posted
Will, Could you reconcile these two statements for me. I don't see how they work.
quote:As you know, I did not criticize Obama for not saying anything substantive, except in the context of his web page on issues (which doesn't say anything substantive).
quote:In a way Mr. Howard is right. Obama didn't actually promise anything -- he said we should gradually withdraw troops, which is something everyone agrees on except those that say we should do it but not gradually -- but it *sounds* like he did, and our enemies do like hearing they're on the verge of winning.
posted
I know it's work to get specifics, but when we *do* get to specifics, claims like "No, just had his flunkeys try to brand the opponents as traitors" become something like "some guy somewhere called anti-war activists bad names" or "Dick Cheney said they were wrong." At least so far.
I can't find any reference on google to StarWar as a verb (or as anything else).
OK, so I'll assume that Bush did say that talking about pulling troops out was irresponsible. Thing is, saying your opponents' views are irresponsible is a long way from shutting down debate. Shutting down debate is arresting people for those views, or using prior restraint to shut them up, or excluding them from public forums.
Like, as far as we can tell, the President, I don't want people censored from saying we should abandon Iraq. When they do, it surely helps the people who are killing our soldiers; yet we need to keep our open society.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK, so I'll assume that Bush did say that talking about pulling troops out was irresponsible. Thing is, saying your opponents' views are irresponsible is a long way from shutting down debate. Shutting down debate is arresting people for those views, or using prior restraint to shut them up, or excluding them from public forums.
You've got a far narrower definition of "shutting down debate" than I have.
Although actually, I would agree with you on one ting...Bush has not *successfully* shut down debate. I only believe that he has tried to shut it down by calling the opposition cowards and traitors. When you say: "Anyone who says otherwise is supporting terrorism." you are doing something more than disagreeing and something less than getting out the hired hit men.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't want people censored from saying we should abandon Iraq. When they do, it surely helps the people who are killing our soldiers
Could you explain why that would be? Frankly, framing the idea of any sort of disengagement as failure seems to me to embolden the terrorists far more than what you are claiming.
As things now stand, we're going to disengage and there are still going to be terrorists and fighting there. The plans put forward by the President have no chance of working. It would hve been possible and even perhaps accurate to say something like "We've acheived our goals here. It was never our intent nor our responsibility to play referee in a civil war. Freedom is something that cannot be imposed from without, but rather only built from within. So, we'll be redeploying our troops as they have acheived their mission."
The main reason that this would now be considered failure is because the Bush administration has been pulling out all the stops in saying that it will be a failure. It seems they cut off a potentially attractive option in large part for political gain.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, Squicky, in that case I was referring to Obama's response to Howard's criticism, which didn't actually promise anything either.
Squicky, you did give me specifics, which is why I said, "OK, so I'll assume that Bush did say that talking about pulling troops out was irresponsible."
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know it's work to get specifics, but when we *do* get to specifics, claims like "No, just had his flunkeys try to brand the opponents as traitors" become something like "some guy somewhere called anti-war activists bad names" or "Dick Cheney said they were wrong." At least so far.
I gave you specifics and you are dismissing them here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just out of curiosity, did Australians see more than a single part of Obama's answer?
quote:Obama...responded to Howard's initial comments by saying he was flattered that one of Bush's close allies had chosen to single him out for attack. ...noting the United States has nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq compared with Australia's about 1,400 forces... "So if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq," Obama said. "Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
posted
Squicky, you didn't say "No, just had his flunkeys try to brand the opponents as traitors," and what you said didn't relate to flunkies branding people as traitors. I recognized your specifics; I just didn't apply them to a claim you didn't make or comment on.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Obama parried that attack quite well, it will be fun to see how his swordsmanship plays out in the future as more mud is certainly coming his way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I wonder if the people who think Howard should have kept quiet about Obama think that all other foriegn leaders should keep quiet about Bush too?
