Is Obama's Race a Factor in Howard's Attack?

Why would Australian Prime Minister John Howard separate out Barack Obama from all of the other contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination -- and from all the prominent Democratic and Republican critics of President Bush's dangerous foreign policies -- for attack as the favorite son of the terrorists?

Why would Howard, suggest that the Illinois senator's candidacy will "encourage those who wanted completely to destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory"?

What was Howard thinking when he claimed in an interview on Australian television that: "If I was running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats"?

Is Howard, arguably the truest believer in the Iraq War this side of Dick Cheney, so supportive of the Bush administration that he is ready to attack anyone who challenges the president? No, that's not the case. In fact, Howard has in recent days gone out of his way to tell Australians that he did not intend to "generically" criticize American Democrats; rather, he clarified, he was specifically attacking Obama. "I don't apologise for criticising Senator Obama's observation because I thought what he said was wrong," explained Howard.

But Howard, a savvy student of US politics, is unquestionably aware that many prominent Democrats -- including figures such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, who are far better known in Australia than Obama -- have criticized both the war in Iraq, which Howard continues to support unquestioningly, and the general approach of the Bush Administration to the so-called "war on terror."

So why the full-force assault on Obama, who has gained more global attention because he might be the first black presient of the United States than because of his stance on the Iraq War?

Perhaps some comments from a 2005 debate in the upper house of the parliament of the Australia's most populous state, New South Wales, will clear things up. After racial violence erupted in several suburbs of Sydney in the fall of that year, Howard dismissed concerns about the motivations behind the violence, despite reports that they had been provoked at least in part by neo-Nazis who targeted immigrants and people of color. "Every country has incidents that don't play well overseas," mused Howard, whose response provoked outrage on the part of civil rights campaigners in Sydney and the rest of Australia.

That outrage led to a parliamentary debate on the subject of "Racism and Prime Minister John Howard."

During the debate, Sylvia Hale, a representative from the Sydney area, explained that, "Racism has preoccupied this House and the community over the past week. It is pertinent now to re-examine the Prime Minister's contribution to the rise of racism in this country. John Howard's primary political strategy has been to divide and rule this nation. He has consistently pitted one section of the community against the other, whether it be wharfies, Aborigines, the unemployed, refugees, academics, welfare recipients or trade unionists. By identifying a minority and telling the majority that they should fear and loathe it because it is a threat to the way of life of the majority, the Prime Minister has had electoral success, but he has also created the social division that we all now confront."

"Undoubtedly," Hale continued, "the most destructive aspect of the strategy has been his pandering to the fearful, racist element in the Australian community. John Howard consistently denies that he does so but, as in so many other matters, when you examine the facts you see that the Prime Minister does not speak the truth. Examine his record and his message becomes clear. During his first term as Opposition leader, John Howard saw potential electoral advantage in playing racial politics. His comments in July 1988 promising a reduction in Asian immigration if he became Prime Minister established his credentials as a politician willing to play the race card if he thought it would win him votes. He was widely condemned for those comments and forced to withdraw them, but the lesson he learned was not that this sort of politics is destructive and wrong. Rather, he learned that his appeal to racism had to be more subtle."

When a supporter of the prime minister interrupted Hale with a point of order that attempted to shut her up, she was ruled to be entirely in order. Hale finished by explaining that, "I am accusing the Prime Minister of fostering a situation where racist tensions can increase."

It was hardly the first time that Howard faced such withering criticism. Howard came to prominence in Australia as a outspoken critic of multiculturalism and moves to respect and foster diversity. In the 198Os, he pointedly criticized moves to challenge South Africa's apartheid system. In the 199Os, he stirred anti-immigrant sentiment, taking stands that would make US "border wars" politicians like Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo wince. The Bangkok Post observed at the time that, "Australian Prime Minister John Howard may moan and whine about how he personally abhors racism, as he did this week, but few people will believe him."

Australian author and political commentator Greg Barns described Howard's 2001 attacks on refugees, as a "racist outburst" that came as part of "a disgraceful campaign of the Howard Government in 2001 to demonise the wretched and the weak who sought sanctuary on our shores."

Concerns about Howard's penchant for exploiting and exascerbating racial divisions for political purposes are so widespread in Australia that it the issue was the topic of a well-reviewed book by one of the nation's most prominent academics -- Race: John Howard and the Remaking of Australian Politics, by Andrew Markus, a former head of the School of Historical Studies at Australia's Monash University, where he currently directs the Australian Centre for the Study of Jewish Civilisation. The premise of Markus' book is that racial issues have become disturbingly prominent in Australian public life during the Howard years.

Now, with his over-the-top attempt to associate Obama with terrorism, Howard has turned his attention to public life in the United States. Of course, John Howard will deny that Obama's race was a factor in his decision to loudly and aggressively attack just one of more than a dozen Democrats who are actively campaigning or considering a presidential run -- most of whom are war critics.

But, as Sylvia Hale suggested with regard to the prime minister: "Examine his record and his message becomes clear."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (146)

1. People like bush,howard etc say they know how terrorists think to the point that they even know who terrorists would want you to vote for.The only people who know how terrorists think are other terrorists.The rest of us can't figure out how they think anymore than we could figure how a rapist thinks.Howard,like bush/cheney never served in the military and Australias contribution to the war effort is so minimal that many people didn't know they were even there until this story came out.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 02/13/2007 @ 12:46pm

2. John Howard is accused of being a racist...by his political opponents. (Mr Nichols' sources, if you check them out).

   Okay...maybe he is.

   But IS this the start of the "Obama Defense" in case he overcomes Her Nibs and actually gets the nomination?...with the playbook being "Anybody who attacks Obama is a "closet racist""? Seems familiar. I remember back in 1984 and 1988 campaigns, how anybody who attacked Jesse Jackson, even on the issues, was HINTED at being a racist, even among fellow Democrats. Jackson could never be fairly attacked on his stance on the issues; it always had to be "racism".

   It's a smart move, I grant. Insulating yourself from ANY attack by counter-charging "racism", thus silencing your opponents. Same way anybody who disagrees with Hillary "hates women"....even the same way THE RIGHT says ANYBODY who disagrees with Bush "hates Bush".

   Small pockets of racists, sexists, Bush-haters surely exist....but by lumping ALL critics into those groups...it does provide you with a nice bit of cover, huh?

   Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 2:01pm

3. Bush and Co. no doubt appreciate the help from afar in their usual smear/fear strategems, making sure people equate as many Dems as possible with "the terrorists", thus making sure the voters, who the Repubs assume are as dumb as can be (with ample reasons to do so), continue to cower and mistrust many of their own politicians as much as the evildoers. (Though no more than a handful deserve any trust to begin with.) These tactics also assure that the rabble doesn't contemplate the issues at hand or the stakes in play, but instead reduces all campaigns to a single issue: the Iraq war, which also boasts its own convenient symbol/shortcut to comprehension - 9-11. How long until Osama or Zawahiri comes out with another video which conveniently mentions a few things Obama or Hillary say in their speeches, thus figuratively putting them in the same cave as the enemy, as the Tories tried to do with Kerry and one of Osama's tapes in 2004?

   But isn't it hilarious when the Tories speak of "emboldening the enemy" or "sending the wrong message to the troops" in their lame efforts to conflate a Democrat vote with a vote for evil, when all along the wrong message originates from the assumption that the insurgents are sitting around in their trenches or bombed-out shelters, ruminating over and discussing US elections, believing themselves more powerful and influential because Bush and his gang, along with the most prodigious media machine in the world, have given the evildoers an active role in US politics? It isn't a desire to begin a phased withdrawal or to limit spending and additonal troops in Iraq that really emboldens them, but rather the constant talk of their power to influence the paradigm of democracy on display for all the world in Anywhere, USA from across the globe. The mere suggestion that certain attitudes are akin to votes for the rebels makes them out to be much more than they really are, which no doubt heartens them and is suely relayed to them by Al-Jazeera. How long until FOX starts calling Democrats and their supporters evildoers?

   BTW, for those Americans bothered by Howards' comments should think how people in other countries feel when Bush or Cheney or Condi or whomever makes comments about who people should or shouldn't vote for, like in the case of Morales, Ortega and Chávez, to name a few. In Latin America these days it backfires invariably and only bolsters support for the guy in the crosshairs of US criticism and/or threats.

   Posted by chimichenga at 02/13/2007 @ 2:32pm

4. BTW, for those Americans bothered by Howards' comments should think how people in other countries feel when Bush or Cheney or Condi or whomever makes comments about who people should or shouldn't vote for, like in the case of Morales, Ortega and Chávez, to name a few. In Latin America these days it backfires invariably and only bolsters support for the guy in the crosshairs of US criticism and/or threats.

   Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/13/2007 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person

   Chavez is popular because he speaks his mind and acts fairly responsibly when compared to prior leaders in the region. Personally, I believe that when BushCo. open their mouths about foreign policy, the rest of the world just laughs.........they know that our policy is all based around capitalism, and that our goal is to exploit and make money. Intellectuals laugh around the world at our lame duck president, and it doesnt play well for us to have a fool in control of our forces. Unfortunately, the damage that has been done is going to take years to clean up, if we can ever gain credibility again in the Middle East. God bless you GWB, you are probably headed to hell. On another note: it is fun to watch the Libby trial and see these bastards fall all over themselves with their lies and deceit.......just think if we had time to do this with all their scandals.....and were privy to these conversations they have........the taped Armitage piece is classic.......never heard anyone, including in the ghetto, say fuck so many times. Classy, classy leaders folks.........thanks red states.

   Posted by jpolston at 02/13/2007 @ 3:00pm

5. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/13/2007 @ 2:32pm

   CHIMI, what about people (maybe Bush, Cheney, Condi or another) who say "I DON'T SUPPORT FIDEL CASTRO OR CUBA. What is more, I WOULD SUPPORT A US INVASION OF CUBA IN ORDER TO TAKE OUT FIDEL AND TRULY LIBERATE THE 11 MILLION PEOPLE SUFFERING UNDER HIS REGIME."

   Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 3:03pm

6. Posted by MASK 02/13/2007 @ 3:03pm | ignore this person

   I still stand by that, though not an assassination, rather a real attempt to help the Cuban people rise up and form the government they want, not the one the Castro brothers desire. Perhaps if sugarcane suddenly turns out to have some overlooked benefit the Cubans can expect more than an embargo and economic strangulation.

   Posted by chimichenga at 02/13/2007 @ 3:10pm

7. I still stand by that....

   Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/13/2007 @ 3:10pm

   Okay....hehe....just checking!

   Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 3:20pm

8. I still stand by that, though not an assassination, rather a real attempt to help the Cuban people rise up and form the government they want, not the one the Castro brothers desire. Perhaps if sugarcane suddenly turns out to have some overlooked benefit the Cubans can expect more than an embargo and economic strangulation.

   Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/13/2007 @ 3:10pm | ignore this person

   I would have thought this kind of rhetoric,"attempt to help the Cuban people rise up and form the government they want," would have been thoroughly discredited by now.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 3:46pm

9. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/13/2007 @ 3:46pm | ignore this person

   Depends if you're referring to the nuts in Miami who've never been to Cuba or those suffering under Castro.

