Tim Blair

Two unnamed people, who are alleged to have witnessed the shootings...

I have a funny feeling the two witnesses are Joe Wilson and Richard Clarke.

Oddly, I overheard a pair of people on a bench in a public park saying that they had each personally witnessed George Bush buying cocaine while campaigning in Pennsylvania recently.

Let the "rumor" spread...

Hey, I heard Algore went on a lunatic rant in front of large audience several times. And I heard that Hillary Clinton stated she supported taking our money for the common good. Oh, and John Kerry said his presidential bid was supported by foreign leaders.

Wait a minute, those aren't rumors. My bad!

hey, i'll vote for allawi if they're true

It doesn't make a lot of sense to execute peope in a courtyard with a pistol - rifles are much better for aiming & such; that's why they use them in firing squads. Plus, the blood stains at close range are a real bitch to get off your collar.

Gotta call bullshit on this story.

'people', sorry...

If we assume they could have been legally executed under Iraqi law, who ought to give a damn if Allawai did this. Mayor Guiliani said he is happy to pull the switch on OBL, if he ever gets the chance.

ABC TV Lateline wet themselves over this 'story' last night and interviewed Hugh White, Strategic Policy Institute head and ex Foreign Affairs chief Michael Costello -

MICHAEL COSTELLO: What they've been criticised for is believing people like Chalabi and many others who were first hand, who were relaying what they said were first hand accounts and turned out to be complete fibbers and exaggerators.
I'm making the exactly same point here.
I don't know these two people, but an unnamed, two unnamed voices for a story like this when they can't even quite remember what sort of date it happened, but it was sort of around a particular weekend.
Gee, I'd hope to get a lot more substance to it.

Earlier he said this,

And I'm extremely reluctant to comment on the basis of that in the light of flat denials.
The reason I'm extremely reluctant to comment on it is that if it were true not only is what Hugh White said correct, that such a man could not stay in that job, but it is true that three or four American security people were present.
It means the Americans knew before he took office.
Now that would be an extraordinary thing.

McGeough has stat decs from the witnesses - this is a Walkeley-award winning journo we're talking about, not some two-bit bloghead seeking publicity. The SMH has had this yarn under wraps for some weeks now.

This story will run round the world as so it should. Bush has replaced one tinpot Stalin with another. "Our man in Bagdhad," a man who dispenses summary justice. What a fitting finale to a fatuous foreign foray.

You blogsheep must be feeling very uneasy right now.

I dunno fellow blogsheep, you feeling uneasy?

I'm not. :)

I'm not feeling uneasy at all, about such a ridiculous story.

Miranda, just where did you hear about these stat decs (I'm guessing that's the same thing as an affadavit)? Another rumor you read at Democratic Underground?

If this story is true, yeah, we have a problem. But quoting an anonymous source without even implying that the reporter has solid proof is, at best, rumor mongering.

And I don't count you as a reliable source. You are as biased as Michael Moore.

PS:

BAAAAAAAAAAH!

Award-winning reporters are automatically trustworthy.

Remember Duranty's Pulizter?

What is the likelihood that Miranda Divide is, in fact, Margo Kingston?

After all, she was gone for some time, but now that Margo K has some more free time on her hands, she's back.

No, I didn't remember Duranty's Pulitzer, Sigivald. So I Googled it. Here's a typical story.

You make a very good point here! Too bad some people won't catch the significance.

If others are interested, here are more articles.

If they were foreign terrorists in Iraq, they were unlawful combatants. That means the story, if true, describes a perfectly legal (and moral!) means of disposing of them.

But I really doubt the authenticity. Anonymous sources? Check! A story the press will view as "too good to verify"? Check!

2dogs, I like it, sounds plausible...

The Americans knew what before?

Interesting. When somebody like McGeough digs up something you people *like,* as in "Saddam pays $25,000 for West Bank Suicide Bombers," he is a brave journalist getting stuff the other reporters refuse to cover. When he runs a double-eyewitness report (with both sources interviewed separately and unaware of additional interviews, and with both witnesses obviously in grave danger of being shot, too) that seems to confirm Allawi is exactly what he has always been, then McGeough is a bad journalist running with reckless rumors.

(And what has Allawi "always been"? An old Ba'athist assassin and crony of Saddam. The only reason he came to "our side" is because he fell out of favor with the Ba'ath party -- he had been serving in London as an enforcer against Iraqi defectors. When he started selling information to British intelligence, his bosses found out and he was nearly murdered in London. In '91, with Iraq & Saddam no longer U.S. assets against Iran, Allawi goes to work for the CIA & MI6, collecting other Ba'athist defectors and making several failed attempts to overthrow Saddam. In 2002, Allawi gets a special intelligence report to the US & UK -- it claims Saddam has the ability to launch WMDs all over the MidEast and southeast Europe, and can do so within 45 minutes if he so chooses.)

If you people were honest about wishing success & democracy for Iraq, you would be disgusted that a Ba'athist thug like Allawi holds any role whatsoever in this provisional government, and disgusted that Our Side is supporting him, with the odious John Negroponte right there with him. You know, the same Negroponte who served in Honduras, where he concealed from Congress the murders and abuses of the CIA-trained and funded military units?

First it's the fiction of WMDs, then it's that thug Chalabi everybody used to love last year, then it's Abu Ghraib & Fallujah, then it's Halliburton making billions while not even delivering the *meals* to the troops charged to Washington, then there's no Bin Laden-Saddam partnership, and finally all that's left to justify this horrible mess is Freedom and Democracy for Iraq. When the new government is handed to Ba'athist strongmen such as Allawi, exactly what remains as justification for the invasion, the 1,000 dead US troops, the prisons again filled with torture victims, the terrorists now running loose throughout Iraq, the assassinations of Iraqi intellectuals, the UN oil/food scam now reborn as the Halliburton scam? If any of the commenters can give a serious answer to this question, I would really be interested in hearing it. What will be the new justification? Or, possibly, will there be no new justification at all?

What will you say when "rumors" of Allawi's criminal rule become "facts" -- as in, when he falls out of U.S. favor as Chalabi has -- and Saddam before him -- whether his fall is "soft" like the disgraced crook Chalabi's or "hard," in the sense that he is assassinated by U.S. interests?

Finally, I believe Juan Cole's commentary and actual knowledge of the region has been appreciated even by pro-Iraqi-war bloggers and commenters. He doesn't seem surprised in the least about McGeough's rumors. Then again, Cole has been explaining Allawi's thuggish, murderous life for a long time. From a June 1 Washington Post chat:

Juan Cole: Iyad Allawi, the new prime minister, is an old-time exile who worked with ex-Baathist officers and politicians to overthrow Saddam from London and later northern Iraq. Because of the Baathist background of many in his party, he is distrusted by a lot of Shiites and Kurds. In the Iraqi street, people call him "Iyad al-Baathi," "Iyad the Baathist." He is known to be a long-time partner for the US Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of State. I don't see how he can gain much legitimacy. He was not elected to anything by any Iraqis. So, yes, I think the new government he heads will have legitimacy problems. Only when elections are held will there by anything like a legitimate government from the point of view of most Iraqis.

There you go. Please stop rushing to the defense of unelected Ba'athist thugs and try to show some sincerity about wanting actual democracy and *elected* leaders in Iraq. Every additional minute that this guy is in charge chips away at any chance of free, legitimate elections.

Isn't Paul McGeogh the one who described Saddam's court-appearance as being shaved down to a neat moustache?
A trivial point, but it undermines his credibility. Does he make up these stories from rumours he hears in bars?

Ken, it's not that most of us are rushing to the defense of Allawi, we (I am, anyway) are questioning his story. This is a serious allegation, and all we get are "unnamed sources" and vague dates.

Besides which, would you prefer that we blindly accept the word of reporters who dig up something that we like? As I recall, it took a while for the $25,000 payment story to be accepted...after it was verified with on camera payments to the families of suicide bombers.

Wouldn't you like to see skepticism in lieu of blndly falling at the feet of the reporter (like many people do for Michael Moore)? Or do you see skepticism as crushing of dissent?

Whoops! Sorry I typed in a hurry --

I said:

"Besides which, would you prefer that we blindly accept the word of reporters who dig up something that we like? As I recall, it took a while for the $25,000 payment story to be accepted...after it was verified with on camera payments to the families of suicide bombers."

What I should have said:

"Besides which, what do you mean that we blindly accept the word of reporters who dig up something that we like? As I recall, it took a while for the $25,000 payment story to be accepted...after it was verified with on camera payments to the families of suicide bombers. "

My apologies.

Real Jeffs: Totally agreed. Nobody should ever accept one reporter's story as face-value truth, especially when the sources are in hiding and will not confirm the story. Then again, you can also guestimate a story's accuracy based on the overall output of the reporter. Tim says bad things about McGeough now, but he knows he's a good reporter and a helluva lot braver than those of us who type opinions from the safety of our filthy home offices. Most interesting thing to me about the alleged witness tales is how they didn't see this as "oh that bad prime minister" but as "these scumbags were terrorists who blew up stuff, so hooray for Allawi."

It took years -- decades in some cases -- for stories about strongmen murders to be really confirmed, whether we're talking about the USSR or Central America or the Mideast, and there are plenty nobody will ever know much about. It won't be known anytime soon if this specific incident is fictional (and there are those in Iraq who believe it is an intentional fiction put out by Allawi for purposes of making people scared as hell of him) or real.

But if similar stories keep floating to the surface, and U.S. forces suddenly surround Allawi's compound and he either steps down or gets hauled off dead or alive, that will be one way to confirm the rumors. Or, it could go much worse and in a few years people will be talking about the need to go in and remove the Allawi Regime. I hope not, but the guy is hell-bent on staying in power, and a much rougher character than Chalabi.

What is fairly well known is that Allawi is a Ba'athist assassin who was either bought off by the CIA / MI6 and had a power feud with Saddam, and that he is known to be absolutely ruthless. He wasn't elected and he's already threatening to delay elections and enforce martial law. I think rooting for such a Baby Saddam is a bad, bad idea that everyone will regret even more than rooting for Chalabi. Maybe he'll turn out to be a late convert to democracy, which would certainly be a good thing, but I don't think that after plotting to take over Iraq for nearly 30 years that he's going to calmly turn around and go back to London if he isn't officially elected.

... Jeez, and I just heard the always charming Rush Limbaugh has bought the McGeough story 100%, no questions asked. He read a bit of it on the air and concluded with a chuckling "Good." (I didn't hear the actual show, I heard *about* it, so I don't know what his exact quote was. Be skeptical! I just checked FreeRepublic looking for the quote, and the first page of posts on the SMH story are all along the lines of this one: "Ought to give some of the lowlife scum a second thought or two.")

The SMH and the ABC. They work so well together. For the SMH to print this crap is one thing. For the taxpayer funded ABC to repeat it nationally is a bloody disgrace. When are we going to do something about it?

Ken, my real problem with this is that everything is based on that one story by McGeough. No verification, no details. Not even a "I'm withholding the names to protect the witnesses".

And suddenly, the USA is again on the spot. Based on another rumor. It's F9/11 all over again.

I don't know what Tim's perspective on this is. But he is labelling this as a rumor. If McGeough is as a good reporter as you say he is, where is the proof? Whatshername, Miranda Divide, is already talking about a "stats decl". Is there one? It already reads like muck raking and rumor mongering.

And then we have the Iraqi perspective. From the subject article:

But in a sharp reminder of the Iraqi hunger for security above all else, the witnesses did not perceive themselves as whistle-blowers. In interviews with the Herald they were enthusiastic about such killings, with one of them arguing: "These criminals were terrorists. They are the ones who plant the bombs."

Later on:

The witnesses said the Iraqi police observers were "shocked and surprised". But asked what message they might take from such an act, one said: "Any terrorists in Iraq should have the same destiny. This is the new Iraq.

I'm not in favor of shooting prisoners out of hand. But it strikes me that any morale outrage on this subject will be hollow because of the silence over Hussein's Murder, Rape, and Torture Brigades. And those are clearly proven.

For better or for worse, Iraq is sovereign, as most of the world has demanded all along. They are controlling their own destiny in their own fashion, and by their laws. So if these allegations are true, there's little to be done about them anyway.....the Iraqis probably don't care what we think.

I don't get this - why would he do it personally rather than have prison guards do it?

I mean, is he planning to do all state-run executions himself?

Sounds a little suss.

What is the likelihood that Miranda Divide is, in fact, Margo Kingston?

I have some unnamed sources that can back that up.

But you should doubt that story because Margo can't spell that well, not that Miranda's blogwriting can be blogheld up to a high blogstandard. Blog.

Although it IS curious how people like Miranda are so tickled pink whenever a story about Iraqis being oppressed comes up, no wonder they were so desperate to cover for Saddam. The rest of youse guys who would cheer for Allawi if this was true have poor company.

