I think this is highly inappropriate of John Howard. He has weighed into the US election (which everyone seems to have forgotten is almost two years away!!) by criticising Barrack Obama. Remember the furor in Australia prior to our last Federal election when the US Ambassador criticised the Opposition Leader and weighed into domestic politics? How is this any different? Howard is clearly playing politics in his support of his good Republican friend, but I think this is just the latest slip up in what has been the worst start to any of his years as PM. I think Howard's age is catching up with him in that the times have passed him by and he is now out-of-step with the general public opinion on the Iraq War issue. We can only hope that he continues his series of early-year gaffes right up to this years Federal election.

I just saw this response posted on the same news site from the US Democrats in response to Howard's comments:

When Duncan Hunter defends someone, I KNOW they're an ass!

Well it appears that it’s going from bizarre to mad.

Unsurprisingly, our Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, has leapt to John Howard’s defence, but now a federal Liberal backbencher, Cameron Thompson, has also joined the chorus, saying he is proud of Mr Howard's statement and pulling out of Iraq would herald the greatest disaster since the Rwandan genocide.

"I don't think that that is acceptable for people like you and I who enjoy a comfortable lifestyle," he said.

"To throw people into that kind of abyss is, I think, amoral and I think John Howard is absolutely correct when he says that Barrack Obama's policy is not
just wrong, it is I think fundamentally evil."

Downer defends Howard's Obama attack
Downer defends Howard's Obama attack. 12/02/2007. ABC News Online

Such sanctimony from those who created the abysmal situation in the first place.

The crazy thing is that, as Noahath points out, the US elections won’t be held till November 2008, and the new President won’t be inaugurated until January 2009, which means Senator Obama cannot even put his call to withdraw the troops by March 2008 into effect himself.

So what is Howard going on about?

In all honesty, I think Barack Obama should have focused on what he would do about Iraq when elected, and perhaps speak in terms of adopting the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

But I loved his come back to Howard! Indeed, if we were to match the US military presence in Iraq based on the population ratio, we should have at least another 8,000 troops there.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

There was an Opposition attempt to censure the Prime Minister in Parliament today for jeopardizing Australia's national security (under the guise that Howard needs to retain working relationships with the US Government - regardless of political affiliation). This is becoming BIG news in Australia, and is headlining all the national news. Will keep members informed.

i think john howards criticism is warranted, if that is what obama said. I would really hate to let down our allies and flee from battle to early. australia has a contingent in iraq as well i believe.

Yes, Ted, Australia has a contingent in Iraq. Read the posts on this thread and the cited commentaries. It's all there.

Don't you think that Barack Obama has a point when he calls on our Prime Minister to back up his rhetoric by scaling up our troop numbers?

He won't do it, though...there's an election coming up this year.

Jon Howard is just using Barack Obama to boost his own image.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

I don't mind nor am I offended when another world leader has something to say about the west. It's better that others are honest instead of quiet. I think Howard's statement about Obama is sincere in that it reflects that kind of viewpoint on how to go about fighting terrorism. There is a theory out there that if America simply pulls out of Iraq, genocide would ensue. I think that theory only makes sense if you believe that America is the glue holding things together in Iraq, but I don't believe that to be true. Iraq is drifting it's own way irregardless of America's presence there. Look at the bombings just over the last few hours in Baghdad as proof of that. I think that one of the things that America has difficulty compromising is the fact that when they took down Saddam's regime, the country actually became free. It's just that it isn't the kind of freedom we'd like it to be. Like the early days in America or most any new nation, a fierce battle over power is going to take place there and the outcome will be decided by Iraqis, no matter how much control we try to bring to it.

So, Howard is wrong in my opinion. Or maybe he's right. We just don't know. The only thing that makes me think his perspective is wrong is that no prediction about Iraq that all these war-mongers attested to has come to fruition. So why believe them now? But even if genocide ensues, America can't keep it from happening because that's sort of what's going on in Iraq now.

Howard is clearly entitled to his opinion however trying to interfer in a US election is where that should stop. As the PM when he talks it isn't just his own opinion being expressed any more than Bush could get away with calling France and the French or French government officials what he really thinks of them. If you agree this is OK then you are a hypocrit if you were angered by the German or Canadian officials when they made comments about Bush, and they weren't even the leaders of their respective countries.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

As Noahath said - we didn't like it when the US ambassador started making comments about politics here ...

In fact, I think Howard knows he's standing on shaky ground ... so maybe he's being a bit careless in what he says.

