When the prime minister rejects accusations from a former SAS officer that Australia's Defence Force was involved in a cover-up over a special forces operation in Afghanistan which ended with the deaths of 11 civilians, he added:
"I think the SAS is a fantastic unit of the Australian Defence Forces... Can I just make the general statement (he always asks permission to hit us in the guts with a generality that is cleverly associating a reasonable concept with total crap)... that we expect these incredibly well-trained and able men to undertake life-endangering missions in our name and on our behalf."

Sorry sir, although the SAS is a fantastic and brave Unit, it was not and is not undertaking any mission on "our" name and "our" behalf (especially not mine, nor many other Australians) ...

The SAS is involved in two wars, one that was semi-legal after some UN arm-twisting in a country where things are still very wonky, and one that is totally illegal and based on a gigantic lie, on behalf of the United States Administration.

It is perfectly understandable that, like Andrew Wilkie who was working in intelligence for the government discovered that the WMDs claim was a mega porkie, someone from the SAS unit could see this sorry episode in Afghanistan which had not been made public — although the public is entitled to know where and how its money is spent (secrecy of operation is no excuse in this case) — as a blight on his unit...

The proper questions are: who were the "eleven" civilians? Any children and women? What were the SAS soldiers doing in Afghanistan in the first place? Looking for Osama? Looking for Taliban? Looking for poppy fields? Are they still there? Weren't they an invading force by all account? Who had made the decision that "some" people are enemy?

General Cosgrove told a Senate Estimates committee that an SAS patrol had been engaged in "contact" in May 2002, but added the soldiers who opened fire did so in accordance with their rules of engagement. Sorry sir, when invading a country, "their" rules of engagement are the most vile explanation for killing people.

"Fire was returned or fire was called upon those who fired at those elements and they felt that these were threats to their safety," he said. This does not make any sense and means the good General Cosgrove has no idea of what really happened.

He says an investigation lead to disciplinary action but he will further check on allegations a soldier took "trophies" from the body of an Afghan man. He should have know better and be able to clear this matter..

"For the protection of our soldiers ... the Australian Defence Force does not normally publicly discuss the details of internal investigations," he said."Any disciplinary actions taken we treat these issues confidentially in order to allow the correct and appropriate application of military law."

So since the public is not allowed to know, it is a COVER UP no matter where you turn... is it not?