   Posted by chimichenga at 02/13/2007 @ 3:50pm

10. This an analysis by a New York Times writer, Ron Suskind, who had an interview with a Bush advisor back in 2002, which still haunts me for the accuracy in its description of the Bush administration's methodology. The guys running Battleship Bush, have managed to perfect the ultimate course, which is simply the act of ignoring their existing/potential adversaries, legal restrictions, empirical assessments contradicting their public statements...this presidency leads the way decisively, forcing the oppostion to respond as best they can, if at all. Sure, the Bushies will respond by releasing their media attack dogs against the rare opponent brave enough to step out of the shadows, as we observed in the sliming of the Wilsons, but for the most part, the war against Iraq was never in doubt. Even today, it is ludicrous that we're having any serious "debate" about Iran as a so-called threat to our survival. We have historic income disparity, healthcare crises, ecological devastation resulting from this insane perpetuation of industrial growth dependent upon the same carbon-based fuels relied on almost a century ago, and yet we're obssessed with Holy War in the Middle East; our adversaries more analogous to the American militia movement than the Germans of World War Two (and yet conservatives draw the parallel).

    "In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush," Suskind wrote, introducing his characters. "He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency."

    The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2007 @ 4:02pm

11. Depends if you're referring to the nuts in Miami who've never been to Cuba or those suffering under Castro.

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/13/2007 @ 3:50pm

    Curious....so you're saying the ONLY qualifier for "nut"...

    is if you are calling for the ovethrow of Castro, but have never been to Cuba and suffered under Castro?

    Uh, CHIMI...have YOU been to Cuba and suffered under Castro????

    Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 4:06pm

12. Mr. Nichols...Having dinner with Mr. Jackson or Mr. Sharpton anytime soon?? (birds of a feather...)

    This article is quite a stretch as an implication. Especially when quoting Mr. Howard's political opponents. Sounds like a lot of sour grapes and sound-bites for political posturing. Really not much different than Americas political landscape.

    In Latin America these days it backfires invariably and only bolsters support for the guy in the crosshairs of US criticism and/or threats.

    Chimi...nobody except the drug cartels gives a rats ass about Latin America. You're a pimple on our ass. You guys riot over soccer for Christ's sake. Enjoy the chicas and margaritas.

    Posted by Sliver at 02/13/2007 @ 4:21pm

13. ."nobody except the drug cartels gives a rats ass about Latin America".

    then why are Tories such as yourself constantly squawking about Chavez?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 4:32pm

14. Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/13/2007 @ 4:02pm | ignore this person

    if I hear that goddamn quote oner more time...

    let's retire that nugget for a few years.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 4:33pm

15. Chimi...nobody except the drug cartels gives a rats ass about Latin America. You're a pimple on our ass. You guys riot over soccer for Christ's sake. Enjoy the chicas and margaritas.

    Posted by SLIVER 02/13/2007 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person

    Sliver,

    You're a reliable contributor to the "Dumbassification" of America. Perhaps the equal of Barry25.

    Latin America is the fastest-growing market for U.S. exports. In fact, large U.S. corporations with Latin American interests spent more than $92 million lobbying Congress in the latter half of the 1990s, in part to affect U.S. policy in the region. These companies and their employees contributed an additional $18.9 million to federal election campaigns during the same period.

    http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=252

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2007 @ 4:44pm

16. spent more than $92 million lobbying Congress

    Super. That's less than 2 of my neighboring communities in Ohio spend annually on their public school systems. I'm sure we spent more than that on bananas alone.

    Posted by Sliver at 02/13/2007 @ 4:51pm

17. Killing over soccer? Seems a cop just got killed after an Italian soccer game. So what do you mean to say? And is it as bad as literally shopping (one of the sole purposes of el americano) until you drop? Looks like seeking sales at the Gap just might cost you an arm and a leg - or worse...

    http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/02/if-it-aint-islamic-then-it-ain t.html

    you'll have to cut and paste and make that last "aint.html" one

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/13/2007 @ 5:35pm

18. Look into the faces of Obama's crowds, see the hopeful smiles, then watch their eyes close, as they look upward, and start to softly moan............

    Suddenly, they pant and gasp, faster and faster, until they all erupt into spontaneous, joyous gasps and sobs.......

    they've just had an O-BASM!

    Of course it felt good at the time, but they'll probably regret it later.........

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/13/2007 @ 5:56pm

19. Chimi, ever ben to Cuba? Or Venezuela, for that matter?

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/13/2007 @ 5:57pm

20. "You guys riot over soccer for Christ's sake.Posted by SLIVER 02/13/2007 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person"

    and here they go to the mall and shoot up the place, or church, or the office, guns and shooting everywhere. as well as rioting when their team loses or wins. americans are in absolutely no position to point fingers at anyone.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 6:18pm

21. spent more than $92 million lobbying Congress

    Super. That's less than 2 of my neighboring communities in Ohio spend annually on their public school systems. I'm sure we spent more than that on bananas alone.

    Posted by SLIVER 02/13/2007 @ 4:51pm | ignore this person

    Sliver,

    The $92 million is just the amount of campaign bribes spent by corporate American investors seeking to ensure your elected officials use our national and collective wealth and prestige to bully poor, developing nations into sacrificing their own resources and citizenry to the interests of private transnationals; spanning the globe to plunder in a manner hardly more sophisticated than the old Viking barbarians.

    Even the conservative Rand Corporation has acknowledged that US miltary aid corresponds most often with the most brutal, authoritarian foreign governments, due to they're being the more compliant and efficent in creating conditions favorable to American corporations; while delivering increased poverty, violence and suffering to the domestic population.

    Do I need to list the number of times the US has deployed its military forces to the region to intervene in the affairs of latin American nations?

    "U.S. Southern Command is the hub of the military's presence in Latin America. Now based in Miami and headed by General Brantz Craddock, SOUTHCOM operates on a budget of $800 million a year and considers 19 countries in Central and South America and 13 in the Caribbean as its area of concern.

    The Command's size and budget, especially given the current military preoccupation with the Middle East, speaks to the United States' enduring influence in the Western Hemisphere-- Washington's backyard. The Southern Command is staffed by 1,470 people-- more than are tasked with the region by the Departments of State, Commerce, Treasury and Agriculture and the Joint Chiefs office and the Office of the Secretary of Defense combined."

    http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/MilitaryAidLA110405.htm l

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2007 @ 6:23pm

22. Oust, in your hands facts are like a cross to ward of the Tory vampires.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 6:42pm

23. Oust, in your hands facts are like a cross to ward of the Tory vampires.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/13/2007 @ 6:42pm | ignore this person

    Thanks Johannesrolf. The Tory fangs are decrepit and rotten, falling out harmlessly once contact is made with the firmness of truth, as you have experienced many times yourself. Yes, the Tory masters are parasitic bloodsuckers, but the morons like Sliver, Dave Bartlett, Rio, etc., are just stooges comprehending the world as little as the poor, white Confederate soldier sharecropper, who, although despised and loathed by their aristocratic lords- rose up, fought and died for a hollow abstraction that merely served as cover for institutional greed and thievery. These Tory soldiers are less than their ancestors, because they will not fight for what they think they believe in, but restrict their combat to the keyboard.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2007 @ 7:28pm

24. These Tory soldiers are less than their ancestors, because they will not fight for what they think they believe in, but restrict their combat to the keyboard.

    Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/13/2007 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person

    And despite the stupidity of their postings, I would much prefer they remain here, digitally shooting off messages of ignorance, than fighting and dying over in the Middle East. For the sake of your selves and your families, I am pleased you right-wingers are chickenhawk cowards. Reckless and unnecessary wars are asinine.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2007 @ 7:40pm

25. I'm a little confused. Is your argument actually that anyone who is politically conservative is a cowardly lunatic? I would assume that's not what you're saying, because it's pretty absurd.

    Posted by Thrawn at 02/13/2007 @ 8:11pm

26. while delivering increased poverty, violence and suffering to the domestic population.

    You guys must truly hate your country. After repeated posts such as this. Self-loathing, angry, relativists.

    SO if Nike sets up in Malaysia and pays people $2.50 per hour, when the most that they were making before was $2.00, then America is delivering "increased violence, poverty, and suffering?" You guys can't be for real.

    Posted by Sliver at 02/13/2007 @ 8:30pm

27. There's no two ways about it- our prime minister is a nasty little bigot with a rich history of playing the race card and dog-whistle politics. I do believe however that this article overstates the racial motivation for Howard's attack on Obama. His retreat from attacking the Democrats in general is because the US – Australia alliance is fundamental to Australian national security, and no one in Australia thinks it wise to annoy the party the now holds the majority and will probably next take the White House. Howard is in electoral trouble and needed to shift debate away from his poor record on the environment and global warming- another great Bush-Howard stance, and divert it back to national security: which he was supposedly strong on.

    Australia‘s troop commitment is 1% of the US troop deployment and even on a per capita basis our commitment is just 14% of the equivalent US commitment. We are yet to suffer a single combat casualty in the war. The good outcome from this attack on Obama was that quite unexpectedly, the American media picked the story up. This drew attention to the fact that despite Howard passionately ranting for years on about Iraq and standing by our Yank mates he didn't back-up his rhetoric with action. I believe his lapse in political judgment has back fired so badly that it will cost him dearly in an election year.

    I think Howard's unflinching support for Bush is much more personal. Howard likes to think of himself as a Churchill-like character: a war time Prime Minister strutting the world stage. His middle name is Winston, so the damage was probably done early. I think Howard likes to see himself as Lacey to Bush's Cagney. He famously named Australia as the regional deputy to the American Sheriff. This was taken well by our Asian neighbours.

    If I were an American, I'd be uninterested in the opinion of a spent nasty bigot like Howard, and focus more on the strange little debate your having over there on the blackness of the son of a black Kenyan.

    Luke

    Posted by lmiles at 02/13/2007 @ 8:32pm

28. Posted by LMILES 02/13/2007 @ 8:32pm | ignore this person

    what a refreshing change from that other australian, who seems more and more like a shill.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 8:41pm

29. I'm a little confused. Is your argument actually that anyone who is politically conservative is a cowardly lunatic? I would assume that's not what you're saying, because it's pretty absurd.

    Posted by THRAWN 02/13/2007 @ 8:11pm | ignore this person

    Well, not so much a lunatic, because those who believe in the war and work to prolong it, but do not actually volunteer their services are not crazy or enough of a zealot to risk their own skin for the cause. This is prudent but cowardly. I don't know that I used the term lunatic, but uninformed would be more appropriate.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2007 @ 8:41pm

30. I think PM Howard's remarks speak for themselves...fortunately, so does Mr. Nichol's diatribe. It would seem that Mr. Nichols has the ability to translate straight forward remarks about the dangers of telegraphing to the enemy, a specific timetable for withdrawal...into a calculated, racial driven based attack.

    "If I was running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats"?

    Yeah, good thing the illiterate have you to explain it to them. For those of us capable of reading for ourselves...thanks for the chuckle.

    Posted by DanTampa at 02/13/2007 @ 8:45pm

31. Chimi, ever ben to Cuba? Or Venezuela, for that matter?

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/13/2007 @ 5:57pm

    This'll come back to haunt you, Dave.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/13/2007 @ 9:03pm

32. Thanks Johannesrolf. The Tory fangs are decrepit and rotten, falling out harmlessly once contact is made with the firmness of truth, as you have experienced many times yourself. Yes, the Tory masters are parasitic bloodsuckers, but the morons like Sliver, Dave Bartlett, Rio, etc., are just stooges comprehending the world as little as the poor, white Confederate soldier sharecropper, who, although despised and loathed by their aristocratic lords- rose up, fought and died for a hollow abstraction that merely served as cover for institutional greed and thievery. These Tory soldiers are less than their ancestors, because they will not fight for what they think they believe in, but restrict their combat to the keyboard.

    Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/13/2007 @ 7:28pm

    I enjoy your posts immensely, Oust. Almost poetic.

    So, you've read my posts here. Tell me, do you agree with Johannes' (whom you seem to respect, agree with, and endorse frequently) assessment of me as "[wearing a] nazi prison guard uniform under his civvies, and always ready to torture, as long as the victim is evil enough"?

    Does anyone here agree with that assessment?

    An inquiring mind wants to know.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/13/2007 @ 9:14pm

33. So, you've read my posts here. Tell me, do you agree with Johannes' (whom you seem to respect, agree with, and endorse frequently) assessment of me as "[wearing a] nazi prison guard uniform under his civvies, and always ready to torture, as long as the victim is evil enough"?

    Does anyone here agree with that assessment?

    An inquiring mind wants to know.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 02/13/2007 @ 9:14pm | ignore this person

    New Dawn,

    First of all, thanks for the kind words.

    Secondly,

    I doubt that someone with the web name New Dawn, would ever be caught dead (or alive) wearing Nazi paraphernalia. So, as to the Johannesrolf comment, I cannot agree. I didn't see that particular exchange, and quite frankly, I'm surprised, and since I like and respect him, I'll try and mark it off to one of the bad days we sometimes have. Especially since I'd say you both share many more beliefs than not . My perspective of your writing is one of appreciation. You always seem willing to give a thorough point-by-point rebuttal (thrashing) to our conservative interlocutors and their misguided opinions. Also, adding a sense of humor to the dialogue. I also agree with you about the looming literary roasting soon to be unleashed upon poor Mr. Barltett, from our friend Chimi.

    I have to retire from my dial-up connection, to call my girlfriend, who is out of town. Good luck with the 30% dead-enders, no problem for you! I'll try to be back later, as I see some of them have been stirred to throw some worms my way.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2007 @ 9:46pm

34. You guys need to exchange email addresses or get a room

    Posted by lmiles at 02/13/2007 @ 10:03pm

35. CHIMI, DONDE ESTA??????I'm a waitin' for my roastin', chico................

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/13/2007 @ 10:21pm

36. "People like bush,howard etc say they know how terrorists think to the point that they even know who terrorists would want you to vote for.The only people who know how terrorists think are other terrorists.The rest of us can't figure out how they think anymore than we could figure how a rapist thinks.Howard,like bush/cheney never served in the military and Australias contribution to the war effort is so minimal that many people didn't know they were even there until this story came out."

    I'm Nobody: Hear! Hear!

    Well said. You sum it up really nicely!

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/13/2007 @ 10:21pm

37. Mask,

    You really are incredibly cynical.

    Why defend John Howard exactly???

    I know! To start an argument!

    :-)

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/13/2007 @ 10:22pm

38. Oust, I agree that was harsh. it was however in response to being trashed by this individual for weeks, and the relish with which he described his desire to torture Osama bin Laden. it was a metaphor, if a poisonous one. allow me to express my regrets to you. I have however no intention of corresponding with Dawny, I just choose not to. thank you for the kind words.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/13/2007 @ 10:22pm

39. i bet howard is a good "mate" of murdoch...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2007 @ 11:33pm

40. You guys need to exchange email addresses or get a room

    Posted by LMILES 02/13/2007 @ 10:03pm

    Who are you?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/14/2007 @ 12:55am

41. Oust, I agree that was harsh. it was however in response to being trashed by this individual for weeks, and the relish with which he described his desire to torture Osama bin Laden. it was a metaphor, if a poisonous one. allow me to express my regrets to you. I have however no intention of corresponding with Dawny, I just choose not to. thank you for the kind words.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/13/2007 @ 10:22pm

    You're a fucking liar. And a gutless coward of a liar, at that. You continue to lie about me while you cower behind your ignore list, Johannes. I know you check the posts to see what I'm saying about you, so listen close.

    I have never "trashed you for weeks", you lying shitbag. And I have never "relished" any "desire" to torture Osama Bin Laden.

    I dare you to come out from behind your ignore list and debate me. You can start by proving that I have done anything you just claimed.

    Or, even better... you could show some integrity and honesty and just admit that you are a gutless coward. You only iggied me because you couldn't defend your position any longer while we were discussing the death penalty. And then you come here and lie to these people. You scumbag.

    I'll extend the invite one more time, Johannes. Bring your fucking punk hippie ass to San Jose and come call me a "Nazi" to my face.

    I'll teach you a new dance.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/14/2007 @ 01:02am

42. Thanks, Oust.

    Like I said earlier, when I'm honest here and don't fall in line with every liberal "norm", I get vilified. It's okay to be vilified by the likes of Rio and Barry (can't blame them - they know not what they do), but if someone like you or STRiley or Edwriter or Crabwalk thought I was off the deep end, it might give me serious pause.

    I appreciate the kind words.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/14/2007 @ 01:05am

43. I really have to apologize to the Nation and to the board at large for all of the "f" words. I know some people find that really offensive, but I have a complete vocabulary (as anyone who's read one of my longer posts knows), and that word just happens to be one in the inventory. As it is the bottom of the barrel of my vocabulary, I usually reserve it for the bottom feeders.

    On that note, let me reiterate how offensive I find it when someone calls me a "Nazi" (as Johannes likes to do) instead of debating me using an actual argument.

    K*ke. C*nt. N*gger. F*ggot.

    I type those words out loud so that everyone here understands how offensive I find the word "Nazi". It is as vile and base a slur as any other to me, and in fact, is worse than most. It implies a bloodthirst and cruelty that is unfathomable to me.

    Fuck Johannes.

    And sorry to everyone else.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/14/2007 @ 01:19am

44. People like the Australian PM are the bane of society who exploit racial tensions for their own political advantage. This instance, however, reveals that he is a true racist. May be that plays well in Australian whites. This is rather clever on his part. He gets to play the race card without directing his criticism to Australian minorities.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 02/14/2007 @ 01:35am

45. I think that Obama was dead on in telling Howard to put up or shut up - how many Australian troops are in the theatre again?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/14/2007 @ 01:49am

46. Do these comments sections have a moderator or anything? Most of this thread should surely be deleted due to its being not at all germane to the subject at hand. I'd like to post a comment addressing the issues raised by the article, but there hardly seems any point.

    Posted by trevorj at 02/14/2007 @ 02:03am

47. John Nichols has used a excerpt from your CNN news that gives the impression Howard was gratuitously targeting Obama. The full interview is posted here to show that Howard was merely responding to a question that was framed in terms of Obama because his position encapsulates the "cut and run" strategy.

    Howard looks a bit like a garden gnome and is not charismatic but he is the outstanding parliamentary performer of the current crop of politicians on both sides of the House and Senate and well up with the very best historically. He never uses notes, has an encyclopedic memory and peerless debating skills. I agree with Luke Miles that Obama is irrelevant except to get the focus on Iraq, for both Howard and the new opposition leader Rudd, who has been after the "master" trying to trap him on his Iraq policy. It has been great theatre, in parliament these last three days, with good blows struck by each "gladiator". In our robust parliament words like liar, guts-less, brainless etc have been freely bandied about. Heard Howard say this at the end of a response to Rudd on Mon. or Tues. " America for all her faults has been and is the greatest force for good in the world."

    This is an extensive interview, which is too long for one post, but I think it shows that Howard did not gratuitously attack Obama. He was responding to the interviewer's question. Of course it was a political answer but aimed at the Australian electorate and the opposition leader.

    Interview: John Howard February 11, 2007 Reporter : Laurie Oakes

    Political editor Laurie Oakes speaks with Prime Minister John Howard in this election year ...

    Transcript

    LAURIE OAKES: Mr Howard, welcome back to the program.

    JOHN HOWARD: Good Morning Laurie.

    LAURIE OAKES: First, tell us about the aged care announcement you're making today, one-and-a-half billion over five years, what for?

    JOHN HOWARD: A whole range of things. This will complete our response to the Hogan Review. A lot more community care packages so that you'll have 25 per thousand of the relevant age cohort. Now, these aged care packages is where you provide help for people to stay in their own homes much longer and that's what older people want. We'll also be helping the nursing home and aged care sector out with more money and new arrangements so that they can better afford the higher care that is needed and it's a consequence of people staying in their homes longer that when they actually do go into an aged care facility, they're frailer and they need a lot more intensive care. We'll be increasing by thousands of hours, the number of respite care places, if I can put it that way, available for people who are caring and looking after the elderly in their own homes. We'll also be simplifying the way in which we support the aged care sector so that an increasing amount ends up going to those who are providing the more intensive and higher care. We'll be fixing up an anomaly where we pay a lower level of support to aged care facilities that were once run by state governments and we'll also be providing some extra help for the disadvantaged areas, remote areas, of Australia and services that look after Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders.

    LAURIE OAKES: And good news for self-funded retirees.

    JOHN HOWARD: And also good new for self-funded retirees. There's an anomaly in the present system where a pensioner and a self-funded retiree, with the same amount of assets, are treated differently. (A) self-funded retiree is treated less fairly and we're going to remove that anomaly so irrespective of whether you're a self-funded retiree or a pensioner, the assets alone govern the support you get and that's only fair.

    LAURIE OAKES: And how many new nursing home beds will this create?

    JOHN HOWARD: This is actually providing, not trying to measure the number of beds, providing more resources and importantly it's going to create 7,200 new community care packages - that's the people being looked after in home and 16-hundred of those will be people who are getting more intensive care and it's a big package. Can I make the very relevant point that without a strong budget and a strong surplus as a result of good experienced, economic management, we wouldn't be able to afford to do it.

    LAURIE OAKES: I think we might hear a lot of that this year.

    JOHN HOWARD: I think it's a relevant point because our opponents are running around saying; look, we don't have to argue about economic management, we're all agreed on that, let's argue about other things I hear Mr Rudd saying this morning that he supports all of these responsible things, that is not what they did, they tried to stop us at every turn, reforming the Australian economy and getting the budget back into surplus over the last ten years and it's a bit rich to now turn around and say we're in a lovey-dovey bipartisan consensus on economic policy - you could have fooled me, you could have fooled Peter Costello.

    LAURIE OAKES: OK, can I put some propositions to you? Get your re-action to them? Proposition 1: Voters have become blasé about the economy undermining the advantage you've had over Labor over the economic management issue.

    JOHN HOWARD: You're inviting me to be a commentator?

    LAURIE OAKES: Yes.

    JOHN HOWARD: What I say about economic management is that we've had more experience. We've got the runs on the board. All the big reform measures that we've tried to carry out, Labor has opposed. By contrast when Labor was in government, if they came up with a good idea, such as reducing tariffs, we supported them. As a hugh contrast we have been consistent both in opposition and in government. Oppositions have responsibilities as well as governments and when we (tried) to get the budget into surplus they opposed us. When we tried to fix the waterfront they opposed us. When Mr. Reith tried to reform industrial relations, first time around, they opposed, they opposed tax reform, they opposed the privatisation of Telstra although they supported the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank when they were in government, and of course, they've opposed our latest round of workplace relations reform and then they expect the Australian public to believe that when it comes to economic management issues, there's not a cigarette paper between us.

