May 01, 2004


One year after his invasion predictions were dashed ...

I am happy to be wrong about the fall of Baghdad.

... pessimistic Professor John Quiggin again foresees disaster:

The anniversary of Bush declaration of victory looks as good a time as any to date what seems increasingly certain to be a defeat.

Itís just as well that Quiggin is happy to be wrong. He must be a very happy man.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 1, 2004 05:54 PM

"The near disaster at Dunkirk reminds us that the campaign against Herr Hitler will definitely fail."

- Great Grandpa Quiggan, June 1940

Posted by: CurrencyLad at May 1, 2004 at 09:06 PM

Actually, CurrencyLad, that's an unfair comparison. Unfair to the Germans, anyway.

The Wermacht of 1940 was a far superior organisation to the French and British armies ranged against it.

This is in stark contrast to the rabble currently fighting to keep Iraq in the Dark Ages (that's the insurgents, not Fisk, McGeough and Adams).

Posted by: The Mongrel at May 2, 2004 at 12:54 AM

Fair point. 'The rabble' of today, however, is given the kind of support by Western media and commentators that Hitler and Goebbels could never have dreamed of.

Posted by: CurrencyLad at May 2, 2004 at 01:58 AM

Does Quiggin even bother reading media sources or does he just make random shit up? A cursory reading of the latest Belmont Club puts paid to his wishful thinking about the US Marines failing to achieve anything in Fallujah.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 2, 2004 at 04:07 AM

As before, I'll be happy to be proven wrong on this one, but I don't think you have to look too far to find optimistic predictions that have been as far off the mark as my gloomy expectations about Baghdad, which have partially been realised in the fighting in Fallujah.

Posted by: John Q at May 2, 2004 at 09:51 AM

Thank you, Nostradamus.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 2, 2004 at 10:00 AM

Ted Kennedy says, for example, that Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech was the worst mistake in the history of American foreign policy. This will be taken as authoritative and meaningful by lefty commentators everywhere.

Ahehhm...JFK, Bay of Pigs...ahehhhm...

Posted by: CurrencyLad at May 2, 2004 at 10:32 AM

He said it, but your link doesn't go to it.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 2, 2004 at 10:58 AM

Luddite tries again.

Here Andrea, anyway:,5478,9445628^663,00.html

Posted by: CurrencyLad at May 2, 2004 at 12:00 PM

I'm baaack. Hey Andrea, howabout allowing some uninhibited free speech? Banning commentators can only lead to intelligence failures, and we know where that leads.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at May 2, 2004 at 08:42 PM


You fucking hypocrite. Why can't we comment on your website?

I'm sorry if my language seems inappropriate, but my brother is in the Army (he enlisted *after* 9/11), and he may be transferred to a unit shipping to Iraq soon. I'm beginning to take these morons that want us to fail personally.

Posted by: david at May 2, 2004 at 10:10 PM

"wishful thinking about the US Marines failing to achieve anything in Fallujah"

You're right: they successfully put Saddam's generals back in charge of the city.

Posted by: Robert at May 2, 2004 at 11:35 PM

You didn't notice the hundreds of insurgents the US wasted? I'm not surprised, Robert, nor should your selective quotations surprise anyone.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2004 at 12:33 AM

Jack: you're go-o-one. Again. And david: Jack doesn't allow comments on his blog because he's a coward.

Info for Jack's IP -- -- via

inetnum: -
descr: Telstra Internet
descr: Locked Bag 5744
descr: Canberra
descr: ACT 2601
country: AU
admin-c: TIAR-AP
tech-c: TIAR-AP
remarks: -----
remarks: All reports regarding SPAM or security breaches
remarks: should be addressed to
remarks: ------
changed: 20030421
changed: 20031121
changed: 20031203
source: APNIC

person: Telstra Internet Address Registry
address: Telstra Internet
address: Locked Bag 5744
address: Canberra
address: ACT 2601
phone: +61 2 6248 6165
nic-hdl: TIAR-AP
remarks: Telstra Internet Address Registry Role Object
changed: 19951128
changed: 20010523
changed: 20020115
changed: 20020813
source: APNIC

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 3, 2004 at 01:19 AM

By the way, that's not Jacko's personal info; it's just Telstra's, so don't call them up and leave obscene messages on the phone.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 3, 2004 at 01:20 AM

Jack Strocchi

"howabout allowing some uninhibited free speech"

I see the palio-libertarians you hang with haven't told you "free speech" doesn't apply to private property.

And Robert, you would be still screeching ether way.

Posted by: Gary at May 3, 2004 at 02:33 AM


Thanks for the info. The question about Jack's blog was rhetorical; somewhere in the back of my mind I had an idea to canvas both left- and right-wing blogs that do allow comments to see what it takes to get banned. Then I came to the (subjective) conclusion that there are fewer lefties that allow comments than there are righties. Freedom of speech, all right, as long as it strictly matches what they want to hear...

It just irks me that morons like these are allowed to spew their drivel with no thought to the consequences, all under the guise of "free speech." Maybe the realization that they are not as anonymous as they'd like to think will sink in, and they'll think twice about repeating this behavior.

Of course, that assumes that they thought once to begin with...

Posted by: david at May 3, 2004 at 07:00 AM

hmmm, the weirdness intensifies. I think this calls for getting certain peoples minds right:

1. Andrea, I do allow comments on "my" website, which is actually a group blog that I have been delinquent from since I lost faith with the US administration. Since I allow uninhibited comments, it follows that I am not a "coward" towards criticism.

2. David, I sympathise with your "beginning to take these morons that want us to fail personally." Me too, however I wonder what your personal feelings have to do with my political comments? I dont "want" the US to fail, I want you guys to realise that the US has already failed in its Iraq strategy.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at May 3, 2004 at 02:34 PM

Jack is not a coward towards criticism. You should see him when he gets criticized! He'll threaten to rip your heart out and eat it! He is merely a liar who builds false arguments that reach into the absurd and then he defends them by insulting any questioners.

Some of Jack's brilliant points have been that:

-The UN was wrong to sanction Saddam because he didn't have any WMD

-The Left is more supportive of this war than the Right

-The war was a "moral victory" but a "strategic failure" (usually bolstered by unrelated evidence)

-Lots of the usual "chickenhawk" "Bush is stupid evil genius with bad intentions" crap.

I think he fully deserves to be banned, but since any idiot with dial-up can get themselves a new IP and work around a ban, blocking jerks like Strocchi doesn't seem to be effective, especially since it gives them the much desired aura of victimhood to exploit (as Jack is already doing). Looks like we'll have to keep tearing him up each time he pulls out his usual sack of crap... even if that means we risk being called "moral cretins" :O

Posted by: Sortelli at May 3, 2004 at 03:05 PM

And when Jack is not lying, he's just stupid.

I'm guessing he doesn't realize that whatever page we get by clicking his name goes to something that doesn't allow comments.

Posted by: Sortelli at May 3, 2004 at 03:09 PM