Bad enough it could be true without you and every fucked up in the head enemy of freedom Euro wishing it would be so. Alawi was hand picked by the United Nations, yes.

Thats the only reason I can find to doubt him.

"Allawi was hand picked by the United Nations, yes."

Not quite, Papertiger. He was picked by the Iraqi Governing Council, and then endorsed by the United Nations.

Close enough, I think.

Michael Moore must be upset - the victims here are his Minutemen, are they not?

"But you should doubt that story because Margo can't spell that well, not that Miranda's blogwriting can be blogheld up to a high blogstandard Blog."

Sortelli, I would accept the story because they are equally effing nuts.

Quentin, Michael The Moor named the "Minutemen" well -- The men who were there one minute, and gone the next.

Not that I think this is funny, mind you. But it's damned ironic.

...when somebody like McGeough digs up something you people *like,* as in "Saddam pays $25,000 for West Bank Suicide Bombers," he is a brave journalist getting stuff the other reporters refuse to cover...

Come off it, Ken.

McGeough has shown a consistent, measureable anti-Coalition, anti-US bias in his Iraq coverage. You know it, I know it, and every poster on Spleenville knows it. The veracity of this latest effort can be quite fairly judged against the template of his previous prejudice.

..McGeough has stat decs from the witnesses...

Right, Miranda. 'Stat Decs.'

"Hi, I'm Paul McGeough, a reporter from Australia. Would you guys mind signing these declarations, saying you saw the Prime Minister of Iraq personally execute six prisoners? Here's a pen."

Ken Layne said: ...I believe Juan Cole...

'Nuff said.

Miranda Divide probably doesn't believe the story about the plastic shredders, but the evidence for that is about as strong, or maybe stronger, then the evidence for this.

RealJeff - you should read the story. McGeogh is not reporting "rumors", but two eyewitness accounts, from sources who he contacted independently and who did not know the existence of the other.

There is always the possibility that the sources were both lying (although that possibility is somewhat reduced by the circumstances, such as that they told identical stories without knowing that McGeogh had another source). But there is no chance that he was not told what he was told in the way that he says he was told it.

As Tim knows, Paul McGeogh is a good and honest reporter. He has been in Iraq for over 18 months. He has broken many stories in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, a number of which were seized upon at the time as evidence of the depravity of Saddam/Al Qaeda operatives.

This needs to be taken seriously.

Miranda is just another leftist morally devoid labor puppet. The story has to be true because it means Bush is bad, that's all that matters to people like her, who cares if it's really true or not.

The most laughable thing about the whole issue was when Maxine McHugh said to McGeough

McHugh:"The world media will want to interview these 'TWO' men over their claims, how do you think they will fair under that kind of scrutiny?"

McGeough: I wont be giving up their names to anyone".

I wonder why Paul??? Could it be that they don't exist or could it be that maybe these two so-called eyewitnesses were part of that "insurgency" who have plenty to gain by having Alawi removed from office. I don't know, am I too cynical guys???

Peter said:

"RealJeff - you should read the story. McGeogh is not reporting "rumors", but two eyewitness accounts, from sources who he contacted independently and who did not know the existence of the other."

Re-read my post to Ken. I quoted directly from the article. After I read said article. I saw the comments from the witnesses. I take it seriously. But I am not going to swoon over it.

In "AM", they did a vox pop, where I think all of the Iraqis asked doubt that the executions took place.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to execute peope in a courtyard with a pistol - rifles are much better for aiming & such; that's why they use them in firing squads.

But presumably aiming would take longer with a rifle than with a pistol, wouldn't it?

Plus, the blood stains at close range are a real bitch to get off your collar.

He'd have blood on his sholders?

Miranda Divide:

McGeough has stat decs from the witnesses - this is a Walkeley-award winning journo we're talking about, not some two-bit bloghead seeking publicity. The SMH has had this yarn under wraps for some weeks now.

McGeough:

Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings.

Were these israeli manufactured bullets supplied my American arms dealers ?
Or I am jumping the spin gun by a few days ?
Gulliani , i full support you wish to be the guy to throw the switch on OBL.
But it won't happen in the US. Better send him over to Allawi, he still knows how to kill his own chicken . even if it were true , i would say good job well done!

Mr. Layne raises some good questions, but as to Tim's last sentence, it's the seriousness of the accusation that matters to Big Media, not whether these witnesses pan out or not. Case in point, listen to the massive silence about Joe Wilson these days.

There was a story about two Iraqis being made to jump in the river last year that was dismissed at first, but seems to have been true. On the other hand, there's no shortage of false accusations available for just about anything in Iraq right now. So, who knows?

One of the Iraqis dumped into the river was Zeyad's cousin, and it was his blogging about it that pushed through the investigation that revealed the crime. Zeyad himself isn't too pumped up over this rumor, though.

A couple of points.

First I am amazed that in a piece supposedly exposing an atrocity committed by the the Iraqi prime minister, McGeough still manages to work the US prisoner scandal at Abu Ghraib into the story. This speaks volumes to me about Mr McGeough's "journalism".

Second much reliance has been placed on the fact that McGeough has independently interviewed the two witnesses. This does not really mean very much particularly in light of this little gem buried in the story.

The two witnesses were independently and separately found by the Herald. Neither approached the newspaper.

Found how Mr McGeough? By your fixers perhaps? Who are they and what did they do before Saddam fell? You can picture the scene, McGeough hears the rumors that Allawi is offing prisoners and tells his fixers that he would like to find some eye witnesses and lo and behold they are found with similar stories.

This does not mean the story is not true and if it is, it is disturbing. However I have problems with the notion of using a source quoted by Seymour Hersh as the final word on this guy.

Okay, the little irrelevant shit Miranda Divide has been banned. The rest of you trolls can just stuff a sock in it unless you have something significant to say. And no, MR. LAYNE, I don't mean "OIL! HALLIBURTON! WMDS! LIESLIESLIES!!!" bullshit either. It's old, we've been there, and frankly I'm surprised at you throwing muck. Excuse me, I'll use your favorite word -- filthy muck. And more points off for tossing in the Macho Reporter's version of the Chickenhawk Argument. You're not in Iraq any more than Tim is, so how do you know so much?

It's the old problem of the boy who cried "oil". With the press so badly and consistently discredited, it's a safe assumption that anything they say that supports their obvious biases is wrong. At the very least, distorted beyond recognition, and often a complete fabrication.

Every so often, though, they do get something right. Two unnamed "witnesses" isn't much of a start.

I hope this story is not true. In fact, I am refusing to believe that it is true until I see something more credible than the word of a left-leaning reporter and his "two unnamed sources".

It was easy to believe the story about Saddam giving suicide bomber's families checks, because reporters went and talked to those families, and even got to see the checks.

The shredder thing is believable because it's supported by a member of the British government who runs a human rights things, who knows who the witnesses are and apparently has depositions from them.

This guy doesn't seem to actually know the witnesses, and has a strong history of bias. It's also light on details, i.e, who exactly was killed.

Plus, as pointed out, you actually can execute unlawful combatants under the Geneva convention. If they were indeed guilty, and he shot them, so what, exactly? Shooting them in the head is actually fairly merciful, as far as executions go. I think that's still a method in Utah.

"the little irrelevant shit Miranda Divide has been banned"

Aw, c'mon Andrea ! It always brightened my day whenever I saw that little fish dive right back into this barrel; she does have lots of value as comic relief.

Hey Andrea - re Miranda and Ken: Don't hold back; tell them waht you really think!! :)

BTW, on ABC NewsRadio this morning they were broadcasting on-the-spot interviews with people in the streets of Iraq about these allegations. Interestingly, all of those interviewed said (a) they don't believe it and (b) if it's true, these people deserved to die anyway.

All I want to know is:

Will the SMH do a front-page apology if this story turns out to be untrue?

That would be the real test of their journalistic principles.

Peter, the two alleged eyewitnesses certainly did *not* have "identical stories".

As reported, only one of them mentioned a significant detail like the number of "wahabis", they couldn't agree on a date and they actually contradicted each other on the nature of the non-fatal wounding - an event they claim to have witnessed.

In addition, McGeoff seems to have deliberately avoided mentioning that there was any agreement on the victim's names. Given his persistent anti-US bias in his reporting from Iraq, I have no doubt that he would have explicitly mentioned any "corroroboration" of this. Thus, it is more than likely that three names were provided by only one person or that both supplied names but they were different names.

Given the background of rumours circulating around Iraq for at least two weeks - as reported by Zeyad on his "Healing Iraq" blog - why is it surprising that two boastful (or possibly deliberately dishonest) Iraqi men claim to have actually winessed a particular rumoured incident? "Just another bloody lawyer" makes a damn good point about just how these informants were found, as well.

I have an open mind on this and would accept convincing evidence if were presented, but it looks more like McGeoff has made a fool of himself at the moment.

TFK

Oh, I'm sure Mirander'll be back, she'll just have to wait until another of the prison library computers are free.

"As Tim knows, Paul McGeogh is a good and honest reporter. He has been in Iraq for over 18 months. He has broken many stories in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, a number of which were seized upon at the time as evidence of the depravity of Saddam/Al Qaeda operatives.

He has also shown himself to be one of the most biased of the biased when it comes to Iraq. His stories are always well written and I doubt that he has lied in any of his articles. But that doesn't make good journalism. His proclivity towards finding any negative side to anything to do with Iraq, relegates him almost to (at least concerning his Iraq correspondence) the level of failed journo's like Margo who are so blinded by their own agenda's that they can't see that they have become the butt of jokes from their own colleagues.

Why on earth should we put any store in Pauls two "witnesses"? On many occasions he has used used interviews with so called "normal" Iraqi's (who sound about as "normal" as Riverbend) to prove his point about this or that (usually something to do with how Iraqi's attitudes aren't what we think they are - despite polls showing the opposite)
And in this case, the fact that these two "witnesses" were independent of each other is supposed to give weight to their claims? - this completely ignores the fact that because the rumour has been floating around for a while, probably around 15 million Iraqi's, all independent of each other, could give similar accounts if they so wished!
And even so this "independence" has hardly been established:

The two witnesses were independently and separately found by the Herald. Neither approached the newspaper. They were interviewed on different days in a private home in Baghdad, without being told the other had spoken. A condition of the co-operation of each man was that no personal information would be published.
Both interviews lasted more than 90 minutes and were conducted through an interpreter, with another journalist present for one of the meetings. The witnesses were not paid for the interviews.

Just how were they "independently" found? Given what we know about the movements of Western journalists in Baghdad, it’s fair to assume that "independently and separately found by the Herald" means something a lot different to what we would normally expect. Were they found through Iraqi contacts? If so, how did the Herald verify the "independence" of these contacts?

These may seem like petty questions and innuendo’s but lets not forget that McGeough's entire story rests on the say so of these two "witnesses", and given that his choice of witnesses in the past has been fairly questionable, I don't think McGeough has the right ot expect readers to blindly accept the "independence" of his sources.

While I don't totally discount the possibility of the truth of these accusations, that fact that Paul McGeough has reported it with so little actual evidence, smacks of simple rumour mongering.

Iraq has been devastated by fascistic islamo-death loonies. Assuming that 100% of the fellow's report is true, Im not too bothered. Im not happy, either, to be frank. But it sends a message, to be certain. But as long as the bad guys are getting it in the teeth, I can live. I was much more bothered by Abu Graib.

Got stat decs! Oh my God - it must be true. Like, no one has ever perjured themselves in a stat dec ever before! Anyway, I doubt if Iraq has stat decs - they are an Australian legal thing. Affidavit, may be. The difference is that an affidavit is sworn on the bible and can be produced as evidence in court proceedings. A stat dec carries much less weight.

Stat decs are the things I always had to sign during exams in my university days. I was always forgetting that damn student card!

Mick - I think your questions are all ones that need to be asked. Obviously we start from different positions - my sense of McGeough is that he is skeptical of the occupation because of what he has seen. Obviously, you think he "sees" what he sees because he is skeptical of the occupation.

But the focus should be on his reporting ... given the detail in his story (including the names of some of the alleged victims), it should not be too hard to puch this story a bit closer to the truth.

This alleged incident has every anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War angle except for Halliburton. Look what publicizing the story "accomplishes": discredits the leader of newly sovereign Iraq just a week after the transition of authority; discredits the US and especially Bush for having gone to war to unseat one tyrant and then helping to install another thug; implicates US in another Abu Ghraib-like scandal, with Americans allegedly witnessing the event and not attempting to stop the executions or blow the whistle afterward; gives fodder to Moore Democrats and maybe even the Kerry campaign in the run-up to the conventions and election; shows the Iraqis as a hopeless lot who might as well have stayed Saddamized; implies a moral equivalency between terrorist jihadists and terrorist officials of new Iraq; belies the entire notion of bringing some democratic and moral governance to the Middle East.

How convenient for the anti-Coalition cause.

