If Clark & Peters form an “Axis” - does that make John Key a “Natsy”?
The term “axis” entered the political lexicon in 1936, following the signing of a treaty of friendship between Germany and Italy. A month after the ceremony (pictured above) the Italian leader, Benito Mussolini, boasted to the international press that the new relationship between himself and the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, would form an “axis” around which the rest of the nations of Europe would revolve.
When Imperial Japan joined forces with Germany and Japan in the “Tripartite Pact” of September 1940, the three countries soon became known as the “Axis Powers” - a term which was expanded to include all of Germany’s, Italy’s and Japan’s allies in the Second World War. Their opponents, led by the USA, Great Britain and the USSR, were known as the “Allied Powers” and later as the “United Nations”.
The term surfaced again in the aftermath of 9/11 when George W, Bush’s speechwriter, David Frum, used the expression “Axis of Evil” to describe the three states identified by the Pentagon as the USA’s greatest enemies in the newly declared “War on Terror” - Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
“States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil”, warned Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address to the US Congress, accusing Iraq, Iran and North Korea of ”arming to threaten the peace of the world.”
President George W. Bush delivers his "Axis of Evil" speech to Congress - January 2002
Six years later, my co-blogger, Matthew Hooton, is using the term to negatively “frame” those he perceives to be the National Party’s most dangerous opponents: Labour and NZ First. Describing them darkly as the “Clark/Peters Axis”, Matthew is clearly hoping to harness the subliminal fears which the word “axis” conjures up out of the electorate’s collective memory.
It’s a clever piece of emotional manipulation - striking with equal force against both Winston Peters’ elderly constituency (with their vivid memories of the “Axis Powers” and WWII) and Labour’s support among younger voters (who clearly remember 9/11 and Bush’s “axis of evil” speech).
It is also a quite extraordinary slur on Helen Clark, Winston Peters, and their respective parties. Matthew is deliberately linking two democratic politicians from New Zealand with the two great fascist dictators, Hitler and Mussolini, and also with the murderous and totalitarian regimes of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il.
It’s the equivalent of me referring to John Key and his National Party as ”Fuhrer John” and his “Natsy Party”. Unfair, untrue, and utterly unprofessional.
Such scurilous name-calling is clearly unacceptable. But if Matthew was prepared to acknowledge that, as far as the Right is concerned, “the gloves are off”, and that the use of the most egregious kinds of misinformation in the 2008 election campaign is now perfectly okay , then his “big lie” tactics could at least claim a small measure of honesty.
Unfortunately, he isn’t prepared to do even that.
Seemingly unaware of the visciousness of his own rhetoric, he has self-righteously condemned Dr Michael Cullen’s critique of John Key’s leadership credentials in the wake of the demise of Merrill Lynch, as “ridiculous”, and castigated Helen Clark for her ”disgusting performance” in sharing with a Hutt Valley Greypower audience, her “back of the envelope” calculation of NZ’s likely losses in Iraq - if this country had been led by John Key’s National Party in 2002, had joined the “Coalition of the Willing”, and had suffered the same number of fatalities per capita as the United States.
(The calculation is very simple BTW: US population of 305,149,000 divided by 4,159 US soldiers KIA = 1 fatality for every 73,371 Americans; NZ population of 4,276,100 divided by 73,371= 58 NZ soldiers KIA.)
It would seem that, when it comes to pinning vicious labels on people, National’s little helpers can dish it out - in swastikas. But, when their opponent’s turn round and dish it right back at them - they cry foul and start stamping their feet.
Pathetic.
Random Posts
Tags: Axis, Matthew Hooton.Nazi
September 18th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Chris
I don’t think you can claim that National now deserve being called the “nasty” party when Jordan Carter (now a Labour candidate) (see: The Nasty Party ) has been doing exactly what you say is unprofessional since way back in April 2007. Around that time Jordan made several posts about National being “nasty” and even defended his position in the comments.
It’s completely possible that when it comes to “you get it back in spades” that the “axis” comment is exactly that, not the other way around as you suggest.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Except, you are trying to draw a contrast between what Clark and Cullen say, and what Hooton says. Not apples with apples. Comparing Hooton and Trotter is fair and reasonable - both political commentators. Your point is better made by comparing Clark/Cullen with Key/English.
