what's more important to Howard than Bush?

[temporary stevo]

winning the next election.

when Bush wants to go to war, Howard says "Yes George, I'm right behind you!" but where are Australian troops? out of harms way, doing missions with minimal risk.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 52456.html

Howard realises that the invasion of Iraq is unpopular, and becoming increasingly unpopular as predictions of a short stay were falsified. but the death of Australian troops would make that rate of increasing unpopularity itself increase exponentially, perhaps (probably?) to the point where it becomes a gaping wound for Howard's (the Libs?) chances of re-election. as evidenced by Anzac Day, there's a lot of popular support for Australian soldiers, and there's a strong impression that the public would not take kindly to Australian soldiers dying as a result of the government blindly following along with a foolhardy mission cooked up by US chickenhawks.

so, Howard makes sure that the chances of an Australian soldier dying are minimal. of course, that's sensible in itself. but now we've also got Bush wanting to send 20,000 extra troops to Iraq, and Howard has said that Australia won't be sending any more (well, he's said that he hasn't been asked to send, and that he hasn't offered to send, which doesn't quite mean that he won't). where's the Man of Steel now, the Noble Freedom Fighter for the Glorious West? oh sure, we can't let the terrorists win - as long as it's only the US troops that are martyrs.

one wonders whether Labor will push Howard on this. for all of Howard's bluster about Labor's withdrawal policy "letting the terrorists win" and "threatening the US/AUS alliance" it seems that he also does not trust Bush and realises that the invasion of Iraq is a huge mess. one wonders whether Labor will highlight Howard's duplicity here. he's trying to weasel his way out of the mess he got himself - and Australia's soldiers - into, so that he doesn't get kicked out later this year. some friend of the US he has turned out to be.

[swoodley]

winning the next election.

when Bush wants to go to war, Howard says "Yes George, I'm right behind you!" but where are Australian troops? out of harms way, doing missions with minimal risk.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 52456.html

Howard realises that the invasion of Iraq is unpopular, and becoming increasingly unpopular as predictions of a short stay were falsified. but the death of Australian troops would make that rate of increasing unpopularity itself increase exponentially, perhaps (probably?) to the point where it becomes a gaping wound for Howard's (the Libs?) chances of re-election. as evidenced by Anzac Day, there's a lot of popular support for Australian soldiers, and there's a strong impression that the public would not take kindly to Australian soldiers dying as a result of the government blindly following along with a foolhardy mission cooked up by US chickenhawks.

so, Howard makes sure that the chances of an Australian soldier dying are minimal. of course, that's sensible in itself. but now we've also got Bush wanting to send 20,000 extra troops to Iraq, and Howard has said that Australia won't be sending any more (well, he's said that he hasn't been asked to send, and that he hasn't offered to send, which doesn't quite mean that he won't). where's the Man of Steel now, the Noble Freedom Fighter for the Glorious West? oh sure, we can't let the terrorists win - as long as it's only the US troops that are martyrs.

one wonders whether Labor will push Howard on this. for all of Howard's bluster about Labor's withdrawal policy "letting the terrorists win" and "threatening the US/AUS alliance" it seems that he also does not trust Bush and realises that the invasion of Iraq is a huge mess. one wonders whether Labor will highlight Howard's duplicity here. he's trying to weasel his way out of the mess he got himself - and Australia's soldiers - into, so that he doesn't get kicked out later this year. some friend of the US he has turned out to be.

Fair weather friend is the term I think you might be looking for. But George will understand (won't he?) seeing as it's an election year for our little Johnny.

Maybe there'll be another Tampa crisis eventuate or maybe even one of the missing rocket launchers will be used in a timely fashion for Johnny to be re-elected.

[Filthy]

winning the next election.

when Bush wants to go to war, Howard says "Yes George, I'm right behind you!" but where are Australian troops? out of harms way, doing missions with minimal risk.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 52456.html

Howard realises that the invasion of Iraq is unpopular, and becoming increasingly unpopular as predictions of a short stay were falsified. but the death of Australian troops would make that rate of increasing unpopularity itself increase exponentially, perhaps (probably?) to the point where it becomes a gaping wound for Howard's (the Libs?) chances of re-election. as evidenced by Anzac Day, there's a lot of popular support for Australian soldiers, and there's a strong impression that the public would not take kindly to Australian soldiers dying as a result of the government blindly following along with a foolhardy mission cooked up by US chickenhawks.

so, Howard makes sure that the chances of an Australian soldier dying are minimal. of course, that's sensible in itself. but now we've also got Bush wanting to send 20,000 extra troops to Iraq, and Howard has said that Australia won't be sending any more (well, he's said that he hasn't been asked to send, and that he hasn't offered to send, which doesn't quite mean that he won't). where's the Man of Steel now, the Noble Freedom Fighter for the Glorious West? oh sure, we can't let the terrorists win - as long as it's only the US troops that are martyrs.

one wonders whether Labor will push Howard on this. for all of Howard's bluster about Labor's withdrawal policy "letting the terrorists win" and "threatening the US/AUS alliance" it seems that he also does not trust Bush and realises that the invasion of Iraq is a huge mess. one wonders whether Labor will highlight Howard's duplicity here. Rudd does but is ignored by the media like all ALP people... he's trying to weasel his way out of the mess he got himself - and Australia's soldiers - into, so that he doesn't get kicked out later this year. some friend of the US he has turned out to be.

