May 26, 2004


Mentioned in this week’s Continuing Crisis column for The Bulletin are Saddam Hussein, Bob Brown, Natasha Stott Despoja, Andrew Bartlett, Brian Greig, Lyn Allison, Nicole Kidman, Andrew Murray, Peter FitzSimons, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Captain Cook, Mark Latham, Margaret O'Connor, Phillip Adams, Nick Grimm, and Michael Moore.

Also in The Bulletin: Alan Deans on the Nigerian email scamsters who ripped off a Saudi sheik, and Jennifer Byrne meets Salam Pax.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 26, 2004 02:08 PM

Compare the media's coverage of November 8's grotesque activities with its coverage of the far greater abuse Iraqi prisoners suffered under decades of Saddam Hussein's reign

"Far greater" doesn't come close to describing the difference between the two.

The answer is – stifle yawns please and pretend you haven't heard this decades ago – Captain Cook.

Actually, I hadn't heard that joke before. Then again, I'm no big sports fan.

The Friends of the ABC have got their cardigans in a twist over plans to subject the nation's only compulsory pay-media outlet to monitoring by Rehame and Newspoll.

Um ... SBS gets partial funding from the government, and the government spends a fair bit of advertising on commercial stations.

"We demand to know the costs of conducting such exercises and their methodology."

I've heard it is $200,000.

Phillip Adams, who doesn't really need the dollars, reportedly hauls in $120,000 for four hours' ABC radio each week

Um, $120K a year, not $120K a week, right?

Who could ever have expected that a movie perfectly tailored to French bigotry showing at a French movie festival and assessed by a French-friendly judging panel might possibly have triumphed?

Did you make any predictions beforehand that he'd win it?

Posted by: Andjam at May 26, 2004 at 03:15 PM

Gee, Andjam, what bug crawled up your butt today? The dose is one humor pill and one crabby nitpicker pill; you seem to have taken two of the latter.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 26, 2004 at 03:31 PM

And what about slogans for ex-democrat leaders? Ie, Senator Meg Lees: The Shy Defector.

Re Adams supposed audience of 30,000 - actually, by his own admission, he's got an audience of one; she's called Gladys, and she tunes in religiously every night. How do I know this without having listened to Phil's show? I just do.

Posted by: TimT at May 26, 2004 at 03:44 PM

Will Nick Marinellis (the e-mail scammer) have to return the money to its rightful owners: the shareholders of Exxon Oil Company?

Posted by: chuck at May 26, 2004 at 03:51 PM

I took two nit-picker pills to help me take out the bug that had crawled up me.

Besides, Um, $120K a year, not $120K a week, right? was tongue-in-cheek.

Posted by: Andjam at May 26, 2004 at 04:18 PM

Tim, out of curiosity, what's your opinion of Salam Pax?

Posted by: Uncle Milk at May 26, 2004 at 04:50 PM

There is one detector the Dems lack and never will have, a shit detector , which is why RWDB blogs are on top, they detect shit 3000 miles away.

Daft, really, falling for the e-mail scams.A silver lining, however, if the Sheikh were a wahabbist.

Posted by: d at May 26, 2004 at 05:39 PM

A Nigerian scam caught an oil tick?


First time I've ever rooted for the scammer.

Posted by: Michael Lonie at May 26, 2004 at 06:03 PM

I'm not a huge Pax fan, Uncle. He's too whiny.

Posted by: tim at May 26, 2004 at 06:14 PM

But the whining is part of his charm. Or so I've been told.

Andjam: which cheek??.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 26, 2004 at 08:34 PM

I've always had the deepest contempt for the Nigerian 419 scammers, but perhaps they serve a useful function in a Darwinian sense. It may be that some people are so stupid that it it is a benefit to society to relieve them of their money. Otherwise they might do things like give it to NPR, or, or the Tides Foundation.

"It is morally wrong not to relieve a sucker of his money." -W. C. Fields

Posted by: Ernie G at May 26, 2004 at 11:44 PM

Andjam: which cheek??.

Mine or your mouth cheek, I'm happy for you to chose.

Posted by: Andjam at May 26, 2004 at 11:57 PM

I've stopped loading these pages until such time as I am assured that they will take less than 20 minutes to load the huge farging whateveritis that causes the page to take 20 minutes to load. Sorry, Tim, your column's *almost* worth the wait, but not quite.

