an ecologically sustainable, low energy, low growth social economy, based on local permaculture gardens, food forests, appropriate technology and cottage industries, free from the hyperactive neuroses of neoliberal economania. The habit of the ruling elite is to serve and protect the interests of the wealthy. It is the task of citizens to promote social and political change through debate, education, civil protest and nonviolent direct action.

Terrorism and the Media

The Media Report on ABC Radio National this week aired a perspective on terrorism that is unfortunately all too often ignored by mainstream media, especially in the United States and here in Australia.

Phil Rees, author of Dining with Terrorists, was talking to ABC journalist Richard Aedy, about the media’s selective use of morally loaded language and the impact such terminology has on the public perception of events.

Rees correctly identifies emotive labels such as “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” as impediments to a thoughtful and thorough understanding of the nature, context and history of conflict.

His point of view is not clouded by pseudo-philosophical arguments about moral equivalence or moral relativism versus moral absolutism. Rees talks plainly about the substance of the issue, the nature of the conflict, the tactics of the combatants, the motivations behind the struggle.

But it is an uphill battle to convince the average pundit that the real world contains many shades of color and countless hidden facets. Most people want “black and white” certainty and decisive “good versus evil” action, without having to worry about facts.

And so we have a situation whereby information and communication can be used to shape consensus, irrespective of the actual facts.

A classic example of this was the media coverage of the Iraqi WMD story. Prior to the invasion, the mainstream media relentlessly channeled government propaganda, never bothering to challenge the veracity of official statements, simply an endless recitation of completely bogus accusations, on the basis of which, supposedly, we invaded Iraq.

Since then, of course, the mainstream media has been reluctant to admit its grievous collective failure, its abandonment of responsibility, its neglect of core principles, its betrayal of the general public and more broadly, humanity at large.

Phil Rees has made a brave attempt to inject some intelligent thought into the task of journalism by actually applying the notions of impartiality and objectivity to the way he thinks about his subjects.

Some critics seem to regard this approach as tantamount to condoning the tactics and activities of the people Rees interviews and observes, an accusation that typifies a common trend toward discouraging free and intelligent debate. Does Bob Woodward, author of Bush at War and Plan of Attack, condone the war in Iraq? Does it matter?

Journalism is important, not least for the information it contains, but perhaps more so for the values and ideals implied by the viewpoint of the journalist. Some journalists seem to let their viewpoint colour their perceptions and obscure their perspective to the point where their opinions become nonsensical. Rees is not one of them.

The way we talk about issues affects the way we think about them, and vice versa. If we want to attain a good understanding of a subject, it helps to recognise our own inherent biases and preconceived notions. It is sometimes hard to see another perspective, or reassess cherished ideas, but such mental agility is often a prerequisite for insight and understanding.

Rees offers a sound and incisive critique of Islamic jihad and the so-called global war on terror (GWoT), uncontaminated by the emotive labels and hysterical fear-mongering that passes for news and current affairs in the mainstream media.

He makes a convincing argument that the “global war on terror” is actually a predatory politico-military agenda designed to justify the Pentagon’s continued existence as the post Cold War world’s dominant military force.

I think it is worth considering the viewpoint Rees offers and perhaps pay a bit more attention to the way the media portrays actors and events on the world stage.

Pragmatic Amity

The Howard government has displayed an unusual degree of political pliancy in recent weeks, making adjustments to “iron-clad” saftey-net guarantees, revisiting the maritime boundary dispute with East Timor and reviewing the treatment of refugees.

This new-found flexibility has been particularly evident in the government’s approach to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. Initially rejected by Howard as anachronistic and merely symbolic, signing the treaty has since become desideratum for ascension to the Association of South East Asian Nations.

Now you might wonder what could be the problem with amity and cooperation. Well, according to prime minister Howard, the treaty reflects “outdated values, relations and ideas” (read Cold War era neutrality) which may impinge upon our subserviance to America.

Howard seems to prefer relations and ideas that provoke conflict and encourage contempt for international treaties. And his sidekick, Lord Downer, an embarrassingly outspoken critic of the UN treaty system, also apparently discounts the value of friendship and cordiality.

According to Downer, a willingness to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation would be seen as weak and mendicant. “Australia doesn’t need to go begging”, he told ABC radio last week.

But given Howard’s record of unprovoked aggression based on bogus intelligence and in defiance of international law, it is not surprising that our neighbours are concerned about his refusal to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation.

While some people may deride the inevitable decision to sign the treaty as a political back-flip, such a reversal will surely benefit our relations with the region and cannot possibly harm our security.

Symbolism can be an important part of foreign relations, especially when it truly reflects good will and friendship between neighbours.