Not the nine o'clock news

OK kids, are you ready for some in-depth analysis of world events? Some perceptive, well-informed, well-thought out commentary on the state of play in local, national and international politics?
Boy, are you in the wrong place. All I've got is ill-informed, poorly thought out ranting. Probably self-contradictory too. I'll see what I can come up with.
Firstly, can Peter Costello seriously be that slow a learner? He must be the last person in Australia to realise that John's promises aren't worth the paper his advisers wrote them on. Howard, however, remains as Australia's most capable politician and has got the issue out in the open early enough that it will be forgotten by the general populace (Who, I am convinced, has the attention span and intellectual depth of a goldfish) by the time the next general election comes around. Same as every other promise he's ever broken, or misleading statement he's made which has been shown to be misleading.
Of course it may help both their causes that the rabid dogs in Iraq have taken an Aussie hostage. Nothing like a distraction to help hide a disruption. Personally, I think they should just write the poor bugger off. He knew what the risks were going in and was no doubt being amply rewarded for the risks he was taking. Which of course didn't affect his decision to go to Iraq at all - it was all about bringing democracy and freedom to a benighted nation. When we first went to Iraq I thought it was a stupid idea. I still do. It is a week late, but a comparison with the Gallipoli landings is is order; in both cases we were putting the interests of a foreign power above our own. In both cases the available intelligence did not support the decision to go in. In both cases anybody who publicly expressed these opinions was vilified by the hawks of the day. In both cases the hawks of the day were mostly not in the military. And, it seems, in both cases the perpetrator of the fuck-up will go on to be praised as a wartime leader.
The US should have invaded Iraq in 1991 A large part of the problems in Iraq, indeed the middle-east in general, are directly related to US and to an increasingly lesser extent British foreign policy. (Does that sentence make sense?) People go on about Islamofascists (because slogans increase your credibility.) and rightly so. None of these people seem to understand the circumstances which gave rise to Islamofascism, though. I do, 'cause I know stuff an' that. Starting from, possibly even preceding, the elevation of minor league warlord and thug Ibn Saud to the leadership of Saudi Arabia in 1923(?) by the combined efforts of the US and British foreign offices and largely funded by the Anglo-American Oil Company; the population of the mid-east has had cause to resent western interference. Saudi Arabia, a country with no natural geological or cultural boundaries and ruled by a family with no hereditary prestige or concept of natural justice, has long been seen as the west's major ally in the region. Come in Spinners.
The Iraqi's in particular, were never going to welcome a US invasion, which is why they should have done it years ago, instead of which they gave potential insurgent groups the chance to recruit and train their half-starved cannon fodder for twelve years. Some of these groups are the same ones that the US fostered and urged to rebellion, then let die like dogs in 1991. And they wonder why they weren't tossing rose leaves in front of the tanks.
Of course, people like Chrenkoff will point out the one, lonely study which 'shows' that Al Qaeda operatives all come from middle- or upper- class backgrounds, therefore the US policy in the past has been perfect and it is all because of religious fanaticism. No doubt if the same study of was made regarding US or even Australian military 'operatives' a similar sort of demographic would be found, i.e., a predominately middle- and upper- class background. This is because the only time you hear about the cannon fodder is after the cannons have eaten it. The fact that these operatives are known indicates to me that these people are a fair bit further up the food chain than your average suicide bomber.
Of course, the right wingers will feign boredom with bringing up old troubles, claiming that everybody is "over it". The sad part is, they're probably right. Most people only maintain an interest in anything as long as the tabloid press (both print and electronic) tells them to. The press only maintains an interest as long as something new and/or scandalous can be found to mine for soundbites or headlines. You can't really imagine A Current Affair leading off with "Day 756 of the Iraq invasion and we still think it is wrong." can you?
Of course, victory in Iraq may prove to be something of a poison chalice for the US, although the Christian Fundamentalists who appear to be running the foreign programme these days seem prepared, just like the Islamic fundamentalists, to sacrifice pretty much everybody in order to further their sacred cause. Of course, the right wing also would have you believe that there are no Christian fundamentalist influences on US foreign policy. Those who would deny this are either ignorant or lying. If they are lying then they are, according to their own doctrine, going to burn in hell, baby.
In other news, I got the day off. Yay 4 me.