When governments are clearly wrong they rally round truth in government as a euphemism for stonewalling.

He he he. It's especially funny when you imagine their voices in your head.

To be honest I was going to write something, and in fact did when human error erased my decent post. So instead I'll tell you what i was going to write, or at least a summary of it. Whilst your post was funny it missed the point. Essentially they are bunch of anti-government people, who have done more then just this in their lives against the government. I was going to use parts of, wait for it, Andrew Bolt's article (found at http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10406001%255E25717,00.html), but not all of it as i know he can be a little one sided. Check it out nevertheless. It also points out the stupidity of some of the stuff in the petition.

The thrust of Bolt's argument seems to be the fact that some of the signatories have said this before. So? They should be commended for relentlessly pursuing such an important issue as dishonesty by politicians of all stripes. What, does Bolt want to criticise them for being consisten (ie not backflipping( now?
Or is he saying we should pay no attention to people who've shown their opinions to be biased in favour of one Party? Seems to me Bolt would be out of a job then. He said on The Insiders his problem is they want 2 bites of the cherry after already having had media time for this. Seems to me his quibble sgould be with the media, not the letter writers. Or is he going to start blaming the newsmakers for what his own paper decides to cover? Sounds like the sort of blame shifting he usually accuses the Left of.
In these days of throwaway news, where important issues are ignored and off the agenda of you can't find something, shiny, new and exciting to say about it, we should be happy the media has stuck to an important issue for once.
That national Party moron told the doddering old diplomats to keep their opinios to themselves. Speaking of doddering old diplomats, I'd like to offer the same advice to John Howard, but I know he won't take the advice, so instead let's have some open and robust debate. Heaven forbid we use our right to free speech, Coalition.
But back to Bolt and his complaint of them getting too much news coverage... this is coming from a man who churns out editorials like sausages. They are full of fat and offel too. Bolt churns out so much turgid rubbish he does the Right a disservice by making them seem like a bunch of pious whingers. He is under worse contractual obligations than were the Beatles and thus ends up expressing whatever Right wing opinion he can think of to satiate the appetites of his bigoted readers. Little thought seems to go into his arguments, as long as he can think of something to say and it's Right wing. It would not surprise me to learn that Bolt is to Howard what Monica was to Clinton. Never before have I seen a person so desperate to tow whatever line Howard is taking. He is like a Catholic schoolgirl eager to impress the Liberal Party boys out the back of the school dance. He giggles and flirts and then gives lip service. His articles arten't worth the cyberspace they're published in.
But yes, FishHead, Bolt can be a little one-sided, in the same way Mussolini could be a little bit fascist or Hitler could be a little bit genocidal.