John Howard tells it like it is
February 12th 2007 08:39
It takes somebody of John Howard's calibre to state the truth and tell the world that a win for the Democrats is a win for Al-qaeda. It's a self-evident truth. Senator Osama aka Obama reacted very badly to it but he should cease to ponder why a man who pretty much keeps out of American politics, who is one of America's staunchest allies has had to say such shocking but self-evident truths? In stead of summarily dismissing Howard's claims, Obama should mediate on them.
Some U.S. lawmakers seem to be unhappy with PM's remarks. I don't see why. They never reacted when Kofi Annan conspired to nuke John Bolton or sundry EU leaders shoot their mouths off. And what John Howard has said is unquestionably true. When the Democrats won the minor COngressional elections last year, every terrorist outfit from Hamas to Al-Qaeda expressed its joy and declared that the Democrats owe their success to them. If that's the case, why won't they be happy when the Democrats win a Presidential Election?
Some are saying that Howard made these unprecedented remarks because his coalition is 10 points behind the Labor party. That's just small-minded tripe. Both the PM and even Foreign Minister Alexander Downer have expressed their alarm over growing isolationaism in US several times. After all, the direction US takes impacts Australian security too. They can't afford to have a weak ally in the US and ahving lost so many Australians to terrorsim, they can't be complacent about it either. If the Democratic Party, which never objected when the likes of Hugo Chavez make fun of President Bush, has any sincerity, it'll stop and ponder about it's security credentials. It's high time now.
Some U.S. lawmakers seem to be unhappy with PM's remarks. I don't see why. They never reacted when Kofi Annan conspired to nuke John Bolton or sundry EU leaders shoot their mouths off. And what John Howard has said is unquestionably true. When the Democrats won the minor COngressional elections last year, every terrorist outfit from Hamas to Al-Qaeda expressed its joy and declared that the Democrats owe their success to them. If that's the case, why won't they be happy when the Democrats win a Presidential Election?
Some are saying that Howard made these unprecedented remarks because his coalition is 10 points behind the Labor party. That's just small-minded tripe. Both the PM and even Foreign Minister Alexander Downer have expressed their alarm over growing isolationaism in US several times. After all, the direction US takes impacts Australian security too. They can't afford to have a weak ally in the US and ahving lost so many Australians to terrorsim, they can't be complacent about it either. If the Democratic Party, which never objected when the likes of Hugo Chavez make fun of President Bush, has any sincerity, it'll stop and ponder about it's security credentials. It's high time now.
| 107 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Suburban Boy
Oz Politics and Kulture!
I'd also like to point out that you say it takes someone like Howard to state the truth. Where was the truth in saying there were WMDs in iraq. Where was the truth we he stated the troops would be out of Iraq in a matter of months not years. Where was the truth when he continued to say he had not decided he would send troops to iraq yet it was revealed that AWB executives knew long before Howards decison that the governemnt would commit troops to Iraq.
It has not only been democrats in the sates that have told Howard to butt out of US domestic politics but republicans as well.
Bush and Howards foreign policy has done more for Al -Qaeda's recruitment then anyone else. I suspect if Bin laden could vote in the next US election his vote would before those who would continue to persue aggression against muslim countries not those who seek to find other answers.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
And thank Goodness you realized Al Quaida is really just there to put the democrats in power.
This crap is Communists under the bed, chapter two.
Comment by Bhumika
Political Minds
Comment by Damo
"Telling it like it is?"
Or is he telling it like he sees it or the way he thinks it is.
"Self-evident Truths?"
I question the evidence and ask to see it otherwise it is nothing more that what you wish to be true.
Bush's security credenfials are being questioned all the time.
I do not object to you praising you hero but do not confuse it with truth.
Comment by Stuart
Mediated
We should bask in Howard's criticism and never complain if he meets someone who will give the criticism back with interest.