1) Right behind you George and my soldiers...12000 miles behind!

2) He said years ago the deployment would be months not years in 2003. Well its years and we are still there so where is the media getting up him instead of getting shitty about aborted waste dumps? He said there would be no more troops before the last election and then promptly sent more after it. Media? Again silent.

3) If you were Osama, and you knew there was an election in Oz in 2007, don't you think he'd be doing a Madrid or thinking of it? Also might not our blokes on the ground become more "atractive" targets in Iraq? Bloody nightmare.

4) SW...he is already developing his home made Tampa by his dog whistles to the red necks and the Hansonites about the Muslims recently. Before the election that whistle will be a 120 decible U2 concert.

5) One of those grunts who is down to go is my nephew.

What really shits me is the way the media admiringly says the Rodent is a clever Politician...instead of saying what he is a liar and a cheat he is who will do anything, say anything to get 50.1% of the votes by virtue of his chicanery and sophistry.

[pevfan]

Well, glad to see someone else agrees with me...see my comments under 'Giving Soddom what he wants' post.

Fair weather friend indeed, the Rodent. As stated in the aforementioned post...I wonder how it would have gone down had we said to Britain during the 2 world wars...Oh sure, we're right behind you..but don't expect us to actually serve in any front line or anywhere else we might get hurt. And yet, here he is, through Downers recent visit to the US, talking it up, ... 'Yeah George we reckon you should send more troops'

I feel for your nephew Filth and anyone else who has loved ones over there. We should be out of there, we should never, ever have been there in the first place. The question I always ask, but never see anything about it in this dangerously compliant and submissive media is ...Let America continue on with it's policy of perpetual war...what has Iraq got to do with Australia. It's high time this country grew up and said 'no' to us slavishly following America into everyone of it's armed conflicts, conflicts that invariably have got nothing to do with us.

Howard is like the school weasel who ended up making friends with the school bully, and is now hiding behind his coat tails urging him on to do all the fighting for him. It's a wonder Bush doesn't see thru him...but then again he can't see thru anything, the man can barely string two coherent sentences together so how do we expect him to actually lead the free world.

[swoodley]

And more from Howard:

Howard backs Bush on Iraq
Email Print Normal font Large font January 11, 2007 - 4:22PM

Advertisement
AdvertisementPrime Minister John Howard says US President George W Bush's only option was to send more troops to Iraq or hand victory to the terrorists.

Mr Howard said the Australian government supported Mr Bush's announcement today that he would send an extra 21,500 American troops to Iraq as a sensible and realistic option.

"The alternatives the president faced were either to announce what he announced or effectively indicate the West could not win in Iraq," he told reporters in Sydney shortly after the president's broadcast speech.

"I believe the president chose the only realistic option. It will be difficult and it's not an easy task he has to discharge.

"It's a very heavy burden he carries and one the Australian government will support."

Mr Bush rang Mr Howard yesterday to inform him of the theme of his live televised speech.

"It was a very clear, calm and, above all, a realistic speech," Mr Howard said.

"He didn't underestimate the challenge, he acknowledged some mistakes have been made, and made it very clear what is at stake."

Mr Howard said if the coalition forces were to pull out of Iraq, the fight against terrorism - including in the Asia-Pacific region - would be extremely difficult to win.

"An American or western defeat in Iraq will be an unbelievable boost to terrorism," he said.

"If America is defeated in Iraq it is hard to see how the longer term fight against terrorism can be won.

"If America retreats in Iraq it has consequences for the stability of the Middle East and it will also be an enormous boost to terrorism in our part of the world."

He said Mr Bush's announcement would have no impact on Australia's troops in Iraq and he had no plans to send more forces.

"There is no direct implication for Australian forces in Iraq," Mr Howard said.

"We have an appropriately sized force and one that can be maintained which is doing very useful work.
"What we are doing in Iraq is entirely consistent with what the president has outlined.

"I never rule out sending more forces, however I don't see the need at the present time and I've not been asked to send more forces and I think it unlikely."

[temporary stevo]

"He didn't underestimate the challenge, he acknowledged some mistakes have been made, and made it very clear what is at stake."

shouldn't that be something more like "he acknowledged that he has made some mistakes"? what a fraud this man is, hiding behind the passive voice so that he needn't attribute responsibility to Bush.