Well this reads like the whinging negativity of the asinine.

Maybe if "Dee Dee" had ever been caught in an IRA bombing he might consider the issue a little more serious than suggesting the Prime Minister is using it as a publicity stunt to promote "fear" in the community.

Lets select just a few words from the article

"Ultimately, Howard is playing politics - and playing it well. Howard makes the politics of fear work: it is in his, and the Liberal party’s interests. But is it in ours?"

I would suggest terrorists are the ones "playing politics" and they are doing it with bombs - and whilst many people voted for the Lib/Nat coalition, NO ONE "voted" for the terrorists.

I guess Dee Dee should get to understand that a nation gets the government it deserves - and I for one certainly deserve the benefits that this conservative government brings compared to the stiffling inertia and stagnation associated with Labor or the death, bedlam and absolute misery created by terrorists.

This is the sort of rubbish we can do wothout.

Do we want a safe Australia? Of course we do.

Is John Howard working to keep Australia safe? Yes he is.

Is he right to be honest about not being able to give guarantees? Yes he is.

Get real Daniel!

Howard, and the right wing in general, is very good at using fear and other emotions as political motivators. (Children overboard, interest rates for the obvious examples.) That said, I think it is a bit of stretch to say that the Government's current statements are intended that way. They have to say something and they can't avoid talking about the risk to Australians.

I do think that the risk of terrorism has been overplayed, but by the media; which I suppose thereby allows governments the opportunity to exploit it for their own gain. The media's focus on terrorism is mainly the result of its sensationalist nature, arising from our inexperience with it. An unfortunate result of the current media environment.

If there is an attack, then the Government's anti-terrorism efforts will be evaluated, and I don't think it has much to show for itself.

Daniel - do you think Howard is as bad as the ACTU and its fear-mongering and bare-faced lies about the industrial relations reforms? Do you think Howard shows the same degree of delight that the MSM do when terrorists attack and kill in Iraq so they can use it to harangue the war on terror and conservative governments?
Can you tell us how the anti-terrorist laws have effected you in your daily business? Have they had a worse effect on you than the threat of being blown up by terrorist vermin?
Do you think the government should understate the threat of a terrorist attack here? If we did have an attack would you then bludgeon the government for that understatement and failure to prevent the event?
Do you think that sitting back in your comfy chair as you gnash your teeth and tilt your head is the same as actually coming up with practical solutions to serious problems that can be implemented in real life?
Just asking.

Well, Howard's strategy certainly seems to be working...

For anyone who cannot see why maintaining fear in the public is desirable for a politician, just think of George W. Bush's 37 point rise in popularity after September 11 - before he made any concrete decisions and certainly before any decisions were implemented which could provide a basis for rational judgement of how well a president is doing his job. In times of insecurity we look for guidance and a leader and the perceived threat of terrorism definately creates insecurity.

But I think Howard is not only maintaing axious sentitments to boost his popularity and to distract from other current political issues which are less beneficial for his popularity. He and his team also refrain from assuring us, such that if anything like a terrorist attack will happen in Australia, they can openly say, well, we did our best, we warned you. But this strategy too, is to preserve their popularity or integrity, rather than to serve the public. Advocating less fear rather than maintaining fear would help the public, as fear has created an atmosphere of suspicion and has lead to increased animosity between groups.

Your comment is, I fear, too true. For me it looks obvious when the PM steps up to the plate to give us another dose of his toxic approach to democracy designed to divide the Australian community. Without a vision for Australia, it could be that division is an easy alternative. Perhaps the polls prove me wrong since enough people are persuaded by his subtly corrosive rhetoric to continue to give him a comfortable margin of support in the community.

What is less apparent, because it is so pervasive, is the insidious climate of anxiety maintained by the media with its focus on the all the negatives of life ranging from the latest local traffic accident, and petty council corruptions, to natural catastrophes anywhere on the globe and, of course, the latest acts of terrorism. Even the stock market reports appear designed to maintain the fear and (am I getting paranoid?) the repetitive, fetishistic sports reports seem designed to keep blood pressure oscillating if only you could get beyond the impression that this was yet further proof of another groundhog day. With recently increasing focus on global warming even the previously innocent weather reports are suspect, becoming yet another source for our constantly mounting anxiety levels.

The media has learned that it can sell newspapers, gain listeners for radio programs and viewers in front of televisions with this approach to commentary on the world. Attracting audiences is directly linked to media survival and profits. The closest comparison I can make is with the apparently addictive power of pornography to hook an audience and keep it mesmerized to the point of oblivion.

If it works for the media why wouldn’t it work for politicians? Our political leaders of the right are demonstrating that it does work for them and they are getting better with practise.

One of the reasons that I and millions of other Australians opposed our assumption of the obsequious 'deputy sheriff' role in the futile 'War Against Terror' is that we predicted that our government's enthusiastic support for this American project would increase the probability of terrorist attacks here.

