Australia’s PM John Howard Slams Obama
It seems that Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard isn’t exactly looking forward to a possible Obama Presidency:
Australia’s conservative prime minister slammed Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) on Sunday over his opposition to the Iraq war, a day after the first-term U.S. senator announced his intention to run for the White House in 2008.
[...]
Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch Bush ally who has sent troops to Iraq and faces his own re-election bid later this year, said Obama’s proposals would spell disaster for the Middle East.“I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory,” Howard said on Nine Network television.
“If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.”
Of course, terrorists aren’t ‘praying for’ an Obama victory at all. Utter nonsense… Some people say that terrorists wanted Kerry to win in ’04, others say that Bin Laden wanted Bush to win. Howard now says that terrorists want Obama to win, I’m quite sure that other people will start saying that terrorists want someone like John McCain to win because of his support for the Iraq war and the escalationsurge.
As for me, I believe that we (people living in the West – well, everywhere actually) should vote for the person who we believe will deal best with today’s (and the future’s) problems. What terrorists think of the candidate is quite irrelevant. We have to do what we consider to be best. Besides: terrorists will use everything to their own advantage. A surge / war means more deaths, they will use it for propaganda purposes. A withdrawal means ‘defeat’ or something quite similar… and they will use it for propaganda purposes.
One must look at what one believes to be the best way of dealing with problems. Again, what Osama thinks about it is irrelevant. In the global fight against terrorism ‘we’ must try to understand the results of different policies and, then, ‘we’ have to decide what policies to carry out.
Frankly, Howard was way out of line. It is absolutely unacceptable for a leader of a country to talk like this about the potential leader of another country, even more so, of an allied country.
More at:
Larisa Alexandrovna’s at-Largely, Ed Morrissey’s Captain’s Quarters, Jules Crittenden and Chris at AmericaBlog.
Also check out Richard Blair’s post at the All Spin Zone.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to “Australia’s PM John Howard Slams Obama”
I have to absolutely agree that from what I heard him say he pretty much laid his cards on the table and then upped his bet. In Texas holdem he is pretty much in a sink or swim possition now betting it all on the river.
You dont lay your entire plan on the table and with no wiggle room.
It sounds good for the antiwar but its already a hint of a guy that does not have the experience to run this country…….YET
Well, I know that Howard at least will be praying that Obama doesn’t win. It’d be rather awkward if he did and someday (assuming Howard was still PM) at the white house the President of the United States said… “So, I hear you think I’m the terrorists darling…” Hell of a way to encourage international relations.
Terrorists want to terrorize. An Osama tape right before the elections saying “by all means Bush, stay in Iraq, it’s great for us” serves the simultaneous purpose of allowing Bush allies to say “Be afraid! Terrorists are out to kill us! You can’t let namby pamby democrats in charge!” and Bush opposers say “look! Osama’s still free and alive! And he’d be thrilled by another Bush presidency! Are you going to give him what he wants?” And Osama can laugh all the way to the next cave, seeing how we use his image to divide ourselves instead of uniting against him, our enemy.
Howard is a jerk. like blair, Howard is aligned with Bush in his failed foreign policy.
Obama is a threat with his global view and new ideas.
I say, Howard is old school and old failed ideas.
Go obama
Australia’s PM John Howard Slams Obama…
…
John Howard is way out of line, but let’s keep some things in mind while noting that:
There is no ally of the U.S. more staunch than Australia. There is a deep reservoir of good will for Americans among Australians. I know and understand this because I have a goodly number of Aussie friends and the Dear Friend & Conscience (who was born in Melbourne) and I talk about moving there; or in her case, back there, when we talk about the wretched state of America.
Australia sent many thousands of troops to Vietnam and has contributed disproportionately (for its population) in Iraq. This alliance and good will has been sorely tested by the Bush administration and Howard, a conservative to the core, has not helped.
But regardless of Howard’s relationship with the White House, he is widely respected in Australia because he has presided over a period of growth and prosperity unprecedented in that country’s history and unprecedented in recent global economic history. He and his managers have been deft at fine-tuning the economy to deal with internal and external challenges year in and year out.
This does not forgive Howard’s slavish support of George Bush or popping off about Barack Obama, but beyond his foreign policy pronouncements he has been a solid leader in a turbulent time.
A final point: The Australians that I know do not love Americans any less because they are led by a corrupt bumbler. And I do not love them any less becayse they are led by a big mouth.
Be fair, Howards only returning the favour to the republicans.
After all bush & co were using fairly similar language about Howards opposition during the aussie election a couple of years ago.
[...] Update: There’s a lot of agreement on both sides of the blogosphere – Howard was way out of line. More at The Moderate Voice. Richard Blair | Sunday, February 11th, 2007 | [...]
I love the way PM Howard says an Obama presidency would destabilize the ME as though our invasion of Iraq has not already accomplished this unforeseen goal. At least Howard’s opinion will not be typical of what the rest of our allies think.
[...] Be sure you read THIS EARLIER POST on this subject by TMV Assistant Editor Michael van der Galien. Posted on February 11, 2007 | Permalink | Categories Politics, 2008 Elections, War, Iraq, War On Terror, Democrats, Australia, Barack Obama | | View blog reactions » [...]
