yes Fractelle, your post does say it all- except that is not what Howard said at all. The lack of a democratic voice in the nations where Al Qaida lurk is a problem. Nobody gets to vote.

My take?

Rudd would still be sitting with his back to the govt.-only he'd be banished to the corner, forced to listen to the leader of the opp. Julia Gillard; chewing away whilst waxing lyrical on his manifesto for the future.

Paul Keating, so deservedly re-instated as the author of our bounty over the last 18 months would be sent back to the siberia of irrelevance.

Wayne Swann would still be (in vain) searching for his reflection in the mirror.

The CFMEU would be rallying the faithful to protest foreigners entering Strayia and stealing our jobs (but not in a racist way).

NSW would still be broke and VIC and SA busted.

The NT Intervention would be continuing.

Treasury would be offering the same advice.

palimpsest

Howards exact words were: “If I was running Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle round March 2008 and pray as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats”.

In addition, IR laws would even more entrenched and biased towards employers.

No apology to original inhabitants of Australia.

While Rudd has yet to make in-roads on sustainable economics and population control, he remains vastly superior in his understanding of environmental problems, for example; latest offer to assist Australian households to install insulation - not enough but way more than Howard would ever do.

With regard to USA driven recession, Howard is unlikely to have done anything different to Rudd, given his track record for bailing out businesses eg National Textiles - owned by his brother. In fact, I suggest he would've been committing more of our tax dollars to big business, baby bonuses, first.

However, all this banter is entirely moot. Howard is history. Rudd and Obama are the future. Deal.

<< yes Fractelle, your post does say it all- except that is not what Howard said at all. The lack of a democratic voice in the nations where Al Qaida lurk is a problem. Nobody gets to vote.>>

Actually, palimpsest, it's precisely what he said: "I think that [troop withdrawals] will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory."

"If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

No mention of democracy or voting, and Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the invasion created a power vacuum. Saddam Hussein violently repressed Al Qaeda in his country, just as he repressed every other group that threatened his dictatorship. That's why Bin Laden was fond of calling Hussein a "socialist infidel".

It's beyond me how you could interpret Howard's comment to mean anything other than "a vote for Obama = a vote for Bin Laden." His message was very clear.

I'm derailing my own thread here, but that post was just too ridiculous to pass without challenge.

Well Gentlemen, I can see that as far as me trying to communicate
anything to you is a waste of my time.

Because, I will never agree that making comments like the following
comes under the heading of "spice." To me these comments come
under the heading of " offensive inappropriate material."

For example:

"I wouldn't cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire..."
(or words to that effect) that Col made to one poster.

And then he quoted a very vile, crass poem (regarding sexual relations)
to an 88 year old widower from WA, on an article thread, which absolutely made me cringe.
It was a 'Yuck" moment -and totally repulsive . And my reactions
from then on whenever I'd see Col's name on any post -I'd think
"Nay, won't read it," too gross! The man - never adds anything positive to a discussion, because he persists in stooping to
put-downs - tired old quotes, and insults, and tries to pass all this
as an an acceptable "style" of posting on discussion forums.

It's not. And sorry, in my book, never should be.

But, from now on, I'll simply scroll past whenever I'll see the
name. He can keep his "style." I can choose to ignore it.

Sancho and Fractelle, my objection was to Fractelle's claim that H said that a vote for Obama would be 'like voting for Al Qaida". I agree that he should never have said what he said.

My inference from his statement is that an Obama victory would encourage Al Qaida, not as you assert that it would be a direct support for them. That's all.

Fraactelle, agree entirely this is all moot, but Sancho's original Q was fairly open, and didn't ask for just a one sided answer. Maybe there's room for a little fun in such a hypothetical thread?

See Foxy, that is rightfully a matter of your individual taste. daggett thinks it's distasteful when CJ casts aspersions on people's mental health, Col thinks it's in bad taste to denigrate Margeret Thatcher or say John Howard supports white supremacists. A lot of people think any critisism of their religion or personal beliefs is bad taste, as does BOAZ. In fact it is 'manners' not to talk about politics or religion at the dinner table or sex in mixed company. Dinner parties with manners therefore have no spice at all.

I just think it's bad taste to apply one standard to some and another standard to others. I believe either you can make comments of a personal nature or you cant. Anything else is subjective and full of bias.