THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Monday, July 03, 2006


In the light of the Sydney Morning Herald’s revelations today, it seems that Australia didn’t got to war against Saddam Hussein because he had WMDs and was an immediate threat to the world including Australia despite Downer having told the Australian Parliament that: “While our concern about Saddam Hussein is not new, it is now more immediate. His regime's actions remain a matter of great and growing concern to the international community including Australia.”[1] It seems that the real reason for going to war against Iraq was because it was the only way Australia could guarantee our lucrative wheat trade with a post-invasion Iraq without losing it to the Americans.[2]
This all goes to prove, again, what a great liar Downer is. On the very eve of war, Downer was telling Australians that the French were not backing the UN in favour of going to war for ‘political reasons’[3] implying that Australia’s motives for joining in with the US were for reasons of principle. Turns out that nothing could be further from the truth! And doesn’t that sound like a familiar story as far as Alexander Downer is concerned. Downer’s one-let out for his lies, that he had been mistaken due to being ill-advised and ill-informed, has just been shot down in flames.
History will not be kind to these liars and deceivers.

[1] Alexander Downer, Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Parliament House, Canberra, 17 September 2002. Available online: Accessed 3 July 2006.
[2] Richard Baker, ‘Revealed: how Downer waged war with US to protect Iraq wheat trade’, Sydney Morning Herald, 3 July 2006. Available online: Accessed 3 July 2006.
[3] Alexander Downer, Transcript; 2GB interview with Philip Clarke, 19 March 2006. Available online: Accessed 3 July 2006.


Anonymous said...

"This all goes to prove, again, what a great liar Downer is"

Wouldn't this prove how poor a liar Downer is? A great liar would have covered his tracks better and not been caught out!

Damian Lataan said...

You are probably right. I guess it's just a matter of context - you think maybe no to so good as to be 'great', while I think 'great' as in big and does a lot of it!