Waaah! I want my content from the other side of the freaking PLANET faster!

Posted by: Brian Jones at May 27, 2004 at 12:14 AM

America's ambitious plans for Iraq look to be in tatters today.

The US have managed to get themselves into a position where they are fighting 3 different enemies on 3 fronts within Iraq. You have the Sunni resistance fighters in the all-important Sunni Triangle, the Shia militia in the south who are asserting themselves around the holy sites and of course Al-Qaeda who are primarily foreign influenced and have shown the ability to cause huge carnage.

Each adversay is now jockeying for position for the post-occupation Iraq which they now know may come sooner rather than later. Of course the reality is, the Americans cannot leave completely. Their CPA HQ will become the world's largest US embassy and there will be a permanent US base presence in-country to keep an eye on things.

The biggest victory for the legitimate resistance fighters will be a wholesale withdrawal of US forces from major population and urban centres. The US would genuinely like this to come sooner rather than later.

The US is already in a position where a total victory is no longer possible. If they stay, they will continue to receive a bloody nose from resourceful guerrilla tactics; if they leave it will be a seen as a some victory for the resistance.

The Americans are very good at shooting themselves in the foot. One example: The prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. This was the perfect recruiting platform for both the indigenous resistance movement and the various terrorist groups around the Middle-East. The abuse policy of US Military Intelligence to 'soften up' Iraqis (who according to the Red Cross are largely innocent anyway) has basically endangered the lives of all troops including British troops- who have been a highly professional force compared to the US soldiers.

Colin Powells comments a few days ago about 'we would leave if asked to' by a 'soverign' Iraqi leadership is just nonsense and hypothetical and he knows it. He knows that no new client regime would ask the Americans to leave and lose their basis of power!! It would be suicide. In any case, judging from continuing assassinations of IGC members, participating in any political leadership in Iraq is a poisoned chalice right now.

If so many people weren't suffering, Americas predicament would have been laughable. The US Government knowingly got themselves into this mess- this war of choice- even after they had been warned by their allies.

This is what happens when you have a US president who knows nothing about foreign affairs and therefore allowed himself to be easly hoodwinked by certain members of the right-wing republican lobby connected to the terrifying PNAC(Project for A New American Century). These are people who want nothing less than a total military domination of the Middle East, energy resources and safeguarding the Israeli right to unlimited security.

To all you pro-warriors out there. I think 'I told you so' comes to mind. Wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: rhactive at May 27, 2004 at 03:09 AM


Posted by: chi-town at May 27, 2004 at 04:30 AM

Yeah, I wouldn't agree either. I tend to be more nuanced in my outlook than a smug twelve year old, rhactive.

At least you managed to blame the Jews and the PNAC. I'm glad to see the loony left and loony far right continue their moronic convergence.

Posted by: goldsmith at May 27, 2004 at 06:42 AM

I'd say "Nice try", rhactive, but it's not a nice try. It's a pathetic try. Shouting lies and discredited theories don't work. Try a soapbox in Hyde Park; if you throw your hat on the ground and are amusing enough, people might toss in their loose change to cover your expenses.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 27, 2004 at 07:40 AM

Try indymedia, they're usually up for wacko theories.

Then again, since the majority of your post was cribbed from their, they might get stroppy about the plagarism.

Posted by: Quentin George at May 27, 2004 at 08:21 AM

I continue to marvel at the wonderful sense of balance you bring to the Bully. The loony leftist Newsweek coverage of matters Iraqish, a few pages on from your scribblings, intimate that Wolfowitz, Perle,and the other Bush neonazis are heading for the political hills, covering their sorry asses over the Chalabi disclosures. In your next column could you please defend these poor sods. Love always. Offie

Posted by: offenbark at May 27, 2004 at 12:26 PM

Oh god, rhactive's back. Sorry Andjam, there's a bigger ass cheek than yours here. Oops! Out of lube. Oh well...

Posted by: Andrea Harris at May 27, 2004 at 01:38 PM

rhactive speaketh:
resourceful guerrilla tactics

So resourceful, in fact, that said guerrillas have been getting killed in spades by guys only armed with knifes and bayonets lately. Rock on, terrorism apologist!

Posted by: PW at May 27, 2004 at 08:42 PM