I was browsing the Newseum this morning when I came across the front page of the Melbourne newspaper, The Age, and its story about some rather unfortunate remarks Prime Minister John Howard made during a TV interview:
Howard has refused to apologize:
I was somewhat hopeful that the politics of “Democrats = terrorist orgy holders” had ended after the November elections, but I’m heartened to see that we just exported it to other countries.
Now, I don’t know of any Australian dopers who made disparaging comments about the fact that Bush wasn’t tossed out in the 2004 elections, so what I’m about to say isn’t directed at any specific poster. But I’d like to say, for the record, that anyone from Australia who thinks ill of Americans because Bush is still in the White House should look to clean out their own house first.
Don’t worry- the majority of people here have no interest at all in the election campaign, and even less interest in Uncle Johnny’s Betting Tips thereof.
I doubt your average Australian could tell you the difference between a Republican and a Democrat. I certainly couldn’t.
It’s harder here though. No limits on how long the guy can stay in office and until this term he has been a genius. It didn’t matter who the Labor party threw up - Appollo Beazley, Appollo Beazley again, Clubber Crean, Ivan Latham and Appollo Beazley yet again Rocky just beat them all because he is a cagey, ringwise veteran (boxing talk for cheating prick).
However the dude has totally lost the plot of late. If he were my dad I’d be talking with my brothers about which convalescent home to put him in because he has very quickly become very stupid.
Of course the alternative is that he is outsmarting us all and, from the depths of despair, he will pull a dead rat out of his hat and sell it as a mink coat.
As a non-Aussie, I put Howard’s comments down to a last-ditch attempt on his part to keep on the “absolutely pro-Bush 100%” band wagon. It’s expected that he’d see anyone other than an absolutely pro-Iraq War advocate as “pro-terrorist”.
The comment, I’d say, was intended more as a barb at his opponents at home than those who might disagree with his stand in America.
Howard would have to be an idiot if he thinks his comments really hold any sway, either way, in America. Especially not these ones.
Considering there’s a rising opposition to Australian troops being in Iraq from within Australia, it’s in Howard’s best interests politically (seeing as he won’t budge on the “keep 'em there 'till the US says go” issue) to show the “those who disagree with me are helping the terrorists” card.
Howard isn’t an idiot – but his comments, perhaps made thinking that no one except his own media would notice, are proving to have been made most unwisely. The Aussie election this year is proving to be quite a show for us Kiwis to watch.
I really don’t think either party behaved well in this little spat.
PM Howard ought to keep out of our election. This is a good general rule for a foreign leader. And Obama, in turn, as a senator ought not to publicly criticize the contribution of a valued ally, especially one with so many Muslim neighbors and one that has suffered its own problems with terrorism.
This isn’t particularly low stuff for Mr Howard. It does have the whiff of desperation though. There have been signs in the last few months that he’s in trouble and this is another. But I wouldn’t count the bastard out until I can piss on his grave.
“You forgot Poland,” part deux. He was the object of a very personal criticism and I think he’s entitled to wonder why Howard doesn’t put his money where his mouth is.
What he’s entitled to is very irrelevant to the discussion.
He’s a presidential candidate, which means he’s running for the position of diplomat-in-chief. If he can’t smile, blow it off and leave his personal feelings out of his response, he fails that test.
Which is why I said he behaved badly.
Was he wronged? Surely he was. But his answer made matters worse, which isn’t his job right now.
This is a nonsensical attempt to blur the issue by false equivalence
Of course.
Nope. Obama is not criticizing Australia’s contribution. He is (quite correctly) criticizing Howard’s weaselly attack in a perfectly logical way (by pointing out what Howard clearly must do if his statement reflects his actual view of the situation).
I can’t imagine that the comments of a politician running for an office he would not even hold for almost two years should do much to sway Australian foreign policy.
Then perhaps Howard should stay out of American politics, and Obama will refrain from issuing marching orders to the Aussies. Win win.
Nonsense. Our current president doesn’t make a habit of smiling at criticism - although he’s been known to smirk occasionally.
In what way did it make anything worse? Is Australia not going to committ the 20,000 troops it promised? There’s no international situation here that Obama has intensified. Howard simply chose to take a shot at him and I thought his response was fair. He didn’t fly off the handle, he just wondered (somewhat pointedly) if, since Howard is committed to Iraq, he could do more than criticize a Democratic presidential candidate.
I doubt the “suggestion” was meant to be taken literally.
There’s no international situation here that Obama has intensified. Howard simply chose to take a shot at him and I thought his response was fair. He didn’t fly off the handle, he just wondered (somewhat pointedly) if, since Howard is committed to Iraq, he could do more than criticize a Democratic presidential candidate.