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