Obviously we start from different positions - my sense of McGeough is that he is skeptical of the occupation because of what he has seen. Obviously, you think he "sees" what he sees because he is skeptical of the occupation.

Nicely put...and quite true. But I'll just make the point that part of my belief comes from hearing him speak on talkback radio here in the West to one of his mates (Paul Murray - the host) when the Iraq invasion was only a possibility, even then there was no doubting what his feelings where about Bush and any possible Iraq war.

But the focus should be on his reporting ... given the detail in his story (including the names of some of the alleged victims), it should not be too hard to puch this story a bit closer to the truth.

Again, quite true.

Heh! Take a few hours off for some chores, and what happens? Miranda Divide is banned (yet again), and McGeough is soundly fisked. Some people have all the fun.......

McGeough's a good and honest reporter.

WTF!!!

He was clean-shaven - the fugitive's beard of December had been sculpted back to his customary moustache.

AND

HAMISH ROBERTSON: And just returning to our main story today, reports of the moves by American troops to capture Saddam International Airport, 20 kilometres from the heart of the capital.
Fairfax journalist, Paul McGeough, is one of those foreign correspondents still in Baghdad. And he's cast some doubt on the American claims about having part control of the airport.

Seeing Miranda Divide banned brings me no joy.
An opposing point of view never does any harm, however irritating.

David--Ha ha ha ha!

Oh, wait, where you serious?

McGeough would have heard the rumours about Allawi dispensing justice at prisons. He would have commissioned his local Arabic-speaking Iraqi investigators to see if they could actually find someone to verify the stories. They got back to him with contact details on two witnesses.

Was money paid to the investigators? What are the politics of the investigators? He said the Herald contacted them - a euphemism for "my contacts contacted them". The two men could therefore have put a basic story together for McGeough's benefit, which he breathlessly and naively accepted.

The story is also surprisingly and suspiciously free of accounts of yelling, pleading, bloodiness or the post-event behaviour of Allawi. Coveniently, all victims wanted to die so they were meek and quiescent about the slow and confronting sequential murders. Bullshit.

The alleged presence of Americans reads very much like 'credibility insurance' to me. That is: if no-one believes this or they say 'so what', we've included some political dynamite to give it some real newsy pungency. I'm just surprised the 'witnesses' didn't recall the presence of two tequilla-slamming Bush twins in the courtyard.

Sounds to me like McGeough has been had big time. His investigators have pocketed some money, solidified the possibility of further employment for themselves and contributed to the discrediting of a leader who - for all we know - they were eager to undermine for political reasons.

In no other circumstances or contexts would such a flimsy, shoddy, unverifiable pastiche of vagueries have been run by a newspaper. I think Allawi probably is less than angelic. The point, however, is that elections are now scheduled and Iraqis can make their own minds up about this and other matters at the ballot box soon.

As for the wider implications of this on the justification of invasion and the removal of Saddam, it has no application or relevance whatsoever. Saddam was overthrown because of his refusal to account for WMD which he may not have had - modern history's most egotistical and idiotic miscalculation. If the story included the allegation that on the way home from the prison courtyard, Allawi dropped in to Iraq's newly-built and now thriving WMD factory, it would have broader relevance to the removal of Saddam.

Instead, McGeough's topical buffet of an ensemble includes an oh-so 'now' reference to Abu Ghraib being - irony alert! - the location for the dumping of the victims' bodies. I envisage two scallywags smirking at that literary addition.

Finally, this allegation has the exquisite utility of being entirely self-sustaining. Prepare now for 'other witnesses come forward' stories.

Overall, a story no court in the civilised world would accept and no college newspaper editor would publish. I now look forward to McGeough's follow-up piece, whose intention will be to ensure another childish journalism Best & Fairest trophy will be coming his way. It will be something like this, I'm guessing:

Hitler Seen in Buenes Aires Coffee Shop!

"Two blokes told me so" - Herald reporter

Mengele "one helluva doctor" former Nazi chief reputedly says over latte and carrot-cake

Oh come on! He is Multitasking. This is the new PM giving more bang for his buck.. literaly!

They like em tough in Iraq so what? I agree they do deserve worse than death.

Al Sistani is also calling for the punishment of all the "Civil right lawyers" rushing to defend Saddam Hussein and pocketing large sums from his rich wife. Good on him!

Unfortunately does this mean Steven Hopper will NOT be going over there to join the queue?

Allawi shows he is not an American! He will not be subjugated by left wing liberals intp putting A/C in these murderer's cells.
Abu Ghraim is for the US. If you think Iraq is going to play that those stupid rules you had better think again. our new democracy is at stake, we have no time for liberals now.

At least he did not place ladies underwear over their heads like those "worthy of prosecution in the Hague" murderous Americans.

If Allawi really wanted to help the war effort ,
he should have gotten Paul Mcgeogh and some of the other journalists and shot them.
Some of these journalists are traitors after all.
Not all of them though.

Really, guys, there's nothing wrong with Prime Ministers taking things into their own hands after gaining power - I mean, just imagine Mark Latham's hit list:-

- every taxi-driver with whom he has had a dispute;

- his ex;

- Simon Crean;

- the Liverpool City Council;

- the list goes on.....

I wondered what spin the left would take when the inevitable good news from Iraq became so overwhelming that it had to be reported. Now I know.

"It sounds like Saddam-Lite in the making; and in it all there's an odour of the Arab authoritarianism that the Bush men say they came to eradicate."

The Sydney morning Herald is always first with the news (from the left) and so now we have it:

We replaced Saddam with Saddam-lite.

That didn't take long did it?

BTW: davo, takes more of those little blue pills.

My two sources at the SMH confirmed to me that Miranda Divide is in fact Margot Kingston.
Further they tell me she wasn't sick at all but was in Iraq playing bagwoman to Mcgeoghs sources and negotiating a sale price of the story to the ABC.
That was how she knew that the SMH were sitting on the story for weeks.
After getting lost in the back streets of Baghdad she only just escaped being shot by Allawi after the mechanism on his Magnum jammed.True story, honest I've got the stacked deck to prove it.

maybe it woold please ppl more if Allawi cut ppl's head's off with knife!

The Age has been busy on the follow-up.

Kevin "Good to be with you, Tony" Rudd ...

"Such reports appear to me to be unbelievable, but because they are written by a credible journalist, Mr Downer's responsibility is to get the truth from the Australian Embassy and the United States."

Credible?

Downer replies ...

A spokesman for Foreign Minister Alexander Downer today said the Australian government had not been able to substantiate the claims, although he conceded the allegations were serious.

"We, as a country, know nothing about these allegations and we've checked with the Americans and the British, who also know nothing about these allegations," the spokesman said.

I'm with Currency Lad's "two blokes told me" theory.

Paul McGeough has never written a positive thing about Iraq since he's been there, and even if he did, the SMH wouldn't publish it.

This story has less credibility that Latham's bucks party video. Why aren't McGeough and LateLine throwing all their resources into tracking down that one? After all the technique would be the same: offer enough money and someone will eventually come forward claiming to have seen the video.

From the Age:

"''There are Iraqi authorities in place now who have the power and capability to investigate any such allegations ... that's where the matter should be dealt with,'' he said."

I agree with this. It's for the Iraqis to sift through and decide what to do, not for the coalition.

The report could be legit or it could be a rumor being floated around Iraq to discredit the new government. Much more proof is needed before I will believe the story.

i reckon he done good dealing with the 'insurgents'. is anyone here really unhappy that some non-Iraqi terrorists were dealt with?

This story will run round the world as so it should

????????? This is incredulous, based on two un named sources, ask the blind man, he saw it to.

Don't worry Miranda, a couple of 'rumours' at Mark Latham and its an injustice, unsubstantiated rumours, let it run eh?

Banning twitty little trolls again? CENSORSHIP! :-)

I seriously doubt that he did it, but good on him if he did.

I thought those opposed to the war had established there was no link between Iraq and al-Qa'eda.

They will reply, of course, there wasn't before the war. They would say that.

We replaced Saddam with Saddam-lite.

But hang on, apparently we shouldn't have got rid of him in the first place - after all there are so many other dictators out there as well, (o.k, I never been able to understand that argument, but thats what all the anti-war people say to the humanitarian argument) so really, if they think Allawi is a replacement for Saddam then they must be pleased - right? *scratches head*

And look, Paul McGeough - in what two unnamed but independant witnesses have testified (complete with stat decs)is actually a publicity seeking stunt - has left Baghdad supposedly in fear for his life.
(cough drama queen cough)
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10163356%255E2,00.html

Journalist Paul McGeough, who wrote the story, has left Iraq, but stands by his story.
"If you have a story like this, it's not a good idea to remain in the country," Mr McGeough told Ten News.

And FINALLY,after all this time Bob Brown has acknowledged that brutality in Iraq is worth mentioning:

"He should return Australia's defence forces from the service of this bloodcurdling brute."
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10164607%255E1702,00.html

"McGeough ... is a Walkley-award winning journo.."

I almost posted that this was meaningless as the Walkleys are one of the promoters of blind bleeding-heartism amongst Australia's left. Then I realised it explained a lot.

When the likes of Kerry O'Brien, Margot O'Neill, Adele Horin and Monica Attard get their Walkleys from judges like Michelle Grattan, Lowitja O'Donoghue, Jennifer Byrne and Nigel Milan you know that truth and impartiality don't register so highly in the decision-making. If you want a Walkley, you have to consistently make the right noises to the right people.

I wonder if this latter part may explain some of the motivation in Paul McGeoch's accusations going to press based only on his word.

If this allegations prove to be true it is extremely serious for the future of Iraq.

If they are not true then it is end game for Paul.

By upping the ante he has put himself into end-game. All or nothing now.

Do not believe any of this. I saw what happened---- Allawi was cleaning his pistol----then there was a banging noise---and then--

Okay, the little irrelevant shit Miranda Divide has been banned.

But, Andrea, this will free up Margo's time to do something even more stupid. You really should give more thought to the consequences of your actions.

...Journalist Paul McGeough, who wrote the story, has left Iraq, but stands by his story.
"If you have a story like this, it's not a good idea to remain in the country," Mr McGeough told Ten News....

How about the two eyewitnesses, Paul? If your story's true, you've signed their death warrants.

Here's Charles' take, at LGF:

the story, if true, is not surprising. Allawi simply acted within the system of power-challenging that dominates Arab politics. By yanking out a gun and personally executing these holy warriors on the spot, he sent two important messages: 1) he is not an American, and 2) he is not to be messed with. If true, it was a smart move. He’s not going to stay in power by acting like a delicate Westerner, asking the captured mujahideen if they need extra pillows for their cells.

Byron: I share your doubts and scepticism about journalistic intent, timing etc. But, if true, Allawi has to go. End of story.

Coalition troops have been in Iraq pursuant to Geneva Convention requirments for post-war reconstruction and security. They are there now in the service of Iraqi stabilisation at the invitation of the Iraqi government.

Australian troops cannot be in the service of a sovereign office-holder who personally murders people. He should go before our troops do. Their job, after all, remains incomplete.

As I've said above, however, I too doubt the story pretty strongly. Even Kevin Rudd is quoted as describing it as "unbelievable" on the current SMH mainpage. He's also said McGeough would have to co-operate with any enquiry into the matter. McGeough would merely plead journalistic ethics and keep mum on his sources - as he should.

Hard to tell where this can go from here really.

..Australian troops cannot be in the service of a sovereign office-holder who personally murders people. He should go before our troops do...

Allawi is the interim PM only. Australian troops are neither in his service nor under his direction. Let's not cross swords over what every every fibre of my being tells me is yet another crock of lies from McGeough, CL. Cheers, By

Oh Jesus, Blair, what more do you want? THREE unnamed witnesses to tell him what they saw? Perhaps even video tape of witnesses telling what they saw?

You right-wing neocons crack me up. We have all the evidence we need right there in black and white!

I think Mr Esmay is being sarcastic, noone could have so little braincells as to think that this story has been proved, and still not suffer from a shutdown of the autonomous nervous system due to bandwidth problems.

THREE unnamed witnesses to tell him what they saw? Perhaps even video tape of witnesses telling what they saw?

Er, yes. Why not?

Appologies to Mr Esmay, after rereading your post I am convinced you are being sarcastic.

Ditto.

I (very) occassionally look at this blog, largely because I am invited to via The Bulletin, for whom I report from Asia (and also the S-E Asian regional corres. for Fortune of the US,) and The Bulletin pays Blair the privilege of linking to it. And then I read this...

'If Allawi really wanted to help the war effort ,
he should have gotten Paul Mcgeogh (sic) and some of the other journalists and shot them.
Some of these journalists are traitors after all'

This is disgusting, and incitement. Regardless of the merits of McGeough's story, it is deeply offensive to any journalist and particularly to professional foreign correspondents, and I would include myself here, who venture to places that aren't Bondi Junction, for stories that are casually bagged in such a mindless and idiotic manner by people who've never left - as another of your interlocutors puts it - their 'filthy home offices'...

