Tool
On the day when the papers report that Rudd’s approval rating has hit 65%, Howard decides to enter into a public bitch fight with newly announced candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, Barak Obama:
“If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.”
I am pretty sure that was supposed to be “… not only for Osama, but also for the Democrats”, but who knows? It is great though to have a leader who doesn’t even wait for the nomination process to be complete before he picks sides in the election process of a major ally. Bravo, Mr Howard!!
February 12th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I’ve just been listening to the censure motion debate in Parliament (yes, I have no life) on Howard’s comments.
Howard’s defence was that Rudd has double standards, because Rudd at the time defended Latham’s ’single most incompetant and dangerous President in US history’ jibe against Bush.
Howard maintained that he was not referring to the Democratic Party as a whole, but specifically to Obama’s policy, even though the transcript clearly had Howard saying ‘not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.’
As the clip of Howard is replayed continually..and the media seeks more reaction from US politicians to Howard’s remarks…my tip is a Howard backdown this Friday.
February 12th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I for one appreciate our Prime Minister helping me to know who I can trust. I was in danger of believing that this Obama guy might have some good ideas, but now that John has cleared that up for me I’ll be sure not to listen to that Osama-loving terrorist.
It would be funny if it wasn’t actually happening
February 12th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I just think it is a crack-up that Howard wants at all costs to maintain his friendship with the guy that *can’t possibly* be the next president.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Good call Dan, John Howard is a TOOL!
I don’t know whether Osama is praying for Obama, but I know what I am praying for later this year in the Federal election. Please God!!! let it be done!!
Not only are Howards comments incredibly foolish, but they are wrong. Let’s face it George W Bush has given the whole Islamic world good reason to hate the West. The longer the Neo-Cons are in power, the more countries they invade, the more blood they spill, the faster the terrorist ranks swell.
John Howard should be ashamed that he threw our nation’s support behind this war that has killed over 650,000 people so far…… with no end in sight.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:25 am
How much influence does the US have on AUstralia. Maybe we could get you guys to vote here, or better yet, you could become the 51st state. Of course that would mean a lot more flag sales. If we take you, do we get NZ also?
February 13th, 2007 at 6:34 am
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf/
An intersting look at radical Isal’s view on the US - notice many of the quoted come before George Bush became president.
From David Horowitz who said “”Everybody knows — but no one wants to say — that the Democratic Party has become the party of special interest bigots and racial dividers. It runs the one-party state that controls public services in every major inner city, including the corrupt and failing school systems in which half the students — mainly African American and Hispanic — are denied a shot at the American dream. It is the party of race preferences which separate American citizens on the basis of skin color providing privileges to a handful of ethnic and racial groups in a nation of nearly a thousand. The Democratic Party has shown that it will go to the wall to preserve the racist laws which enforce these preferences, and to defend the racist school systems that destroy the lives of millions of children every year.” –David Horowtiz, “Challenging the Racist Democrats in California,” August 5, 2003″
The democrats aren’t your answer either.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
A quick cruise of his website convinces me David Horowtiz is one of those right wingers out to whip up hysteria that anyone slightly left of… say… George W Bush… is underlying the safety and fairness and strength of America and destroying the American way of life. Another tool in my opinion.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Of course, what many are failing to mention here, is that John Howard is absolutely right in what he says. Muslim terrorists would be celebrating if Obama’s policy was ever to see the light of day.
“Do you come to hate me because I tell you the truth”
February 15th, 2007 at 10:42 am
“If we take you, do we get NZ also?” Yes, but you still have to pay full price, bro! (and you get Russell Crowe in the deal - take one, take ‘em all!)
I’m not saying I agree with him, but I just love that Obama is up there saying ‘I’ll do this and that and the rest’ and then some punk from Aus strips the ball off him for a second, and bites him in the knee.
Classic…
February 15th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Roger, I don’t know that viewpoint is true. It seems to me to be unproveable, and somewhat beside the point. I have confidence that terrorists such as al qaeda would pretty much spin any action we would take in their favour. But assume it is true. I personally think that if the only reason we stay in Iraq is because the “terrorists” don’t want us to, then that is a pretty crappy reason.