It seems that even Howard now agrees with that asessment publicly - although he has undoubtedly been aware of the predictable results of his government's actions at least since AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty's warnings in 2004, following the Madrid bombings.

Unfortunately, little Johnny's belated admission is likely to do more harm than good, given that the public has now wisened up to the likelihood that every time he speaks publicly, he is likely to be lying.

The assertion that the Howard government shamelessly utilises both genuine (terrorism) and manufactured (Tampa) fear and anxiety for its own political ends is not a controversial one. The government has proven itself very adept at cultivating and nurturing the fear of the unknown, the very vagueness of which forms the basis of its pervasiveness and effectiveness.

But to say that Howard is hoping for an Australian victim is going too far, not least of all in Donahoo's own ruthless political terms: he doesn't need an Australian victim to continue exploiting the fear surrounding terrorism for political gain. His comments surrounding the London attacks are a continuation of the emotionally-charged rhetoric surrounding the general 'war on terror'.

I haven't seen any evidence that supports the statement that "John Howard is working to keep Australia safe". More and more Australian's are realising that even though the threat of terrorism existed before the invasion of Iraq, the threat has increased substantially since then, as was predicted by security experts before the invasion. Will it be a short-term increase, as Howard countered? Only time will tell, but looking past the government spin on Iraq and Afghanistan, it doesn't look hopeful.

Terrorism cannot be overcome through military means - one draws a reaction from the other in an endless cycle of violence - although it does make for inexhaustible political fuel. Perpetual war for perpetual peace - and a Liberal Party government for years to come.

It's a blatant Machiavellian pursuit on Howard's part: whenever he pushes for new anti-terrorism measures domestically, he is in actual fact only meeting the rising threats induced through his unwavering support of Bush's 'war on terror' internationally, and in turn reaping the political currency of fear.

The politics of fear are an entrenched strategy in Australian politics and politicians (of all persuasions) have been using this approach for decades.

The reaction that Howard is now milking reminds of that old Bulrovian fairy tale "The sky is falling”. Foxy Loxy got his dinner and it appears so will Howard.

I'm always amazed at how apparently intelligent people think that Howard is saving us from terrorism.

Those innocent people in London's tube were not protected by Blair's 'fight against terrorism’ in Iraq or Howard's insistence that we become part of the coalition of the willing.

But people here continue to think that national security is something that Federal governments have total and utter control over. This is myth and very dangerous one at that. I fear terrorism and loath terrorism, but what is more dangerous is a public that in panicking fear agrees to remedies that are ill equipped to counter terrorism.

To look toward Howard and feel comfort from his fatherly speeches that proclaim to protect us against the evils of terrorism is simply stupid.

By any measure John Howard is a clever politician. This does not mean he is honest or moral, just clever.

Daniel Donahoo simply points out that Howard (the quintessential politician) recognizes opportunities to speak to the anxieties of ill informed Australian when these opportunities arise.

He's done it so many times before that it’s becoming a predictable part of his political character. Some people, it appears, fall for this political card trick of fear every time he plays it.

Your susceptibility to being duped by this card trick is not the fault of those who do not. It is your own

Today's headline in The Australian: Howard reconsiders ID Cards.

Using fear to gain abstract political points is simply the knee-jerk, look-at-me reaction of every politician. Using it to introduce legislation that increases the state's ability to exert control over its citizenry is a longer-term consideration, but follows as night follows day.

There is absolutely no evidence that the existence of ID cards would have been of the slightest assistance in preventing the London bombings. There is however an overwhelming desire by government - any government, it has to be admitted - to micromanage its people, and the politics of fear delivers perfectly.

"Mother's gonna make all your nightmares come true.
Mother's gonna put all her fears into you.
Mother's gonna keep you right here under her wing.
She wont let you fly, but she might let you sing.
Mama will keep baby cozy and warm." [Roger Waters]

As for the concept that Howard actually worries about our safety, that went out of the window when he bought into the gung-ho coalition-of-the-willing-cowboys.

With all those critically injured in the London bombing there was a high possibility of an Australian being one of the victims to meet the ultimate price. I find its macabre to suggest that the Prime Minister or Alexander Downer might have secretly wished for an Austrlian fatality.

However, when viewing what has happened in the USA with the constant warnings of possible terrorist activity, a somewhat anxious constituency has been created. It has allowed the odious Patriots Act to be passed.

It is interesting that there is talk once more of an Australian Card. On ABC radio this morning Senator Abeltz even suggested that it may help ASIO if we had an Australian Card. In the long run an Australian Card would probably be as helpful as the fridge magnets protecting us.