Purposely provocative commentary is one thing for you and your handful of blogging mates but, Tim, given that it sits on your site, presumably you condone this type of nonsense, and that is very disappointing. If you dont, the item should be removed and the writer banned, as seems to be the fashion for those who dare to disagree with you and your fellow travellers. This of course comes in the week when a very good reporter for Forbes in Moscow gets wasted by people who didnt agree or like what he wrote. By allowing this nonsense of your blog, Blair is presumably condoning those who would regard that professional journalists should be killed, and be targets, for doing their job.

As for the person who wrote about McGeough's Walkley..

'I almost posted that this was meaningless as the Walkleys are one of the promoters of blind bleeding-heartism amongst Australia's left. Then I realised it explained a lot. When the likes of Kerry O'Brien, Margot O'Neill, Adele Horin and Monica Attard get their Walkleys from judges like Michelle Grattan, Lowitja O'Donoghue, Jennifer Byrne and Nigel Milan you know that truth and impartiality don't register so highly in the decision-making. If you want a Walkley, you have to consistently make the right noises to the right people.'

McGeough was awarded a Walkley for good, brave and professional reporting. I too was paid the honour of a Walkley last year http://www.walkleys.com/2003/winners/ellis.htm for a story also took me beyond Bondi Junction (investigating Bali terrorist bombers as it happened, no picnic that). I didnt make any noises to the 'right people' anywhere. Nor am I known as a lefty or a bleeding heart. All I did was report, as I saw it and to the best of my abilities, something that I believed in public interest, and there are at least 88 Australian families (and 114 of other nationalities) who might regard that as the case. But 'Romeo' clearly knows something about the Walkleys - and perhaps about me - that I don't. Either that or he's got some problems.

Yours in profound disgust,
Eric Ellis
Bulletin/Fortune

I have 23 Statutory Declorations that confirm the Paul McGeough never leaves the bar at The Palistine Hotel the entire time he's in Baghdad (or is that Dads-bags?)

I know a couple of blokes, Carl and Habib, and they hosted a certain bucks turn and have signed stat decs (oh well, they're going to) verifying that the guest of honour had sex with a dog before waking up some neighbourhood toddlers and reading them some readers' sex tales from Hustler.
Romeo, the Walkleys are staged by the journos union and only members can enter. Nuff said.

Interesting point about McGeough leaving Iraq. The number one question I would be putting to Fairfax is this: was he going to be leaving soon anyway? If the answer to that is 'yes', than this was a goodbye piece, perhaps written with malice aforethought.

I have put these questions to the SMH through its reader feedback service:

Might it be possible for you to provide information on what Mr Paul McGeough's plans had been prior to his publication of the Allawi prison-murder story?

In particular, was it his intention to depart from Iraq at about this time, regardless of any story he might have published prior to departure?

It's just a theory. Wonder if they'll respond?

Byron: just hypothesising my friend. If true, I think he has to go. Do I think it is true. No. Nor did I mean to imply that Australian troops are under his direction, merely that their presence and work are carried out for the benefit of the Iraqi people, of whom Allawi is - yes, the interim - but also the sovereign leader.

I'm just distancing myself from the sentiments of some posters above - also speaking hypothetically - who argue that, if true, such an occurrence would not matter or should even be regarded as admirable.

That is an insult to the thousand troops who died so that Iraq would be liberated from a tyranny dangerous to the wider world. Democracy and the rule of law were conceived of as the antidotes to all that has gone before. President Bush has explicitly said this numerous times. All Coalition leaders have strenuously rejected the notion that Iraqis or Arabs generally cannot or should not be afforded the opportunity to live in a democratic and just polity.

Like I said, I'm speaking hypothetically in response to the hypotheses of others - yourself not included.

To them I would say, in conclusion: Iraq wasn't liberated from the black hand of Vito Corleone to be given over to Scarface Montana.

...the item should be removed and the writer banned, as seems to be the fashion for those who dare to disagree with you and your fellow travellers...

You're obviously unfamiliar with the way the blogosphere operates, Eric.

Opinions aren't regulated to the point of lockstep, the way they are at The Sydney Morning Herald. If someone says something ridiculous or absurdly over the top (like the comment you've taken umbrage over) then it'll be dismissed by the readership (as that comment was.) Censorship and/or banning is reserved for serial provocateurs only- not for the thoughtless, or stupid.

Eric Ellis

Time for a reality check: for a very long time journalists have been pretending that they practice a profession instead of a trade. Well you are wrong sunshine, you may give yourselves little hugs and whatever else in your joy about what you do, but you have been from the very beginning of your trade, often been little more than whores. I am a professional. I swore upon my admission to demean myself in the practice of my profession. It was an old fashion expression but one that means at its core that in the end I do not matter, I must bend to the rules & dictates of my profession and to my particular branch of it. If I violate them, then I am gone. You however will at worst get some meaningless ticking off. I acknowledge that journalists have at times exposed evil at great human and personal cost but somehow I doubt that you are amongst that number, although you seem only too ready to cloak yourself with their mantle. If you have any difficulty following where I am heading with all this let me give you the executive summary FUCK OFF YOU SELF ABSORBED WANKER

[elvis]thank you thank you very much[/elvis]

er, thank you thank you very much

I too was paid the honour of a Walkley last year http://www.walkleys.com/2003/winners/ellis.htm for a story also took me beyond Bondi Junction

Reeoww, a saucer of milk perhaps?

As I am also a bloody lawyer, I will back up my colleagues statement above.

You are a professional if and only if you are licensed as such, and can lose your license and your livelihood by violating the rules of your profession.

Doctors? Check
Lawyers? Check
Hairdressers? Check

Journalists? Nuh-uh.

Purposely provocative commentary is one thing for you and your handful of blogging mates but, Tim, given that it sits on your site, presumably you condone this type of nonsense, and that is very disappointing. If you dont, the item should be removed and the writer banned, as seems to be the fashion for those who dare to disagree with you and your fellow travellers. This of course comes in the week when a very good reporter for Forbes in Moscow gets wasted by people who didnt agree or like what he wrote. By allowing this nonsense of your blog, Blair is presumably condoning those who would regard that professional journalists should be killed, and be targets, for doing their job.

Eric, I understand your position that a comment like that should be removed, but to make the accusation that because it hasn't, means that the owner of the blogs condones the sentiment of the comment, is quite frankly reminiscent of the overtly partisan attitude that has caused McGeough to lose much of his credibility.

In an ideal world, reporters would all be impartial, or at least be able keep their personal biases out of their reporting. Of course, in the *real* world that’s never going to happen, and it seems strikingly naive for anyone to suggest that having won a walkley in any way exonerates Paul from the charges that he has seemingly made accusations based on rumour and on the face of it, highly tenuous evidence.

I am with the Bunyip on this one.

Neither of the two witnesses could give a definite time or date on when it occurred.

If having the prime minister come into a police station and shoot several guys in the head doesnt figure to be a red letter day in your diary - then what the hell does rate?

Ummm was that Tuesday or Thursday, just cant seem to recall - there was something good on the tv on Friday, think it was after that...hmmmm not sure. Get real.

1. I would like to believe the executions took place.

2. In the event point 1 is true, I hope they continue.

To david, who was dismayed at my banning of Miranda: "dissenting voice" my eye, Miranda is nothing but a troll, who has NEVER contributed ONE SUBSTANTIAL WORD to ANY blog comment thread it has infested. You notice I haven't banned any of the other "dissenting voices." So you can untwist your knickers and get down off your high horse.

Sadly for the Stockholders of Fairfax, Mad Magazine has a far greater claim to truthful reporting than SMH.

Dunno about you guys, but having PROFESSIONAL FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT Eric Ellis come in here spanking posters with his "walkley" gives me a certain frisson of excitement.

So, let's all pull up a chair and listen to him, a PROFESSIONAL WALKLEY-LICKING FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT lecture us with examples from his noble profession.

Eric, you have the floor.

What is the likelihood that Miranda Divide is, in fact, Margo Kingston?

Margo with a spell-checker maybe.

Sadly, computers don't have sanity-checkers yet.

Johm P wrote:

"If Allawi really wanted to help the war effort ,he should have gotten Paul Mcgeogh and some of the other journalists and shot them.
Some of these journalists are traitors after all.
Not all of them though."

Eric replied:

"This is disgusting, and incitement. Regardless of the merits of McGeough's story, it is deeply offensive to any journalist and particularly to professional foreign correspondents, and I would include myself here, who venture to places that aren't Bondi Junction, for stories that are casually bagged in such a mindless and idiotic manner by people who've never left - as another of your interlocutors puts it - their 'filthy home offices'..."

The last sentence ("..not all..") of John P's post was not included in Eric's quote. I have included it in mine because it's needed to understand the point John P. was trying to make.

Nobody at this site encourages or advocates shooting any journalist. You'll note this is not a common sentiment to be expressed. Journalists do put their lives on the line in war zones and in uncovering the 'dark underbelly' of our societies.

I am very glad we have a free press and have men and women willing to bring us news we should be aware of, even at the cost of their lives. There are many honorable journalists.

In my opinion (obviously since I'm giving it) John P. was expressing a feeling that you'll find scattered throughout the net. The feeling that some journalists have behaved in ways that could be viewed as treasonous and have put soldiers at risk. And if they haven't done anything to actually put soldiers' lives at risk, their view on the WOT is that we lose the war.

I have questioned some journalist's actions and wondered if treason applied. Certainly not in the case mentioned here, but in others. It's very unnerving to the average reader/viewer to realize there are some journalists who would celebrate our defeat in Iraq and *NOT* celebrate our victory. Doesn't make one have warm and cuddly feelings for the journalists we believe hate us enough to want our soldiers dead.

Note John did qualify his statement with "..not all..". It was the last sentence that caused me to believe John was venting frustrations that have built up over the last few years as he observed the behavior of some journalists. To me, that's free speech.

I see no evidence this site encourages or favors posters who advocate shooting anyone. Allowing a post, and poster, to express opinions doesn't mean anyone responsible for this site agrees with the sentiments expressed.

For the sake of the idiots on this blogmire, if McGeogh gives up the names of his informants, he effectively signs their death warrants.

And let me assure you sheep, Margo is too busy plugging her book to be bothered with teasing the lowlife that lives here for a bit of sport.

For the sake of the idiots on this blogmire, if McGeogh gives up the names of his informants, he effectively signs their death warrants.

The "informants" haven't deliberately killed 50+ civilians. They wouldn't get killed.

McGeough may have signed those death warrants anyway Miranda. Read this and follow its arithmetic.

I hope it was worth the Michael Moore moment.

As Professor Bunyip and others have pointed out, a major inconsistency with the two witnesses is the fact that neither can seem to remember what day this occurred. The cynical amongst us might suggest that this is a rather convenient bout of forgetfulness. Surely Allawi's day to day movements would be well documented, maybe not beforehand but certainly afterwards, and any precise dates given by the witnesses could be quickly verified, or as the case may be - disproved.

And Miranda, you might want to look at Professor Bunyip's take on the issue to see why your 'can't name the witnesses' idea is so idiotic.
Basically it points out that of the 30 people present, only around 13 would be in the frame as possible informants, if Allawi really is that ruthless it would probably take about an hour to work out who they were.
As has been rather well covered here, Paul McGeough has little credibility when it comes to Iraq and especially not when it involves "unnamed sources". Its not really just about his credibility though, recent events with journalists lying about their sources (most notably Andrew Gilligan) means that the use of unnamed sources immediately lends an element of doubt to an article.

I believe these people exist, but did they actually witness anything? The more I see of this story the more they sound like that guy from Abu Graib who swore that he was tied to a tree and repeatedly soddomized by soldiers, until in an almost Life of Brian-esque scene, a little voice from the otherwise baying for blood crowd piped up and said that well that didn't actually happen and he was just a liar.

Professor Bunyip's analysis is sound. If (and it's a big if) this story is true, McGeough has already signed the death warrants of his "informants".

But there's another problem.

Let's assume that this story is true, as McGeough claims. If McGeough left Iraq in fear, why didn't he haul along his two informants to protect them? If this story is so big, surely his publish would ante up the cost of a couple of plane tickets.

Eh? What's that? You say that they would need travel papers, passports, etc? True. That would be more expensive, but surely worth the cost. Or they could have been smuggled out of Iraq. Surely McGeough's fixer could have arranged for that.

After all, just what is a Pulitzer Prize worth?

Miranda -- are you out on work release, or did the child molester finish downloading his kiddie porn?

I aint saying it's true, .... BUT:

McGeough:

What you have is two very solid eyewitness accounts of what happened at a police security complex in a south-west Baghdad suburb.

They are very detailed.

They were done separately.

Each witness is not aware that the other spoke.

They were contacted through personal channels rather than through the many political, religious or military organisations working in Baghdad that might be trying to spin a tale.

