Australian President Launches Broadside Attack Against OBAMA

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Austrailian President John Howard
launches attack on Barack Obama</font size><font size="4">
Says victory for Barack Obama would just encourage
terrorists to estabilise and destroy Iraq</font size></center>


Sunday Herald
By Sandra O'Malley
February 11, 2007 06:37pm
Melbourne, Australia


PRIME Minister John Howard has launched a broadside against US presidential hopeful Barack Obama, warning his victory could destroy Iraq and prospects for peace in the Middle East.

Mr Howard's stinging attack against the popular Democrat, who formally launched his bid for the Democratic candidacy overnight, also appears to commit Australian troops to staying in Iraq well into 2008.

Only days after saying Australia's alliance with the US was about more than his personal friendship with US President George W Bush, Mr Howard warned that an Obama victory would be a boost for the terrorists.

The man who wants to be the first black US president has pledged to withdraw US troops from Iraq by March 2008, a timetable Mr Howard believes is dangerous.

"I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for (an) Obama victory," Mr Howard told the Nine Network.

"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."

Labor described Mr Howard's attack against Senator Obama as unprecedented.

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland said Mr Howard was virtually telling people not to vote Democrat.

"It's the first time that I can recall that an Australian prime minister has engaged in US politics in such a partisan way... actually telling US citizens what side of politics they should vote for," he said.

"It's most inappropriate, it demeans the Australia-US alliance to suggest its a relationship between political parties rather than an enduring relationship between two people."

Mr Howard's comments also suggest he anticipates Australian troops will remain in Iraq well into 2008.

He has repeatedly vowed to stay the course with the coalition forces in Iraq and predicted there was no way the US could withdraw in a little over a year.

"There's no way by March 2008, which is a little over a year from now, everything will have been stabilised so that the US can get out in March 2008," Mr Howard said.

"And, if the US is defeated in Iraq, the hope of ever getting a Palestinian settlement will be gone."

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd indicated that if Labor won government, the troop rotation in place at that time was likely to be the last.

However, he would not give a definitive timetable for withdrawal.

"What we would do with the US is consult with them... about our removal of the Australian force on the ground," Mr Rudd told the Ten Network.

He pledged that Australia, under his leadership, would maintain its security detachment of around 110 personnel guarding the Australian embassy in Baghdad.

It would also provide some form of security assistance to the Iraqis.

Mr Rudd indicated that other troops would only remain in Iraq for up to six months at most after a Labor victory.

"Rotations of troops are normally in six-month cycles, (so it) depends on where you are in that cycle," he said.

"All I'm saying is we'll be taking those troops out of there but we'll do so in close consultation with our US ally."

 

[Chase Bannon]

I swear some people live in such fear.

 

[QueEx]

For those who may have heard of it before:

There is an almost uniform precept - that foreign governments stay out of American
domestic policy, especially U.S. Elections. Some call it - "Non-Intereference." Now,
whether the U.S. practices non-intereference with respect to the dometic policy of
other nations is <u>another topic</u>, but I've known of many instances when foreign
governments have been told, emphatically: BUTT-OUT.

NOW COMES THE AUSTRALIAN PRESIDENT. His statement regarding Barack Obama
is an OBVIOUS attempt to involve himself, the county and people of Australia in a
matter that is clearly U.S. domestic policy -- the election of its president.

IS IT BECAUSE the Australian has less deference to a Black man running for President
in the U.S., or, is okay for the Australian to speak on who may become president in
the U.S. because the Australians are part of the Iraq coalition (with troops on the
ground in Iraq) ???

Watch Some of the Republicans who, ordinarily, would be jumping up and
down saying the Australian president has no right to comment on a U.S.
Election, say they agree with the Australian president .... because, they
will say, IRAQ.

WILL THE DETRACTORS OF BARACK OBAMA use any tactic, even those which
are supposed to be "taboo" to attack Obama ???

