Doesn’t Obama oppose sending additional troops to Iraq? If so, I don’t think he actually wants to encourage Australia to “do more” in Iraq. I suspect, to the contrary, that he’d like all the coalition nations to do significantly less.
You obviously don’t understand Obama’s position on the war. It is not bring in allies so we can go home, it is that foreign troops are not helping the situation. Since he does not expect to ask Australia for troops if elected, I don’t see your point.
Second, he did not respond with a pesonal attack in response to a personal attack. He instead asked Howard to put his money where his mouth was - and the number of troops was clearly a rhetorical device.
Finally, I’m not suprised you are upset when Democrats are no longer pussies, and respond strongly to right wing slanders. All I can say is fuck you and the Swift Boat you rode in on.
I think I could make a strong argument that al-quaeda would rather *not *see Obama as president. Bush has been doing exactly what they want him to do, IMO.
That’s the key here. The Democrats understand the damage done to the Kerry campaign when it ignored accusations and looked weak. I think Obama was right to answer Howard’s remark, but regardless, a comment like that isn’t going to get ignored these days.
What, refusing to leave Iraq and let terrorists move in in even greater numbers? Although many may argue that Bush isn’t doing what’s right for the US, it seems clear that he is doing what’s wrong for the terrorists.
Eh, things are reversed down there. Maybe he was thinking that the elections are in fall, which is March for them. Maybe he was thinking about primaries.
Maybe he just wasn’t thinking.
No, supporting the terrorists propaganda about the U.S. Iraq has been a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Quaeda worldwide, not just in Iraq.
On Colbert last night, Howard got both a tip of the hat and a wag of the finger. A tip of the hat for attacking Obama, a wag of the finger for having attacked an American.
Howard is sucking Bush’s cock.
What else would you expect him to say?
Fucking little toad.
I don’t know if Howard’s clumsy and stupid remarks are evidence he’s losing it or testing the waters. He is currently unpopular here on the Iraq issue, and I think he may be casting about to see what message will play well. Or he may be pursuing some other strategy I haven’t thought of. He’s too clever for it to be safe to assume he just fucked up.
I hate to agree with Mr Moto, but I can’t say I thought too much of Obama’s response. It made no particular sense (Howard wasn’t suggesting an increase in numbers) and 20,000 troops for Australia would be completely disproportionate. No doubt it was a good off the cuff put down that played well in the cheap seats. I would have thought that a better answer would have highlighted Contrapuntal’s point above, and the fact that the current strategy is not working and should not continue despite the views of stay-the-course-and-never-admit-you-were-wrong blockheads like Bush and Howard.
I can’t specifically recall, but I am fairly certain that I would have made disparaging comments about those Americans who voted for Bush in 2004 (if I didn’t it was due to oversight, trust me) and similarly for those who voted for Howard in our last election.
The Aussie opposition leader goes for Howard over the comment.
Maybe he was thinking of the primaries, most of which are in March.
Then why did he say that he as the hypothetical head of al-Qaeda would also pray for a March victory “for the Democrats”? Somebody better break it gently to Mr. Howard that in fact, Democrats are predicted to sweep to victory in every single Democratic primary in 2008. :eek:
Maybe he meant an Obama victory in March and a Democratic victory in November. It’s not like it matters.
Isn’t March 2008 the date stipulated in Obama’s proposal for troop withdrawl?
I think that is what Howard was referring to.
I still don’t get it. Even if Obama is elected in November 2008, that will in no way enable him to implement a troop withdrawal from iraq in March 2008. (Unless those newly expanded powers of the unitary executive that I keep hearing about now include time travel. That would be cool. :))
Perhaps I’m just being too optimistic in thinking that Howard’s remark was supposed to make some kind of logical sense.
I also think Obama’s proposal is something he’s tossing out in Washington for discussion now, for support and momentum regardless of whether or not he is elected.
But now I’m going to have to go find it and read it all the way through.
Ok. It is nice to know that I am still able to absorb some random bits of current events with my periferal vision/hearing. Though I admit failure in finding the actual press release on Obama’s site, here is a link to a reprint. 2nd quoted box down in the article.
Requisite Onion article.
Sheesh, guys. Howard’s not trying to influence the American elections with this. He’s trying to influence the Australian election. He has previously used national security issues to wedge the often incompetent opposition. He is trying to do it again - partly because he’s in trouble over climate change, water policy and David Hicks - but so far it’s not working.
But, like I said, don’t count him out.