And they've laid it out very carefully and very clearly as to what they saw.

So .... we've possibly, allegedly, but sounds to me like PROBABLY (and I'll eat these words for breakfast if it's proven Allawi's no killer) ... so you've got the Prime Minister of a country personally executing people and your concerns are for the informants ...? And getting into McGeough about the human life value of his Pulitzer? Taht's very noble. Wouldn't the fact this bloke in charge of the country ... who you'd presume would be a statesman in the UN, etc, a world figure ... wouldn't it concern you that he's actually a cold-blooded killer? Doesn't that raise questions in your mind?

I mean, sensational story, no?

You are a professional if and only if you are licensed as such, and can lose your license and your livelihood by violating the rules of your profession.

Cool, cabbies rank higher than journos. But then I already knew that, from certain Sussex Street passengers.

Massive risk from the SMH aint it ... to publish this thing unsubstantiated ... it's a massive plug for McGeough, for his standing, that the SMH would publish these claims because McGeough reckons it sounds fair dinkum. Because if it's proven untrue, it'll mean a huge retraction ... bit like the Mirror and their dodgy photos, I'd think ... you'd think this blog'd be howling for it anyway.

Wonder what reaction we'll get if it's proven true from in 'ere tho ... left-wing pinko conspiracy theories should be interesting. Or do we need a tough guy in charge of Iraq, a man who won't take any shit from insurgents, a man a little like the dude we replaced, infact.

Wonder what George Dubya and Johnny will say when Allawi's proven to be a cold-blooded killing machine, a former Baathist assasin, etc ... blame their intelligence, I'm thinkin. Cos they didn't know. Johnny said he very much admired the guy, obviously before these assasin, thug, cold-blooded killer sort of stories got about.

Asio's bloody hopeless aren't they?

Where is the "Allawi is a Ba'athist assassin" noise coming from? I've seen it from various lefties for a couple of weeks now, but never with a cite, no proof, and the only records I've been able to find of Allawi having anything to do with baathist assassins is the one that tried to kill Allawi in the UK.

Is it just another leftie character-assassination?

..for the sake of the idiots on this blogmire, if McGeogh gives up the names of his informants, he effectively signs their death warrants...

You idiot.

Do you think Allawi couldn't find out who'd talked to McGeough, if the story were true?

..what you have is two very solid eyewitness accounts of what happened at a police security complex in a south-west Baghdad suburb...

Piers Morgan had photographs of British 'atrocities', which he published in the Daily Mirror. McGeough won't even supply witness names, or a date.

...if it's proven untrue, it'll mean a huge retraction ...

Oh yeah Steve, a HUGE retraction. PS when do you think they'll get around to publishing one, for the plastic turkey story?

Strange that this non story has not received notice here in UnilateralSatanAggressor.

We have more important things going on.Petersen and Martha Stewart for instance.

When I read the first mention of this on the Iraqi blog, I had the impression that he felt the story was untrue, but was a means of putting a little fear into the terrorists. You know, Arab justice is here mates, no more of that American stuff.

was that 'Eric the walkley wanker' bloke for real? i can never tell...

didn't hear about that one.

You didn't answer my questions but, By. Why you more worried that McGeough's hanging the informants out to dry in pursuit of a Pulitzer than the recently installed leader of this country just shot 7 people in the head?

Do you equate the photo of the Mirror's 'atrocities' as holding more veracity than McGeough's eye-witness accounts? That he can't name a date means it's obviously bullshit?

He can't give up the names. Whether Allawi could find out if he wanted ... I spose depends how many other people were in the room/joint at the time ... maybe he'll find out using his old Baathist tough guy tactics: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/16/1089694568976.html

No-one can tell yet. But the truth should out ... whether it makes any difference I dunno.

Wazhoo talkin about Willis? I mean Ted, you aggressive unilateral Satanist you?

Who was scaring the terrorists with Arab justice? Allawi? McGeough? Martha Stewart?

I'm sure he was. It's Steve I'm worried about. How does a guy that dumb figure out how to put his pants on every morning?

That last was to roscoe, of course.

Maybe Steve doesn't even wear pants, they would interfere with his constant desire to masturbate to the thought of Allawi being a crazed gunman.

It's an old cliche Sortelli, but it still holds water:

One leg at a time, one leg at a time...

how you do it?

or don't you wear em?

I don't know about crazy ... seems pretty level-headed actually ... he just lines em up, shoots em.

Crazed gunmen are more your Martin Bryant, 72-virgin-rooting martyr, US Marine on speed, types.

Allawi just plugs 'em.

Steve, I have two unnamed witnesses who have signed stat decs that say you require the help of a team of nurses and animal handlers to put your pants on. I'm already sending the story to the SMH. Think they will run it?

If Miranda Divide is backing this, then I think it must be false.

Remember, she believed the Graham Thorn "quote".

Sure mate - whatever you say - Paul McGeough or you ... who to believe ... hmmm ... who would you think had more cred on matters Iraq ... .... hmmmm ..... .... hhmm.

I'm thinkin Paul. He just shades it but ... if he says something about Iraq or you ... I'm thinkin i've just, only just, gotta go with the journo.

Sure you know stuff but.

Yes, Eric Ellis is a real journalist, and a good one at that. You should find his web page, if it's still up, and read some of his stuff.

And on the evidence of his reporting, Mr. Ellis has certainly put himself in harm's way often enough in service of his reporting that he's entitled to be critical of Tim's baseless slurring of Paul McGeough.

Opinions aren't regulated to the point of lockstep, the way they are at The Sydney Morning Herald. If someone says something ridiculous or absurdly over the top (like the comment you've taken umbrage over) then it'll be dismissed by the readership (as that comment was.) Censorship and/or banning is reserved for serial provocateurs only- not for the thoughtless, or stupid.

Byron, I've been reading this site long enough to know that that is simply not true. It seems to me that anyone who consistently takes a divergent position from Tim or Andrea Harris is systematically banned, no matter how reasonably they express their views.

I could name a bunch of commenters who fall into that category who aren't here any more.

I can't think of any counterexamples. Can you?

Ha ha ha! How about you, Peter?

..that he can't name a date means it's obviously bullshit?...

It certainly contributes to that conclusion. If McGeough names a date, he risks Allawi coming up with an alibi.

Peter, you may be correct.

However this site uses resources owned by Andrea. Therefore she has the right to ban any number of commentators she wishes. She could even turn off comments if she wanted.

The main problem is not the more polite commentators such as yourself, but ranters such as "Steve" above, who never seem to do anything except make adhominem attacks on other posters and Tim.

...it seems to me that anyone who consistently takes a divergent position from Tim or Andrea Harris is systematically banned, no matter how reasonably they express their views. I can't think of any counterexamples. Can you?...

Sure. Steve and Miranda, right here on this thread.

...Tim's baseless slurring of Paul McGeough....

Where exactly has Tim "slurred" Paul? Tim's post has the following statements:

Zeyad at Healing Iraq reported on July 1:
This rumour has now reached the Sydney Morning Herald’s Paul McGeough:
The ABC has more:
Strong enough for a major SMH piece.

I can't see a slur there. Unless you are suggesting Tim doubting Paul's story is the equivalent of a slur?

Please.

Gday Quentin - mate I only make defensive attacks ... if they're occasinally pre-emptive, so what? I'll do anything to guarantee my way of life.

And plus anyway, Sortelli said I didn't wear pants. That hurt my feelings.

Good word abhominieem ... whatever.

And you're defending Tim? The greatest ranting sledger in blog-space? C'mon man ... it is called Spleenville.

It's not Niceville, or BalancedDiscourseVille ... we're here to vent baby.

Steve is hilarious, I tell him I have two unnamed sources that say he's too dumb to put on pants, and he goes "Hmm, who to believe on matters in Iraq, McGoo or you?" I didn't know McGoo was writing about Iraq AND Steve's pants!

I better hurry and turn in my piece, "STEVE TOO DUMB TO PUT ON PANTS", before McGoo turns in his counter-piece "MAN SMART ENOUGH TO WEAR PANTS BELIEVES EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT IRAQ". Then I will be able to claim that Iraq was a distraction! A distraction from the WAR ON STEVE'S PANTS!!!!

Ha ha ha! "Sure you know stuff but" could be the next "all your base". Oh! I just found a third unnamed source to verify my claim about Steve, too. He doesn't remember what day he saw Steve struggle with the concept of pants, but he was approached independently of the other sources so IT MUST BE TRUE.

Hey Quentin! Sortelli's hurting my feelings again.

Might Andrea axe him?

Who's Andrea? Like God?

..why you more worried that McGeough's hanging the informants out to dry in pursuit of a Pulitzer than the recently installed leader of this country just shot 7 people in the head?...

Because I don't believe his story. I've read McGeough's articles in the SMH and heard him on the ABC and his consistent anti-US, anti-Australia bias shines through, every time. He could hardly have any other stance, working for those two.

Journalists do put their lives on the line in war zones and in uncovering the 'dark underbelly' of our societies. I am very glad we have a free press and have men and women willing to bring us news we should be aware of, even at the cost of their lives.

...wrote Chris, in a good post.

Oh, they're willing all right. Journalists secretly love it when one of their number is killed. It boosts their profession's bravery index: "I'm a journalist, too, you know. I could be killed just for reporting the news. If I went to Iraq, instead of being stuck here reporting traffic accidents, I'm as good as dead. I'm a heroic reporter."

This is why when a journalist is killed it's banner headline stuff. Reporters boost their personal bravery, and that of the profession generally, by reporting the incident at length, generallly publishing a list of reporters killed 'in action' since year dot, including, especially, East Timor 30 years ago.

Anyway, it can't be all that dangerous. Robert Fiske and John Pilger survive.

He might be anti-US as you say ... but if he's not lieing (you think he's actively lieing?) and this leader of Iraq did shoot people in the head ...

I mean, you fair dinkum think McGeough has an anti-US agenda that strong that he'd ... make up this stuff?

Hey Quentin! Sortelli's hurting my feelings again.

Hey, you asked for it Steve.

Steve, no one is accusing Paul of lying (see, that's how you spell it).

We are arguing that he has been taken in by a rumour that has been going around Iraq for some weeks, because his personal opinion on the Iraq issue has made him more willing to believe it.

...I mean, you fair dinkum think McGeough has an anti-US agenda that strong that he'd ... make up this stuff?...

Yep. Just like Piers Morgan, Joe Wilson, and yourself. Concepts like truth and honesty have no meaning for the Left- as you're proving, with every post.

Steve, stop this baseless slurring of my informants. If you wear pants what do you have to hide? But as it stands, I now have four people who are giving me very detailed accounts of your problem, including descriptions the pimples on your rump. Besides, I have TWICE as many informants as McGorge, which makes my story TWICE as true! This is a serious matter, I'm sure you agree. And it will be believed by many people, not because of any basis in truth, but because it fits their preconceived world view.

Sorta like you with McGouge. Scary, huh?

Andrea, could I propose 'Steve', for banning?

He's too thick to realise we're making fun of him, and we're getting bored. All the best, Byron

"Australian Greens leader Bob Brown has called on Prime Minister John Howard to explain his role in the promotion of Dr Allawi."

It was Howard's fault people. Coulda been worse, though. Being lined up against a wall by Bob Brown... now there's a blood-curdling thought.

Will Bob Brown apologise if the allegations are found to be untrue?

I have two unnamed sources that say Bob Brown eats puppies.

Also, what does Bob want Howard to say?

"Yes, Bob, you see, I knew all along that this guy like to shoot prisoners and pistol-whip inmates, that's why I worked behind the scenes to elevate him to this position..."

What I'd like to see:

"Australian Greens leader Bob Brown has been called on by the Prime Minister John Howard to explain his role in the protection of Mr Saddam Hussein's regime."

The main problem is not the more polite commentators such as yourself, but ranters such as "Steve" above, who never seem to do anything except make adhominem attacks on other posters and Tim.

Um, Quentin, it's funny you should say that. I have been banned before, under a number of different names, for making comments no more controversial, and no less polite than I have made here. Having made that revelation, I guess this is goodbye!

Sure. Steve and Miranda, right here on this thread.

I believe Miranda has already been banned on this thread. And I dare say that Steve will be too ... unless this attention saves him.

Any response from Brown to this, Quentin?

RAMADI, Iraq (Reuters) - Insurgents shot and killed a Jordanian truck driver in western Iraq (news - web sites) on Saturday and then gouged out his eyes and left his body lying by the side of the road, witnesses and police said. The driver, identified as Ayid Nassir, a Jordanian father of two, was carrying supplies from Amman to Baghdad when he was attacked outside the town of Ramadi, 65 miles west of Baghdad, at about 6 a.m. (2200 EDT Friday).

Oh, thank you Peter. You're really sticking up for a stand up fellow, there.

I just can't trust a guy who says he's been banned under a number of different names and uses a fake e-mail address. I can't quite put my finger on why, though. . .