QueEx

 

[mrjody]

The Austrailian PM better hope he don't win.
Obama is gonna call his ass from the oval office and say
"what was that shit you was talking, you kangaroo nigga!"
Don't make me send some "peacekeeping troops" to your house.

 

[kjxxxx]

I don't think he is the only one who feels that way. Our other allies have been expressing that point of view before the Obama declare his candidacy. The British prime minister has said that. Every one who has troupes there has said that. That opinion is as much about Americas reputation/credibility as well as the members of the alliance.

They would like to come out of Iraq saying that they left a model Democratic country in the Middle East. Anything that make them seem like they came there demolish the country and then turn it over to terrorist after pledging to do what ever it takes to bring the country to something of a stable Democracy is basically unacceptable.

 

[REMINGTON_BLACK]

lol true

 

[nittie]

Yup this isn't the time to elect a poster child, symbolic, sweetheart candidate. Obama is smart and he's doing the right thing, he knows if doesn't get the nomination he's set himself up as a player. Now we need a Dem with experience and command of the issues personally I think Gore is the best man for the job.

 

[mrjody]

Yup this isn't the time to elect a poster child, symbolic, sweetheart candidate. Obama is smart and he's doing the right thing, he knows if doesn't get the nomination he's set himself up as a player. Now we need a Dem with experience and command of the issues personally I think Gore is the best man for the job.

When is the time?

 

[nittie]

When is the time?

Time for what? Obama or a symbolic, sweetheart, poster child.

 

[kjxxxx]

Yup this isn't the time to elect a poster child, symbolic, sweetheart candidate. Obama is smart and he's doing the right thing, he knows if doesn't get the nomination he's set himself up as a player. Now we need a Dem with experience and command of the issues personally I think Gore is the best man for the job.

Gore is a pussy. As much as hate to say it, I think Hillary would makes better commander in chief than both. The more the others keep talking about we should not have gone and their solution is just but and run. The less likely they will be to win.

The conservatives and folks who believe like the Australian president does will jump ship like they did in GA to Cynthia Mckinie's to the candidate that is closer to their agenda. I think the best commander in chief will win the election again.

 

[muckraker10021]

WILL THE DETRACTORS OF BARACK OBAMA use any tactic, even those which
are supposed to be "taboo" to attack Obama ???

QueEx

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="4"></hr>
<p>
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<h2>The answer is YES!!!</h2>

Those of you denigrating and throwing Obama ‘over the cliff’ because he doesn’t in your myopic view have ‘enough experience’ ; are walking through the coast redwood tree forest but you still can’t see the trees. The worst president & administration in US history by all empirical measures, still has 22 months left to further destroy America. Successors to this criminal regime are at the beginning stages of a too long campaign, and some of you peeps are already throwing the Black candidate overboard. </FONT>

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr><p>
[FRAME]http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/11/obama-slavery/[/FRAME]

 

[mrjody]

Time for what? Obama or a symbolic, sweetheart, poster child.

Save your tricknology for someone else.
Nobody wants the unibomber as the next president.

Did you see what he turned in to after he lost the election?
Fuckin Grizzly Adams...

I want my next president to have a little more
intestinal fortitude.

GWB is the conservatives' symbolic sweetheart posterchild.

Don't forget to log out correctly this time....

***Black People:
Please be aware that there is a concerted effort being made by outsiders to shape your opinion on this and other issues.

 

[QueEx]

Just saw a clip of Barack Obama responding to John
Howard's assertions (see above). Obama was calm
and collected as he noted:

"Australia has about, what, 1,400 troops in Iraq?" If
John Howard is so ginned up about fighting in Iraq, he
should put up about 20,000 troops."[/color/​

Whatcha think ??? Sounds he held his own in that one.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

Just saw a clip of Barack Obama responding to John
Howard's assertions (see above). Obama was calm
and collected as he noted:

"Australia has about, what, 1,400 troops in Iraq?" If
John Howard is so ginned up about fighting in Iraq, he
should put up about 20,000 troops."​

Whatcha think ??? Sounds he held his own in that one.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Put up or shut up, Obama tells Howard</font size></center>

News. com. au
By Peter Mitchell and Peter Veness in Los Angeles
February 12, 2007 01:32pm


US presidential candidate Barack Obama has told Prime Minister John Howard to put up or shut up.

