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.

Thursday, August 09, 2007


The upcoming visit by US President George W. Bush is set to cost Australians $169 million in security costs alone not to mention the cost of all the other goodies like dinners and barbies at Kirribilli House that will be piled on for Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s best mate.

One wonders what Australians are likely to get in return for all their hard-earned being spent on him. One ought not be holding ones breath for the kind of walk-about from the President that the Albanians were treated to when he visited there back in June this year. After all, all it cost the President on that trip was his watch!

All up it’s likely to cost Aussie taxpayers well over $200 million – especially now that Bush has mysteriously decided to bring his visit forward by a couple of days, throwing Sydney into utter chaos and likely to cost another $50 odd million.

Australians should be outraged at this wanton expenditure of money when we have so many other far more pressing uses for that money.


Daniel said...

In Australia now, the place where, under Howard, the battlers have never had it so good, the poor now have to eat the rotten tomatoes and therefore are deprived of missiles!

Then, under the I.R. Laws, they have been deprived of many things.


Anonymous said...

The $169 million is not for the protection of Bush. It covers all the security and surveillence activities around APEC where 22 leaders will come to Australia.

Damian Lataan said...

Most of the other 21 leaders don't need any protection. Some often come here privately and quite happily go shopping around the place without anyone realising who they are or even knowing they were here.

So, lets say around a million for the other leaders and $168 million for Bush. Spin it whatever way you like Donny, it's still too much money just to look after 22 people.

Anonymous said...

Most of the other 21 do need protection? Just which 12 of the 22 leaders do you believe don't need any protection at all?

Damian Lataan said...

Read it again, Donny. What I said was:
'MOST of the other 21 leaders DON'T (That's DON'T, not DO as you've written) need any protection.'

I haven't got a clue where you got the figure '12' from.

Don't bother me again with your obfuscating and time-wasting garbage.

Anonymous said...

The number 12 is "most" of 22 - at least the lowest that most could be.

Typo was mine and should have been 'don't'.

Damian Lataan said...

Donny, you didn't read the last bit of my post which went like this:
"Don't bother me again with your obfuscating and time-wasting garbage."

Pedantic obfuscation wastes my time. Go away and be a pain somewhere else.

paul walter said...

$170 mil, eh? Plus $190 mill for porn filters, hundreds of millions for advertising,more for buggering up indigenes and the tas health system. And that's without even scratching my head. won't go into defence procurement, etc.
butthey can't find a buck for the "profligate" states for dinkum infrastructure spending

Damian Lataan said...

...not a red cent it seems Paul. But, talking of defence for a moment, they can find well over $500 million for 59 Abrams tanks though nobody seems to know what exactly we're going to do with them. They could be usd to defend Kirribilli but they do tend to chew up the lawn a bit.

Fungus the Photo! said...

Spending money is what our governments do. OK I agree that the security is over the top and will be used by the fascist as a Liberal advert for strong government. But it is I hope, mainly going to Aussies? Who may pay tax etc? And there may be a tourism boost if it all goes well?
I can even partly justify the laudghable airport security: it keeps the wage slaves involved off the streets. And even Islamic sheeple seem to have a blow-out occasionally. The only genuine one since 2001 was Glasgow and possibly 31/7 London.

Anonymous said...

No I just thought some of the comments a bit naive . Such as, the one
about the$170 mill not being spent only on Bush.
Well, what this writer wants to know, really, is what is so important
about a herd of pompous politicians and their lackeys sitting around making
boring speeches, that requires any real money, let alone this sort of money,
in a world of real needs?
What can be done here that requires this sort of wastage, that couldn't be
done with a few mobile phones and some conferencing equipment?
Meanwhile, a whole city of real people trying to get on with their lives is
ground to a halt for a pack of egocentric attention-seekers trying to
demonstrate to us how significant they are.
Ps re your other post concerning absent friends, reckon you are right about
Ramsay.Wonder if anyone watched the Jeff Mullet " Insight" sort of thingo
on unions last night. Roskam is the visual manifestation of them. Noisy,
dishonest, abusive, superficial, arrogant.