"We feel that we're in circumstances of imminent danger to our property and danger to our very lives. Robberies and murders, increasing both in numbers and in audacity, infest our streets. Anxieties and alarm have seized our families and, in many instances, have almost banished sleep from their eyes. Something must be done: done effectually and done forthwith."
Sydney Morning Herald, 8th June, 1844 (Editorial)

Good article DD: “The statement “I am frightened” is rarely focused on something specific, but tends to express a diffuse sense of powerlessness,” …”

So what’s changed? Imminent danger / ‘War against crime’/ ‘War against terror’. Same old recipe – bundle it in the public’s mind, then purport to be solving it. Howard is a proven master at this. People are correct to be concerned about terrorism and also correct to be concerned about the ability of governments to seize political opportunity – and often when the community is at it’s most vulnerable. In fact, right about now

The Politics of Fear

Tied in with politics of fear is the “politics of pride”. A typical historical event was the capture - possible rightful capture - of the Falklands by the Argentine. Whether it was rightful for the British people to get so upset over it, seeing it was just a tiny remnant left from a possibly somewhat inglorious colonial past, it did stir up the public, and in so doing arousing them to back Maggie Thatcher in her preparation for war with the Argentine, also in so doing saved the Thatcher government from being booted out in the next election.

Some say the Tampa incident, and the public anger over being invaded by migrants, especially Muslim migrants, also helped John Howard return to power. Added to the Tampa incident was 9/11, Howard’s rallying to the side of the world’s strongest power as well as Mother Britannia in the somewhat controversial attack on Iraq no doubt impressing the ordinary Aussie, especially those with young families, when it is better to be on the side of a sure winner.

Certainly since that time, Howard has played his cards well, possibly not morally, considering the way both Britain and America had interfered so much in the Middle-East when the end of WW2 had been regarded as the finish of colonialism and economic imperialism in the area.

Howard has also adroitly changed his image from a somewhat shy but humble personage to one more like a19th century British statesman - possibly the Menzies image - of steady and serene gaze - stiff upper-lip and all. There is an interesting book on political philosophy, called the “Ruler’s Imperative”, almost as if a ruler needs to put on an act like the clever political salesman that Howard has become.

Regards - Bushbred

A distraction such as the London bombing was used as a smoke screen to pass an approval on the 150 troops that were being sent to Afghanistan for the lead up to the next political election.

Our Priminister thinks we are idiots. The Terrorist within days of the act, were announced as London born. And we are sending 150 of our SAS over to Afghanistan?

We must question his reasoning when he says to the public of Australia as its leader, "we may have the same problem as London does with home grown terrorism and a terrorist act could happen on our soil in the near future. And that is why I am sending 150 SAS to Afghanistan"?

I say if there is going to be an act of terrorism on Australian soil in the near future, I would want the SAS to stay here and do some missions and surveilance.

This article is a straight-out whinge about Australia's BEST Prime Minister. Typical of the left - trying to topple Howard anyway they can - even if it resorts to plain Jane whingeing.

Best at what? Drip feeding us with just enough to maintain this relentless state of anxiety and taking any opportunity to enhance public perceptions of vulnerability. People are waking up to the fact that they should make up their own minds about threats of one sort or another and that if the information is coming from Howard and his wordsmiths then it needs to be assessed a lot more critically. The article is spot on.

Perhaps, Dinhaan, you can give us some reasons as to why you think he's Australia's best prime minister?

Howard, the ever vigilant is once again using a situation to his political advantage. I don't believe he would desire aussie victims of terrorism, but he is not above using that situation to his advantage. He did it with Tampa, now if we are attacked he can claim that he did his best to protect us.

Truly a polly for the truly gullible.

Daniel,show us a better alternative that has the depth of talent and economic credibility than the Coalition, and we will vote for them.

Yes there are many cards that he[John Howard] didn't have to play,however he is a pragmatist and is never confident of victory.

The reality of a terrorist attack particularly for Sydney is very real.The choice of targets is only limited by their imagination.It is only a matter of time.

We need to engauge the Muslim community directly and honestly.The anxiety is real since a bomb laced with an uranium isotope[a dirty bomb]will destroy thousands of lives.

Trinity,
John Howard – Mr Vigilance.

I like that, but I think this following article best describes the vigilance of our present government.

“MILLIONS of dollars have been wasted on more than 70 federal parliamentary inquiries whose recommendations have been ignored, according to new reports. The federal government has not replied on time to a single public inquiry out of the 62 it has ordered in the House of Representatives since December 1998. It has given no reply at all to almost half of them. Nine years ago, the federal government committed to responding to all parliamentary inquiries within three months of the findings being lodged. Since then it has responded on time to only four of 137 Senate inquiries and failed to give a response to 46 Senate inquiries. “http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,15669264,00.html

So the present government is certainly vigilant, and certainly prepared to listen to the concerns, hopes and fears of the Australian people, and then the government will respond accordingly. But unfortunately, they so often respond by not responding.

Instead, this government tends to be rather selective, and tends to choose the issues they want to speak publicly about and pursue.

Its all for the public good of course.