Have Key or English used the “axis” term? I have heard them speak of the “Clark/Peters Government” to try and tie the two together in voters minds.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
burt
“nasty” vs “natsy”. different words. different context.
chris
Sentence deleted for being obnoxious and pointless.
Bryan Spondre
Blog Producer
September 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“ax·is1 /ˈæksɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-sis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural ax·es /ˈæksiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ak-seez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.
…
9. an alliance of two or more nations to coordinate their foreign and military policies, and to draw in with them a group of dependent or supporting powers.”
Shame Trotter, shame.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
The gloves are off methinks, but Chris, you are in grave danger of taking one step too far.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Chris, would you consider excoriating Russell Brown for his use of the term axis here:
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,3525.sm#post3525
“In the end, I don’t think this is about the Brethren as much as it’s about a fairly new conservative political axis in New Zealand - one by no means widely welcome even on the centre-right - that I’d like to know a bit more about. Who’s in? How does it work? And who writes the cheques?”
September 18th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Chris said “the calculation is very simple BTW: US population of 305,149,000 divided by 4,159 US soldiers KIA = 1 fatality for every 73,371 Americans; NZ population of 4,276,100 divided by 73,371= 58 NZ soldiers KIA.)”
Yes it is absurdly simple, obviously Helen (and yourself) are not mathematicians. The calculation is at best misleading. How many soldiers have the US had in Iraq during the war? What proportion of those soldiers have died? How many soldiers does NZ have to send to Iraq? Answer those questions and apply to an equation and you’ll get a little closer to a meaningful number (though even then it will have so many flaws it’ll be practically useless)
What this does show is that Helen is losing it. She’s not normally one to put herself in a position where she can be easily made to look a twit, yet she’s done this several times of late - must be the pressure.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
And just one more free hit Trotty:
“1 thesaurus results for: axis
Synonym Collection v1.1
Main Entry: axis
Part of Speech: noun
Synonyms: alliance, axle, coalition, deer, fulcrum, hinge, pivot, pole, spindle, stem, support “
September 18th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Davey P.
Doooh – bloody lysdexia…. Ooops. Nasty/Natsy…
OK, so this post is even worse than I thought. Shame on you Chris.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Oh, come on! Who do you lot think you’re fooling? You do Matthew a severe disservice by attempting to make him look as dimwittedly literal as yourselves.
And, yes, Helen’s calculation was simplistic. Debating points usually are - being designed for effect. And, in this case, the PM got exactly the effect she wanted.
Her intention was to bring home to her audience, as forcefully as she could, the brutal reality that when you send people off to war, some of them are going to come back home in body-bags. And, judging by their public comments back in early 2002, John Key and his colleagues would have sent us off to fight alongside the Americans in an illegal war.
The reaction of the National Party and their right-wing supporters to the PM’s rhetorical sally has been most instructive. Once again they have attacked the messenger and ignored her message.
Fortunately for Labour, the rest of the electorate has taken her point - just as they took Mike Cullen’s point about Key’s experiences at Merrill Lynch.
As John Armstrong noted in this morning’s NZ Herald: “National may well complain about Labour’s tactics and hope they prove a turnoff for voters. But Labour, in a tight spot, knows going negative can pay big dividends.”
If you can’t stand the heat, lads, piss-off out of the kitchen.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Pat got it right. There are enthusiasts of all sorts, on both sides of politics, calling names, being obnoxious and drawing attention to themselves - from political commentators such as Trotter and Hooten, and working on down into the depths of the cesspit that is the informal commentariat. None of them matter much at all - they/we are all talking to each other in a tiny debating club. What counts is what the politicians are saying about each other. Apples with Apples please Chris.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
How insulting that the families of the four soldiers who died in East Timor are quickly forgotten by Clark. I guess they were inconvienient to her smear.
I note that none of the 52 soldier engineers sent by Clark to Iraq (Basra-not a quiet spot either) died. Lucky her.
Clark will get a different reaction if she tries this crap out on an audience other than Grey Power. (ok the EMPU/PPTA etc etc would cheer)
September 18th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Chris, this is crazy stuff, I seriously cannot believe you’ve got so wound up about the use of a word which means alliance or coalition.