Jason, I also have mixed feelings about withdrawing the troops.

However, I don't believe for one second that John Howard is sincere.

If he was, he'd sure could commit more Australian troops to the mission, as Barack Obama has called on him to do.

Yes, there is a possibility that if the troops are withdrawn, the situation could get worse. As Barack Obama says, though, it seems that no matter how much money and how many young lives are thrown at the chaos, it only gets worse.

For me it's not the fact that John Howard voiced disagreement with Barack Obama on the question of the troops that I find offensive. It's the fact that he is saying that a victory for Barack Obama or the Democrats would be a victory for Al Qaeda. That goes far beyond disagreement over policy.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

Look, Carolyn Parrish, a former Liberal member of Parliament in Canada, was booted from the party after she called Bush a moron. What really bugs me is that my wonderful nation caved in and basically alienated her just because she spoke her mind. Yes, it is unprofessional to call someone a moron, but her comment wasn't made in a speech, is what caught on tape as an aside. Cheney didn't lose his job for telling someone in a gov't session to go "fuck themselves" and what about when Bush was running in 2000 and called that reporter from the New York Times an ass hole?

The elephant in the room in every nation other than America is that the current U.S. president has no sense of the world, no curiosity. No real interest in debate, knowledge or listening. Left to his own devices, he wouldn't know who the leaders of other nations are unless it is briefed to him in advance, and people really have a problem with that. Especially after having Clinton around for 8 years. Yes, some of you hate everything Clinton, but he garnered respect around the world, and in so doing, America's light shined brighter because of it. He didn't need a history lesson before meeting other world leaders since he was curious enough as a person to know what was happening in other countries.

In just six years as President, Americans have somehow completely let themselves cave into allowing their government to spy on them without a court order and calling that the Patriot Act. It's confounding. Especially when you consider that no President has ever been denied from spying for instance. Decision like that are going to leave you open to criticism, so you just have to get used to it. As long as the President of the United States needs to be briefed as to whom the Prime Minister of Canada is and what party affiliation that guy has, he has every right to be called a moron in my book. It's not flattering to be sure, but sometimes the harsh truth isn't meant to be.

Tethys, that's true, as a "liberal" minded person, it just gets my blood boiling when conservatives get personal about it. Like if Al Gore were the President right now we'd be reading the Koran or something. Terrorists don't care who the President is. They certainly didn't care when they were attacking U.S. interests in the Carter, Reagan, Clinton or Bush Jr. terms. And as long as America keeps troops in Iraq, you have to expect that extremists are going to continue to crusade against what they see as the great oppressors, the imperial baddies of the west.

That's the whole contradiction that even some Americans don't see today; that we're seen as evil to many people over there while we see ourselves as obvious heroes. It just doesn't work that way.

[quote]Jason you I would hope understand the difference between the officials of another nation calling the leader of a nation they do not like a moron where it can be recorded and played back, and Cheney's episode as embarrassing and stupid as it was. The person he was addressing was not a member of a foreign government nor was that person in the middle of a campaign as I recall at the time. Parrish could have more than likely also survived had she addressed her remarks at a member of the Canadian opposition or press instead of the leader of a foreign government.
[quote]Look I am no fan of Bush, but frankly this idol worship of Clinton is just as stupid as those who blindly worship Bush. What the hell did he really do. He closed the government and then got the Americans to blame the Republicans for it. He floated national healthcare, got swatted down, and then gave up on it. So much for convictions. While I think Bush supporters make way to much out of the fact that he did not really address terrorism, lets face it there was a middle ground between what Clinton did and what Bush has done, and had CLinton actually taken that ground we might not be in this mess today. WHy did foreign governments like Clintion? Well lets look at just one example shall we? He signed Kyoto. He signed it however as a publicity offensive for the other governments who had a great deal of prestige wrapped up in Kyoto. He knew it was never going to be ratified by the Senate and therefor he knew what he was doing was just window dressing. To make matters worse he never really even pushed all that hard for its ratification. So please lets be honest. Clinton may not have been as bad a President as Bush has been, but he wasn't the next best thing to sliced bread either.

[quote]It's only confounding to people who do not understand the context of how it happened, and ae unaware of the history of the US in times of crisis.

We have been used to criticism but this isn't just some Joe Schmoe from Sydney telling us what he thinks. No this is some foreign leader trying to influence the national election early on.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

And on that note this "Jill Schmoe" from Sydney bids you all good night!

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman