But it was always on the cards there was huge unaccounted oil revenues from the 1997 –2003 UN sanctions regime. Rumour and gossip suggests at least US$60 billion in oil revnues went somewhere no one knows after estimating say $40 billion on UN costs, food for the population, Saddam’s direct siphoning like AWB bribery scandal and other odds and sods. Can we assume Big Oil ripped it off via the UN at the expense of the Iraqi population? This writer canvasses the broader question of global oil business corruption here:

 http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1778230.htm

AWB gets fatal head shot from Agius QC, a lesson to Big Business on Howard's ruthless cut and run from redundant mates?

 http://sydney.indymedia.org/node/39058

On intuition this writer feels there is a huge money trail of global oil trade corruption that makes the AWB look the proverbial kinder picnic, as suggested in stunning fictional Syrianna, but only fictional to the extent movie adviser ex CIA Bob Baer allowed, that the now famous Volker Inquiry never got to. Saddam corruption yes, US and Euro Big Oil corruption – dear me no.

(This writer has seen footage of the then Iraq trade minister of around 2000 railing to international visitors to his ministry about the impact of the sanctions and outlining a good $US 20 billion that had gone missing since 1997 or so under the UN sanctions regime. We know that Saddam got about $10 billion of that in siphoning whether that particular Trade Minister knew it or not, though he must have.)

Damn not only those pesky ‘reports’ in a pesky democracy but pesky movie makers and their Inconvenient Truth (2006)

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/

Mussolini would never have tolerated it. “Why isn’t my salami sliced Mussolini style of fascism working?” Howard must have been asking himself this last few days.

 http://sydney.indymedia.org/node/39506

Behind the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and her family lies a far larger story of what's happened to women in Iraq since they were 'liberated' by the Bush administration.

Abu Ghraib. Haditha. Guantanamo. These are words that shame our country. Now, add to them Mahmudiya, a town 20 miles south of Baghdad. There, this March, a group of five American soldiers allegedly were involved in the rape and murder of Abeer Qassim Hamza, a young Iraqi girl. Her body was then set on fire to cover up their crimes, her father, mother, and sister murdered. The rape of this one girl, if proven true, is probably not simply an isolated incident. But how would we know? In Iraq, rape is a taboo subject. Shamed by the rape, relatives of this girl wouldn't even hold a public funeral and were reluctant to reveal where she is buried.

Like women everywhere, Iraqi women have always been vulnerable to rape. But since the American invasion of their country, the reported incidence of sexual terrorism has accelerated markedly -- and this despite the fact that few Iraqi women are willing to report rapes either to Iraqi officials or to occupation forces, fearing to bring dishonor upon their families. In rural areas, female rape victims may also be vulnerable to "honor killings" in which male relatives murder them in order to restore the family's honor. "For women in Iraq," Amnesty International concluded in a 2005 report, "the stigma frequently attached to the victims instead of the perpetrators of sexual crimes makes reporting such abuses especially daunting."

 http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38932/

Prime Minister's Muslim Community Reference Group, who denounced his misrepresentations of their faith. He knew that Muslims everywhere were already experiencing vilification under the cloud of the "war on terror".

From the Australian Arabic Council founder Joseph Wakim

 http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/john-howards-double-standards/2006

John Howard's double standards
Joseph Wakim October 31, 2006

' SIC 'em, Rex" was the dog-whistle heralded by our Prime Minister against the mufti after the unambiguous and reprehensible cat-meat metaphor.

But while exposing the vice of the mufti, John Howard also exposes his own double standards when critiquing religious leaders.

On September 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture at the University of Regensberg in Germany , where he contrasted Islamic conversion by force with Christian conversion by reason. He quoted from Byzantine Emperor Manuel II who alleged in 1391 that the prophet Muhammad promoted "things only bad and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith his preached". The Pope eliminated any ambiguity by cementing the contrast: "God is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature."

Given the pontiff's lineage with St Peter and the global climate in which his speech was delivered, it is reasonable to expect that he and his meticulous minders should have known better, rather than apologise after the event.

