Howard doublethink
An interesting article in the Guardian on the Australian spin on 'political spin':
"We are asked to believe that the war in Iraq was waged as part of a battle against Islamist terrorism, but at the same time are told that Islamist terrorists could not possibly be provoked by it.
One month after the Bali bomb, a taped statement by Osama Bin Laden was released. "We warned Australia before not to join in Afghanistan, and its despicable effort to separate East Timor," it said. "It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sounds of explosions in Bali."
The Australian government would have it that this is hokum. Regardless of what Bin Laden says, Canberra argues that what gets him really riled is not wars and conflicts, but liberal democracy. Islamists may be opposed to liberal democracy, but to suggest that their passions are being whipped up by ballot boxes and liberalism more than by death and bloodshed is patently ridiculous.
To the credit of the Australian public, they don't seem to have bought the government's line on this. A Newspoll published shortly after the Bali bombing found that 69% of people felt their government's support for the US was a factor in the attack, with the proportion a little lower amongst the government's own supporters.
It seems this obstinate refusal of the public to toe the government's line has only increased the desire to enforce compliance in the public service. Since the sacking of defence department secretary Paul Barratt in 1999, senior civil servants have known that their careers depended upon the pleasure of their political masters. Barratt - who, incidentally, agreed with Keelty about the effect of the Iraq war on Islamist terrorism - lost his job because his ministerial boss didn't like the advice he was giving.
The effect was seen most dramatically during the "children overboard" affair in the run-up to the 2001 federal election, in which ministers' offices colluded in misleading the public with claims that refugees had thrown their children into the sea so as to claim asylum. "
Crikey's views on this article:
"He doesn't spell out the obvious - that what loses under John Howard is democratic discourse."
"We are asked to believe that the war in Iraq was waged as part of a battle against Islamist terrorism, but at the same time are told that Islamist terrorists could not possibly be provoked by it.
One month after the Bali bomb, a taped statement by Osama Bin Laden was released. "We warned Australia before not to join in Afghanistan, and its despicable effort to separate East Timor," it said. "It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sounds of explosions in Bali."
The Australian government would have it that this is hokum. Regardless of what Bin Laden says, Canberra argues that what gets him really riled is not wars and conflicts, but liberal democracy. Islamists may be opposed to liberal democracy, but to suggest that their passions are being whipped up by ballot boxes and liberalism more than by death and bloodshed is patently ridiculous.
To the credit of the Australian public, they don't seem to have bought the government's line on this. A Newspoll published shortly after the Bali bombing found that 69% of people felt their government's support for the US was a factor in the attack, with the proportion a little lower amongst the government's own supporters.
It seems this obstinate refusal of the public to toe the government's line has only increased the desire to enforce compliance in the public service. Since the sacking of defence department secretary Paul Barratt in 1999, senior civil servants have known that their careers depended upon the pleasure of their political masters. Barratt - who, incidentally, agreed with Keelty about the effect of the Iraq war on Islamist terrorism - lost his job because his ministerial boss didn't like the advice he was giving.
The effect was seen most dramatically during the "children overboard" affair in the run-up to the 2001 federal election, in which ministers' offices colluded in misleading the public with claims that refugees had thrown their children into the sea so as to claim asylum. "
Crikey's views on this article:
"He doesn't spell out the obvious - that what loses under John Howard is democratic discourse."
posted by BorisEarTh at Wednesday, March 24, 2004
0 comments