I do like the irony in your statement “if you can’t stand the heat, lads, piss-off out of the kitchen” and use of “swastikas” in a post where you’re attacking Hooton for unfairly criticising Labour and making emotional comments. Muppet.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Chris: “Such scurilous name-calling is clearly unacceptable.”
and: “…as dimwittedly literal as yourselves.”
And there’re plenty of other examples of name-calling from Chris on this blog.
Chris, can I suggest you try to improve your own etiquette?
September 18th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
If you can’t stand the heat, lads, piss-off out of the kitchen.
Yes, nothing more risible than the sight of our resident axis of weevils now rising on their pimply hind legs to bleat about “nasty tactics” when their entire modus operandi for the past three years has consisted of nothing but flip-flopping “inoculations”, thinly-veiled misogynic attacks and desperate beat-ups of such piffle as “paintergate” and “speedgate”.
There’s absolutely nothing “nasty” about reminding the electorate that had Key been PM at the time, NZ would have become part of the illegal, invading “coalition of the willing” and our mokopuna targets of terrorism for generations to come.
Face it chaps: your banshee “NZ Sucks” campaign has run its course. Time for the facts and the record to have their say.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Ah yes ak leaps to the defense - how are things in Judith Tizzards office at the moment ?
September 18th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
ak/gargle settle down or take some time on the naughty step.
Bryan Spondre
Blog Producer
September 18th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Chris, not sure what your point is here. You seem to be saying that yes, Labour are going negative, and good on them. That’s a position, I can see why you are taking it.
At the same time, you’re getting into Hooten for using the word Axis, and drawing some pretty long bows about it. OK, it is a loaded phrase, we get it. But a) Hooten isn’t the leader of a political party, and b) you already said it was OK for Helen to do it, so what are you complaining about?
As for Helen’s calculation - the problem is that she took what could have been a strong point “National would have taken us into Iraq” - which would have resonated well with the left and the centre. And by doing a stupid calculation, turned it into a discussion about how Australia actually lost only two soldiers, and both to accidents, and so she’s turned what could have been a reasonably strong arguing point into a negative for her, simply because she was over reaching. That is the underlying problem here.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“Fortunately for Labour, the rest of the electorate has taken her point - just as they took Mike Cullen’s point about Key’s experiences at Merrill Lynch.”
Chris, of course you can’t know this so I’m left puzzled by your assertion.
“The reaction of the National Party and their right-wing supporters to the PM’s rhetorical sally has been most instructive. Once again they have attacked the messenger and ignored her message”
Well it’s hard to NOT attack the messenger when her message is so specious. Perhaps if the messenger were delivering a coherent message it would be the message we focussed on? Or is reason not a requirement for your PM?
Unlike yourself I doubt the public finds Labour’s deseperation the least bit appealing.
ak, if you want to focus on illegalities and mokopuna perhaps you would like to make comment on Labour’s unruly theft of the foreshore and seabed from Maori? Perhaps not?
September 18th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Ah yes ak leaps to the defense - how are things in Judith Tizzards office at the moment ?
No idea, garg - never been there: and just to be clear (forgive me Bryan, but this seems to be becoming a trend), nor have I ever been to any other MP’s office, nor to the “ninth floor” - nor any other part of parliament: nor do I now, nor have I ever, worked for any MP or party official of any political party. Clear enough gargo?
And while I’m at it, nor are my teeth crooked (I’m looking at them in the jar right now), nor do I have a manly deep voice, and nor am I childless, so I guess you’ll just have to either concoct another fantasy or direct your criticisms to the actual content of my remarks now. Sorry about that.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
If you can’t stand the heat, lads, piss-off out of the kitchen.
Oh I can’t wait until Labour starts complaining about National using dirty tactics, i’ll bet you will be the first to cry about it. Quite frankly I hope the comments section is filled with “diddums”.
Helens calculation was dishonest and manipulative, if National had done something like this, you’d be all over it like a fat kid on a Mars bar.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Chris, I don’t know why you approve of such filthy scaremongering.