The VietCong wanted troops out of Vietnam as well, but that doesn’t mean that it was the wrong decision.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
What’s really silly about this whole Howard/Obama spat, is it presumes that a politician will follow through on their promises and policies once they get into power.
We know that George W. Bush and the Republicans haven’t done that in a whole range of policy areas (something the American people now finally realise and is being reflected in the opinion polls)….but what makes people think the Democrats will follow through on their promises to withdraw troops from Iraq?
The realities of the situation on the ground in 2009 will dictate what Obama does..in the unlikely event that he should win office.
Just as a Democratic President faced a set of circumstances in which he was forced to act in 1999.
Here’s a blast from the past.
“February 24, 1999
Troops to Kosovo; terror for Americans.
by: Phyllis Schlafly
The very day after his acquittal, Bill Clinton moved quickly to change the subject and wag the dog by announcing plans to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. The Americans would be part of a 27,000-strong NATO force under non-American command.
Clinton is overriding major concerns of senior Pentagon officials that the Administration has no clear-cut military goals and that this will soon involve twice as many U.S. troops as he predicts. They believe this will seriously overburden U.S. ground forces already committed to missions in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, and Korea.
The claim that our expedition into Kosovo is to guard a “peace settlement” is another Clinton lie because there is no peace to keep, there is no hope that our involvement can eliminate the causes of the conflict, and there are even questions about who is at fault in the civil war. Clinton’s Kosovo war will, like Bosnia, become an open-ended, permanent, costly U.S. project, and it will probably degenerate into a Somalia-type fiasco.
The Joint Chiefs have warned against casualties in Kosovo because, first, the fighting will get bloodier as the weather improves, and secondly, U.S. troops in Kosovo will be at grave risk from terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals connected to Saudi renegade Osama bin Laden, who has declared a worldwide war on Americans. Fanatics bent on jihad against the “Great Satan” United States could hardly ask for a more tempting target than several thousand Americans deployed so close to their bases in northern Albania.
It’s not only our U.S. troops who will be put in mortal danger; bin Laden has stated unequivocally that all Americans, including “those who pay taxes,” are targets. At a recent Senate hearing, CIA Director George Tenet warned against the danger of a stepped-up terrorist campaign, saying, “There is not the slightest doubt that Osama bin Laden, his worldwide allies, and his sympathizers are planning further attacks against us.”
We should not underestimate the deceit and deviousness of Clinton’s plans to “move on” by getting headlines for aggressive presidential actions to replace coverage of his impeachment trial. He fully understands how entering the Kosovo war may provoke terrorist retaliation within the United States, and he is using that risk as the excuse to create a Domestic Terrorism Team headed by a military “commander in chief,” with a $2.8 billion budget.
Clinton has already issued a Presidential Decision Directive to authorize military intervention against terrorism on our own soil. Secretary of Defense William Cohen said in an Army Times interview that “Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive means of protection.”
Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre has been floating the idea of designating a unit of U.S. troops as a Homelands Defense Command to take charge in case of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Hamre argues that the military’s role should be formalized under a four-star general, and he has even speculated about creating a bi-national command with Canada and calling it the “Atlantic Command.”
The arrogance of the plans being discussed within the Clinton Administration is indicated in the Autumn 1997 “Parameters,” the scholarly publication of the Army War College. The article predicts that “the growing prospect of terrorism in our own country . . . will almost inevitably trigger an intervention by the military.”
The article casually adds, “legal niceties or strict construction of prohibited conduct will be a minor concern.”
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is supposed to protect us against a President using the Army to enforce the law against civilians. The spectacle of the military patrolling the streets of U.S. cities is something that should happen only in totalitarian countries and in movies like “The Siege.”
Later laws, however, have carved out a number of exceptions. The 1984 Stafford Disaster Relief Act authorizes the President, after proclaiming a state of emergency, to send active-duty soldiers to respond to a crisis and serve under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
On June 3, 1994, Clinton issued Executive Order 12919 entitled National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness. It invests FEMA with plenary and dictatorial authority over communications, energy, food, transportation, health, housing, and other resources.
Our limited experience with law enforcement by the U.S. military is not reassuring. When U.S. Army tanks stormed the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in 1993, scores of innocent people were killed, and when the Marines patrolled the Texas border in 1997, an 18-year-old goat herder was shot and killed.