No, but the thing is, by making a speech so soon after Obama's presidential announcement and singling him out, Howard is debatable interfering in the US election process. A week later perhaps, or in another context, it might have caused less antagonism.
See, if the US president refuted an Australian PM candidate's foreign policy plans, the world would be screaming 'Imperialism!'
Was it appropriate for Howard to speak out then, and if not, how should Howard have approached the issue? That's the question I wanted to explore in the OP.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Just out of curiosity, did Australians see more than a single part of Obama's answer?
quote: "So if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq," Obama said. "Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
Apparently not if they read a Fairfax paper. I feel icky inside.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world has started attacking me the day after I announce. I take that as a compliment," he said. "The one thing I would note is that George Bush's own intelligence agencies have indicated that the threat of terrorism has increased as a consequence of our actions in Iraq. So Mr. Howard may have quibbles with our intelligence estimates; maybe he has better ones." "I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now, and I understand that Mr. Howard has deployed 1,400. So if he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he call up another 20,000 Australians." "Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Happily, the whole fiasco (and the Australian media's subsequent take on it) may go a way towards Howard losing the next election.
I think the comment was tacky. It's astonishing, actually, that John Howard who is a consummate politician, would make such a remark.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a number of people have pointed out, the problem is one of timing. Obama isn't even the Dems nominee yet. For me, I don't see what right Howard has to comment on the pre-selection of a presidential candidate in the United States.
His duty to the Australian people is to represent the best interests of our country and our citizenry. How can he do that if is taking potshots at one of leading candidates for leadership of our most important ally? Not to mention at the party that controls both houses of Congress and is the favourite to win the election.
What this partially reflects is that Howard is rattled domestically. Kevin Rudd is currently the most popular opposition leader in Australian history (even if he's still in his honeymoon period and hasn't released any real policies), Australians don't support the Iraq war, don't support Howard's industrial relations legislation (75-80% against, last I saw a poll), don't support his education policies and certainly don't support his environmental policies.
The other factor is the one Troubs mentioned (hey, Kels!) - Howard has a big man-crush on George W. Bush. There's no other good way to describe it. He's got some serious hero worship / man love going down.
He seems to have forgotten that our alliance is with the United States of America - not with the Bush Administration.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Embarrassment to Australia, sure. But a mistake? If I remember correctly, Howard's party depends on the"WhiteAustralia"vote in the same manner that Dubya's party depends on the"WhiteAmerica"vote. It's campaign time in Australia, and guess who ain't white...
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a very simplistic perception of the way Howard plays on the race issue. I don't think Obama's skin colour would matter to almost anyone in Australia.
Howard's race plays have all been centred around "Australian values" and "Australian jobs" and "the fair go". And the war in Iraq is very unpopular in Australia. This was a mistake.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."
This is quite possibly the snobbiest/dumbest thing I've ever heard.
But he's absolutely right.
My uncle served in Iraq for two years. When he returned, he said one thing about his stance on the war. It was something along these lines: "Unless we stay there until the end of time, it will go back to the way it was. As soon as we leave, it will go back to the way it was. A new opressor will take over. And we'll be back at square one."
Coming from the mouth of someone who WAS THERE, I think he may be right. I don't think there's really much any of us can truly say. We can make assumptions. But there aren't many of us who have been there and can see the changes. Or the effect an American invasion has had.
If everything is going to go back to normal, there isn't a conventional victory in sight. It doesn't matter who does the pulling back. I forsee that if we remove the bulk of our forces, chaos will ensue. To maintain peace, we will feel compelled to do as we have done in the past in other places and constantly station a limited number of forces on Iraqi soil.
Edit:
quote: I don't. I would like to see us keep a military base in Iraq, just like we have in Germany, Japan, Italy, and many other countries.
Like Dark Knight said. However, I don't like the idea of it. But I think this may be what will happen. I think it is in our best interest to remove the bulk of the troops. But if we plan to maintain peace or the half-rumped democracy that's in place, we'll probably have to take this action.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