    LAURIE OAKES: Well, you keep using the word "they", but Labor now has a new leader...

    JOHN HOWARD: I include Mr. Rudd...

    LAURIE OAKES: I don't think people lump you with the responsibility for all of John Hewson's views, though Labor's got a new leader (entitling) them to a fresh start.

    JOHN HOWARD: But hang on, Mr. Rudd voted against tax reform. Whereas John Hewson, you know, I was part of a team in relation to him but he voted against tax reform; he voted against industrial relations reform. He was part and parcel of the team that voted against it and many of the senior people on his front bench led the charge.

    LAURIE OAKES: OK.

    JOHN HOWARD: They can't have it both ways, I mean, he's only been there a few minutes, so we're entitled to have a look at what he's done during that time.

    LAURIE OAKES: Proposition two for your comment: Australians are increasingly opposed to the Iraq War, and it's starting to bite electorally, undermining the advantage you've had over Labor on national security issues?

    JOHN HOWARD: Once again commentary but I'll address the substance of the issue. The Australian people have always been, when you ask them in a poll, against our involvement in Iraq. I accept that. As one of the answers I give to those who say I'm a poll-driven politician. It was about the least poll-driven decision I've taken in my entire political life but I believed in it; I believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So, incidentally did Mr Rudd. Mr. Rudd in fact said it was an empirical fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. His argument with us was whether we should have tried to get another United Nations resolution but I've got to now look at the current situation, and the impact on the alliance, the impact on the future of Iraq, if we were to get up and go, and Mr Rudd can't slip and slide and have it both ways, as he tried to do this morning. You either go or you stay, you either rat on the ally or stay with the ally, it's as simple as that. And, if it's alright for us to go, it's alright for the Americans and the British to go, and if everybody goes Iraq will descend into total civil chaos ...

    LAURIE OAKES: On that very subject,

    JOHN HOWARD: and there'll be a lot of bloodshed.

    LAURIE OAKES: On that subject, Senator Barack Obama's announced overnight he's running for the Democrat Presidential nomination, and he says if he gets it he has a plan to bring troops home by March, 2008 and his direct quote is "Letting the Iraqis know we'll not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunnis and Shia to come to the table and find peace". So, basically he's agreeing with the Labor Party.

    JOHN HOWARD: Yes, I think he's wrong, I mean, he's a long way from being President of the United States. I think he's wrong. I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for Obama victory. If I was running Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.

    LAURIE OAKES: If he wins, and you're still there, bad news for the alliance.

    JOHN HOWARD: Well I tell you what would be even worse news for the fight against terrorism, if America is defeated in Iraq. I mean, we have to understand what we are dealing with. We're dealing here with a situation where if America pulls out of Iraq in March 2008. It can only be in circumstances of defeat. There's no way by March 2008, which is a little over a year from now, everything will have been stabilised so that America can get out in March 2008. And, if America is defeated in Iraq, the hope of ever getting a Palestinian settlement will be gone. There'll be enormous conflict between the Shi'a and the Sunnis throughout the whole of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Jordan will both be (destabilised), Al-Qaeda will trumpet it as the greatest victory they've ever had and that will have implications in our region because of the link, the ideological link at the very least, between the Al-Qaeda and JI.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/14/2007 @ 04:27am

48. Posted by LRJONES4 02/14/2007 @ 04:27am

    Howard Interview 11 Feb 2007 Pt.2

    LAURIE OAKES: Proposition three, the proposition is the incarceration of David Hicks is biting as an electoral issue because it's seen as evidence of an obsequious attitude to George W Bush and the Americans.

    JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, I'm very frustrated about the length of time it's taken. I have to take up something Ray Martin said in that intro, where he said, there's five years and they've found no charges against him. That's not right. There were charges laid against David Hicks, but because the Supreme Court in the case of Hamden and Rumsfeld said the military commission had not been established in accordance with the constitution, they had to start again, so it's not quite right to say they never, at any stage, reached a view that they had charges against him. We are pressing the Americans, almost on a daily basis, to bring this man before the military commission. I am very unhappy.

    LAURIE OAKES: What if they don't meet your mid-February deadline, we are just about there.

    JOHN HOWARD: Well, Laurie, the charging process has begun, but we will be watching, on a daily basis, progress towards the commission hearing starting and in the last few hours, Mr Downer has raised this issue in the meeting he had with Robert Yates, the new American Defence Secretary in Germany. And Mr Downer spoke to me on the phone about an hour ago and reported on the discussion, and he drove home again to the Americans, the concern that I've expressed to President Bush, and will go on expressing it; we are unhappy, frustrated with the amount of time it's taken. I don't think the Americans have handled that part of it well and it has made people legitimately concerned, even those who feel very strongly, as I do, that somebody accused of training with Al-Qaeda and returning to them in the full knowledge of what happened on 11 September, is nonetheless should not be held indefinitely without a trial and that is a view we'll press very, very hard on the Americans.

    LAURIE OAKES: Prime Minister we'll take a break and be back in a moment.

    LAURIE OAKES: Welcome back. Mr Howard, I have two more propositions I'd like to put to you and to get your comment on..

    JOHN HOWARD: Sure...

    LAURIE OAKES: The first one, voters are a bit tired of John Howard, they see too much of him and they wouldn't mind a change.

    JOHN HOWARD: Well that ultimately is in their hands. I'll continue to do my best, I've still got a lot of ideas, a lot of energy, an enormous amount of optimism about the future of this country, a belief that it's got be built on maintaining prosperity, that posterity is not something you can take for granted. It does need good policy, it does need a lot of experience, and it also is built on enduring national security and I will be talking, as I have in the past about those things, but Laurie it's a subjective thing for an individual. I guess there are some Labor people who are tired of me after 10 minutes, let alone 10 years, so, and yet other Liberal supporters who would, you know, like me to go for a very long time into the future.

    LAURIE OAKES: I remember people saying they were tired of you 20 years ago.

    JOHN HOWARD: Well exactly, of course. I mean, so in the end people will pay on results. Australians are very practical people. They say "What's this bloke done, what's happened on his watch", they look at the lowest unemployment in 32 years, they see a strong economy, they see somebody who's prepared to weather the storm of unpopularity in relation to something he believes is right, and they will make those judgments and I'm in their hands, and whatever judgment the Australian people make at the end of the year, I'll accept with the greatest of good grace but I want them to know that I am very dedicated to the job, I'm very enthusiastic, and I have a lot of fight left in me.

    LAURIE OAKES: ? Voters think you're not as worried about climate change as they are and your past scepticism on global warming makes them reluctant to believe you're a genuine convert now.

    JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, I'm a realist. I worry that we will be panicked into knee jerk reactions. I worry that we might sacrifice some industries with a short-term response. I want us to get this right. We have had a policy of encouraging things like clean coal technology for more than three years - I hear the Labor Party talking about it a lot now. I believe that you have to have all of the alternatives on the table, such as uranium, and nuclear power. I cannot understand how the Labor Party can claim the future on climate change when they won't even consider, into the future, nuclear power, which must become more viable as the cost of using fossil fuels as we clean them up becomes more expensive. Nuclear power compared with dirty coal, obviously is dearer. But if we make the coal cleaner, as the Labor Party says we must, we make its use dearer, then, as a result, we make the use of nuclear power more feasible, and the other point I make is that you are starting to see these crazy knee jerk reactions in statements made by Bob Brown about closing down the coal industry.

    LAURIE OAKES: Repudiated by the Labor Party and the Government.

    JOHN HOWARD: Yeah, I know, repudiated by the Labor Party, but remember this - the Labor Party has a track record of caving in to the Greens to get their preferences. Mark Latham did it in Tasmania over the forest.

    LAURIE OAKES: That might have been a bit of a lesson.

    JOHN HOWARD: But hang on, Kevin Rudd, I read in the newspapers on Friday, has softened his attitude to the construction of dams in Queensland so as not to upset the Greenies because he's worried, according to one of his spokesmen, about the tremendous fuss the Greens in south-east Queensland are kicking up about that issue. Now, he may have repudiated it, but I would say to the coalminers of Australia, just as I said to the forestry workers of Tasmania, you can rely on the Coalition to put jobs ahead of ideology.

    LAURIE OAKES: On global warming then, the States say they'll go it alone and introduce a national emission trading scheme by 2010 if you won't join in, will you join in?

    JOHN HOWARD: Laurie, we have begun to study this issue.

    LAURIE OAKES: But the States are way ahead, they've done the work...

    JOHN HOWARD: No, no, no..

    LAURIE OAKES: ?the scheme is in operation in NSW already.

    JOHN HOWARD: I don't think you can seriously do this work unless you engage the business community, unless you engage the mining companies, you engage the energy companies, the people whose businesses and whose employees, whose workers, are going to be affected, perhaps adversely if we get it wrong and what I'm doing through the joint Government business task group is working on both a feasible global response to emissions trading, and how that would intersect with a domestic one. So ..

    LAURIE OAKES: But shouldn't you have started this in '99 instead of throwing away those reports and closing down the..

    JOHN HOWARD: No, we didn't. We started the clean technology process quite a number of years ago.

    LAURIE OAKES: But you dumped the recommendation for a carbon trading system.

    JOHN HOWARD: Yes, but no actually if you look at the Energy White Paper, we had an open mind on an emissions trading system, what we said was that it had to be compatible with what the rest of the world was doing because I'm not going to adopt an emissions trading system in Australia that burdens our industries whilst allowing others that are less efficient and greater pollutants get competitive advantage.

    LAURIE OAKES: The Murray-Darling basin takeover plan. Kevin Rudd put himself forward as a middle man and he says that he'll work to bring your position and that of the States together.

    JOHN HOWARD: I don't think after seeing him on television this morning, Mr Rudd has the faintest idea of what is involved in this. He said we wanted more in fact on three issues, governance, I explained in full the governance arrangements. He said he wanted to know whether States other than the Murray-Darling Basin States would benefit from the infrastructure investment. I made that clear when I announced the policy on the 25th. He also said he wanted clarification in relation to ownership of water. I made that clear last Thursday. I think Mr Rudd is just trying to, with the help of the Labor premiers, to sort of buy himself into the action. Laurie, these matters are resolved by elected governments. My responsibility as a Liberal Prime Minister is to work in good faith with the Labor premiers of the various States. Across the political divide and I commit myself to do that. Their responsibility is not to play politics with it and try and lever up their Federal mate. Their responsibility as elected Labor leaders of states is to work with me. The Australian public want this fixed.

    LAURIE OAKES: It's a Federal takeover of State constitutional powers absolutely necessary though, Steve Bracks from Victoria says there's probably a way forward doing it through a memorandum of understanding.

    JOHN HOWARD: Yes a memorandum of understanding that could be walked away from.

    LAURIE OAKES: Do you think they'd walk away from it?

    JOHN HOWARD: Look, it's a possibility. Look, this thing will only be put on a proper basis if we have a referral of powers.

    LAURIE OAKES: With a sunset clause, Mike Rann wants a sunset clause?