Based on your defence of Helen Clark’s dirty campaigning, would it be legitimate for John Key to say: “If Helen Clark had not demonised the US when they were trying to defeat Saddam, we would have got a free trade agreement with them. That would have given the New Zealand economy an extra two billion dollars a year. If we had poured all of that money into the health system, we would have saved 300 lives. Helen Clark has blood on her hands. She has killed 300 people. Many of them were elderly Grey Power members.”?
Because that back-of-the-envelope mathematics and scaremongering is just as justifiable as Helen Clark’s speech yesterday.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Oh, get off the cross Miss Trotter, we need the wood. If Acting Foreign Affairs Minister Helen Clark wants to do her thinking on the back of a cocktail napkin (and still get her math wrong) she’s welcome. But why don’t we just draft Sarah (”l can see Russia from my house”) Palin, and at least get the fact-free demagoguery done by a pro?
September 18th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
And here’s something else to consider. I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that if Helen Clark hadn’t gone into politics, she’s have quite a high-powered academic career on the go — the kind of career where you’ve got to have some competence at accurately interpreting and using statistical data in rigorously peer-reviewed research.
So, perhaps the Governor Palin analogy was unfair. I’m seriously coming to the conclusion that Republican Vice-Presidential nominee really isn’t that bright, and would say any nonsense written on 5×7 file card and held in front of her nose.
Whatever you say about Clark, I wouldn’t use the words ’stupid’ or ‘innumerate’. So is it beyond the realms of possibility that she knew just how misleading — if not outright deceptive — the jottings on that envelope really were, but the “sixty body bags” applause line was too good to get facts get in the way?
September 18th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Ah yes John Key never ever resorts to personal attacks does he? He such a nice young boy and handsome too. Give me a break righties. Here’s a video: National and john key’s personal attacks
September 18th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Diddums… here’s a mars bar
September 19th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Chris’s analysis of the use of axis is spot on IMO. The ‘Peters/Clark’ axis talk is a pretty obvious bit of propaganda and a smear attempt. The (small number of) Hooten blogs I’ve looked at (that include the use of this term) provide a pretty low level of analysis IMO, so I’ve rarely look at his blog since - got better (or more interesting) things to do with my time.
I did not like some of the things Labour have done (especially on the Foreshore & sea bed). But I am EXTREMELY glad they kept some distance between us and Bus’s ill-fated invasion of Iraq, along with keeping some financial distance between us and the US. I’m VERY glad we didn’t have a Nat government - they will only bring havoc to this country and many people’s lives.
NZ active military engagement in Iraq would have meant being involved with many deaths - either of Kiwis or Iraqis. I don’t like the way people just focus on war deaths of their own compatriots. Deaths of people from other countries are just as bad. That’s the problem with war.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Carol - have NZ troops not killed anyone in Afghanistan? Did Willie Apiata get a VC for cleaning a truck, or rescuing an injured NZ soldier under fire?
Helen’s argument is that John Key would have blood on his hands. In that case, Helen Clark DOES have blood on her hands.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Ah, Pat, things are not cut and dried. Elections for me are usually about choosing to vote for the lesser evil. I don’t like that NZ has got involved in Afghanistan - it is a continuing problem. I protested against NZ involvement in it on the streets of Auckland at the time.
Look at my words above. I said I’m glad the current government kept some distance between NZ and the Bush government’s foreign activities. The Nats would have been in there boots an’ all - all because they’re largely driven by profits for big business. Now that even large numbers of folks in the US have gone off the Bush gang, the Nats talk more of the dove talk. I trust Key less.
And, for the record, I didn’t vote for the Nat or Labour party last election - probably won’t again. But if it came down to a FPP choice between the 2, then the lesser evil for me would be Labour.
September 19th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Carol:
I think you’re missing the point. If Clark wants to campaign on the past (the Iraq War, more than five years ago) she’s welcome to. I personally think there are more significant foreign affairs question right here and right now, that are worth discussion, but that’s Clark’s call.
But what nobody get to do, in my book, is make shit up. That “sixty body bags” line might have been good rhetoric, but one might think that if you’re going to do “gues-timates” on scrap paper you’d at least get your sums right. What Clark did was — to be generous — misleading if not outright deceptive.