Instead we should adjust their name to subliminally infer they are terrorists or received fundamental educations because they spent their childhood in a different country.
Take that Damo Bin Laden, Brenton Hussein and Suburban-Qaeda Boy!
Comment by Damo
You have won me over. I will now vote for Howard in the upcoming elections.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
He he he!
Damo Bin Ladin? It has a ring to it.
Comment by Promachus
Promachus
This is the first time any post of mine got so many reactions, I am absolutely overwhelmed !
I am not going to counter and argue with everyone around here because everyone seems to be in agreement but I still stand by my remarks.
And yes, I do wish people start taking terrorism seriously, because Al-Qaeda started killing hundreds of people long before any Iraq war. I am sure many of you guys equate Al-qaeda with campus club politics, that is, I suppose since you feel angry or rebellious and anti-war in general, you would ascribe the same feelings to the terrorists, which is a shame, because terrorists are motivated by much deeper ideologies than knee-jerk rebelliousness and in fact, they are masters at making use of sentiments like yours.
Comment by Promachus
Promachus
en. Barack Obama, all of 25 months removed from the Illinois state legislature, announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States on Saturday - and immediately began trading harsh words with the leader of one of America's oldest and most reliable allies.
In the process, the freshman senator revealed truly breathtaking naiveté.
Obama more or less sparked the exchange two weeks ago by introducing legislation mandating a total U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by March 2008.
The senator is entitled to his views, of course. As is Australian Prime Minister John Howard - who said Sunday that the proposal would have al Qaeda leaders in Iraq "praying as many times as possible" for Obama to be elected president in 2008.
In turn, Obama said he was flattered "that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced" for president.
Howard's standing in this debate derives from the fact that Australia once again has troops deployed with U.S. forces in a war zone - as it did in both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War and Somalia.
Indeed, the notion that Howard is no more than "one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world" stunningly understates a political, economic and security relationship that extends back to the 19th century - and obtains to this day.
That Obama doesn't already know this - and respect it - gives deeper meaning to the term "not ready for prime time."
But it gets worse.
Obama then called into question Australia's true commitment to winning in Iraq by noting that while America has upward of 140,000 troops committed to the battle, Canberra has dispatched but 1,400.
"So if [Howard] is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," Obama said, "I would suggest that he call up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
It shouldn't be necessary to point out that Australia is a nation of but 17 million, and that 1,400 soldiers, relatively speaking, is the equivalent of more than 25,000 American troops - more than an entire division.
No small thing, in other words.
Barack Obama is a media darling, and for that reason alone he should do well in the weeks and months ahead.
But he may be on the steepest foreign-policy learning curve of any major presidential candidate in recent history.
As opposed to Howard, who gets it: "I hold the strongest possible view that it is contrary to the security interests of this country for America to be defeated in Iraq," Howard said.
"Let me make it perfectly clear, if I hear a policy being advocated that is contrary to Australia's security interests, I will criticize it."
Good for him.
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
I hope Australia pulls out of Iraq asap.
Then I hope Obama goes and joins his Barmy army and they all blow each other up. Not to undermine the 'very small' threat of continued 'successful' terrorist attacks, now that we are onto them .. can't we can take care of national security on our own shores?
How long till we realise that this is like Vietnam and the money is needed to create new infrastructure to ensure the survival of our species, not barmy obama and the oh-blimey band!
If only we took care of our own back yards first to stop the insidious internal unrest that hosting this barmy army is causing all our countries.
Just yesteray, I heard that some child sex-offending, islamic prisoner was released from our AUstralian jail and was awarded $2,000 in compensation becuase he was not allowed to have specially prepared meat, but ordinary stuff the way the other prisoners had it...
WHAT ABOUT DAVID HICKS - he's just a poor misguided soul too, isn't he?
Ooh, the misguided antiques of our 'superior species' is enough to make me puke...
Why does a simple word like Al-Queda make everyone loose sight of the doughnut and focus only on the hole?