DFAT head Michael Costello weighs in on the Gang of 43, while Peter Rogers (former Australian ambassador to
Israel) writes to The Age about why he now regreta putting his name to the petition.
More strong stuff on the Gang of 43 in The Australian today, this time from former Beazley chief of staff and DFAT head Michael Costello. He wrote:

“Last Sunday a group of 43 former very senior military
officers, diplomats and senior public servants published a statement
calling for truth in government. Their statement was quite reasonably
interpreted by the media and by the public as an accusation that the
Prime Minister had lied to the Australian people, when he said that he
believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

“Before we look at the substance of whether this accusation is correct
or not, let’s look at how the authors of the statement were treated.

“The usual suspects engaged in the personal abuse of the 43. A lot of
the abuse was directed to peoples’ age. Apparently this disqualifies
them from wise judgement. Tell that to Winston Churchill who became
prime minister of Britain at the age of 65. Tell it to John Howard who
is older than many of the signatories. Was this a secret plot by Peter
Costello? It is ridiculous. If you are good enough you are young
enough. Age has nothing to do with it.

“One of the more curious suggestions repeatedly made by Howard himself
was that, since all but one of the signatories had left office prior to
September 11, they did not understand the new strategic situation.
There is a bit of a problem with this argument. Howard, in an answer to
a question in parliament on this matter on August 9, quoted me in
support of his case. Lo and behold, on the very same day, so did Lord
Downer. This is not the first time they have used me as an authority on
Iraq. But I left public service in 1996, well before September 11,
sacked as head of the Department of Foreign Affairs by Howard himself.
So if my pre-September 11 career does not disqualify me as an
authority, why should it disqualify these others…”

Read the full debate here: Michael Costello: War doubters let PM off the hook

Meanwhile, in case you missed Michelle Grattan’s shock at the reaction
to the 43 by Alex and his droogs, sorry, the Prime Minister’s attack
dogs De-Anne Kelly and Warren Enstsch, have a look at:

“The PM has struggled to respond effectively to this
letter, which has generated a lot of heat from those on both sides of
the Iraq debate.

“Apart from dealing with the letter’s substantial allegations – in
particular that the Government misled Australians as it took the nation
into the Iraq war – Howard has sought to discredit the writers.

“He didn’t go as far as parliamentary secretaries De-Anne Kelly (who
called them “doddering daiquiri diplomats”) or Warren Entsch (who
labelled them “disgruntled old men”). But he did make a point of saying
that only one was in his position when the terrorists struck on
September 11.

“Howard’s point was weak. The world changed on September 11, 2001, but
not to the extent that people who operated in the earlier period are
incapable of thinking through issues.

“The PM’s problem is that there are plenty among the “disgruntled old
men” (Latham pointed out that a dozen of them are younger than Howard)
who were willing to bite back when attacked. They’d dealt with plenty
of politicians in their old jobs.”

Grattan seems to be becoming a bit of an activst herself in her own way. Have a look at the full item here:

The Age – In the shadow of the election, Iraq haunts Howard

And don’t miss these two, either:

The Age – Tangled web ensnares PM
The Age – Not happy, John: angry outsiders take on Howard

Great letters and the 43 has-beens

By Peter Rogers, former Australian ambassador to
Israel

I now deeply regret putting my name to the petition of 43
criticising the Government’s involvement in Iraq.

It’s not because Paddy
McGuinness called me an “old fart”. For in doing this he merely reinforced my
concerns about lies in public places. McGuinness was born in 1938 and I first
saw the world in 1946. So, that’ll be “young fart” to you Mr Paddy.

It’s
not because Gerard Henderson and Michael Baume and a few others huffed and
puffed and threatened to blow my house down (or perhaps up).

It’s not
because we were told we had no right to comment on matters we’re not directly
involved with. Which, incidentally, is why we rely on governments to level with
us in the first place.

No, I regret it because my life has been hell ever
since De-Anne Kelly described us as “doddering daiquiri diplomats”. Before that
fateful day, my partner was content with a glass of orange juice in the morning.
Now the call goes out for one of those daiquiri thing-a-me-bobs.

I’ve
never made one in my life. I’ve only ever drunk a couple. And that was a long,
long time ago. Given that I’m now a doddering postmodern neo-fart, how the hell
am I supposed to remember what went into them? It’s hard enough to spell, let
alone to concoct.

Why did you do it De-Anne? How could you be so cruel to
those of us who can barely find their way to the kitchen in the morning? Was it
the allure of the alliteration that so attracted you? Fair enough. But then why
not “Drambuie-drizzled dippos”? Even “cognac cognoscenti” would have been easier
to deal with.

But no, you had to be the clever one. It’s your Government
that talks about valuing those of us of more mature years. Instead you taunt us
with impossible recipes.

I’ve got news for you though. Our profiles may
be podgy, our prostates prominent, but our penchant for the profound persists.
(Now that’s what I call alliteration!)

So I’ve been doing a little
research into this daiquiri business. And what do I discover? Often they’re made
with bananas. And where do bananas grow. Why in Queensland of course. And where
do you come from…

So why weren’t you honest with the Australian people?
Why didn’t you tell them that your daiquiri dig was a typically underhand way of
promoting your electorate’s interests?

Got to hand it to you then. You’ve
been prescient, persistent and patient. You understood all along that the real
reason we went to war had nothing to do with the situation in Iraq or WMD. We
went to war to promote bananas. Frankly, that’s as good a reason as any I’ve
seen. At least we know they exist.

See the letter at it appeared in The Age here: It’s all
about De-Anne’s bananas