The truth on that was very interesting: the government wouldn't permit the release of the official footage. The grainy footage you saw came from CNN, who were first told by Australian officials that they wouldn't be allowed to take any cameras in but were then allowed to when the White House intervened. Channel 10 made a passing mention of the footage coming from CNN but didn't explain the full story. The ABC coverage I saw didn't attempt to explain it at all. Margo Kingston tells the full story over on her Webdiary site (scroll down to the par "If he'd had his way...") and while she flavours it with her political opinions, her relaying of the facts indicates that Howard did his best to manipulate the media coverage of the day. It's a shame she seems to be the only person pointing out how the media coverage was managed, the others seemed to have routed around it as best they can and moved on.
The invite list for the bbq at the Lodge was a joke. No Labor members were invited (not even Simon Crean) but lightweight celebrities like Steve Irwin and Lleyton Hewitt were somehow deemed appropriate. It seems strange that TV stars and sportspeople are given more opportunity to interact with the US President than a broad cross-section of our elected Parliament. Crean wasn't even invited to join Howard and Bush when they toddled off to the War Memorial.
What did I think of Bob Brown interrupting the president? It was rude, it was impolite and it seemed utterly necessary. Was there any other opportunity for Bush to be told what a significant number of Australians felt? He was kept away from protesters and the Opposition was granted very little access. Crean's speech was a little limp, pointing out that his side of the House was opposed to the Iraq war but not necessarily pointing out that the anti-war protests back in February were amongst the largest ever seen in Australia. Brown getting up was a little like the child pointing out the emperor had no clothes: if he didn't say something, who would? Bush had been prepared for the possibility and his "I love free speech" quip struck me as merely a repeat of what he said to Laurie Oakes last week. The quip also rang false because Brown was being asked to vacate the chamber as he said it, which is contrary to the concept of free speech as I know it.
One of my favourite perspectives on the absurd contradictions of the day also appear on Margo's Webdiary, this time written by two Canberra residents, one a journalist attending the Parliament and the other a IT contractor joining the protests. The bit that summed it up best was a letter to The Canberra Times: "The jet engines of FA/18s lulling me to sleep, the streets lined with police. Thank you, John, for making my world a safer one".
Digging around, I found some other interesting random revelations. There's some mention that Bush was allowed to bring some small puppies into the country, in contradiction of our quarantine laws but I can't find any details on that. And jumping a little off-topic, see this article for a frightening piece that discusses Bush's reluctance to read newspapers, because "The best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world." If you ever hear that George W. Bush is well informed, I think it's probably better to say that he's selectively informed. Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas also expresses concern at the revelation.
The visit troubles me in all sorts of ways, from the faintly ridiculous (removing golfers from the greens near Parliament House) to the troubling (protesters must stay a long way away and must not direct their PA systems towards the House just in case Bush might hear). There have been other little things that have struck me, from the description of the roads to Parliament lined with US flags to the description of his arrival at Parliament being greeted by "cheers and protests" as if there's some sort of even balance about it (the cheers came from the invited throng inside while the protests came from the general public being kept at a distance outside). The whole thing feels farcical, especially in a country where we've never gone for pomp and ceremony in a big way.
Carmen Lawrence was speaking on PM tonight about how the public galleries of our Parliament, the House itself and even the exterior of the House will be off-limits to the general public when George W Bush and some Chinese leader turn up there next week. Apparently any protesters are usually allowed to gather outside but on these occasions, they're to be sent off down the hill somewhere where they won't be seen or heard.
Less than half an hour later, then I saw Laurie Oakes interviewing George W himself on "A Current Affair". It was a fairly lazy interview where Laurie asked some tougher questions but didn't blink when George easily stepped around them. He did ask George whether it would be an issue if some members of the Parliament expressed their disapproval of him by wearing white armbands or turning their backs on him. George wasn't fazed, saying "that's democracy".
So if you're a member of Parliament you can protest (as long as you do it quietly) but if you're a member of the general public, you're kept out of sight and hopefully, far enough away so that even your angry yelling can't be heard. Yep, that's what I call open and free democracy.
I wonder whether George will have any opportunity to see any real people? Or will he be moved from airport to Parliament to hotel under a veil so that he doesn't see anything which might upset him? I'll have to dig around and see if I can find out what exactly his itinerary involves.
AFTER SADDAM | Full coverage
Doubts over Iraq put Bush on the PR offensive
President George Bush has rejected complaints from some members of Congress that
he needs to assert more control over Iraq policy, saying: "The person who is in
charge is me." more
- Car bomb explodes near Turkish embassy
If 2 car bombs in 3 days is his version of being "in charge", I wouldn't want to see his version of out-of-control.
Now Howard's decided he wants more power (he already appoints the Governor General and his government dominates the House of Reps and appoints those in our High Court). My preferred analysis of his proposal is by the Clerk of the Senate who has popped up regularly offering his well-argued thoughts (also voiced here). Not surprisingly, Margo Kingston's offered similar thoughts at her Webdiary site (I like her perspective but her tone is a little too melodramatic at times).
I sense that Howard is kicking into election mode now. The reshuffle of the cabinet freshens things up in the public mind and there have been some soothing words from them recently (Abbott - of all people - trying to be nice to doctors and Howard saying he won't send the Senate reforms to a referendum if the people don't seem interested). With some of the mud starting to stick, there's obviously a need for them to add some positive spin.
Of course, Howard is still shameless. Today he invoked the Bali victims to justify the ill-defined "war on terror":
"The events in Bali remind us that the war against terrorism must go on, how ever long that period may be," Mr Howard told parliament.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how exactly you win a war on terror. Do all the terrorists stand up and say "okay, okay, we give up, we surrender, it's all over"? And why can't he leave the anniversary to the families instead of tying it to political causes? Howard also remains a master politician by presenting his Senate proposal, describing them as "moderate, careful, sensible proposals" instead of stepping back and allowing others to make that judgement. The trouble with Howard is that he's so dull that he can say black is white and almost sound believable. Oh for some politicians to just say "John, you're talking complete rubbish"...