Mr Obama, speaking at a packed press conference in Iowa today, said if MrHoward was concerned about the situation in Iraq he should send 20,000 Australian troops to the strife-torn nation.

The Illinois senator added that if Mr Howard did not send the troops, then the prime minister's attack on the Democrat presidential hopeful's Iraq policy was "empty rhetoric''.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now and my understanding is that Mr Howard has deployed 1400,''Mr Obama, who next year could become the first African American to be elected US president, said.

"So, if he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them up to Iraq.

"Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric.''

Mr Howard sparked the war of words yesterday when he took the extraordinary step of declaring that he hoped Mr Obama did not become president of the US, and that his election would be disastrous for the war on terrorism.

Mr Howard said Mr Obama's plan to pull America's combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, was a strategy that would "destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists''.

"If I were running al-Qaeda 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,'' Mr Howard said.

Mr Howard's comments came a day after Mr Obama officially launched his US presidential campaign and the clash quickly became one of the top news stories in the US.

Spokesman for Mr Obama, Robert Gibbs, travelling with the senator in Iowa, told American reporters Mr Howard should contribute more Australian troops "so some American troops can come home''.

"It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices,'' Mr Gibbs said.

Mr Howard's attack also drew criticism from other senior US Democrats.

Oregon senator Ron Wyden said: "The most charitable thing you can say about Mr Howard's comment is bizarre''.

"We'll make our own judgments in this country with respect to elections and Barack Obama is a terrific public servant.''

Mr Obama and Terry McAuliffe, a former chairman of the Democratic National Convention, noted Mr Howard's close relationship with Republican president George W Bush.

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced,'' Mr Obama said.

"I take that as a compliment.''

Mr Howard also managed to upset at least one Republican senator.

"I would prefer that Mr Howard stay out of our domestic politics and we will stay out of his domestic politics,'' Texas Republican senator John Cornyn said.

Mr Obama, 45, is the top challenger to Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the Democratic Party's candidate for next year's US presidential election.

Mr Obama has vowed to end the Iraq war if elected president.

Mr Howard's comments received plenty of airplay in the US, with 24-hour news channels CNN and Fox News regularly running reports about the war of words.

But he appeared unrepentant today, saying Mr Obama had failed to address the substance of the war in Iraq.

"I think the most interesting thing about (Senator Obama's comments) is that it didn't really address the substance of the issue,'' Howard told ABC Radio.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21210989-1702,00.html

 

[nittie]

Save your tricknology for someone else.
Nobody wants the unibomber as the next president.

Did you see what he turned in to after he lost the election?
Fuckin Grizzly Adams...

I want my next president to have a little more
intestinal fortitude.

GWB is the conservatives' symbolic sweetheart posterchild.

Don't forget to log out correctly this time....

***Black People:
Please be aware that there is a concerted effort being made by outsiders to shape your opinion on this and other issues.

About Mr. Obama I said

Obama is smart and he's doing the right thing, he knows if doesn't get the nomination he's set himself up as a player.

And I was alluding to Bush's presidency when I said we don't need another posterchild with no real experience whether it's OBama, Edwards or Clinton, the world is too dangerous and the stakes too high for on the job training.


Now if you'll be so kind as to tell me the correct way of logging out, and what the fuck Grizzly Adams got to do with this, maybe we can end this conversation on a positive note.

 

[kjxxxx]

So basically Obama is saying that Howard might as well pull his troops and his support. And since he can say that to Howard anyone else who does not have as much can go ahead and pull theirs also. So we shall be heading for a different kind of isolation than what the Democrats have claimed that Bush did. Only this time we shall isolate our allies as opposed to our enemies.

