The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Howard will sink with Bush > Comments

Howard will sink with Bush : Comments

By Bruce Haigh, published 26/2/2007

John Howard's defence of the indefensible will see him die in a ditch supporting the president he most admires.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I suppose on a basic level I agree with the content of the article, though I tend to think it's all pretty fleeting.

Yes - Howard has aligned himself closely with this administration, and as you point out, it is no certain guarantee. Nations ultimately do what is in their best interest, and it is unlikely that other nations will hold grudges against Australia for very long. The same goes for the democrats.

So while I disagree with Howard's stance, it won't really matter, in five year's time Howard's subservience to Bush won't matter, and odds are we'll still have a close relationship with the US regardless of which party is in power.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 26 February 2007 9:21:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we see a commentator with a ringing support for Rudd even though he hasn't enunciated his policy position on an Iraq withdrawal.

The author is critical of Howard for having a clearly stated position and for being critical of Barak Obama, a US politician who has adopted a populist position, and then the commentator goes on to sing the praises of Rudd who won't openly and distinctly announce his position regarding a withdrawal.

Th commentator then claims Howard will sink because of his alliance with US positions, especially in regard to Iraq. Oneof those clearly stated positions is a withdrawal when the Iraqi's can take care of their own security. Yet he doesn't criticise Rudd for his inferred support for Obama's cut and run policy. Why won't Rudd also sink with the politicians who are supporting a policy that is finding less and less support in the US congress. One only has to see the inability of the Democrates, who have majorities in both Houses in Congress, to pass motions critical of the US policy of withdrawal. Indeed they have found the political reality leaves them impotent for they cannot even stop Bush from increasing troop numbers.

The commentator ignores the reality of the hopelessness of Obama's position and the quandary Rudd's criticism of Howard, in regard to Obama, has placed both the Labor Party and Kevin Rudd.

Anyone notice how quickly Rudd stopped talking about Iraq. It was soon after someone asked him for his position on withdrawal, and when he dodged the question.

Watch for Rudd to continue to evade questions on Iraq.
Howard will continue to hammer him on the issue. Especially withdrawal, for most support Australians Howard's position.

The article with it's obvious balancing ommissions left me scratching my head. Odd really or is it just me?
Posted by keith, Monday, 26 February 2007 3:03:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Howard is neither smart nor experienced. His attitude towards and management of the relationship with the United States is turning into a political negative for himself and Australia.'

Was the author in favour of Mr Latham's diplomacy with the US. As Keith says in the above post no one knows what Mr Rudd thinks because he just avoids any meaningful questions. The ABC/SBS might allow their man to do this but the general public won't when they want some answers to questions.

If Mr Howard is neither smart or experienced after being elected so many times then I wonder what it says about the voters? Of course no one from this post has ever voted for him.
Posted by runner, Monday, 26 February 2007 4:03:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Calm down Keith, go and dry behind your ears.Ah runner you make an interesting point,voters;they aren't that stupid,who in their right mind would vote for Beazley or Latham? Yep,far too many.
Howard has let slip his position in history by being a successful politician at the expense of being a statesman.He has demonstrated wilfulness rather than originality of thought and deed.He is not creative but then neither was Beazley nor Latham.Winning elections a number of times whilst leader of a party is hardly an indicator of greatness. Look at Bob Hawke.
In Australian politics parties stay in power if oppositions are weak.Look at Menzies,look at Jo,look at Bolte,Brand,Court and Playford.
Don't loose your nerve.At the moment Rudd has Howard's measure.Let's see what his stamina is like.It didn't take much to break Latham and Beazley was never a contender,he didn't like pressure or responsibility.
Rudd seems mentally tough but Howard's strength is in wearing people down.His great weakness is that he lies,spins and says and does whatever it takes.If he feels trapped,if his back is to the wall he will pull all the nasty and dirty stops out and this time round it could be his undoing.You will have noticed the recent lapses in his judgement, these may well increase because like Keating in decline he is listening to fewer and fewer people.
I would say that we are in for a real battle which will be good for the country.It will hopefully break the log jam and allow poor little keith to have a broader and better future.Thanks runner.Oh, and the Alliance with the US is,in my opinion, real for those who believe.
All the best
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Monday, 26 February 2007 8:47:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a Grandmaster "constitutionalist" I prefer the Framers of the Constitution to explain what the Federal Government's obligations are regarding David Hicks with their "external Affairs" powers;

Hansard 2-03-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

Dr. QUICK.-
The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.

Again;

These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 26 February 2007 11:20:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On 19 July 2006, after a 5-year legal battle against the federal government lawyers, I succeeded in my appeals UNCHALLENGED, which included that the purported 2001 and 2004 federal elections were ULTRA VIRES.
Sure, John Howard may still be in power regardless of this, but then again the legal processes are slow.
Howard never had any constitutional powers to declare or otherwise to authorize an armed invasion (act of war) into Iraq. It is a prerogative power that can only be executed by the Governor-General on behalf of the Queen.
My website www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH set this out extensively.

We should make no difference to law breakers being politicians or ordinary man of the street, they all should be equally held accountable for breach of laws as otherwise we do not have a democracy but a tyranny/dictatorship.

The moment you justify a politician to put themselves above the Constitution then it is the end of democracy!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 26 February 2007 11:30:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy