I expect nothing less from the self indulgent clique, the born to rule class, of which our very own good queen Bess is the titular head. You speak of;
"hostility towards the Australian prisoners in Guantanamo, Australia's inclusion in the war in Iraq, plus the Howard government's cruel treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, I wonder what the Queen had in mind when she rewarded this man."
I'm sure once Mrs Windsor had reviewed our Johnny's credentials she would have no doubts that he was cut from 'the RIGHT kind of material'. May have even alluded to Phil "My dear Phillip, I do find young Howard, although not a person of breeding, to be one, shall we say, of the correct disposition." Phil "Quite so Mom."
Is anyone else under the misconception that the Queen of England actually cares about people like, prisoners, war victims, asylum seekers, refugees. next thing you know she will have sympathy for the unemployed, do you think the woman is a communist or something?
Sorry have to stop typing they are playing 'Good Save The Queen' on my feet!

It amazes me that John Howard still incites such critism within the community. I feel he is being falsly targetted and history will write favourably re the years of prosperity under his leadership. I would be surprised if history writes favourably about the Rudd/Gillard era of lets get Australia into debt. The problem the next Liberal/National coalition which leads this country will have to tax us so heavily to get us out of debt they will probably only get one term in power as the free loaders/do gooders and independents will see them gone and like now we will a non-democratic government again.

I agree generally with the comments regarding Howard's political record of subservience to the US , and to British royalty . One hopes that the present Australian government did not condone this award . One whose recommendation , if any , did the British monarchy make this award ?

What most appals me is that he accepted any award / reward from the British monarchy . No Australian should accept any such award , even while Australia retains the monarchical system .

Perhaps the next reward from the British monarchy will be a peerage to Lord Howard of Wollstonecraft .

John Howard's well-deserved honour from the Queen has given me double pleasure – it has pleased the people I like and it has annoyed the people I don't like.
DIS

OLO publishes more left wing propaganda as part of its ongoing struggle with editorial judgment.

This article, particularly, slides and slimes from one unsubstantiated assertion to another.

Rees writes of [Howard's]"hostility towards the Australian prisoners in Guantanamo", as though there were many. David Hicks is the only one mentioned by Rees and Mamdou Habib is the only other I could name. What was either of them doing in Iraq when arrested?

Rees laments that "Hicks is not allowed to sell his book, not allowed to profit from his story about Guantanamo." While Rees insinuates that this is somehow John Howard's fault, the action was started by the Gillard government in July 2011. And they were right to do so, in my view. Again, what were Hicks and Habib doing there and why should they profit from it? Rees can no doubt elaborate on his commitment to capitalist opportunism.

Rees claims that "The Pentagon admits that 100,000 Iraquis lost their lives but by several other accounts over one million Iraqui civilians died in this war." Several? Name them. And their dates and methodologies. The Opinion Research Business survey of 2007 nominated 1,033,000 deaths but was dismissed as "exaggerated" and "ill-founded" by one peer reviewed study, according to Wikipaedia. So where are the other, credible, "accounts"?

Rees claims that the invasion of Iraq began with no UN authorisation. He fails to mention the unanimous UN Security Council resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002, offering Saddam a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations or resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986 or 1284.

Rees also claims that there were "never any weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq." Weasel words. "Never" and "not left" are mutually exclusive.

And for all Rees's foot stamping, he offers nothing as a solution for the daily mass murders perpetrated by the Saddam regime, for which Saddam and others were duly executed by Iraq. But don't mention that, eh, Stuart?

In trying to be deadly serious this sarticle is really funny.