And do you remember Private Leonard Manning, Carol? He was a peacekeeper killed in East Timor — and New Zealand’s first military combat casualty since Vietnam, over twenty years before. You may think that’s an argument for New Zealand not participating in peacekeeping missions, but it should never be an occasion for dishonest and frankly offensive hyperbole from politicians more interested in media exposure and applause than anything else.
September 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Craig, you’re missing my point. (Whose rolling out the hyperbole?) I’m not defending everything Clark’s said and done. But in my book it is a very big plus for Clark/Labour that she/they didn’t follow Bush into Iraq. IMO that makes Labour a better bet for the future than Key/Nats. And actually, I do believe she genuinely cares about what happens to NZ service people.
Eevrything you’ve said about politicians’ dishonesty applies more to Key-constantly-changing-his-mind & Nats IMO. The bigger issue is about what politicians and governments actually do IMO, and the sincerity of some of their major pronouncements. I don’t find Key trsutworthy with respect to how he’d manage the country based on his performance to date. Whenever, I hear Key on the radio or TV I find his rather studied performance of a down-to-earth-Mr Innocent a bit too much of a pose to find credible.
It’s interesting how the Right really come down hard on what many of us see as Labour’s strengths. (Crosby Textor?) The fact that Labour kept some distance between the Bush gang, Iraq etc & NZ, IS a major plus for me, whatever Key or Clark says about it. And it makes me trust them more than the Nats in terms of the future direction either would take the country, in terms of their priorities.
I think the whole Clark-Peters-Axis line is also an attempt to attack a major strength of Clark’s: ie her ability to negotiate between parties in an MMP environment. I find it curious that this actually contradicts the whole “Helengrad” line of smear tactic. Rather than dictating all policy, Clark has shown a very good ability to negotiate between the various groups that sections of the NZ electorate have selected for parliament. So, rather than just imposing her will, she does, what all politics is about, negotiates a compromise (sometimes between both left and right wing factions). IMO, while I might not agree with all the results, it still looks like very good governance.
In contrast, I doubt Key will be as skillful in negotiating with ACT, Roger Douglas etc. I heard an ACT candidate last night say the Nats will form the next government & ACT will be in there in government with them. Talk about back-to-the-future.
Talk fresh & new, return to the old destructive neo-liberal policies.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Carol:
One nice thing about changing your mind is that it proves you actually have one. I tend to mistrust ideologues of any stripe who think they have any monopoly on wisdom or insight. You can decide for yourself whether I’d play you in that tiresome — and tragically large — camp.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:52 am
One nice thing about changing your mind is that it proves you actually have one.
Classic. Key and the intellectual rigour of the entire flip-flop/hidden agenda campaign exposed and distilled to perfection.
Billboard-worthy.
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Now, as many people are pointing out, this election, like 2005, is very close, between National/United Future/ACT Allies on the centre right, and the Labour/Nazi/Green/Anderton Axis on the … I was going to say “centre left” but what just where the fuck on the political spectrum does the Axis fit?
To all the people above pretending that hooton was using axis as a non-specific and referential term entirely unrelated to the NAZI party, hitler, mussolini and the gassing of 6 million jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and the instigators of a war that topped what was it? 100 million people?
I take it you haven’t read Hooton’s post. The term NAZI is in there, I even copied and pasted the words since you all haven’t the ability, volition or inclination to look it up. Try to think for yourselves, Trotter was right on the money.
December 26th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I am not sure why it takes so long to prosecute people like Robert Egan and Mark Winkler. Egans reports in vanity fair NPR washington post etc is an obvious case of acting as an unregistered agent for a foreign nation, if Egan were in contact with Saddam’s government and tried to set up the prewar visit for our lawmakers. To make matters worse, If Egan tried to get rich from it by trading influence with American lawmakers for an oil payment from Saddam he would have been arrested. This type of behavior is rampant in the US and goes unchecked and is a serious breach of security. Egans behavior with North Korean agents is far worse because Egan may have unfettered access to United States Military secrete material on fort dix which includes our location of potential terrorist targets like our bridges tunnels, nuclear and chemical power plants and the Homeland security monitoring schedules and New Jersey National Guard troop movements to protect these critical sites through his friend and lawyer LTC Mark winkler of the New Jersey Army National Guard JAG office. New Jersey American Citizen Robert Egan, an owner of a restaurant called cubbies in Hackensack NJ, doing the very same thing with North Korea. However this guys lawyer keeps him out of trouble, the only problem is Egan’s lawyer is a Lieutenant Colonel in the New Jersey Army National Guard n Fort Dix, (Mark Winkler, Esq. of Franklin Lakes NJ) and his lawyer may have received payments through his client Egan from North Korea. Egan pays his lawyer by referring him other clients who need asylum from Korea, North Vietnam etc, who have no money but Egan finances their asylum legal fees which are disguised as payments he makes to his lawyer who gets rich from this affiliation. TO make matters worse this lawyer, threatens anyone who talks to the media or law enforcement about him and files false harassment charges against anyone who tries to stop him. The lawyer recently told a female officer on Fort Dix, all about his clients operation and passing of secrets to N. Korea and the client’s knowledge of a North Korean uranium enrichment program which was in fact shared with Iranian government and aided the Iranian program. The lawyer threatened the female officer and used Fort Dix, officers to pursue unjust prosecution and conviction against the female officer, for petty disorderly harassment, to ensure she is discredited and cannot talk to law enforcement. This is really a problem since the Lawyer is a high level New Jersey army National Guard Lawyer who has ties to troop movements, military secretes and god knows what he passed to N Korea through his friendship with his client. The only way this story will be investigated and the people involved stopped are if the media holds Egan and his lawyer responsible for their actions. Many people have been harmed by these two including Hackensack NJ police officers whom the lawyer targeted in the past and tape recorded and threatened. Hackensack police chief kosener can confirm Winker represents Egan and has caused the city of Hackensack and the police department a lot of trouble. The female officer winkler targeted was forced to retire from the military and winkler used the US attorney’s office in Newark NJ run by Christopher Christie to target and file and prosecute false disorderly persons harassment charges against her when the military should have had jurisdiction over the case since the allegations concerned conduct which occurred while both winker and the female officer were both on military duty, but because the US attorney’s office gives the fort dix jags great discretion to appoint jag fort dix prosecutors to prosecute in magistrate court on fort dix, Winkler used his influence and tapped into racial bias to get the jags to pursue an unjust conviction for petty disorderly persons conviction against the female officer, which now Winkler used the conviction to notify the officers employer at the office of the attorney general to get her fired from her civilian employer and he also lied to her employer and passed faze information about a valid summons and complaint she signed in Hackensack nj as a citizens complaint filed against winkler for threatening her. Winkler had false information passed to the officers job with the nj attorney general that she misused her job as an attorney general employee to sign the Hackensack nj summons and complaint and this allegation is patently false since the form she signed was presented to her by a Hackensack police desk sergeant, and Hackensack police chief ed koesner will confirm she did nothing wrong. The only way to correct this injustice is for the media to contact US Attorney Christopher Christies office and remove the case from the jurisdiction of the special prosecutors on Fort Dix who are handling the case which is now on appeal with the district court, and the US attorney’s office can reassign it to a neutral US attorney not affiliated with fort dix, and review the facts and circumstances of the trial and unjust conviction to determine if the case should in fact be dismissed. Also the media must pursue the potential threats Winkler and his client pose to national security ASAP by simply reporting what Egan does, who he associates with in N Korea, and who his attorney is and report the fact that Egan’s attorney Winkler was questioned by FBI and US army Military Intel officers on this issue last year. Finally, the female officer will be a key cooperating witness and the unjust conviction is the only thing that damages her credibility against Winkler, Please stop this threat and report the risk Egan poses to national security for being able to trade with North Korea and take several trips there and act as an unregistered agent for North Korea. Please stop this person from destroying any more honest and brave people that tried to expose this but are being prosecuted and targeted by wither Winkler or Egan. Click on the attached link to access a recent Vanity Fair article on Robert Egan’s North Korean Affiliation
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/09/njspy200709 Then click on this link about N Korea’s possible assistance from Pakistan for uranium enrichment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003214.html