Even Our Friends Should Butt Out Of Our Politics…
Am I the only conservative with misgivings regarding John Howard’s proclamation about Barack Obama? Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia and a great friend to the United States, wants to wage an aggressive war against al-Qaeda and radical Islamist …
As a left wing Australian citizen I absolutely loving this. OK, a bit of history first. Australians are very insecure. After all the Britz took over the country from indigenous people (no difference from USA/Canada there)and deep down they always feared over the last 200 years of European colonisation that someone else could do the same.
People say Australians are racists. That not correct. Of course there are racist here as anywhere else, but Australia is no more racist than any other predominantly who has predominantly a caucasian population.
However they have been fearful. A huge country, small population at the bottom of Asia which has lots of people. In the 1800′s there was the fear of the ‘yellow peril’ hoardes of Asian swamping the country…and that fear persists. People may say ‘that’s racist’ but I know that once Asian migrants adopt the lifestyle of the mainstream there is great acceptance. There is little belief that people of other races are ‘inherently’ inferior. Just the fear that they may overtake this small country…the same way their forebears did with the Australian Aborigines.
Britan was Australia’s protector before WWII. Then the USA did thid role after it (Australia participated in the Korean and Vietnamese wars). Anything that jeopardised the USA – American friendship was political poison.
So until the 1960 there was the ‘White Australia Policy’ to keep immigration European. Fortunatley that was dismantled in the late 60′s and Australia has becomed much more multicultural. We have a big Vietnamese population, te largest group of immigrants at the moment is from India and the largest group of current refugees is from Soamlia.
But that ‘fear’ remained and Howard was the first Prime Minister to use this when he was looking down defeat at an election refusing a container ship which picked up some asylum seekers docking in Australia. (you can read the whole shameful saga here. Then after a couple of month 9/11 happened and Austalia who was quite a open country retreated in fear. Howard had it made. He snuggled up with Bush and Blair and created the illusion in the Australian electorate that Australia was a major player in the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ while the contribution was small.
So what is happening now? The fact is that Howard was able to portray the Opposition party (The Australian Labor Party – ALP) as ‘irresponsible’ and ‘Anti American’ for even mildly criticising Australia’s small involvement in Iraq. And until the majority of Americans seemed to be behind George Bush Iraq campaign it all worked well.
But Howard is in a squeeze now. The weapon of portraying the ALP as anti-American becomes laughable if a major Presidential candidate wants to withdraw from Iraq. The elections are due in November 2007, the polls are not looking good for him and a major weapon against the opposition is fizzling out.
And now we even have USA Conservatives being against him. I wonder what Rupert Murdoch is thinking (the Murdoch Media has been rock solid with him)
George Bush once called Howard ‘The man of steel’. Looks like the steel is buckling.
The problem with these statements which purport to name the candidate that the terrorists would most like to see elected, is that the terrorists actually play one side against the other. Their game isn’t to get the GOP out of the White House, or to keep it in- their game is to keep us engaged while also keeping us divided. You can argue it either way, that al Qaeda and Iranian backed terror groups want us to stay in Iraq (keeping us bogged down, weakening us as the mujahideen did to USSR), or that they want us to pull out precipitously and leave a vacuum of power in the Middle East. Either one of these scenarios can be played by them to their advantage, so that either political party here can claim that the policies of the other party would be disastrous and thus represent the wishes of the terrorists.
As to Howard stating his opinion- I think he’s wrong for the reason I just stated. I also think he has a right to state his opinion, but it would have been more respectable if he’d done it as a generality (“If US policy by the next POTUS is such and such, it will likely lead to this unpalatable result”). Comment on the policy, instead of using an individual candidate to represent the policy that he’s criticizing.
You can argue it either way, that al Qaeda and Iranian backed terror groups want us to stay in Iraq (keeping us bogged down, weakening us as the mujahideen did to USSR), or that they want us to pull out precipitously and leave a vacuum of power in the Middle East. Either one of these scenarios can be played by them to their advantage, so that either political party here can claim that the policies of the other party would be disastrous and thus represent the wishes of the terrorists.
Great insight, CS- and so very true. This is an argument that will keep us bogged down in the dilemma of what to do, with each side able to point to certain disaster if their own prescription to end the war isn’t followed. Its damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
Which is why we have to look at a cost benefits analysis for this war. The cost has been enormous , and the gains minimal. It always aggravates me when the war’s proponents point to Iraq’s elections, and constitution as though they are proof of democracy. Those are democratic institutions, but Iraq is not a democracy it is a failed state so far, with a powerless government.
While I agree that terrorists could use either senario to aid the cuase, anyone can use things to their advantage. So as an objective statement that is intended to clarify a position and make a point, it is pretty pointless since it doesn’t actually give facts and applies to everyone with a bit of sense. As far as I am concerned, the fact that iraq is a failed state is more a reason for troops to stay that go. I can’t see the situation getting any better if they go and it could make things a whole lot worse. Frankly if there is an insurgency against the government it makes sense to have troops there to fight it. Leaving makes no sense. Except from a political point of view as it make make people happy.
While Mr Howard in the context of international diplomacy may have gone to far, there seems to be a bit of ground support for the ideas expressed.
http://www.cafepress.com/ObamaOsama
Above is a commercial site obviously aiming to make some dough from all this fuss: so someone thinks this idea has a market to it. Of course I don’t know if they have made any sales but clearly poeple think they might. Capitalism at its worst I would say.
hydrocodone online…
news…
zithromax 1000mg…
news…