..and I dare say that Steve will be too ... unless this attention saves him...

Well, I hope not.

I think Australia's premier blog deserves higher IQ trolls, don't you?

By: McGeough's got more journalist awards than Tim Blair's got people who think he's a twat. If you can't see over your own anti-Left bias, and believe everything that comes out of our PM's and Dubya's gob, despite all the bullshit they've spun over the last few years, then there's no talking to you. I'd believe McGeough before Howard and Bush. I mean ... McGeough never said he had evidence that Saddam had WMDs or links with Al Queda ... i mean these things ARE NOT TRUE ... retraction for the govt? No. We believed it then, and have no regrets. Fair enough, I suppose, though the tens of thousands of dead people and their families might beg to differ.

McGeough's hunch, garnered over 30 years in the field, (a fuck of a lot more than the fat bastard who edits this site) have given him an inkling that this is true.

Quentin: McGeough ... how do you know he wants to believe it? You can't know that, you don't know the bloke - hell, he's a hugely respected journalist doing incredible things in Iraq, he's on the street, not being fed bullshit from a bunker ... and if his reports have an anti-US slant ... well. So what?

Sorty: "Ha ha ha!" - now that's argument baby. What's your follow-up. Nya nya? Followed with a rapier-witted nya? How old are ye? 11?

Ban me. This site's fuckin shit.

Sortelli -- it's hopeless. Steve is one of those trolls that either moves the goalposts or just ignores your comments. You know, a sort of Nerf Troll, where things bounce off him, and he mutters on, ignorant of the worl about him.

So go ahead and publish, there by exposing the secrets behind Steve doesn't wear pants.

Peter -- the usual threshold for Andrea banning someone is that they are trolls.

Andrea is pretty reasonable about the matter. I don't recall her banning someone simply because they disagreed. The person was banned because they were a troll. Maybe they disagreed while behaving like a troll, but that's their problem. Or yours, if your statement about being banned under other names is true.

... McGeough never said he had evidence that Saddam had WMDs or links with Al Queda ... i mean these things ARE NOT TRUE ...

Says who, Steve? Saddam did have WMDs.

See, this is the trouble with your side. You read McGeough, listen to the ABC, and at the end of the day, you're uninformed. And then you visit online forums like Spleenville, make a fool of yourself, and can't understand why everyone's laughing at you. It really is tragic and we, as compassionate conservatives, have to do something about it. I know that's why I'm here- to assist the pathologically uninformed, like yourself, and show you the truth is not something you should be frightened about. Now, we've cleaned up your misunderstandings about WMDs, and McGeough's 'credibility'.

What else do you need help with?

i take my dogs for 'walkleys' most days... no big deal...

McGeough never said he had evidence that Saddam had WMDs or links with Al Queda ... i mean these things ARE NOT TRUE

Except for the sarin shells and the contacts with Al Qaeda, yeah, those things aren't true!

Let me dumb this down for you, Steve, follow along in your coloring book.

There is absolutely no reason to believe McGeough's report. He has provided no compelling evidence, just his credentials and Super Extra Top Secret "witnesses", which don't mean shit. The Clinton death list conspiracy theories (and the current Bush versions) have more to go on than just the word of two faceless people claiming they saw the Iraqi PM shoot people. Allawi needs to kill some more people before he can even compare to the leaders of the free world. You are a fucking moron to believe this off hand simply because it suits your ill-informed agenda. The story about Allawi could possibly be true, but given what has been presented here and the manner in which it has been presented, I see no reason to consider it. So far the only people to believe it are either 1) Glad to see more arabs get shot because they're bloodthirsty fuckers, or 2) Glad to see more arabs get shot because it can be used to undermine their political enemies. The motivations of the believers speak volumes about their characters.

PS- Just to dumb it down EVEN FURTHER for you, Steve: The sarin shells found in Iraq are not huge weapons stockpiles, nor were they an "imminent threat". But the case for war was not based on "imminent threat" (despite the liars who claim otherwise), it was based on Saddam's failure to comply with the UN. The sarin shells are hard evidence that Saddam was not complying and had no intention of EVER complying with the UN. "WMD were found in Iraq" IS a true statement. Saddam had no connections to the 9-11 attack, nor has the Bush Administration ever claimed that he did, despite Michael Moore's use of dishonest editing to imply otherwise and the lies of other media figures who want to make you believe that Bush said something he didn't. However, Iraq did have ties to Al Qaeda, just like every other Islamic dictatorship does. Saddam was secular, but made plays at religion to win support, and whatever their differences, Al Qaeda and Saddam had a common enemy in the West. Despite how the NYT spun the story, the 9-11 commision DID FIND that there were connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda even if Saddam had no hand in 9-11. Therefore the statement that "Iraq had ties to 9-11" IS ALSO TRUE. I hope that this useful education helps you with your pants problems.

Crap, no, the statement that Iraq had ties to 9-11 is FALSE. The statement that Iraq had ties to AL QAEDA is true. Frikkin' slip ups always ruin a good rant.

... and if his reports have an anti-US slant ... well. So what?...

So, he's biased. And he shouldn't be.

Understand?

..frikkin' slip ups always ruin a good rant...

Stay frosty, Sort! That was a *top rant.* (:^D) Cheers, By

Zees dog mr roscoe, you Pullitzer head thisa way and a'that, and it no obey, eh?

My cat, Oscar - she have Nobel and her Tony feet, they silent... She killsa many a'birds! Ha ha.

Thata Martha Stewart sent to prison, eh? MTV for her for a while, you know what I a'mean!

...AFI continue, will I be a'banned a'too? No matter - I Logie, I log off...

Thanks, Byron! Hey Silvio, say hi to Qaddafi for me.

Andrea is pretty reasonable about the matter. I don't recall her banning someone simply because they disagreed. The person was banned because they were a troll.

Andrea's definition of a troll is simply a person who argues an opposing point of view. If you take an opposing point of view, and a bunch of tim-ophants piles on, and you do nothing more than respond to what they address to you, you are, according to Andrea, a troll.

The only way to take a dissenting point of view on this site and not end up labelled a troll is to ignore everything that is said to or about you in response to your post. If you respond - and particularly if you respond in kind, you are labelled a troll.

By responding to you like this, rather than just letting the matter drop, I would be, according to Andrea, trolling.

On the other hand, no one is ever banned for agreeing with Tim's or Andrea's prejudices, no matter how abusive they become, and no matter how many posts they make.

Please don't feel the need to explain to me how it's her site and she can do what she likes. No one disputes that (although inquiring minds do tend to wonder why Tim, who presumably earns a decent living from his column and his motoring journalism, has his bandwidth paid for by a person who, according to her own blog, doesn't always find it easy to make ends meet). Just don't try to tell me it's even handed or amounts to anything more principled than getting rid of people who don't buy the party line.

Sortelli:

Qaddafi?

Muammar? Da. Ba-deep-a-deepie.

hi TIM, i hope you check out someday
MICHAELMOOREHATESAMERICA.COM
click on filmmakers journey...

for any non believers about iraq,and STOPPING
an INSANE MAN,go to IRAQTHEMODEL.BLOGSPOT.COM
3 brothers who are living it right now and then.
and many other links who are now blogging.
thank you and peace to everyone!!!
p.s. michael moore sucks!!!
moorewatch.com
moorelies.com
mooreexposed.com

...Andrea's definition of a troll is simply a person who argues an opposing point of view...

Horse hockey, Pete.

Check Jeff's troll link, above: it describes "Steve's" posting style, to a T.

Byron - would you say that my posts on this thread make me a troll?

I ask because they are entirely consistent in tone and style with posts for which Andrea has banned me in the past.

If you visit other Australian blogs, you'll see that there's a fairly active blogging and commenting community of people that virtually never post on this blog. Why? Most have been banned by Andrea.

I ask because they are entirely consistent in tone and style with posts for which Andrea has banned me in the past.

Perhaps you could mention a few of your previous identities so we could go and compare for ourselves? Or better yet, a few links to specific posts you were banned for would be great.

i have only commented here 2 times so far,i hope
you have not talked about me.andrea/minnesota

ok ok ok!! you're NOT a troll... you're a DICKHEAD! happy?

Oh, and...

If you visit other Australian blogs, you'll see that there's a fairly active blogging and commenting community of people that virtually never post on this blog. Why? Most have been banned by Andrea.

Well, good on Andrea for creating an audience for other Aussie blogs. Wouldn't want Tim to corner the market, now would we?

Joking aside, what exactly was your argument supposed to be there? I could go to any random blog and find that many people who comment here don't comment there. I guess they were all banned from those other blogs.

I could go to any random blog and find that many people who comment here don't comment there. I guess they were all banned from those other blogs.

PW - the difference would be that my conclusion is based on direct knowledge, not supposition.

Joking aside, what exactly was your argument supposed to be there? I could go to any random blog and find that many people who comment here don't comment there. I guess they were all banned from those other blogs.

So I'm guessing the people that post "Good find!" at my blog are all exiles from Spleenville?

Hmm...

Ban away, Andrea!

Peter, in all seriousness, are you sure it was you who was specifically banned?

I've found myself banned here before, because I fell into a IP range which was used by a particularly annoying git who went by the handle 'fatfingers'.

the difference would be that my conclusion is based on direct knowledge, not supposition.

Well, do share. Links for some member sites of this "fairly active blogging and commenting community of people that virtually never post on this blog", please?

And don't forget to respond to my other post, I really am curious to read your previous posts that you feel so wronged over. Unless you simply made the whole thing up, in which case I'd be forced to conclude you're full of crap. Well-spoken crap, but crap nonetheless.

(This post is a bit long sorry.) I've just re-read my previous post and realise that it was stated in a Mooreish way in that the opinion is selective and open to misinterpretation. At no time did I intend to offend anyone and I sincerely apologise for any offence taken by it.

I thought that the context of the post showed I was talking about liberal left ideology, not personalities. The sentence about winning a Walkley was intended to be read as –
(ideologically) you have to consistently make the right noises (maintain the liberal left narrative) to the right people (your liberal left peers). I can't imagine a conservative winning a Walkley for showing the conservative angle of a subject.

The broader context of this is that I see most of our influential institutions these days, bar the federal government, are themselves influenced by the liberal left, be they in the media, bureaucracy, arts or academia to name four. Their reference points are always liberal left, - anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Howard, anti-conservatism, pro-Green, pro-elitism, - and dissent is commonly derided. The national broadcaster regularly disdains talkback radio, one of the outlets for the non liberal-left to be heard. Mediawatch is supposed to examine media ethics but is now a platform to rail against op eds that don't follow the liberal left narrative. To me it even explains why The Movie Show rails against censorship of strong content while it dismisses those who disagree as 'religious right'. I've watched as the ABC pursued Pauline Hanson after her maiden speech in Parliament, negatively examining every detail of her and her party, which ultimately fed the broader liberal left group-think that she was a pariah. Yet such negative scrutiny is absent for parties that follow the liberal left narrative like Labor or Greens, or like the Unity Party which was formed in response to One Nation and which is left completely alone with no examination or publicity whatsoever. I've watched as our "quality" media outlets have promoted compassionate causes by chronically labelling Australians as racists, xenophobes and bigots, epithets that good people don't deserve, and without addressing the causes of their concerns.

And that is why I referred to impartiality and truth. For example, instead of simply reporting the unnamed allegations, ABC last night led its news by questioning Allawi’s credibility because of them. That is a political skew, not a report.

The consequences of liberal leftism, like any political ideology, creates winners and losers, yet I’ve found that liberal leftism seldom permits its losers to be taken seriously. It focusses on reinforcing itself by making protaganistic or extreme comparisons. Even history is being rewritten to support its basis.

“’At the heart of liberalism is a profound certainty of itself and of its own superiority, argues (Bhikhu) Parekh. That kind of certainty cannot but lead to some closure of the imagination, a limit to its understanding of whatever is profoundly different from it … the fear and certainty are born out of fear that liberalism is a "rare and delicate way of living that is out of accord with normal human behavior," and thus always in danger from the forces of barbarianism. The two-sided tragedy of liberalism is that it doesn't know its own limits, and neither does it know its own strength. If it knew both of these, it would find the self-confidence and humility to understand and learn from those who challenge it.’”
The Guardian
from this link

And to turn the whole thing around...why exactly do you feel the existence of other "commenting communities" outside of Spleenville is a good basis for criticism of Andrea's banning practices? Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. Unless those other communities exist for the sole reason of its members having been banned by Andrea, in which case those people probably need to broaden their horizons a bit if that's all they have in common. (And I don't really think I'd care to read their posts if the only common bond between posters is "We wuz banned by that Harris chick.")

"Just don't try to tell me it's even handed or amounts to anything more principled than getting rid of people who don't buy the party line."