    JOHN HOWARD: I'm, I am, very sceptical about sunset clauses because they create uncertainty, they will discourage people from making longer term commitments. This thing has to be solved in an enduring way on a national basis. The river systems of Australia go across State boarders, the Great Artesian Basin lies under state borders. We've put up $10 billion, which includes 3-billion dollars to fix a problem the States created, that's over allocation, we want to put $6 billion into piping and lining the irrigation channels of the nation, now, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. The Labor premiers might think they're inflicting political pain on me, well they can do that, I'm used to that. I ask them not to inflict political pain and water torture on the people of Australia. Get on with it, and agree to what is a great opportunity to do something in a lasting way about the Murray-Darling basin.

    LAURIE OAKES: A final issue. The Government's decision last week to allow the Tax Office to scrap tax breaks for agricultural managed investment schemes has caused extraordinary fear and loathing within the Coalition, are you prepared to review that?

    JOHN HOWARD: Well I'm prepared to listen to what my colleagues have got to say, but all we did was say that we weren't going to legislate to provide a special tax concession for this, these are always difficult issues because it involves a lot of investment. I think what people are most concerned about is the transitional impact of the Taxation office withdrawing from giving particular product rulings.

    LAURIE OAKES: And in fact, Stuart Macarthur, one of your MPs, said there should be transitional arrangements.

    JOHN HOWARD: Well there are, from what the tax office has indicated, there are already transitional arrangements in the sense anything that's got a product ruling now is safe, and anything that's given a product ruling up to 1 July is safe, but I'll talk to my colleagues about it, I'm a reasonable man on these things.

    LAURIE OAKES: Possible review?

    JOHN HOWARD: Oh, I'll talk to my colleagues, I am not promising anything, but I always listen to what my colleagues have got say, because they have a lot of wisdom.

    LAURIE OAKES: Prime Minister, we thank you, Prime Minister.

    JOHN HOWARD: Thank you.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/14/2007 @ 04:28am

49. Why defend John Howard exactly???

    I know! To start an argument!

    :-)

    Posted by HHEMWM 02/13/2007 @ 10:22pm

    No....because I knew THIS (see below) would happen and was wondering if Mr Nichols would raise the "question" of whether Ms Dowd was a racist too????

    MAUREEN DOWD RIPS OBAMA: 'HE LOOKED AS IF HE NEEDED A SMOKE AND HE NEEDED IT BAD' Tue Feb 13 2007 22:32:06 ET

    NY TIMES edit queen Maureen Dowd unloads on Barack Obama in her Wednesday filing.

    On the trail in Iowa, Dowd writes: "Obama's so slender his wedding band looked as if it was slipping off... there was a wariness in his dark eyes."

    When a reporter asked him Obama whether he'd had a heater in his podium during his announcement speech in subzero Springfield, Obama hesitated.

    Dowd slings: "He shot a look that said, 'Are you from PEOPLE magazine?' before conceding that, unlike Abe Lincoln, he'd had a heater."

    Dowd describes Obama as a "tad testy" as he was "traipsing around desolate stretches of snowy -- and extremely white -- Iowa."

    Obama had "moments of looking conflicted."

    Dowd claims that no fewer than three times last week, Obama got indignant about the beach-babe attention given to a shot of him in the Hawaiian surf.

    "You've been reporting on how I look in a swimsuit," Obama lectured a reporter.

    Dowd snaps: "He poses for the cover of MEN'S VOGUE and then gets huffy when people don't treat him as Hannah Arendt."

    Developing...

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 06:50am

50. Posted by TREVORJ 02/14/2007 @ 02:03am | ignore this person

    no moderator, but don't let that stop you from posting germane comments. I just love the folks complaining about the lack of substance here, without offering any of their own. your criticism is right on target, however.mea culpa.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/14/2007 @ 08:12am

51. Aaron Russo - The most important interview of our time:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3218585954111617501&q=aaron+russ o+rockefeller&hl=en

    You MUST watch this and share it with EVERYONE.

    A shorter version is here:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&q=aaron+russ o+rockefeller&hl=en

    The Council On Foreign Relations DID 9/11 The Rockefellers DID 9/11. The "War On Terror" does not exist. "Bin Laden" does not exist.

    If you don't STOP – and take the time to watch this, you cannot ridicule those who risk their own personal security to tell the truth. If you do watch it, and love America, you'll never again ridicule a TRUTHTELLER.

    STOP what you are doing. WATCH THIS INTERVIEW. Then share it with EVERYONE.

    Google Video Search: Historic Interview With Aaron Russo

    Posted by plunger at 02/14/2007 @ 09:14am

52. Or maybe THESE guys are "racists"?...

    Two key black political leaders in South Carolina who backed John Edwards in 2004 said yesterday they are supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    State Sens. Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson told the Associated Press they think Mrs. Clinton is the only Democrat who can win the presidency. Both said they had been courted by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama but believe his winning the primary would drag down the rest of the party.

    "Then everybody else on the ballot is doomed," Mr. Ford said. "Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he's black, and he's at the top of the ticket -- we'd lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything."

    ----Inside Politics, Greg Pierce

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 09:37am

53. Mask, Your quoting of Maureen Dowd does not make any sense.

    Where in that reference is there any indication of Ms. Dowd making (or insinuating) a racist comment?

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/14/2007 @ 09:48am

54. "Obama and any of the Demoncrats look forward to giving Islamist victory over the west through withdraw from Iraq and Afganistan, appeasements, and concessions for the conduct of "the war on terror". But, they are smart enough to know the american people will throw them out of office for it!

    "However, they will cripple and hinder any chance of success against our enemies if possible! Even now they are in the process of finding a way to accomplish cut and running away without the courage to totally defund this war as they did vietnam! Ask Murtha!"

    Posted by Rio Bravo.

    You are right, Rio. Obama, Edwards and the others Democrats would like nothing more than to sell the U.S. to the terrorists. I am sure they cannot wait to win the election and then promptly open the country up to an attack.

    It is so good to have you posting here. Reading what you write is really enlightening.

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/14/2007 @ 09:54am

55. In 2008 I am voting Rio Bravo for president!

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/14/2007 @ 09:55am

56. He is so enlightened.

    He can read minds and that is not easy. We will never be unsafe because he will no all of our enemies movements even before they do! Kind of like President Minority Report!

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/14/2007 @ 09:56am

57. Posted by HHEMWM 02/14/2007 @ 09:56am

    HH,

    You should ask RIO BRAVO what he thinks of Warren Jeffs and run-of-the-mill child molesters. I have been inquiring for months, utterly beseeching RIO to check a box on the screen that says "yes" or "no" as to whether he believes children should be molested ... and he won't budge. You read right: RIO BRAVO has yet to get him to make a single peep of criticism toward Jeffs and like minded creeps, despite inifinite opportunities to take a clear and unambigious stand.

    Try asking RIO yourself. Do the experiment and see the startling ways in which the deeply depraved, hoplelessly brain-washed and abusive conservative mind works ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/14/2007 @ 10:20am

58. USE THESE LINKS:

    Aaron Russo - The most important interview of our time:

    http://tinyurl.com/29gyyb

    You MUST watch this and share it with EVERYONE.

    A shorter version is here:

    http://tinyurl.com/392w7j

    The Council On Foreign Relations DID 9/11 The Rockefellers DID 9/11. The "War On Terror" does not exist. "Bin Laden" does not exist.

    If you don't STOP – and take the time to watch this, you cannot ridicule those who risk their own personal security to tell the truth. If you do watch it, and love America, you'll never again ridicule a TRUTHTELLER.

    STOP what you are doing. WATCH THIS INTERVIEW. Then share it with EVERYONE.

    Google Video Search: Historic Interview With Aaron Russo

    Posted by plunger at 02/14/2007 @ 10:27am

59. Or maybe THESE guys are "racists"?...

    Posted by MASK 02/14/2007 @ 09:37am

    MASK,

    Just wondering, but does either R-Ford or D-Jax have the history of racial dog whistling that ... John Coward does? There is at least one book, that I have read, that details the matter: Wilkinson and Marr's DARK VICTORY. Among other matters, the authors (Aussie journalists) observe that Coward's govt indignantly denied asylum seekers from Iraq entry into Australia ... just before giving robust (albeit, mostly Bush-style cheer-leading) support to removing the regime of the madman Hussein for -- get this, listen close -- its abysmal human rights record.

    AAAAAAaaaa - can ya' feel it? It's ... the rightwing relativism. The capacity to blow laughably self-important, white-knuckle humorless puppyshit out of both sides of one's mouth ... and seemingly never notice the resultant shitmess stains ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/14/2007 @ 10:34am

60. Just in case, I will put this here too

    As RioexcrememtodePOLLO pays so much attention to what AlQaida says, here is a recent quote:

    "Bush suffers from an addictive personality and was an alcoholic," Ayman al-Zawahiri said in the audiotape, a transcript of which was released by the Washington-based SITE Institute. "I don't know his present condition . . . but the one who examines his personality finds that he is addicted to two other faults -- lying and gambling."

    On the tape, Zawahiri said Bush has gone down in history as one of the world's "most notorious liars."

    --Even cave dwellers get it.

    Posted by CRABWALK 02/14/2007 @ 10:23am |

    Remember when RIO, MARRYBRET and other declared that the terrorists won in the 06 mids? How attacks would lesson because now they had their pawns in power? And how the stock mkt was going to plunge? What happened? don't you guys ever tire of being wrong?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 10:37am

61. Glenn Lemon,

    I am pretty sure I am on his Ignore List, so I am not going to get a response.

    Posted by hhemwm at 02/14/2007 @ 10:37am

62. Posted by HHEMWM 02/14/2007 @ 09:48am

    Posted by GLENN LEMON 02/14/2007 @ 10:34am

    I'm just curious if Ms Dowd, Rep. Ford, or Rep. Jackson were....white Republicans, right-wing pundits, or even white Aussie PMs, if Mr Nichols (and others) would be raising their oh-so-rhetorical question of ""Is Obama's Race a Factor in *****'s Attack?"?

    "What, Ms Dowd, in your world, a BLACK MAN can't quit smoking without going nuts?!?!?!"

    "Do Mr Ford/Mr Jackson oppose Obama because he'd 'hurt other candidates'...or because they don't want a BLACK MAN at the head of the ticket of the Democratic Party!?!?!?!"

    But, they're liberals, Democrats, and fellow African-Americans...so....."pass".

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 10:47am

63. Posted by HHEMWM 02/14/2007 @ 10:37am

    Brute reality has long been on RIO's "ignore list". In fact, "reality on the ignore list" is a defining characteristic of a rightwing goon and would-be thug if -- goshdarnitall! -- he could only fit the brown shirt over his arm while he lunges for his mouse to double-click for internet porn...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/14/2007 @ 10:48am

64. RIOexcremetodePOLLO is too much of a excremetodepollo to answer questions. He is content to be a shill for Rush and CO. is he a parrot a chicken or a sheep? Or all of the above? Mostly he is a scared stupid little boy, unable to use the logic his alleged god gave him.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 10:49am

65. Abramoff, Foggo, Cunnigham, Safavian, Armstrong, Mugtada, Liddy, North, Nixon, Negropone, Abrams, Chalabi:

    these are the heroes of the neo's.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 10:53am

66. MASK,

    Again, we asked for a full detailing of Ford's and Jax' racial dog whistling; then perhaps we can put them in the same frame as Coward. Can you furnish that record, please? ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/14/2007 @ 10:53am

67. Chimpy is on the telly.

    Seems he is going to buy off the N. Koreans after all. Rio, your safe, you won't have to go liberate the concentration camps. Chimpy will live with them.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 11:03am

68. Woof, A journalist actually asked "how do we know this intel is credible?"

    Chimpy smiled, ducked and weaved.