Sporting the title of Grand Mufti, more on par with Cardinal George Pell than the Pontiff, Taj al-Din al-Hilali should have known better and there he has no excuse either. He knew from past controversies that his Arabic sermons were under scrutiny, translated into English and fed to media channels. He knew that his words could provoke a backlash against those he ostensibly represents. He knew that front-page headlines were not a "storm in a teacup" and could never be trivialised as a "no worries, mate" situation. He knew that there is a new and growing generation of Muslims, empowered by the

Prime Minister's Muslim Community Reference Group, who denounced his misrepresentations of their faith. He knew that Muslims everywhere were already experiencing vilification under the cloud of the "war on terror".

Both the mufti and pontiff should have known better given their positions and the volatile climate. Both issued conditional apologies for the outrage provoked rather than for the remarks themselves. Both insisted that they were quoting from another source.

But their treatment was different by our Prime Minister.

Commenting on the pontiff's controversy on ABC's Lateline on September 20, Howard focused on the offended Muslims who felt their prophet was blasphemed: "We should take a deep breath on these things and all have a sense of proportion … They don't like what was said. I'm sure the Pope was not intending to attack Islam. He's expressed his regrets, and I think we should really move on."

Ironically, this is exactly what was stated by Lakemba Muslim Association president Tom Zreika but not by Howard: "I can't fathom why no complaints were made until it appeared in print … What was said was said. We are embarrassed, we're ashamed it was said and now I think we need to move on."

Commenting on the mufti's controversy, Howard again focused on the Muslims, not the offended: "If they do not resolve this matter, it could do lasting damage to the perceptions of that community within the broader Australian community … If it is not resolved, then unfortunately people will run around saying — well the reason they didn't get rid of him is because secretly some of them support his views."

It is curious that the Prime Minister consistently refers to Muslims in the third person — as they and them rather than you — reinforcing the view that he is dog-whistling to non-Muslims, rather than talking to Muslims as fellow Australians. He is also arming non-Muslims with a new weapon: maintaining the mufti equals consent for rape.

It appears that the Prime Minister selectively applies a voice of reason, depending on whether the offender is us or them. As he said during the papal controversy, "we are meant to believe in free speech and we are meant to not overreact".

The irony in this Christian-Muslim contrast is that the mufti has pitched himself as the persecuted martyr, betrayed by a Judas in his midst, charged as an enemy of the empire, provoked with a mob demanding his deportation, and standing his ground until God calls him.

In his sermon last Friday, he confronted his followers with his conspiratorial narrative: "I know this was concocted three weeks ago. They met. Someone took the tape. Someone translated it and gave it to The Australian newspaper, and then to the diplomats, to the politicians … Everybody is issuing a statement to look good in the eyes of Government … Only when the cow is brought down on the ground, you see a lot of knives … I swear to God that I will remain all by myself until God makes me a martyr."

This controversy may be driven more by politics than religion. Second and third-generation Australian Muslims have repeatedly declared "enough is enough" and demanded regime change. One fallible human cannot represent all Sunnis, Shiites, Druze, Alawites, Ismailis and Wahhabis and the numerous other branches of this Islamic tree, just as in Australia Cardinal George Pell does not represent all Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Coptic, Anglican, Evangelical and Uniting churches.

With the mufti delivering this brand of sermons in Australia for nearly a quarter of a century, why indeed did this suddenly become national news, three weeks after it was delivered, and only after the month of Ramadan? The reformers set the trap, knowing that they would ignite a bushfire in media, political and public circles. They created public accountability rather than private pressure to demand regime change.

Perhaps the first dog whistle was from these savvy reformers, the tail wagging the dog, knowing exactly what bite it would ultimately unleash. And perhaps our leader, John Howard, did not blow the first dog whistle, but played along to someone else's tune.

Joseph Wakim is founder of the Australian Arabic Council and former multicultural affairs commissioner.

Perhaps Howard's reformers seen his Darkness?

Sorry to inform you savvy reformer...

Savvy indeed, howhard likes people who do what he wants just like every dictator there has ever been!