The posters I recall getting banned were people who didn't answer questions, didn't stick to the topic, and expected/demanded that *their* point be replied to. It was difficult for others to have a meaningful discussion because they'd go off on tangents.

One great thing about the net is that there are all sorts of blogs. If a person feels a need to express whatever and is banned here, there are scores of other blogs to be tried.

Couple of questions for those still reading along:

1. Anyone come up with some references to support the claim that Allawi was a Ba'athist assassin?

2. How is it defaming someone to doubt a story?

(Just because someone has won awards and may be considered great in their field doesn't mean they are above being questioned.)

3. Are journalists unaccustomed to being placed 'under the microscope' and questioned as is being done here? Is the questioning and commenting, by the public, a shock?

PW - I don't particularly want to open myself to a charge of hijacking the thread by continuing to debate this topic. It would be easy enough for you to find all the information you seek, if you really care. And if you can't work it out for yourself, let me know and I'll email you the links you need. But I'm guessing that you don't really care that much.

Quentin - in all seriousness, yes. Several times!

"They say Dr Allawi told onlookers the victims had each killed as many as 50 Iraqis and they "deserved worse than death".

If this is true, then I seriously doubt that the criminals that received bullets in their heads were "victims".

PW - the difference would be that my conclusion is based on direct knowledge, not supposition.

Let me guess, direct knowledge from a couple of unnamed witnesses?

Seriously though your suggestion that people are banned just because they disagree is hopelessly flawed, no matter how you try and spin it Peter, the evidence is right here in front of everyone, there is plenty of disagreement.
If what you say was true then the people that are disagreeing would be banned after their first clearly contrary post, and thats simply not happening. Thats *real* evidence Peter, its not spin and its not hearsay, which ironically is what this thread is about.

If this is true, then I seriously doubt that the criminals that received bullets in their heads were "victims".

It's not exactly a healthy thing for a new democracy to be led by a man who is judge, jury and executioner all in one, whether those guys were really guilty or not. Even if they were tried and found guilty and sentenced to death ahead of time it seems creepy that the new PM would be their executioner. But beyond that, it's still very much up in the air whether or not Allawi actually did any of this. I can't see any reason why he'd need to personally execute anyone, if he was trying to send a message by doing that it doesn't quite jive with him denying the act. Unless the whole thing really is one big fat rumor that Allawi's letting spread because he wants people to be afraid of him. That still isn't a very pretty thought. But unless some serious evidence comes out, this is all bullshit speculation.

If true, the story is a big deal because it indicates something within the new Iraqi government that would not be accepted in a Western democracy, which is why anti-coalition people like McGeough have a vested interest in making hay out of it. Trying to deny the problem by saying "Hey, that's great, more dead terrorists" is only playing into their hands because they can turn around and use that to smear the pro-liberation side as being bloodthirsty.

It would be easy enough for you to find all the information you seek, if you really care.

Umm, you said you were posting under different names, and presumably not with a real email address. In such a situation, "if you really care" amounts to manually re-reading about 7000 threads. Nice try at shifting the burden of proof, but no thanks. You are the one making a claim here, not me.

And if you can't work it out for yourself, let me know and I'll email you the links you need. But I'm guessing that you don't really care that much.

My email address is valid, go right ahead.

I'm sure it'll be alright if I post the links to this thread for public perusal after you've sent them, if Andrea doesn't mind.

Hmm, on second reading, I guess you were just talking about the links to those other communities that you mentioned. Well, I'd enjoy receiving those links, too. Just don't forget about your posts that led to banning, those are the even more interesting part after all.

McGeough has had to leave Iraq, gee I wonder why.

Could it be his siding with terrorists and the rest of the pinko lefties has finally caught up with him. I mean, people can only tollerate so much bullshit before they take action.

He has absolutely no way of remotely proving these two witnesses even exist yet he claims the world should just believe him. It wouldn't have anything to do with the big pay bonus he'd receive for such a story would it???

Labor's Kevin Rudd says the claims should be taken seriously and further investigated yet Fatso Beazely said today on the Sunday program that we should adopt a wait and see approach and maybe ask the US if they know anything.
It seems already Beazely isn't waiting to consult with his kith and kin on what Mark's view is before he speaks.

Romeo:

Well said and true.

My email address is valid, go right ahead.

Psst...PW, don't let doba-man hear that!

3. Are journalists unaccustomed to being placed 'under the microscope' and questioned as is being done here? Is the questioning and commenting, by the public, a shock?

I think you have hit the nail fair smack on the head Chris. With the readership of blogs like Tim’s and the blogosphere in general skyrocketing to a level that is starting to equal small newspapers, they can't be ignored by the old media any more. Senior journalists like Paul McGeough use to be able to rely on their reputations and their awards to counter any of the occasional allegations of bias and opinion based reporting. But in this day and age with google searches and blogs that can bring together all the journalists stories to easily prove the point that the journo is obviously biased, reporters no longer have that luxury.
You only need to look in this thread to see people trying to defend McGeough's story based on the fact that he has a Walkley, not on the story itself!!

So I think the answer is yes, many journalists are stunned at the way the blogoshere has taken away their ability to write something and have it virtually unquestioned. If their article or investigation is shonky or biased, not only will it be embarrassingly fisked to pieces but it will repeatedly come back to haunt the journo, and no amount of breathless pleading of "but, but, I'm a Walkley winner - you can't question my reporting" is going to make any difference.

If true I'm sure it's a system many governments around the world wish they could emulate.

If it's false. Who and what stand to gain from the lie?

Who and what stand to gain from the lie?

Hint: Starts with IXL, ends with NXS! Oh, the delicious, delicious cud you could chew if it was true, IXLTIT. I'm sure you're just drooling over the possibility, as evidenced by the bizarre way you frame the issue.

I mean, it's not like the Iraqi interim government has any enemies or anything. Right?

You can't be serious IXLNXS. There are many who would gain from descrediting the interim government.

I can't imagine a conservative winning a Walkley for showing the conservative angle of a subject.

Romeo, I'm not sure exactly what would satisfy your criteria, given that most of the Walkley categories are for straight reporting, rather than opinion pieces. But you can see all the 2003 winners at this site:

http://www.walkleys.com/2003/index.htm

One of the striking things about the list is that apart from McGeough's award, the print awards went ovewhelmingly to Murdoch newspapers, which are generally right-leaning.

Major awards went to a series in The Australian that exposed the links between the Bali bombing and Islamic terror organizations, and to The Courier Mail for an investigation into the Queensland court system that lead to the disgrace and imprisonment of the Labor-appointed chief magistrate.

Peter

Still waiting for those links about you being banned?

"If their article or investigation is shonky or biased, not only will it be embarrassingly fisked to pieces but it will repeatedly come back to haunt the journo, and no amount of breathless pleading of "but, but, I'm a Walkley winner - you can't question my reporting" is going to make any difference."

In the long run, this might be part of the cure for the current epidemic of biased news media, a sort of quality control imposed by relentless feedback from the public, or commentaries like this one available for the world to read.

Of course, the ultimate feedback method is revenue, and it's loss or gain. But certainly the individuals are going to watch their steps, lest they have their past mistakes thrown back on the screen.

Accountability is the burden that opposition politicians and Journalists are not continually faced with.
but blogging is ending this long run of free dinners.
And that is surely blogging greatest achievement.
Every day Journos are starting to realise that they can longer rest on their industry bestowed "Awards" and have to face off against "real" readers.
No longer can they just bin readers letters.
It is a form of information democracy sorely which has been needed for decades

I seems to me that if Allawi wanted to "send a message", there would be many more than two shadowy "witnesses", wouldn't there?

There would be TRUCKLOADS of inmates in Iraqi prisons who would receive (and transmit) the message.

If, on the other hand, it were a personal vendetta, then there would be NO witnesses, and it would not be a semi-public execution in prison.

It defies logic that McGeough's reported story could be true, and the duty is upon McGeough to substantiate what he has reported.

"If true, the story is a big deal because it indicates something within the new Iraqi government that would not be accepted in a Western democracy .. "

True. Western democracies only defame, slander, and hound people. Reputations get ruined, families get hurt, but at least we don't kill them outright. (We wait hoping the pressure will cause them to kill themselves?!)

(Above was sort of sarcastic)

I would love to see Iraq move from a tribal thugocracy, where people are tried, convicted and executed on the spot, to having a system where the rights of everyone are guaranteed. I want to see the sort of democracy and system of justice we're familiar with take root in Iraq.

However, how realistic is it that this will happen? Is it possible that Iraq may have to go through a rough period, retaining customs and practices that are anathema to the West, before they see the value of democracy as we know it?

Just playing devil's advocate .. but what if Iraqis prefer to have the sort of justice that Allawi may or may not have carried out? Is it at all possible an action like the one Allawi has been accused of makes the Iraqis feel more secure than our Western justice?

(I'm not applauding or advocating the sorts of actions that Allawi has been accused of. I'm just posing a question I don't have the answer to.)

"I'm not applauding or advocating the sorts of actions that Allawi has been accused of. I'm just posing a question I don't have the answer to."

We gave Iraq their sovereignty. I hope they progress beyond they typical thugocracy, and I expect that they will. But they must select the path to follow -- at best we can only advise them, or keep the other middle east countries off their backs while Iraq sorts this out.

(Note: I do not accept the rumor being discussed in this thread as any but a rumor. I am simply noting that we'll have to let go of Iraq sooner or later....and better sooner than later.)

Just playing devil's advocate .. but what if Iraqis prefer to have the sort of justice that Allawi may or may not have carried out?

I wouldn't know, but this strikes me as a bit of a black and white issue. It's the wrong way to do things, even if there might be some who applaud it. Hell, people on this thread applaud it. I support the death penalty, but I wouldn't be comfortable under a leader who insisted on delivering it personally.

But like Kaboom said, it strikes me as too much of a logical disconnect to be true. Iraq is full of awful rumors, and this one isn't passing my bullshit detector. I hate to even entertain the idea that it might be true because it smells like a ploy to get us to make excuses for it or play moral relativism over murderous tyranny. I can hear IXLPTZ mincing about the threads now: "Oh, tra la la, looks like you are supporting another killer in Iraq! Is Rummy going to shake his hand? Ooo, I like lacey doilies and fluffy pink slippers! La la la!"

Heh, while I'm at it, here would be Steve's reaction to this story being verified:

OH TIM UR FAT AND DUMB! Didnt' you read the NYT mate they said that BUSHLIED!!!!! Har har har kiddies has anyone seen my pants? It seems you know alot but.

Fair dinkum lying about adhomonbums, that's what it is. I only attack defensively, you fat barstand!!!1 Allawai is a pretty level headed shooter man, those twelve unnamed sources were spot on, mate! HAW HAW HAW ANTI COALITSHUN BIAS IS GOOD YE? ABUGHARIB!

*cough* So anyway, I don't think we should be playing at the "what if this is true" level, not with these clowns.

Peter (your current nom de blog, according to yourself):

So, you say the "Walkley" award was given for such things as

"a series in The Australian that exposed the links between the Bali bombing and Islamic terror organizations"

JesusHaroldChrist, man, I don't know what to say about that, other than it is so completely breathtakingly obvious, you would really have to be a PROFESSIONAL FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT to think that writing an article about it deserves an award.

So, what does a "Walkley" do for you, anyway ? Does it put a little fizz in your britches ? Do you get to haul it out to pick up hot totty down at the old Chew'n'Chug ?

Please do tell, I find your hermetic little journalist world quite fascinating, like watching an ant farm.

Steve said McGeough's hunch, garnered over 30 years in the field, (a fuck of a lot more than the fat bastard who edits this site) have given him an inkling that this is true.

30 years. So what? You can still get it wrong. One of Britain's most experienced and respected historians, Lord Dacre, got taken in by the Hitler diaries. Look at Chomsky - denied the Cambodian holocaust for years until his nose got rubbed right in it. People still swear there is greenhouse effect.

In a worldwide scoop, I hereby announce that I have two secret witnesses who can verify that they have seen the Latham bucks party video, which shows Bob Brown giving Mark a headjob. For $10,000 a piece they'll reveal all on LateLine. Should be good for a Walkeley for me, don't you think.

PS: I'm currently in hiding, in fear of my life from ALP goons.

Leaving the McGeough aside, what the hell sort of editor would run this crap? I mean:

Reporter: I've got a great story! Pulitzer stuff! The new PM of Iraq is personally executing prisoners!
Editor: Brilliant! Give me the details!
Reporter: Well, I have stat decs from two Iraqis who were there at the time.
Editor: Right.
Reporter: ...
Editor: That's it? Okay, when and where did this happen?
Reporter: Well, I can't tell you the actual day, but -
Editor: You what?
Reporter: Well, neither of my sources could remember exactly when -
Editor: This was recent, right?
Reporter: Yes, just a couple of weeks ago.
Editor: And these sources of yours can't remember what day they saw the prime minister of their own country personally executing prisoners?
Reporter: No, but -
Editor: And that's it? That's all you've got?
Reporter: But -
Editor: You're fired.