    "Zero car bombings? It will never happen that way"-chimpy on ending violence in Iraq.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/14/2007 @ 11:30am

69. From an Australian reader

    Ahhh, John Nichols, you're back. Sad that the intoxication of Nov. 7 has worn off but glad that you're well and truly writing about things other than that the Democrats actually offer much in the way of new hope.

    I partially agree with LRJONES, in that the immediate context of the interview where Howard wrongfooted himself gives a greater explanation for this particular answer than his history in playing the race card. Which I'm very unlikely to say because I am happy for anybody to take a dump on him. An ugly shift in Australian politricks occurred with the advent of the One Nation party and their disgusting troll of a spokes-head, Pauline Hanson. Howard's Party - the Liberals - have always been pretty backward on social issues, race related issues being just one of them. When he was opposition leader, there was still hope for a Treaty between the Australian Government and the First Nations. He vowed to tear it up as soon as he got in. Oh yes -One Nation. Truly backwater inbred Hicks who were blaming Asians for Australian problems and now blame Africans, especially Sudanese refugees. While Howard's party (of which Hanson had been a member, I believe) didn't openly endorse their racist policies, they saw that votes could be grabbed by playing to the racist insecurities of voters. They have gradually implemented many policies similar to the raft of racist reforms which One Nation were called too extreme for wanting to adopt all at once. Howard, like most of his Cabinet, has a legal background. This is the most rational explanation for his refusal to apologize to aboriginal nations for genocide and stolen generations (where family groups were systematically destroyed by the forced relocation and reeducation/enslavement of children). His argument goes that to apologize is to acknowledge liability, and therefore risk massive damages. Less rationally, he addressed a massive gathering of indigenous representatives at a conference on reconciliation, and described our history of genocide as "a blemish" on an otherwise good 200 years. Yes - what a dick. And the federal portfolio for multiculturalism has just been scrapped for citizenship, aka integration/assimilation/homogenization.

    BUT, although I found this article interesting and well researched and I do agree with JN for outing Howard's politically slimey and repeated manipulation of issues where race and origin have been made into factors, I don't agree that the Obama screw up was because of race. I do agree with analysis that it is largely because he only has eyes for George.

    Howard has left David Hicks in Guantanamo and is only now making noise because polls have consistently been unsupportive of his position on the Australian's abandonment, he has only just acknowledged that climate change exists, he's the one non-Bush Western leader who hasn't been critical of the Iraq invasion, and last year saw Australia supporting vetoes over UN suggestions that maybe Israel shouldn't drop tank shells on families in their homes in the middle of the night. His position on Kyoto is the one alliance which has left the US from being complletely isolated in refusing to move toward a globally united approach to climate change. It is quite possible that he sent Dubya a box of candy for valentine's day, and just as likely he got roses in return. Lonely, sad, small-minded, enfeebling little men - but the attack on Obama wasn't because he's black. It's because he's charismatic, intelligent, and potentially a threat to Bush, not to mention the fact that these guys can only keep this bollocking mess going as nobody clearly enunciates a sensible position on it. This week has actually seen Howard get destroyed in the media 3 days running. Bliss.

    Posted by Buck_Fush at 02/14/2007 @ 12:02pm

70. thank you Buck.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/14/2007 @ 12:22pm

71. Posted by GLENN LEMON 02/14/2007 @ 10:53am

    Exactly the point, GLENN.

    ANYBODY other than a liberal who attacks Obama...."suspicion of racism".

    After all won't I get a "Hell, yeah!" from the Peanut Gallery here if I ask "Is being a Republican likely to make you a racist?"

    Ergo, anybody who WOULD attack Obama can automatically be "hinted at" (maybe not as strong as Mr Nichols did) at being a racist for going after Barack.

    Same for Hillary....instant "sexist" label for anybody who criticizes her ability to be Commander-in-Chief, purely based on her stance on the issues. "Oh, so YOU think a woman can't be a good CIC, huh? Too weak, right?...you chauvinist!"

    Aside from Bill Richardson..."anti-Latino bigots" attack him... the rest of the white males, including near-Top Tier John Edwards....are left out in the cold of knee-jerk defense, I'm afraid...hehe!

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 1:03pm

72. from reading the post by LRJones, I too don't take his words as being racially insensitive. I think the Nation was reaching on that one. I also believe that the media jumps to these conclusions in order to create drama. This need to create drama enables some people to cry racism when there is none as well as desensitizes others who foolishly believe that the only racists in America wear hoods. Howard may be a "dick" and a racist, but in the interview, to me, it seems his "dickiness" came through moreso than his bigotry.

    Posted by k330k at 02/14/2007 @ 1:26pm

73. By the way, ya'll can unload on MASK all you want, but you know he has a point. I, personally, would like to get through yet another "clusterf*ck to the White House" without race being brought up. Unfortunately, politicians like Howard are adept at using voter's insecurities to their advantage(i.e. Gov. Perdue of GA and the confederate flag issue).

    Posted by k330k at 02/14/2007 @ 1:35pm

74. Exactly the point, GLENN.

    Umm, no, not really, MASK.

    As has now been pointed out now -- ad nauseam -- Coward and his little helper Lynton Crosby have long been practioners of dog whistle campaigns. Also note that Crosby was the author of the "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" Tory campaign in the UK, 2005, for another Coward (i.e., Michael), although that lugubrious creep lost to the arguably yet more dismal poodle Blair.

    After all won't I get a "Hell, yeah!" from the Peanut Gallery here if I ask "Is being a Republican likely to make you a racist?"

    It's an empirical question, is it not?

    Did Jesse Helms run the "white hands" commerical in '90 -- or, let me guess, you want to argue that was Harvey Gantt's "false flag" campaign to "discredit" Helms? Who was it, again, who wanted to make William Horton a certain MA gov's running mate to gain an edge in an election that was not a given for the Repugnants? What party was Robert Dornan in? David Duke? Hard Guy Semenizer Strom Thurmond? Trent Lott (et cetera, ad nausuem)? Were they and countless others, umm, playing to a base of a certain kind of mentality?

    And was it not a Republican who said, "When the working class votes race, we win. When they vote class, they win" ... ???. A lollypop for MASK if he can unlock the secret, coded logic in that electoral blueprint ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/14/2007 @ 1:37pm

75. Glenn, do you believe being a Democrat means you are less likely a racist?

    Posted by k330k at 02/14/2007 @ 1:45pm

76. Also, Glenn, why'd you drop the "C" in your name?

    Posted by k330k at 02/14/2007 @ 1:48pm

77. well, i'm a troll!

    just started blabbing at dailykos...logged in today to find my blog entry under the tags "purity troll diary"...

    ahhhhh...discordia! for the fairest! har har har!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2007 @ 1:53pm

78. Posted by GLENN LEMON 02/14/2007 @ 1:37pm

    Again, making my point.....ANY Republican from now on, who attacks Obama on the issues (or even is mildly critical), "Well, you KNOW how THEY are...it's not the issue, it's his skin color!!!!"

    Pretty nice "shield" for Barack. Biden can "compliment" him "clean and articulate" and gets a slap on the wrist and "Oh, Joe's just old-fashioned, but he's a Dem, so we know he's not REALLY a racist".

    And Howard may be racist, although much of the proof is from his political opponents and the fact that he's against immigration (which as a traveller to Australia back in the early 80s and filling out their paperwork, I KNOW isn't a NEW phenomenon Down Under).

    But what's interesting is the dynamic Mr Nichols wants to foster...that any conservative who attacks Obama is "probably" racially motivated in his attack, especially if he's not "pure" on the Left's view on multiculturalism, immigration, etc.

    But a Dem...like Hillary and Edwards....why, they're in the clear...if they're more subtle than Joe Biden.

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 1:53pm

79. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/14/2007 @ 1:53pm

    Will Rogers had a "lock-step, Republican-like" party if you ask me. (Famous quotes)

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 1:55pm

80. Glenn, do you believe being a Democrat means you are less likely a racist?

    Posted by K330K 02/14/2007 @ 1:45pm

    K,

    Yes, very likely, although I am neither a mind reader nor do I harbour pretensions to be one. We do know that, in recent history, the Dem party was a weird amalgm of Northern liberals and southern rednecks with long memories -- and that the Lyndon Johnson admin's admirable, principalled, and correct action on race made that coalition vulnerable to Repugnant racial vampirism, starting in '68 and continuing to this day. With crystal certainty, it is apparent which party requires race to be insinuated into an election to mobilize its unevolved Cro-Mag base (so unevolved, in fact, that it "prides" itself on believing its ancestors coavoreted with dinosaurs).

    Given incrementally higher levels of decency on racial matters in civilized quarters over the decades, the more recent Repugnant formula is to try the same with gay initiatives; unless, that is, you want to tell us that DEMS were panting to get the gay marriage referendums on ballots to boost the Cro-Mag turnout in recent years. Perhaps you hold some secret evidence to introduce on this point ... ???

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/14/2007 @ 2:05pm

81. Also, Glenn, why'd you drop the "C" in your name?

    Posted by K330K 02/14/2007 @ 1:48pm

    It's still there! But do you miss it, on-screen ??? !!!

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/14/2007 @ 2:07pm

82. Posted by MASK 02/14/2007 @ 1:53pm

    The case of the furor about Biden -- that was likely disproportionate with the awkwardness of the statement and clearly grounded in the long evident stupidity of the man -- sucks the last neglible gasp of wind that was heaving ineffectually into your sails.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/14/2007 @ 2:11pm

83. MASK,

    Seriously: You think there are no barely-below-the-radar codes being floated in discussion of Obama? Let's evaluate that one.

    Do you not also find it curious that some people -- including posters on this site -- go far out of their way to reference Obama's middle name? Which happens to be, as I understand, a variant on the most common name on Planet Earth? CPT, for one, pulled this shit recently, sucking the government tit like a mewling baby while he shamelessly looses his appalling, close to the surface prejudices. Similarly, LOVE LIBERTY in a typically crack-pot hallucination claimed he was a combabtant in 'Nam (he is silent on which side) ... to prevent a Muslim from becoming POTUS (thus indicating that any "sacrifice" on his part was entirely misguided -- although I will leave it to Anne Coulter to spit on the veterans given her extended practice at it).

    Are these moments in noting nomenclature not ... peculiar?

    As a person of European descent, I naturally and unapologetically celebrate my origins. But the principle is PRIDE, NOT PREJUDICE if you are dealing with someone keeping up his or her end of the social bargain. Gratitously citing Obama's middle name -- when one would never pause to note Clinton's is "Jefferson", Bush's is "Walker" -- is a disgusting attempt to pander to bigots. Period. The man Obama has made it, big time, on his merits: Live with it.

    Indeed, the RepubliCants could scarely find a candidiate to run against him for US Senate in the land of Lincoln which is why he cake-walked over the LOVE LIBERTY-lite asswiper that was installed on the ballot.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/14/2007 @ 2:27pm

84. Posted by GLENN LEMON 02/14/2007 @ 2:27pm

    GLENN, over and over you make my point...even admitting it to K330K.

    If you're a Dem, like Biden...it's "likely disproportionate with the awkwardness of the statement and clearly grounded in the long evident stupidity of the man".

    If it was anybody with an "R" before the state they represented.....he or she is a Klansman.