Hopefully we don't get to the state where our enemies desires shall carry a heavier weight than our allies.

 

[london]

Obama is scaring the shit of all those white people ( and fake black intelectuals) they all start talking crazy when they hear Obama's name
shit is really funny

 

[mrjody]

what the fuck Grizzly Adams got to do with this

If you paid attention to the politcal landscape, you would know Al had some sort of breakdown, gained 60 pounds, grew a beard and moved into the mountains....

 

[QueEx]

So basically Obama is saying that Howard might as well pull his troops and his support. And since he can say that to Howard anyone else who does not have as much can go ahead and pull theirs also. So we shall be heading for a different kind of isolation than what the Democrats have claimed that Bush did. Only this time we shall isolate our allies as opposed to our enemies.

Hopefully we don't get to the state where our enemies desires shall carry a heavier weight than our allies.

No, I think what he said is quite different. I think he intimates to John Howard that if he wants to interfere in the race of the American presidency, he should ante-up. When Australia has a "real" share in Iraq; when Australia "places its troops in harms way and not just post guarding" then John Howard's commitment will match his lip and somebody might care about what he thinks of the American presidential race.

I am not one for pulling our forces out at this juncture. But if somebody (Australia) wants to try to bring this war to some kind of reasonable close, stop running off at the mouth and put more beef behind the commitment.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Howard not sorry for Obama remarks</font size></center>

Australian Broadcasting Company
Monday, February 12, 2007. 7:47pm (AEDT)

Prime Minister John Howard has spent Question Time defending his statement that Al Qaeda would be praying for US Democratic Party hopeful Barack Obama to win the presidential election.

Mr Howard has criticised Senator Obama, who is seeking the Democratic nomination, for calling for US troops to be out of Iraq by next March.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has accused Mr Howard of acting against Australia's interest.

"That great party, the Democratic Party of the United States, this Prime Minister has said effectively is the preferred party of terrorists," he said.[/b]​

Mr Howard has refused to apologise.

"If America is defeated in Iraq, the consequences for the West will be catastrophic," he said.

Mr Rudd says Mr Howard has been grossly insensitive by lecturing US presidential candidates, but a censure motion against the Prime Minister was defeated on party lines.

Mr Howard says it is true that his words have been scrutinised around the world, but he says he has not damaged Australia.

"I don't apologise for criticising Senator Obama's observation because I thought what he said was wrong," he said.

Senator Obama has responded to the Prime Minister's criticism by calling on him to commit more Australian troops to Iraq.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400," he said.

"So if he is...to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq, otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1846068.htm

 

[kjxxxx]

No, I think what he said is quite different. I think he intimates to John Howard that if he wants to interfere in the race of the American presidency, he should ante-up. When Australia has a "real" share in Iraq; when Australia "places its troops in harms way and not just post guarding" then John Howard's commitment will match his lip and somebody might care about what he thinks of the American presidential race.

I am not one for pulling our forces out at this juncture. But if somebody (Australia) wants to try to bring this war to some kind of reasonable close, stop running off at the mouth and put more beef behind the commitment.

QueEx

I had read his comments and feel the same way. IE. You don't have enough troops so your opinion is not valid. At least now Obama knows how our allies feel.

He should have taken a more humbler tone with his response.

Obama has been sounding a little more pompous and holier than thou the more and more he gets criticism. He first came out during the Democratic convention as somewhat humble but all that is gone.

He will be defeated quickly. His opponent will use that point against him. They will beat him down with it. He is going to get beat down on foreign policy front.

 

[nittie]

Obama doesn't want to be president in 08. OBama knows he's a hot commodity and he's trying to cash in, can't say I blame him. If he plays his cards right and finishes a strong 3rd in next years election he's set for life. He'll make a fortune on the lecture and book circuit and still be a Senator. He can parlay that into a Vernon Jordan or Harold Raines type position. Hell he might even decide he wants to be president in 2012 or 2016 if he does it's his for the taking.

 

[muckraker10021]

Obama doesn't want to be president in 08. OBama knows he's a hot commodity and he's trying to cash in, can't say I blame him. If he plays his cards right and finishes a strong 3rd in next years election he's set for life. He'll make a fortune on the lecture and book circuit and still be a Senator. He can parlay that into a Vernon Jordan or Harold Raines type position. Hell he might even decide he wants to be president in 2012 or 2016 if he does it's his for the taking.

“Cash in” on what? Coming out of Harvard this guy had law firms private jets waiting for him at the airport to take him to a 7 figure guaranteed partnership position. McKinsey & Company offered him a 15 million dollar package 4 years ago, before you or I ever heard of him. It’s not solely about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ with this guy. This is one of the reasons he has attracted so much seemingly unlikely white support. The white boys look at him, they look at his credentials, they see that he didn’t come from money, and they can’t believe he didn’t rush for that big pot of gold. Give the man time before you just through him overboard as just an opportunist.

 

[nittie]

Just because he didn't accept all this stuff doesn't mean he's not an opportunist, a politican is opportunistic by nature, it just means he sees a bigger opportunity which may or may not be about money.

I think what you said about his background supports my theory. A proud, intelligent, ambitious man who has come up the hard way has a hard time conforming especially a Black who has seen his parents dogged out. Obama speaks candidly about his troubled youth, you can tell he resents what he had to go thru and the people who put him thru it.

I stand by my theory that he's doing this for ulterior reasons, I'll admit I don't know what they are like I said it may or may not be money.

 

[london]

Just because he didn't accept all this stuff doesn't mean he's not an opportunist, a politican is opportunistic by nature, it just means he sees a bigger opportunity which may or may not be about money.

I think what you said about his background supports my theory. A proud, intelligent, ambitious man who has come up the hard way has a hard time conforming especially a Black who has seen his parents dogged out. Obama speaks candidly about his troubled youth, you can tell he resents what he had to go thru and the people who put him thru it.

I stand by my theory that he's doing this for ulterior reasons, I'll admit I don't know what they are like I said it may or may not be money.

If you know something say it
but stop gossiping if you don't know nothing

 

[QueEx]

Just because he didn't accept all this stuff doesn't mean he's not an opportunist, a politican is opportunistic by nature, it just means he sees a bigger opportunity which may or may not be about money.

...

I stand by my theory that he's doing this for ulterior reasons, I'll admit I don't know what they are like I said it may or may not be money.

Isn't that a practical admission of what Muckraker said ???

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

I had read his comments and feel the same way. IE. You don't have enough troops so your opinion is not valid. At least now Obama knows how our allies feel.

He should have taken a more humbler tone with his response.

Obama has been sounding a little more pompous and holier than thou the more and more he gets criticism. He first came out during the Democratic convention as somewhat humble but all that is gone.

He will be defeated quickly. His opponent will use that point against him. They will beat him down with it. He is going to get beat down on foreign policy front.

kj .....

He has to bite back (sometmes) or he's a wimp. I don't know a single politician, modestly successful at least, who doesn't have a bit of an ego -- I think thats part of the drive, hence, a bit of pompousness and holier than thou. What, in my opinion, his opponents are going to hit hard at is exactly what he appears to be hanging his hat on: Exit Iraq, soonest. His anti-Iraq-war stance. Personally, I think withdrawal by 08 is probably a mistake -- but Vietnam turned out OK - albeit there are different forces and stakes at interest in Iraq.

Things may change tomorrow. The mood of the country might be different in six months, a year. But at this moment in time, voter sentiment appears against what seems more and more everyday like a boondoggle. Therefore, Obama's critics can and will slam him hard for his stance .... but, his stance is his stance and I think he's banking on public sentiment behind his stance.

However, I do see your point. But, unless things in Iraq start to change dramatically in reverse pretty soon, some of his critics, John Howard included, could soon be facing similar public sentiment. Ask Tony Blair.

QueEx