"the McGeough"? Ah, well, type at haste, repent at leisure.

People still swear there is greenhouse effect.

There is. We'd all be dead if there wasn't.

Though that probably wasn't what you meant.

I think we had both the Walkleys and McGeough picked in one a while ago. Why does journalism attract so many mutants with two penises?
They must have- they couldn't have gotten that daft pulling one.

Ofcourse he is a thug and a murderer-he's perfect!
He has spent a fortune on lobbyists in washington to get this gig,and he is our thug!
We know that he bombed Iraq in the nineties because he whinged when the CIA short paid him,so he's our kind of guy.
Sort of like pinochet rolled into that saigon police chief with a soupcon of papa doc-negroponte will be excited!
What kind of democrocy will this be?
The US free trade model-MK 17.
model.

That "saigon police chief" had his brother's family executed a few hours beforehand by Victor Charlie during the Tet Offensive- I can't blame him for wanting some summary justice; BTW the VC shot in the photo was a non-uniformed illegal combatant, and liable to summary execution under the GC. What's your point, One Nut? Bit hard to be taken seriously when you're the worst fish-shop in town- only one cod left.

Habib - being an unlawful combatant does not render a person liable for summary execution under the Geneva Convention. What it means is that the person is not entitled to the various specific protections afforded prisoners of war. The GC still obliges signatory states to treat unlawful combatants humanely. I think most legal scholars would agree that that does not include summary execution.

Sortelli said:

"...So anyway, I don't think we should be playing at the "what if this is true" level, not with these clowns."

You put this well, in your usual fashion. The real issue remains McGeough's lack of evidence for his accusation, which puts him and the SMH under the category of "rumor mongers", until proven otherwise.

Well, hello, guys! Sorry to break into this so late, but for the time being I am stuck using a primitive dialup and the computer equivalent of a stone tablet and a chisel to get on this internut thingie. I see that we have a little troll problem here. But before I go on, let me answer Troll Steve's question:

Who's Andrea? Like God?

Well, yes actually.

And I must address Tr. Peter: like Quentin and the others, I eagerly await these links to 1) comment threads containing the reasonable, civilized discourse from you that you claimed I cruelly and ruthlessly banned you for, and 2) blogs where the sad, heart-broken community of Those Banned From Spleenville congregate. And please, since you brought the subject up, I am giving you PERMISSION to post on the matter here. Another "oh no I wouldn't want to be accused of hijacking the discussion" comment from you will be henceforth marked down as EVIDENCE that you are a coward and a liar.

Oh yeah -- I've banned little Stevie's IPs. That is the sort of trolling I ban people for. In case you were confused.

Tim Blair rapes cows

"Accountability is the burden that opposition politicians and Journalists are not continually faced with. but blogging is ending this long run of free dinners."

Accountability?!?!?! Give this apparently banned "irrelevant little shit" a break please. Who the fuck holds you creeps accountable for anything?

And, ask Timbo about his annual dinners for that well known *union*, the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance, that puts on the Walkleys. That's how Tim pays his dues. He forks out for the Walkley once a year to hob-nob with the hoi-polloi.

Been to Iraq lately, Tim? Seen the situ on the ground, blog-fuhrer? What didya argue with McGeogh about at last year's shindig? Do you have an axe to grind cos he's won gold and you're still the equivalent of journalistic copperart, here with your vanity publication complete with cheers squad? Are the ads working?

You blog sheep have your heads so far up your own collective arses you think you're performing some sort of community service here. You guys are a laughing stock.

As for Iraq, I see another 10 dead from a US air strike on a house, straight outa the IDF handbook that one. Apparently it was all "authorised" by your man Allawi. Finally some legitimacy for the carnage after all these months.

Now that is a troll, folks!

Miranda, I guess you are stuck at some low level of adolescence. That would explain why you make so many mistakes.

"Accountability?!?!?! Give this apparently banned "irrelevant little shit" a break please. Who the fuck holds you creeps accountable for anything?"

Well, first of all, we don't make the habit of publishing stories that accuse people of crimes without serious evidence. And I have seen this happen here -- when people start heading down the road of making wild (even crazy) accusations, other people correct them. Or disagree. Or they are rightfully ignored. This site is, hmmmmm, semi-self correcting, thanks to the responsible people that frequent it, enough to counterbalance the trolls.

Second, this is a blog, not a major newspaper or TV station. It's the electronic equivalent of a bunch of people discussing politics at the local bar. Are you going to start proctoring alcohol-based discourse at your local pub? If you behave there like you do here, wear running shoes, else you will get a boot up your butt -- and rightly so.

As for Tim going to the Walkleys award ceremony -- so what? He makes his living from journalism; dinners, meetings, and conventions of like minded people are quite common. IMHO, that he chooses to dine with the publicans and sinners is none of our business. Unless, of course, he has a good story or two!

"Been to Iraq lately, Tim? Seen the situ on the ground, blog-fuhrer?"

Chickenhawk time! Have you been to Iraq, Miranda? Seriously. Have you? If not, avoid this line of questioning -- it destroys what little credibility you never had.

"You blog sheep have your heads so far up your own collective arses you think you're performing some sort of community service here. You guys are a laughing stock."

I don't think that I am performing a community service here. I surf here to participate in reasonable discussions. If there were a bar, I'd buy a beer to lubricate the synapses. If people want to jump in (or not), that's their call. This is hardly the hallmark of "community service" (which I routinely perform, Miranda, so I know the difference).

'As for Iraq, I see another 10 dead from a US air strike on a house, straight outa the IDF handbook that one. Apparently it was all "authorised" by your man Allawi. Finally some legitimacy for the carnage after all these months. '

Actually, Allawi was selected by the Iraq Governing Council, and subsequently endorsed (although not enthusiastically) by the United Nations and United states. You know -- Iraqi sovereignity? Self-rule? Freedom? Is that what you and your brethern wanted? It's happening, just not in the manner that would suit you.

And I hope that, by whining about the latest Fallujah airstrike, that you aren't endorsing all of the car bombs, rocket/mortar attacks, machine gunning, assassinations, and ambushes conducted by the terrorists that have killed/injured thousands of Iraqis.

I wouldn't want to think that you're just another troll that supports terrorists and murderers.

Hmm, normally Miranda Divide does a single driveby post, never to be seen in the same comment thread.

These several posts are something of an anomaly for her, so I am presuming that she is resting up at home now that the troopships have left the harbor.

Miranda, don't forget extra pillows for your arse end, my dear.

And gargle with something sweet and lemony.

Mirander had credibility? Who knew? (And look, this should make david happy -- she's back, and dissenting! Happy now, david?)

Look, "peter," Miranda's right there, what, 3 posts up? And Steve--well, Steve was some kind of amazing hothouse plant, sheltered from actual news, from what I could tell of his "discourse."

If I had the energy, I'd ask Andrea to set me up my own blog, so I could write about the one icon in "Jewel Quest" looking startlingly like Charlize Theron duded up as Aileen Wournos in "Monster."

However, I'm as lazy as a journalist, so that's not gonna happen.

Just say the word, ushie! It will take about five seconds to create the necessary folders and links. Oops -- I forgot, I'm on a primitive computer. It will take about five minutes then.

NOTE FOR ANDREA,

Just a little note in support of continuing to let Miranda Divide post and against banning her in future. She has genuine amusement value - sort of like a faeces flinging monkey (my sons really like that sort of thing).

She is the pure embodiment of a particular class of troll - worthy of being dissected for study as a Linnaetic ideal. Since nobody actually takes her seriously she doesn't seem to be doing any harm. Of course it is your server and you have the right to take her down if faeces flinging monkeys are not your thing.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Miranda is a boil upon the face of the world and must be DESTROYED! Andrea, BAN THIS DISSENTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Bob Brown can blow me... No wait! He would like that... yuk!

Andrea posts from the world's slowest pc: "Just say the word, ushie! It will take about five seconds to create the necessary folders and links. Oops -- I forgot, I'm on a primitive computer. It will take about five minutes then."

Oh, maaaaan...tempted by the Queen of Spleen...vs. my being as lazy as the chief correspondent for the WaPo in Iraq...

I noticed, Andrea, that Miranda was back.(
And very convincingly refuted by Jeffs.)
Does his/her presence do any harm to this blog? I don't think so.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BAN ALL PPL WHO DEFEND MIRANDA

Using the Peter Theory, as described in this thread, YOU ARE ALL TO BE BANNED FOR DISSENTING

I would like Miranda to stay.
She is saying things outright that the SMH and the ABC would dearly love to be blatant about but can't.
I find her hatred clarifying. She helps me to understand the inuendo and hostility that is so prevalent as a subtext in my news diet. Besides Jeffs rebuttal was worth her trollism.

WHAT IS WRONG WHY HAS NO ONE BEEN BANNED FOR DEFENDING MIRANDA YET?

has peter lied to me?!?!?!?

$100 says this reporter's sources are the "minders" his newspaper had during Saddam's reign. He's probably not embarrassed to admit that he submits stories on the word of Ba'athists, it's just that they've probably convinced him it's legit. There's a reason most reporters don't engage in rocket science.

By the way, I leave the moonbats up at my own site. I find it tends to clarify the issues when people see the types who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them.

"Is it just another leftie character-assassination?"

YES. Allawi is a DOCTOR. One Iraqi blogging wag said that Iraq has gone from the butcher to the doctor.

Check out my blog, I'll add more links on Allawi, he's getting a bum rap. This overhyped fake-rumor 'story' is just a part of the media dizinformation machine.

Here's the link:
Liberating Iraq blog

Hey Dudes,

As an American I am real pleased to see some decent commentary coming from this site. Man, I was thinking you dudes were all gonna cut and run, and ruin the liberation, and imposition of democracy, of our friends the I-raqi people.

So it is certainly refreshing to find here all the thoughtful responses to those pinko surrender-monkey, terrorist-lovin' peaceniks pushing that just because there wasn't any WMD and the place is a total shitfight, that we shouldn't stay the course and complete the mission of delivering democracy to the I-raqi people so starved of it by the mass-murdering dictator.

America really appreciates the fact that you Aussies supported this war against terror. We were a bit surprised that you did pull out most of your troops immediately after the fall of Bagdad, though. Did you really think that making peace and democracy would be that easy? Apparently that was a requirement of your Premier to support for the war - that you would pull most of your troops out after a couple of months, so he could have a victory parade for his re-nomination. We agreed because we knew it would only take a couple of months to win - boy we did it in style in 5 weeks!

Now though, millions of Al Qaeda terrorists have come from all them other dictatorships nearby, causing this current insurgent terrorism, and we Americans are left to try and clean up their mess, pretty much by ourselves. I guess that always has been our role anyway - certainly was in WW1, WW2, Korea, 'Nam and GW1.

As a matter of fact, you Aussies really should be sending a lot more troops and planes and tanks and weapons and money to help if your really serious about fighting the war on terror. I am informed that you have kept just 1 troop in Afganistan. You can't be serious! Goddam, why did we sign that Free Trade Agreement, anyway.

Your Premier Howard has about 150 troops an I-raq and 1 in Afganistan and he talks about staying the course, and finishing the job! He has already cut and run, let's face it!

It's also good that you dudes know how to dump on reporters, too. Man, aint they just the lowest of the low, them reporters. Them photos at Al Gurib (Gurab, Graub - we need to make these names easier, goddam) was just a few happy snaps till them pesky reporters got hold of them!

The worst ones are the award-winning freelance dudes. They are traitors if they print anything against the Americans, or our friends, and should be treated as such. I only ever trust the honest, embedded Fox News guys, who report with true impartiality and balance, just like we tell 'em.

So dudes, keep up the thoughtful posts, keep winning the hearts and minds of the Aussies, and get enlisted today, and come join the fight with your great and powerful buddies, us! 'Cos now we fixed I-raq, we move on to I-ran, then Jordan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and China. Let's together impose democracy via our M16's on these helpless, downtrodden peoples, and remove their murderous dictators.

And if any of these helpless downtrodden I-raqis, who are escaping the mass-murdering dictator, happen to land on your doorstep, either lock 'em up or turn 'em round and let 'em drown.

Your grateful ally,

Jake W Hawk

What a boring, tedious troll post that was, fake Jake. I had to struggle to stay awake after the first sentence. I'm afraid your going to have to repeat your Sarcasm 101 class.

Also, next time you want to pretend to be an American, you might a) want to read some American blogs so your next attempt at our strange argot doesn't come off as stiff and forced, and b) not sign with your Australian email addy. (Which is tdaunt@bigpond.net.au, by the way. Be sure to forward all your ViAg*ra and Hot!Sexy!Grandmas! spam to him.)

You Americans are so tiresome and boorish. Especially the sows.

Ooh, Petrov, welcome to the wonderful world of the banned! Otherwise known as Pathetic Loserland.