    Before they even get the words "smaller government", "lower taxes", "stronger defense", or even "pro-life" out of their mouths...a Republican is an automatic racist to you.

    And a Dem...merely "stupid".

    Why?...nothing more than partisan politics. I guess that means if you support conservative principles (even on economics, trade, defense), you better join the Democrats to spare yourself being linked to David Duke.

    Of course you could join the Democrats and still use the N-word (as late as 1999) and been an ACTUAL former Klansman....and you're in the clear...and senior US Senator from West Virginia.

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 2:38pm

85. MASK,

    Biden weirdly called Obama ... "clean".

    Coward, longstanding man of the dogwhistle, claimed Obama is all but an AlQ operative and wittingly or not is carrying out their project. (Michael Scheur and Richard Clarke, of course, say the same about Bush -- with the key difference that one ran the US' bin Laden unit and the other was the nation's anti-terror cooridnator).

    Now: Do you, like, percieve some magnitudes of difference in the comment characterized as stupid (Biden) and something else more nefarious (Coward)?

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/14/2007 @ 2:47pm

86. "Given incrementally higher levels of decency on racial matters in civilized quarters over the decades, the more recent Repugnant formula is to try the same with gay initiatives; unless, that is, you want to tell us that DEMS were panting to get the gay marriage referendums on ballots to boost the Cro-Mag turnout in recent years. Perhaps you hold some secret evidence to introduce on this point ... ???" Posted by GLENN LEMON 02/14/2007 @ 2:05pm

    Don't you think those actions are more of a reflection of the voter-base than the politicians themselves? Cheney may be the biggest "dick" in America( I mean who lets somebody apologize for getting shot), but he hasn't shunned his daughter in any way. Cheney's actions in regards to his daughter are in contrast to the views of his base. I see your point, though. It's not like he's pro-rainbow either. I think because of their respective bases, Repubs know they won't be crucified by their own voter base if they say and do things that can construed as racist whereas Dems, who may say and do the exact same things out of the public eye, know their voter base is more tolerant and accepting.

    Also, I do miss the "C."......alot!!!

    Posted by k330k at 02/14/2007 @ 2:59pm

87. About Barack obama's middle name. I also noticed LV's usage of his middle name. I agree wholeheartedly on that point. Obama's middle name is being used against him as well as that ridiculous stor FOXNEWS did on the school he attended when he was a young child. I think that's not only pandering to bigots, but to the uneducated as well. The less you know, the more you can be persuaded/directed towards a particular viewpoint. You know as well as I the masterminds behind that phenomenom knew what they were doing. They were pandering to their voter base and, as shown by LVLiberty, it works os so well. For LV to purport to be a Christian/ preacher(?), I was disappointed that someone who would do that is leading a congregation.

    Posted by k330k at 02/14/2007 @ 3:06pm

88. One last thing.....

    The furor over Biden's comments were not so much about his describing Obama. Biden's stating that Obama was articulate, clean, etc. was taken as a knock against the previous black candidates for the presidency. His comment sounded like he regarded Obama as the first black candidate of that magnitude and I know that is not the case. Shirley Chisholm was definitely articulate and clean/sharp as well as all the others( yes, I am including Mr. Sharpton). Was the comment insulting? Yes. Was it a racist comment? Not in my opinion.

    Posted by k330k at 02/14/2007 @ 3:15pm

89. Posted by GLENN LEMON 02/14/2007 @ 2:47pm

    GLENN, if you're going to quote Biden and dismiss it as stupidity....let's quote Howard-

    "encourage those who wanted completely to destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory"?

    Now....is that not A LOT like Republican and conservative pundit attacks on JOHN KERRY in 2004???

    Okay...partisan, mean-spirited, demogogic....but not racist when it was Kerry...simply because Kerry is white.

    Ergo, if the statement or "sentiment" was merely "disgusting, but not bigoted" when applied to a white guy, why not JUST THAT when applied to a black guy?

    Howard and his "racist past"?...okay. But since you've already established that ANY Republican is under immediate and STRONG suspicion of being a racist....saying that when they call a Dem "weak on defense" or "encouraging the terrorists" is "racist"....Surrrrrrrrre does help come 2008 and blunting standard attacks on Dems for being weak on defense, without actually having to elucidate a rational argument...don't it?

    What a NICE break for Senator Obama....huh?

    Wonder if there are OTHER issues where Sen. Obama (or his friends) can cry "racism" if under attack?

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 3:28pm

90. Posted by K330K 02/14/2007 @ 3:06pm

    Actually if he or his staff are smart, they could use "Hussein is my middle name" to their advantage...

    for instance saying "Yep, my middle name is 'Hussein'...and like the other guy, turns out 'I' don't have any Weapons of Mass Destruction EITHER!" or "Yes, and I understand Vice-President Cheney's middle name is 'Bruce'...but I'd NEVER compare him to that shark in 'Jaws'...much!" (top of my head jokes...leave it to better writers than I)

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 3:35pm

91. Mask, have you heard Obama, himself, cry "racism"? I haven't as of yet.

    Posted by k330k at 02/14/2007 @ 3:36pm

92. Yep, my middle name is 'Hussein'...and like the other guy, turns out 'I' don't have any Weapons of Mass Destruction EITHER!"

    That one's a keeper!

    Posted by k330k at 02/14/2007 @ 3:38pm

93. Posted by K330K 02/14/2007 @ 3:36pm

    No, and hopefully that is deliberatly trying not to do that and he opposes such attempts by allies or friends.

    But if it comes out of his campaign staff...that's "him" if indirectly.

    I HOPE if it emerges full-blown, it is limited to pundits like Mr Nichols and the Blogosphere....and not the campaign.

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 4:36pm

94. Howard should be fair game, considering his policies and how they reflect what are at best, his racial insensitivities- as Glenn pointed out. Racism is not restricted to overt name calling these days. Speaking of middle names: another poster, while defending Howard regarding racial motive, described the PM as a lover of Winston Churchill, so, it should be mentioned that his idol was a vile racist, making such unEnlightened statements as this, in 1937: "I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place."

    I wonder what endearing Churchill quotations adorn the Howard home?

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2007 @ 4:53pm

95. It may interest you to know that Australia is the most multi ethnic society on earth (so the Aussie multiculturists tell us - some 200+ ethnic groups,if my memory is correct) and this has gone on apace during Howard's almost 11 years (second longest serving PM in our history) as PM.

    He went in to bat against the Indonesians by kicking them out of East Timor (xPortugese, now xIndonesian colony) with our "toy" army (in fact it is still there trying to foster democracy). Howard stood up for the coloureds there. One previous Labor Party PM, "comrade" Gough Whitlam refused to intervene on behalf of the East Timorese and is reported to have said to a colleague "they are only mulattoes comrade". But he was a real leftie so obviously couldn't be a racist. Howard also has built up a good to great rapport with all Asian leaders in our region.The Labor Party PM that Howard beat in 1996 was a friend and fan of the dictator Soekarno. Howard can take some credit for maintaining contact with Indonesian leaders, despite booting them out of East Timor and thus help foster its move to being a democracy. Not a bad effort from a white "racist" in the numerically largest Muslim nation in the world.

    He's done the same with our miniature "sheriff's" army in the Solomon Islands and few other local trouble spots.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/14/2007 @ 7:52pm

96. Is Obama's Race a Factor in Howard's Attack?

    No.

    Why would Australian Prime Minister John Howard separate out Barack Obama from all of the other contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination -- and from all the prominent Democratic and Republican critics of President Bush's dangerous foreign policies -- for attack as the favorite son of the terrorists?

    Because Senator Obama is the new hawtness, and therefore open to attack. Or does he get a free pass because of his skin colour? And what about the current debate in the USA right now about whether Senator Obama is truly representative of the majority of black people? Is that a 'racist' discussion?

    But Howard, a savvy student of US politics, is unquestionably aware that many prominent Democrats -- including figures such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, who are far better known in Australia than Obama -- have criticized both the war in Iraq, which Howard continues to support unquestioningly, and the general approach of the Bush Administration to the so-called "war on terror."

    Really? Where do you get your knowledge of Australian public awareness from? President Carter is barely remembered here, and Senator E. Kennedy is pretty obscure, compared to his brother the late President. Aussies generally don't even understand 'at least we know he can swim' jokes. Senator Kerry is fading fast, too. In any case, why would PM Howard waste his ammo attacking people who are not very relevant to the Presidential race?

    Another view of the 2005 Cronulla riots comes from Australian Marxist Humphrey McQueen, who opposes Howard, but wants Australians to get over their self-hating 'we are all evil racists' attitudes.

    http://letstakeover.blogspot.com/2006/05/humphrey-mcqueen-says-we-must-c onfront.html

    (take out the spaces before cutting and pasting)

    While there was genuinely racist and wrong behaviour from people on both sides of Australia's ethnic divides in the riots, at the same time other Lebanese and Australian gangs were working together to keep racial tension down.

    I've just been reading an interesting criticism of US white liberal sites like DailyKos who points out that the majority of black people in the USA support Senator Clinton, not Senator Obama. The critique asserts that Kos' "liberal-er than thou" anti-Clinton stance is, in effect, racism, as it excludes the candidate of the majority of black people from serious discussion:

    http://digg.com/political_opinion/DailyKos_the_Whitosphere_and_blogging_ Apartheid

    (take out the spaces before cutting and pasting)

    And Mark Bahnisch at Australian left-liberal blog Larvatus Prodeo (it means 'always go masked') was not very happy with the anti-Australian bigotry that was displayed on DailyKos in reaction to PM Howard's remarks - even though he opposes President Bush's and PM Howard's Iraq policy. [larvatusprodeo.net]

    Posted by djackmanson at 02/14/2007 @ 8:27pm

97. Posted by LRJONES4 02/14/2007 @ 7:52pm

    good morning croc! hows life in that underpopulated upside down usa of the pacific rim? join us imperials in a little towelhead hunting before breakfast? like you guys did with the tasmanians? they were especially negroid looking darkies were they not?

    we aussies and americans go together like peas and carrots.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2007 @ 9:26pm

98. Posted by LRJONES4 02/14/2007 @ 7:52pm

    Oh, LR...quit posting stuff like that....by saying something nice about John Howard, you're probably a vicious racist like he is!

    (Rinse, Lather, Repeat my friends on the Left)

    Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 9:42pm

99. Posted by MASK 02/14/2007 @ 9:42pm

    i'm a troll...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2007 @ 10:04pm

100. 3 pages? ohhhh....

     r and/or p

     sup...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2007 @ 10:06pm

101. Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/15/2007 @ 02:26am | ignore this person

     The only part of that post that you wrote was misspelled, it was in fact an excerpt. Characterisation (English spelling) of all people from the Middle East as unsophisticated and primitive is rather unsophisticated and comes from a medieval mentality. Australian troop numbers in Iraq are relatively low, but they are there out of a sense of loyalty to our allies. A greater portion of soldiers in more dangerous roles came from Australia to serve in Afghanistan which seemingly could be tied to 9/11 or even Bali. Most soldiers in Iraq are U.S. soldiers because the U.S. will take the spoils. Just like most soldiers in Eat Timor were Australian because we got 80 % of the gas fields from the Timor Gap.

     Posted by lmiles at 02/15/2007 @ 04:07am

102. we aussies and americans go together like peas and carrots.

