Jim Anderton has attacked America's adventure in Iraq as "another Vietnam":
"It is hard to see how an additional 20,000-25,000 troops are going to be capable of making any real difference and this has an eerie Vietnam revisited element to it.
"One wonders whether the lessons I would have expected to be learnt from that fiasco have been learnt in any way at all.
"It is literally years since Mr Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and announced the war was over. I don't know whether he remembers that," he said.
"It is very easy to get into (wars) but very hard to get out of them. The US is not the first or the last military power to find that out.
"We remain consistent with our original view about military action not being a sustainable or long-term contributor to the peaceful development of Iraq," he said.
Winston Peters has responded by calling the comments "ill-informed and regrettable". So perhaps he'd like to answer: which part of the above is "ill-informed", and why is it "regrettable" for a member of our Parliament and government minister to voice the views of his constituents and indeed the vast majority of New Zealanders? Or must the basic premise of our system of government - representation - take a back seat to Blairite sycophancy towards the hegemon?