C’mon Arjay, and I was just about to post a compliment to your sensitive contribution in the whales thread.

We all know what dirty bombs do and there are plenty of threads already converted to religion.

Anyone who is worrying that much about attacks would be better to turn off the telly

Hutlen ,I would of thought Sept 11 was laughable and impossible until I saw it.Most Japanese would have thought Nagasagi and Hiroshima was out of the bounds of their imaginatiion until it happened.
Who would have thought of the possibility of Sydney running out of water or even entertained the idea of polarcaps melting ,sea level change,climate change,home grown terrorism etc.A few years ago it was all out of the realm of possibility.

We seem to think that we as so remote from the rest of the world that it won't happen to us.I wish it was so.

I can see that this particular young journalist has a great future awaiting him in the ABC.

Now, it is plain to everyone, that journalists of every political persuation love to claim that someone, somewhere, is up to something insidious. But for a journalist to besmirch the Prime Minister of Australia with accusations that he is capitalising upon the fear of terorism, and that he is even hoping that an Aussie will turn up dead in London, is utterly reprehensible. To any impartial observer, such an opinion expressed in a newspaper is offensive and propagandistic, and it detracts from the credibility of the press.

It is claear that certain people in the media are disappointed that John Howard keeps winning elections. These media people are getting a bit silly in their explanations of why this is so. The latest bit of nonesence is that John Howard is a skillfull manipulator of public opinion. It never sems to occur to left wing journo's that people vote for John Howard because they prefer his policies over those of the opposition.

The more that journalists put forward such nonesence while at the same time making their political preference for the ALP well known, the more the public will distrust journalists who write anti Howard articles.

I luv Johnny howard
I fink he is me mate
I luv the way he tells a fib
And fosters fear and hate.

An ID card is the way to go
And terror is his thunda
History will remember him
As the A….hole from down unda

There's a perspective problem here.

Arjay, do you not see the inherent contradiction in placing September 11th alongside Hiroshima/Nagasaki? The latter came at the end of a long and bitter war, waged between major powers with the acquiescence - positive support, even - of the various nations' populace. The former was an act by a renegade group of terrorists, accountable to no-one, responsible to and for no-one, acting unilaterally.

Using this kind of rhetoric puts you firmly alongside John Howard in the "scare 'em silly" stakes, one wonders what your motives are.

The reason we are a possible target is that our government (read: John Howard) made us complicit in the illegal invasion of Iraq by signing us up, willy nilly, with Lone Ranger Dubya and his sidekick Tonto Blair. This is a thought to bear very much in mind as you conjure up all the horrors - dirty bombs etc. - that might be visited upon us.

And the more we demonize a particular group, the more they will think that attack is the best form of defence, and around the vicious circle we go again.

Col Rouge. About your statement "Maybe if "Dee Dee" had ever been caught in an IRA bombing he might consider the issue a little more serious than suggesting the Prime Minister is using it as a publicity stunt to promote "fear" in the community". Being of an empirical sort of bent, I asked my partner (who actually was caught in an IRA bombing, some time ago) to comment. No joy for you there, I'm afraid. At least one terrorist bombing survivor is firmly convinced Howard is manipulating fear for political mileage.

anomie, " At least one terrorist bombing survivor is firmly convinced Howard is manipulating fear for political mileage. "

Then his or her practical experience differs from mine - having lived and commuted into London (Mayfair) for several years between 1977 and 1983, my personal experience of IRA atrocities and scares (personal exposures included Oxford St (multiple), the Tube (several) , Green Park, Hyde Park, Amersham and Birmingham) and the disruption they caused me and my family's life has left me an alternative view - your partners cynicism regarding the incumbent government and our Prime Minister is a cheap way out for drop-kicks who see conspiracy theories as the reason for their own failings and thus project such cynicism onto real achievers.

Johnny Rotten – whilst your abusive style is derogatory – I would remind you that – as you observe, he (John Howard) will be remembered.

Conversely, You will not – Your fate awaits you, assignment to the pit of ignominy as someone so bereft of talent and originality you been reduced to re-cycling a punk musoe’s name to even muster a pseudo presence – pitiful really pitiful – you sad example of abject failure

Oh, Col, Col. Sadly, I can't tell you in detail how wrong you are about my partner, as it would compromise anonymity (not mine). But I can tell you partner is employed at a high level by the Conservative side of politics. Able to distrust Howard with greater reason than most.

Gentlemen or ladies.

The debate is on whether our Priminster is reasoning his decisions without persuasions of another influence and vision and not in the National Interest.

Our Priminister points the Publics' attention in one direction of fear and then heads our army off in another direction as reasoning for this fear.

Then Media reports indicate their is an election in Afghanistan and the SAS are there to stabilise areas from insurgence, for this election to go on.

Now I hear and read three different stories here.

i understand john howard has had his son working for the re -election of george bush . there was plenty of "FEAR" in that campaign . it's worked well for howard too .
come the next election the libs and the nats will be issuing helmets
outside our local polling booth .