If Republicans allow Clinton to go ahead with his unconstitutional, costly, foolish and dangerous expedition to Kosovo, where we have no national security interest, they are forfeiting any claim to lead America. This issue should be a litmus test for all candidates for President.”
The reality is ..a Democratic President would be boosting troop numbers in Iraq if that was what was required…and would most likely run the war effort a whole lot better in conjunction with other nations..instead of pursuing the Republicans’ failed unilateral approach..
Of course a Democratic presidential candidate ..in the current climate …has to say they’re anti-war…but once they’re elected ..they can always use the ’situation on the ground has changed since the election campaign’ excuse..to maintain or increase troop numbers if need be.
Please, let’s not take Obama’s 2007 election lead-up year policy too seriously.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:45 am
For a week before this statment Howard was getting publicly caned for his position on Australia’s response to climate change - a policy he has the power to change and something the majority of the public think Howard is wrong about.
After these comments about Obama’s policy - something Howard has no power to change and the majority of Australians think Howard is right about - climate change was off the front pages.
And the news cycle public agenda had moved on.
Sure what Howard said was silly - but that doesn’t mean it was silly for him to say it.
February 16th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Lance - post 11 was BRILLIANT!
February 16th, 2007 at 6:46 am
The truth is, the republicans say the right things to the the right, the dems say the right things to the left, and then they go about business as usual. It is not about doing what is right (or left)- it’s about who gets to control the money.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:10 am
You are probably right Just_Nigel, Howard is a clever politician. Perhaps in the lead up to the election he is trying to land a few punches on Rudd, by being the tough guy, who fights wars and does not “cut and run” he’s still the same “strong leader” who doesn’t let asylem seekers into our country. Whereas Rudd is the big girlie wuss, who wants to pack up and leave the war because the going is tough.
This is a big risk for Howard because the war is going so terribly, but I guess he needs to take a risk, if he is going to get back in front in the polls.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:21 am
I think the bigger risk for Howard with that sort of tack is that people will say exactly what Obama did - if you are all ginned up to fight this war, then send more than 1400 troops!! It is all very well posturing about the coalition of the willing, but it is pretty much a token effort.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I don’t think the ADF forces in Iraq would like their contribution described as a “token effort” - it sounds downright insulting to people who daily put their lives on the line.
Where is the evidence that ADF forces are not contributing to improved security in Iraq?
Shouldn’t we be consulting with the government of Iraq about a US and allied forces exit strategy?
February 16th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Howard’s decision to send 1400 troops to Iraq is a token effort if he seems intent on bignoting us as a member of the coalition of the willing. I didn’t intend for a moment to suggest that the ADF troops on the ground aren’t fulfilling their roles with great honour.
The fact is we are not a great military nation. We have a very limited defence force for our population size. I think it is a mistake to paint ourselves as an equal partner in the Iraq conflict, because it surely makes us an equal target.
As for consultation, it was my understanding that the Iraq Study Group whose recommendation Barak announced he would follow, consulted heavily with the Iraq government regarding a withdrawal.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:09 am
There’s an interesting piece by Nicholas Kristof in yesterday’s Age newspaper (originally from the New York Times) has some interesting comments:
“One poll last year found that 78 per cent of Iraqis believe that US troops provoke more violence than they prevent. Another poll, conducted by the State Department and reported by the Washington Post, found that nearly three quarters of Bghdad residents would feel safer if US forces left. So if our aim is to avoid catastrophic bloodshed, it may well be that we’re more likely to accomplish that by leaving.
“A second point is that the bloodshed can end only after Shiite leaders make political concessions to Sunnis, and our presence may be impeding that kind of settlement. Once we set a deadline for departure, the Shiite leaders will look into the abyss - the possibility of Iraq, on their watch, splintering forever - and that may encourage moves to a political settlement. In any case, it doesn’t work when we want to stay in Iraq more than the Iraqis want us there. Not only do polls show that Iraquis overwhelmingly want US troops gone within a year, but Iraqi leaders themselves are cool to Bush’s surge.”
And on it goes… urging diplomacy efforts etc.