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.

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?

'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.

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

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.

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!

Gee Bruce I'm so sorry I have a different opinion to you. You are so obviously 'correct'. But humour me, tell me what Rudd has enunciated as his policies on Iraq, especially on withdrawal?

As a 'wet behind the ears' voter I'd like to know.

Or shouldn't I expect that? Should I just vote for him on blind trust?

As you tell everybody you know more than me, and I believe you, I'd like your honest advice.

I don’t know what motivates Howard to stand so close by Bush, whose poor judgment and stupid decisions have lead thousands of Americans to their deaths and created an insurmountable level of government debt – no wonder he is so unpopular. The more Howard stands by this moron, the more moronic he becomes in the eyes of Australians. Let’s face it, Australian troops in Iraq are irrelevant: there are so few, our absence would not even be noticed.

In some ways Bush was justified in doing something with Iraq – remember US troops had been in southern Iraq since 1991, so the US wanted closure – but Bush and Rumsfeld were too cocksure that the whole thing would be a walkover. They didn’t foresee getting bogged down in local politics – Sunni versus Shiite. The shambles in Iraq and preoccupation with it has also resulted in neglect of unfinished business in Afghanistan – an increasingly sharper thorn in Bush’s legacy. I don’t know what the solution is, but dialogue and peace talks cannot possibly be worse than Texan gun-ho ignorance.

As to Howard, I think his pride and ego are his biggest problem, and will be his, and possibly the whole coalition’s downfall. Howard has failed to anoint a successor, but keeps hanging on to the bitter end. I would have liked to have seen a transition to another leader – I don’t know who, Costello or Turnbull. Though a conservative voter, I have never liked Howard – I recall his stubborn and authoritarian ways when he was Fraser’s treasurer in the early 1980’s, so I look forward to his end. Nonetheless I have no confidence in Rudd/Labor: the arrogance of Keating and Hawke are still fresh in my mind. Some of Rudd's remarks on climate change are a revealing insight into his ignorance.

Howard dodges the question of how long Australian forces will be kept in Iraq. Will this be in the 10 years + range as with Vietnam ? Or the 30 + years of Ulster ?

If the Australian involvement is so critical to Iraq surely those supporting it would be strongly arguing for more troops. Obama was right, Howard should put up or shut up.

In any event I think the idea of an open ended commitment is laughable, especially if the basis for withdrawal is that Iraq is democratic, free, and peaceful. Good luck with that trifecta.

Rudd has been proposing the Baker Hamilton recommendation of phased withdrawal. Hardly cut and run.

It will not be Irag and Howards stubborness regarding this war that will bring him down - and I dont think people should be seeing him off just yet - and in fact there may be nothing that brings him down this time at all

Rightly he will be remembered for being a fool for our involvement in this war. And when people realised the lost opportunities in infrastrucutre improvement, health and education, that went down the drain with the billions spent on jumping at terrorist shadows and keeping a standing army in the Iraqi deserts for years on a fools errand - his credibiltiy as an economic manager may be shown in a poor light as well.



He is just extremely lucky we have not had deaths proportional to our contribution of mlitary personell so far - for had it been in the order of that - we would have been gone long ago.

But as for his downfall he has several months to take a deep breath and take Rudd on - Rudd has said nothing yet - he has agreed broadly with Howards water initiative - agreed broadly with Howards new allocation to Aged Care - agreed with the pursuit of clean coal technology - and who knows where he stands on Nuclear Energy - but to date he has hammered very few colors to the mast.

Iit will be only then we can make even a half arsed guess at Howards future

'His defence of Bush's Iraq policy and his attack on Barack Obama indicates that he has irrevocably tied himself to the fate of the current US Administration.'

This is an intriguing remark. What is the fate of the current US Administration?

That's right their term expires in 2008 and Bush cannot stand for re-election for he has served the maximun 8 years.

Didn't you know that Bruce? So will John Howard go in similar circumstances? Hardly, simple logic dictates their fates are not irrevocably tied.

If you really mean you think Howard might be tied to the fate of the Republicans ... well then you are presuming Hillary will be the next President of the US. I think you might be overlooking the possibility of another Republican in the White House. The name John McCain springs to mind and he supports the policy of George

Mr. Howard rails against Mr. Rudd in relation to pulling troops out of Iraq; that's not bad; after all, the decision to go into Iraq was one of the dumbest decisions made in Australia for a long time. At the time of the incursion it was recognized that the intelligence was a bit thin. Prior to the incursion many argued that the Coalition of the willing had no knowledge of the culture of Iraq or of likely reactions to Coalition troops by Iraqi’s once on Iraq soil.
As a result of the incursion there is now a civil war; innocent Iraqis are not only in danger from the heinous terrorists; but also in danger from sectarian violence, or being zapped by “friendly fire”.

Mr. Howard has commented that Mr. Rudd does not have the experience to be Prime Minister; yet, Mr. Howard has made less than adequate decisions in relation to Iraq. People with large mortgages must be pretty angry also; the Coalition used interest rates to create fear in the electorate during the last election; the Coalition has not been able to provide safe guards in relation to interest rates, and so can be regarded as quite hypercritical in this regard. There has been a record number of mortgage sales; not a good legacy.

Lately, the Coalition has been making a lot of fuss in relation to Mr. Rudd having had contact with former Premier Bourke and it has now come to light that the Federal Environment Minister has had contact with Mr. Bourke also. It’s pretty apparent that the Coalition has no answers in how to handle Mr. Rudd and so is using gutter tactics to try and undermine him.

I might have missed the reports of the daily bombings in Baghdad. Am I not listening to the right media outlets or is there actually a reduction in bombings in the last couple of weeks?

Is George Bush's latest plan working?

Brian Burke having served his sentence would constitutionally be entitled to be a Member of the Federal Parliament.
He more then likely would feel at home considering the criminals now in it;

An email I received indicates that the Federal Members of Parliament have the following related to them;
· 36 have been accused of spousal abuse.
· 7 have been arrested for fraud.
· 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
· 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses.
· 3 have done time for assault
· 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit.
· 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
· 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
· 21 currently are defendants in lawsuits.
· 84 have been arrested for drunk

So, if Peter Costello, John Howard and go argue that being involved with criminals is morally bankrupt, etc then let them see how they were dealing with Mal Colston who was outed from the labour party for his travel rorts but John Howard was eager to have him sitting in the Parliament to vote for the sale of Telstra (but deemed too ill to go before the Courts) making clear that it wasn't relevant what Mal Colston had done. Likewise other Ministers ended up being convicted on his watch!
With Ian Campbell as Minister having had contact with Brian Burke it flies in their face what they argued against Kevin Rudd and in any event, as my INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books set out there is no constitutional wrongdoing to have a meeting with a person he served his time , rather the issue is if the meeting is not regarding criminal conduct or intended criminal conduct. Therefore being it Kevin Rudd, Ian Campbell, or others I see no issue in having meetings with anyone who have a criminal record provided it is not for criminal purposes. Otherwise, they could not even have a meeting amongst themselves in view of the number of criminal convictions upon themselves!

Then tell us why the Labor Party dumped Burke and banned him from having contact with it's parliamentary members?

No I will.

It wasn't because of his criminality. It was for another reason altogether...it was his ability to influence Ministers and their actions surreptitiously. It was his ability to corrupt Labor Party members in his desire to peddle influence for profit. His personnal profit.

Rudd was prepared to ignore that and fly all the way to WA where he had three unofficial meetings with Burke, that included organised dinner and speeches. As the politicians said. Burke does nothing for nothing and Rudd was looking for numbers. Rudd denies his trips were about seeking support but some of those involved at the time say he was touted as a future Labor PM.

So the conclusions are as obvious as Rudd's growing panic as evidenced by his raucous demand for John Howard to call an election.

Why do so many continue this incorrect line of the US being our "best friend". In US lingo "What have they done for us lately, or ever really"? Think about it.

We're actually just followers, out of fear, not followers of a grand passion or something wonderful. The US doesn't practice democracy and neither do we. If we had been so practising why is it we are not getting better at it rather than going the other way? Simply because it's repugnant to major parties that are ruled by one or only a few rich, old white men.

As to Howard, perhaps he will fling himself overboard soon and claim he was pushed, by Maxine no doubt.

Betty says that the US does not practice democracy, in my opinion of all the countries claiming to practice democracy the US is the most successful; it is the only country where the individuals rights are protected by constitutional law. Unlike most of 'old Europe' it is also the only country that has not indulged in imperialism.

We could do worse than emulate the US.

Why "indefensible"?

In Iraq wouldn't Shii and Sunni be killing each other if not an iron Saddam's fist at the time?

So, what does differ a current Iraqi situation from happening nowadays except billiards spent to create some motion around national defence+anti-terror+surrounding activities?

Everyone has own fate-and Bush is NOT going to sunk, but finish his presidency on time supposed.

Howard has always had a problem, as most political philosophers know. It is that his only sense of history is that of a neo-colonialist.

Such is shown by his refusal to agree to an official apology for our earlier treatment of the Aborigines. Truly one of the Biblical Promised Land in which the true believer has the right to do away with the unbeliever.

An ageing Cecil Rhodes wrote about it when he came to give favour for a moneyed elitist group to manage the world the way a sensible God would want.

It is why Blair and Howard naturally followed George Dubya preemptively and illegally into Iraq.

Certainly it is not a changing world, under Howard we have just slipped back again into the 19th century, the miraculous advances in technology only advancing the big political neo - free market con'.

Even Adam Smith, father of the free-market warned about it, as did Maynard Keynes when he foresaw casino capitalism.

Yet never you know, Howard could be still on the right track, but many only too glad they will not be alive still to put up with it.

The only proper way to establish if John Howard was legally right or wrong in invading Iraq is to have him formally charged with crimes against humanity, war crimes, treachery, etc. The problem is that the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth director of Public Prosecutions so far have refused to even investigate any complaints. The High Court of Australia also refused to hear the case, notably on 19 March 2003 (the day of the invasion) when I sought to pursue litigation against John Howard.
As such, John Howard is protected by them and this is where the real problem is, as this denies us to have a real democracy.
No one should be above the law, but because John Howard does not need to be charged by the authorities he continues his way of ignoring constitutional and other legal restrains.
And, by “convention” we will find this will get worse and worse unless WE, the People, finally do something about this.
As not to do anything about it only means we live in a dictatorship.

“The only proper way to establish if John Howard was legally right or wrong in invading Iraq is to have him formally charged with crimes against humanity, war crimes, treachery, etc. “ - well, hopefully, potential judges and jurors to share such an opinion.

“The High Court of Australia also refused to hear the case, notably on 19 March 2003 (the day of the invasion) when I sought to pursue litigation against John Howard” – to sue in advance if it was Iraq-related case? It seems it is really a very revolutionary approach to an issue.

I pursued the High Court of Australia to issue a Mandamus/Prohibition against John Howard not to allow Australian troops to invade Iraq on the basis that the Governor-General had not authorised such an armed invasion as he had not published a DECLARATION ON WAR in the Gazette, a constitutional requirement before the Minister of Defence, not the Prime Minister, can authorise troops to invade another country. Without a DECLARATION OF WAR it is TREACHERY, see also Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth).

The constitution is the superior law of Australians, and not even the Federal Government can ignore this, even so John Howard did, and therefore we must hold him and his cohorts accountable before the Courts.

No one is above the law!

Australian Constitution? Thank you for reminding.
There is a difference between “invasion” and “pacifying mission”.

Let’s improve our English by playing words.