Let's look at a few realities here.The Middle East controls 65% of the world's oil.Sure the US has stuffed things politicaly by backing tyrannts like Saddham.Let's face it,both their religion and their political masters have kept their people subjugated and ignorant.Much of the Middle East is violent,confused and feral.

George Dubwua thought that after "shock and awe" the masses would see him as the great liberator.They are now bogged down in a war that may never end.

Most of the developed world including China and India are dependant upon oil to keep their economies moving.No one is stealing oil from the Middle East.Both the US and the rest of the world just want to buy it at market prices.Saddham,had aspirations to control Kuwait and Iran.He would have not stopped just there.

The US just should have continued their containment policy rather than invasion.In many ways the US is just doing the dirty work for all countries that depend upon oil from the Middle East.

If the Middle East decends into war, so will the rest of the planet.We will be all fighting for our economic survival if supplies are cut or offered at astronomical prices.

There is no choice,peace must come to Iraq, but we have yet to realise the price.

I just wish that George Dubwua wasn't orchestrating it,as of today he is making noises about going into Syria and Afghanistan is still out of control, not to mention Iraq.

With their man power,China must be sitting on the sidelines smirking and waiting for the US to blink.

Just fix one thing at a time George.

"Johnny Rotten – whilst your abusive style is derogatory – I would remind you that – as you observe, he (John Howard) will be remembered.

Conversely, You will not – Your fate awaits you, assignment to the pit of ignominy as someone so bereft of talent and originality you been reduced to re-cycling a punk musoe’s name to even muster a pseudo presence – pitiful really pitiful – you sad example of abject failure."

Col you just make me feel so warm 'n fuzzie, that I am inspired for another little pome. Which goes like this me foin British laddie.

Old Col Rouge has two rules
One for us, he derides as fools.
The other one is for him you see,
To demean the author as “Dee Dee”.

Col thinks our PM is a hero,
When, in fact, he’s just a zero.
[Deleted for flaming. Poster suspended for 24 hours as it is a first offence.]

Great article, Daniel.

You won't convince everyone straight away, but in time you will have an effect.

Look at Howard's decision to accept the need for change to mandatory detention.

Look at how Howard publicly admitted in 2002 that the anti-Asian immigration advice from Blainey had turned out to be wrong, having in 1988 as opposition leader declared that he was in favour of restricting Asian immigration for the sake of social cohesion. (Blainey’s public campaign lasted most of 1984)

Eventually, some MPs with integrity, despite overwhelming pressure, will gradually dismantle this immoral ruse of escalating fear and anxiety in the populace to achieve political dominance.

As for those who keep missing the point, what Howard has done is no different from cosmetic surgeons working on the insecurity of women, to line their own pockets, at the social toll of having women who develop a perpetual state of dissatisfaction with their body image. (Just like the anxiety and fear about terrorism, there is no argument that some of these women do have less fulsome dimensions than our Elle, nor posses her nous of course to exploit it.) It is no different from tobacco advertising through films, the Marlborough country, etc. And not very different from the British ruse of distributing free opium in China in the 18th century when the empire ran out of silver to pay for tea and silk.

It is the moral depravity of his leadership that we must engage in.

If we condone it and revel in it, what does it say about us, or our vision for our country?

Cheers

Chek

anomie “…..But I can tell you partner is employed at a high level by the Conservative side of politics.”

– really? – want to put money on it? –

My partner is employed by a state government – and they are all run by the socialist side of politics – although she is at an elevated position – shows what useless and stupid assessments you make.

OK JR –
Want to play poems

I don’t remember Johnnie Rotten,
What he made was all ill-gotten.
He will be no loss,
No one gives a toss,
Already he is forgotten.

OR how about

Johnnie Rotten I won’t thank y’er
You’re no more than a mediocre prankster.
Girls have no fear,
He won’t come near,
[Deleted for flaming. Poster suspended for a week]
Keep 'em coming - I am happy to serve them back [Ditto to above]

Ahh Col, Beware the JACKASS , a bird well known for its sense of humour!![and its big beak ! ]

Col Rouge - beware of making yourself look like a D...Head when you try to play someone at their own game.

JR's poems were right on topic - yours were just insults for the sake of attempting to take someone down - not clever just nasty.

You got beat Col and we're all having a good laugh at your appalling attempts to win.

But then if you are the type of person who approves of Howard's lies then I guess you lack the discrimination to understand JR's poetry.

Never mind the bollocks.

In my view, governments always exploit fear, no matter what side of politics they are on. It is in their interests to do so. When an election comes around their basic pitch is always the same; "In these dangerous times, better the devil you know than the devil you don't." When times actually are dangerous, or at least anxious, as they are now, the more anxiety they are able to fan in the community, the better.
Oppositions must pitch hope at elction time. They can never out fear the government, Beasley made that mistake a couple of elections ago and failed miserably. Latham tried to offer hope, but the anxiety level in the community (actively increased by the govt) was too high for hope to succeed.
As Daniel points out, Howard was elected to govt in 1996 on a promise to make us all "relaxed and comfortable", that was his pitch based around hope. Now we are all mean't to be "alert but not alarmed". Next time the government changes watch and see how their pitch for hope changes into a pitch about fear once they are in power.

Col, your comment "– really? – want to put money on it? –" is asinine. I think I would win a bet with you on the subject of where a large part of our income originates. Or perhaps I should say your comment is, well, bollocks. But I do admire your way with a non-sequitur. It takes real talent to dispense with any vestige of logic or coherent argument. Most people can't keep it up.

Col Rouge, of all the ranters is he
Who stands confirmed in full stupidity
The others to some meaning make pretence
But poor Col seldom deviates into sense

(with apologies to Dryden)

Grow up Johnnny Rotten.Your simplistic egotistical sniping proves nothing.John Howard with all his foibles is a leader with serious ability.If you are so good,display your ability with constructive criticism,rather than cowardly sideline sniping.

I'm very cynical about pollies myself.Today I saw Rumsfield and his team buttering up John Howard in reference to his courageous stand against terrorism.I think this may well be a prelude to getting us to commit far more troops to the Middle East.

With all it's flaws ,the US is still the best balance of power ally we can all have.

Instead of attacking personalities,just analyse the cold hard reality that will best benefit Australia.

Show us some constructive criticism, rather than this negative leftist banter that offers us no solutions.

Arjay, heard john howard on the radio today saying that his position over terrorism came about by being in america 0n 9/11 . has he started to remember where HE comes from yet ?
perhaps he is genuinely insecure .
there must be an all australian leader in the parliament ,someone who gives hope to the poor as well as the rich .

All politicians lie. It is often necessary.

But some lies are immoral and are made purely for purposes of re-election.

Some lies result in lives lost (SIEV X)

Random selection of John Howard’s lies.

Full list at : http://www.awu.net.au/national/news/1095896076_26152.html
#2
"Medicare will be retained in its entirety."
John Howard, February 1996
The Truth:
The Howard Government abolished the dental plan and bulk billing rates have declined by more than 12 percentage points since the Coalition took office in 1996.
#4
"I can guarantee we're not going to have $100,000 university degree courses."
John Howard, interview with Neil Mitchell on Radio 3AW, 15 October 1999
The Truth:
#7
John Howard: "No, there's no way that a GSTwill ever be part of our policy."
Journalist: "Never ever?"
John Howard: "Never ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters in the last election".
John Howard, interview, Tweed Heads Civic Centre, 2 May 1995
The Truth:
"The bills before the House will enact a broad based goods and services tax that will be levied at 10 per cent and will start in July 2000."
Peter Costello, Treasurer, A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Bill), Second Reading Speech, 2 December 1998
#18
"The Government's position remains that we were advised by Defence that children were thrown overboard, we made those allegations on the basis of that advice, and until I get Defence advice to the contrary I will maintain that position".
John Howard, Sunrise, Channel 7, 9 November 2001
The Truth:
"I left him in no doubt that there was no evidence, that there were no children thrown overboard."
Mike Scrafton, ABC 7:30 Report, 16 August 2004

#22
"Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons-uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq; . . ."
John Howard, Ministerial Statement, before the war in Iraq, 4 February 2003
The Truth:
". . . an intelligence claim about Iraq's effort to acquire uranium from Africa proved to be erroneous."
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, Sydney Morning Herald, after the war in Iraq, 18 June 2003

COL ROUGE - didn't your daddy warn you about peeing into the wind?

ARJAY - a sense of humour IS a solution - a necessary quality to have when governed by the immoral and ruthless.

My thanks to Kartiya, Trinity and Anomie.

And of course to Daniel Donahoo.

Why bother with the bothersome effort and responsibility of logic when it so much quicker and easier to rely on emotion, particularly fear which is a powerful and proven motivator/manipulator.

Anyway... Long live Emmanuel Goldstein!
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-90,pageNum-63.html

kartiya– yep and a jackass is also an ass or donkey – stupid to boot.

per dictionary.com - jackass "n 1: a man who is a stupid incompetent fool [syn: fathead, goof, goofball, bozo, goose, cuckoo, twat, zany] 2: male donkey [syn: jack]" -

and for jr - the Synonym "twat" seems just so appropriate.

Trinity - you write like some sort of mincing fairy who likes to throw insults around but cannot handle them when they come back at you – so keep yourself nice and safe – I suggest you walk in the middle of the primrose path.

As for – “we're all having a good laugh …” are you so poor you have to share your PC with other cheapskates?

Anomie – sorry – no response with rhyme – you are not worth the bother.

Ah JR – well I will rely on you to tell us all about your close encounter with your own effluent – you seem to be spouting it from every other orifice – doubtless anyone will smell you from 300 metres.

Tell me you enjoy being critical at our Prime Minister - why do you not put up for parliament – see if you can muster support enough as to not lose your deposit – you might stand some chance if you use the branch stacking practices favoured by the AWU (who have probably bought and sold your vote for a song).

Of course – “walking the walk” is far harder than “talking the talk” (even after mincing lessons from Trinity).

Keep em coming fairies –nothing you say about me matters - because none of you have a clue

Johnny Rotten,the Coalition have the runs on the board.Even the US is waxing lyrical about their economic prowess.More money for Social Security than ever dreamt of by any socialist.

The reality for every family is a job,income and a future.The Labor Party failed dismally and will remain in the wilderness until they learn their lessons.

It is not what pollies say that counts{they all Lie ,it is in the job description},it is their ability to conduct this complex orchresta we call the economy.

All your huffing,puffing,moralising,name calling and stomping have amounted to nothing.Your ilk is in a power vacuum and will remain so for a considerable time.

We will not put incompetant economic vandals back in power again.

The NSW Labor Party is about to find this out at the next election.We are going to bury them deeper than nuclear waste.

The NSW Labor Party just reinforces an incompetant stero-type we have all experienced time again.

They are about as useful as a spare pair of gonads under your armpits.

If Col Rouge and to a lesser extent Arjay are typical of Howard supporters, then may be we did get the government we deserve. I mean they are so charming and tolerant to a range of opinions as their posts to this forum attest.

For example they display the following admirable qualities:

Double standards – I can be as insulting as I like but no one is else is allowed to say anything. Eg :>> Keep em coming fairies –nothing you say about me matters - because none of you have a clue<<, and sneeringly referring to Daniel Donahoo as “dee dee”

Money Obsessed – >>are you so poor you have to share your PC with other cheapskates?<<

Confused - >>All your huffing,puffing,moralising,name calling and stomping have amounted to nothing.<< The only one on this thread who has been huffing and puffing has been Col Rouge.

Just plain stupid - >>Even the US is waxing lyrical about their economic prowess.<< Well what would you expect the USA to say? “Johnny Howard; Liar lair, pants on fire?’ The truth from the Bush government? I’d like to see that.

Thank you Arjay and Col Rouge for reaffirming all that is wrong with Howard’s Government.

Come back JR – I need another poem please.

Xena – “I mean they are so charming and tolerant to a range of opinions as their posts to this forum attest.”

Thankyou Xena - based on any popular vote you and your "ilk" are the tiny minority - as applied to selection of government and presumably general opinion held of me -

Snivel and moan all you want, remember it is the likes of me who protect your right to express what you want to say – it is a socialist government in Victoria who have introduced draconian “anti-vilification” laws which censor free speech – based on such a values set, “socialists” are the ones most likely to shut you, JR and all the other gutter snipes up – and that is the sort of “tolerance” you are defending – and I voted against – “hypocrisy” is a word which defines your expressions.

So, make as many comments, comparisons and whines as you want they roll off me like water off a ducks back.

But just be aware - when some third rate hack or trollop decides to use low humour at the expense of the government which I voted for or myself, I will respond in whatever manner I see as fitting and appropriate to the circumstances, without thought or consideration for your worthlessly opinion

Xena needs an economics lesson.Money ,Xena is not an evil thing.It is the medium of exchange,store of wealth and more importantly represents human endeavour.Now it has been perverted in my view by our financial system.They have made money a commodity in itself.

Global capitalism,big business and big Govt.is disempowering the individual.John Howard says he wants to see smaller Govt.The reverse has happened.Once Govts got the Golden Goose of GST they went into expansion mode.Just look at NSW.

The next party that wants to represent,small business,subcontractors and the self employed will get my support.The Coalition keep winning by default because Labor hasn't got the talent or a f...g clue.Their soft option mentality over the last 30yrs has hurt the worker more than any capitalist plot.

They have taken taxes from the working poor and given it to the so called disadvantaged,paid them not to work and thus created huge bureaucracies to administer this evil monster we call social security.

Don't worry about Muslim terrorists,the socialists terrorists have done a much more devestating job.We have hundreds of thousands of people that the socialists have made unemployable.Most can't or won't be retrained and your taxes will keep them while,people like Numbat who have worked all their lives have to get by on a pension of
$200.oo per week.There would have been three times the present pension had it no been for the socialist disease.

Col Rouge please note the following:

1. A criticism of John Howard is not a personal attack on you.

2. Difference of opinion is not a personal attack on you.

3. If you personally insult other posters you will receive insults in return.

Check the chronology of this thread – if it is possible for you to do some self reflection you will understand why I made the above points. Given the vitriolic nature of your responses to myself and others I would recommend you have your blood pressure checked, after all a man of your years should take more care of his health.

And BTW I was a Fairy in the Brownies when I was a young girl – thank you for reminding me of some fond memories.

Back to the thread:

Daniel states: “the strategy is to maintain the existing fear. Howard and his cabinet do this by stoking the fire with words cloaked in sympathy. Instead of talking of potential danger, current government ministers discuss the potential loss of life. This enables them to appear concerned, rather than inciting alarm.”

We see Howard at work again with his recent comments to Australian injured in London where he effectively implied concern and both minimised the potential of Australia as a terrorism target while at the same time stating it could happen. I believe this is called an ‘each way’ bet. If we are attacked he’s not wrong but he has evaded the fact that we are more at risk than ever before by the actions of his government.

Of course Australia was always a target – we have simply moved up the list a fair way since becoming a part of the coalition of the willing. Invading Iraq is not protecting us – but Howard knows that there are many people gullible enough to believe this fantasy.

While Labor continues to flounder the electorate will play it safe and re-elect ‘the devil we know’.

I want a nation that’s on it’s knees.
Where freedom disappears in the breeze…

I want a country where the rich get more.
Where the food can’t be seen on the table of the poor…

I want a leader who I can trust.
To tell me the lies to hide the real thrust…

I want a community that struggles to survive.
While the powers that be flaunt the toys they drive…

Sorry Xena and Johnny. I’m no poet. But I do know that the term ‘employed’ as defined by our government is anyone who works more than 2 x 4hrs part time shifts a week. Can anyone tell me how this is ‘employed’ and how a family can survive – even if both parents work 2 x 4 (i.e. 16hrs per week?).

I had a discussion with a friend the other night. We were talking about the Aus relationship with the US. My friend said we have to support our ally, who will be there if things go bad. I asked him, do you support a friend if they lie to you and others or disobey the law? Do you also do as they do, if it benefits them, to your detriment? I’m curious what people think comes first – loyalty or integrity?

Pollies will say and do what ever they need to in order to get your vote. They argue with each other but they think the same way and are most likely cheap facsimiles of the same person. Why do you latch onto the patently unachieveable romance of political ideology and dogma? Why are folks still so bogged down in the confidence trick that is the left/right wing poltical spectrum. They say people get the government they deserve. In view of the patent denial and delusion which underpins ideological dogma is it any wounder that denial and delusion characterizes the nature of governance?

For example, taxation is about the redistribution of wealth. Redistribution is a fundamental socialist concept. How then does a free market capitalist arrive at a logical rationalisation of taxation that is in accord with their political ideology? Simple answer is that they dont. They deny it and defer to the practicalities of running a country.

Ditto socialists. They believe in the fundamental self righteous sanctimoney of a 'higher morality' and that somehow a group of people will do a 'better and fairer' job of it because they are not influenced by the profit motive. Maybe so, but they are not without susceptibility to influence. How do they reconcile the fact that they too are mere mortals with self interested agenda which tends to distort outcomes? Simple, they deny it their human flaws and delude themselves that they answer to and promote a 'higher set of values'.

Its all a load of bunk.

Trade215

“How then does a free market capitalist arrive at a logical rationalisation of taxation that is in accord with their political ideology? “

Taxation works at 2 levels,
1 to finance the necessary work of government.
2 to redistribute wealth.

Financing the “necessary work of government” would be acceptable to any “free market capitalist” / non-socialist, recognising that he benefits from an environment of law and order in which to pursue his free-trade.
However the debate is eternal; and will always evolve around where “1” ends and “2” begins.

Obviously for socialists, “nationalised industries” were a “necessary work of government”. However, that view is no longer widely held, even among socialists except, of course, for the “luddites”.

“They (socialists) believe in the fundamental self righteous sanctimony of a 'higher morality' and that somehow a group of people will do a 'better and fairer' job of it because they are not influenced by the profit motive.” –

One reason for supporting the liberal/right is – they are (more likely) only interested in “profit”.

The socialists are obsessed in telling me how I will collect every thought and attend to every bodily function throughout the course of my life. Typically, socialists are in politics for the “control and power” – as well as the money.

Give me a government who are less interested in managing my life and leaving me to make my own mistakes any day. When government stuff with my life, I have found the problems they leave me with are far more costly than the little ones I may make.

To quote, appropriately and as I have done before, Dear Margaret Thatcher

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Trinity Whatever, Whatever, read my response as an overwhelming sense of disinterest in all you are babbling about.

Totally agree Col Rouge.The weak left cannot exist without the sacrifices of the courageous and hard working right.My children are from the socialist left.It is all my fault since my wife and I have cultivated it.

There must come a time however in which children must go it alone.This is the reality which many from the left have failed to grasp.They don't want to leave the bosom of their comfort zones.

This is why you will find many of the lefist philosophy in Education or Public Service.It is an extention of family to school and the more school mentality.The nipple of security is very enticing.