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/14/2007 @ 9:26pm

     Ibbie and Mask,

     Gough Whitlam, who is about 90 not out, is the last sort of bloke you would expect to have led the Labor Party. Educated at top Sydney and Canberra private schools. Was a QC (Queens(that's good Queen Bess of the UK; not a bloke) Counsellor). Which letters after a barrister's name gives him or her licence to print their own money. Now this bloke really looked and acted regally. Typical Tory, you would think. Six foot four about 18 stone (252 lbs) with silver locks. He talks posh so he is no brickies labourer.

     Got the boot when he squandered the Aussie crown jewels on things like free Uni education and medical treatment for all and funding of artie fartie projects. Anyway the GG (Queen Bess's rep in Oz) gave him and his government the boot when the Senate, controlled by Howard's mob, cut supply. That's the folding stuff, which also meant Gough was completely stuffed and had to go. Happened in Nov 1975. (Pity you non-neocons haven't got a Governor General over there).

     Suppose you know beer is called piss in genteel Aus. Well to cut a long story short Gough was in Beijing with a group of his Australian Labor Party colleagues for a banquet in their honour. Just before this, word had got around among the Aussie delegation that the Chinese were into tossing down urine at these State Banquets. A sort of liquid delicacy.

     Gough had been carefully watching the waiters deliver the various courses when he noticed drinks being served. He stood up thanked his hosts and called to his ALP Colleagues. "Comrades, let's get out of here before they get stuck into the piss".

     He's a national icon loved by the left and by many on the right but for different reasons.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 02/15/2007 @ 06:40am

103. yes I have been to venezuela dave. get a copy of the venezuela constitution in english, read and understand. the people can recall any elected official even the president. don't have to wait for a poltician. judges are elected not appointed not like here. this year i'm going to cuba.I have researched the cuba problem throughly (approx 150 hours)using two of the largest east coast newspapers archives. and my conclusion is, if president Ike Eisenhower and tricky dick would of treated Fidel castro as a leader of a country all the problems with cuba could have been avoided.remember he overthrew a dictator (OH I FORGOT BATISTA WAS OUR DICTATOR). THE YEAR 1959 fidel was not a communist. america immediately cut the importation of sugar from cuba by 33% a year later cut it again to only 33% of pre castro era. made other countries not to ship any arms to cuba. so russia started buying sugar and suppling arms.the original bunch of cuban to come to miami were batista people . read up on what took place in cuba before castro. the people trying to come here now from cuba know that the usa will give them ss benefits, housing, medical, food , telephone and god only knows what else. the reason the usa is against chavez in my opinion is the gov't does not want the american people to see what a real democracy is and how it works. in venezuela democracy works from the ground up not top down like here. have you got free medecine, free medical care, free denistry, free schooling even to the university level? NO why not? BUSH AND COMP. have to spend our money on war so his buddies in the oil bussiness can made more billions,and to protect the israels

     Posted by bgr1938 at 02/15/2007 @ 06:42am

104. Posted by BGR1938 02/15/2007 @ 06:42am | ignore this person

     very fine.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2007 @ 07:27am

105. It operates out of a medieval mentality, a tribal allegiance, and a religion that has not changed since its inception in the seventh century. We are not dealing with modern men even if they employ modern technology.

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/15/2007 @ 02:26am

     RIO, as a "modern" man who rejects "religions who haven't changed since their inception" and "medieval mentality"....

     do you believe in "creationism" and the literal nature of the Bible?

     Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 09:07am

106. Posted by BGR1938 02/15/2007 @ 06:42am

     BGR, next time you spot him on a thread, you need to ask CHIMICHENGA (an American expat in Colombia)....his view on Castro.

     Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 09:16am

107. Right on, Mask. What major religion has changed it's core tenets since medieval times? Also, BGR, thanks for the info. I, personally, would like everyone to get in legally. I don't give a damn where you are from. The Cubans put a drain on the system just like the Mexicans. Is it so hard to create a level playing field for foreigners trying to enter the U.S.? I guess so.

     Posted by k330k at 02/15/2007 @ 10:09am

108. Posted by MASK 02/13/2007 @ 3:03pm | ignore this person

     "CHIMI, what about people (maybe Bush, Cheney, Condi or another) who say "I DON'T SUPPORT FIDEL CASTRO OR CUBA. What is more, I WOULD SUPPORT A US INVASION OF CUBA IN ORDER TO TAKE OUT FIDEL AND TRULY LIBERATE THE 11 MILLION PEOPLE SUFFERING UNDER HIS REGIME."

     I'm confused Mask. Are you proposing a "lets bring Democracy to Cuba just like we are bringing Democracy to Iraq?"

     Remember Bay of Pigs?.....Tunnel vision folks forget that not everyone on this earth believes in US imperialism under the guise of Democracy. People in Cuba knew that if the old Cuban aristocracy was restored, which is what our South Florida nationalists want, Cubans would be in the same boat that they were prerevolution.

     The reason Cubans suffer under Castro is because of the boycott, not because of Castro. Castro has been more than willing to enter trade talks with US. See Charlie Wrangel - Lifting Embargo. Castro has offered more of his help to Katrina victims than Bush has.

     Condi Rice's pronouncement that "we are your greatest friends" didn't get a warm reception by the Cuban people. Wonder why?

     Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 10:19am

109. Posted by ONEVOTE 02/15/2007 @ 10:19am

     Well, first, ONEVOTE...that "I DON'T SUPPORT FIDEL CASTRO OR CUBA. What is more, I WOULD SUPPORT A US INVASION OF CUBA...." comment...

     was CHIMICHENGA's, not mine.

     And no, I don't support an invasion of Cuba. I do support lifting the boycott... and NO, Cuba's problems are NOT the result of that boycott (PLENTY of other countries trade with them...doesn't seem to help), but the fact they are a dictatorship led by Fidel Castro.

     Now...just so we're clear, are you a Castro apologist? ("He's given them free health care and education", "Batista was WORSE", etc.)

     Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 10:30am

110. Posted by K330K 02/15/2007 @ 10:09am

     Next to LVLIB, RIO is my favorite of the nutty Right (am developing a favorite of the nutty Left, who shall remain nameless, let's just say he's real nearby).

     By attempting to attack Muslims as "backwards", he essentially opened himself up (as a declared Christian conservative) to the OBVIOUS hypocrisy of his own beliefs.

     Throw in a good ol' fashioned post-9/11 attack on "religion of peace"...and then add in LVLIBERTY (a self-declared Christian MINISTER) who believes that if we had NUKED China (maybe a few key Russian cities too) during the Korean War, we would have "saved lives" from Mao and Stalin.

     Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 10:36am

111. Oh thank God! I agree, lets lift the boycott. Not a Castro apologist...just realizing that years of embargo hasn't caused a revolution and that people are suffering needlessly. Castro will be dead soon enough.

     Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 10:36am

112. Nice to drop in on you guys. I've enjoyed the last couple of days on your low-content off-the-point forum. It is unfortunate that many of the readers are no more than seethingly racist little bloggers, parrotting the words of successful, seethingly racist little writers. Thanks and goodbye.

     Posted by lmiles at 02/15/2007 @ 10:36am

113. Posted by ONEVOTE 02/15/2007 @ 10:36am

     "soon enough" can't come soon enough for that despotic old phoney.

     But again, the "people aren't suffering" because of OUR embargo...that's HIS rationale. The people are suffering because they live in a dictatorship with a collapsing socialist welfare state and political prisoners.

     Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 11:25am

114. Posted by LMILES 02/15/2007 @ 10:36am

     Self-appointed blog "hall monitors"....MUCH more irritating than the most extreme extremist on the Left or Right.

     Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 11:26am

115. Get a grip on reality leftwingnuts. You can run but you can't hide!

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/15/2007 @ 02:26am

     Following is the rest of the article that Rio Bravo selectively excerpted - pay particular attention to the final line in the article to gain further insight into what passes for Rio's mind.

     --------------------------

     We have reached a point where we continue to ignore the millions of Mexicans and others from south of the border who have literally been invading our nation for years. We're Americans. We want to buy a new car, a flat-screen television, a worldwide warehouse of stuff! Why won't they leave us alone?

     We are tired of hearing and reading bad news out of Iraq because our news media will not give us any good news. We're Americans. We want and expect a happy ending. Just like in the movies, but this isn't the movies. It's realtime, real people, it's real life and death.

     Iraq, like the whole of the Middle East is just one giant sinkhole of all our expectations. So we want to leave, but we can't because, if we do, some astonishingly evil people might end up in charge. They cut off people's heads. They have been doing this since the days of Mohammed, the self-proclaimed final prophet of God.

     The Jews of Israel understand this like no other people on Earth and, yes, they too are weary of the Arabs who surround them, howling for their blood just as they howl for ours every time they shout "Death to America! Death to Israel!

     It was only the decisive victories in war that protected Israel, the lone Western outpost in the Middle East. The last big one was the 1967 Six-Day War against Egypt. Since then, guerrilla wars of attrition have been the choice of battle by the Palestinians. The peace accord that returned the Sinai to Egypt is seen as a great "victory" by that nation and it occasioned the "Intifada" by Arafat's Palestinians.

     After a sixteen-year occupation of southern Lebanon to deter the rockets of Hezbollah, the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 led directly to the war of 2006. The withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 has seen an increase of rocketing from that territory and a civil war between Fatah and Hamas to determine which group leads the destruction of Israel.

     Any withdrawal from combat will be hailed as yet another "victory" for our enemies. Realistically, we are likely to move troops to safer ground, which means the Kurdish region and border nations such as Kuwait.

     That move is likely to be followed by a bloodbath between the Shiites, the majority sect in Iraq and Iran, and the Sunnis, the majority sect in the rest of the billion-plus world of Islam. It doesn't matter whose side we take or if we take no side. Humanitarian behavior is not high on the list of priorities for Arabs, whether they are Islamists or not.

     The difficulty of achieving peace is that it requires everyone to agree to it. Wars, whether initiated by a religion or the naked desire to acquire land, resources, and power are still wars. Winners are determined by who is willing to resist and, beyond that, to destroy the will of the enemy to continue.

     Failure, for America, Israel, and the West is literally not an option. Like the canary in the coalmine, what happens to Israel will happen to us.

     The great empire of Rome discovered what happens when citizens do not want to defend what they have. They began to rely on armies made up increasingly of people they called barbarians. Tired of endless conquest and occupation, the citizens of Rome discovered one day those barbarians were at their gates. They sacked Rome. The Dark Ages followed.

     I do not know what the President will do in these final two years of office, but if George W. Bush decides to reduce large portions of Baghdad to rubble or obliterate big chunks of Iran, history will likely say he was right to do so.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2007 @ 12:09pm

116. I do not know what the President will do in these final two years of office, but if George W. Bush decides to reduce large portions of Baghdad to rubble or obliterate big chunks of Iran, history will likely say he was right to do so.

     Posted by NEW DAWN 02/15/2007 @ 12:09am

     CPT's feelings as well...plus he feels Bush has the AUTHORITY to do so and the Congress has NO right to interfere and no political/moral authority to stop it after it happens.

     Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 12:52pm

117. Well, first, ONEVOTE...that "I DON'T SUPPORT FIDEL CASTRO OR CUBA. What is more, I WOULD SUPPORT A US INVASION OF CUBA...." comment...

     was CHIMICHENGA's, not mine.

     Posted by MASK 02/15/2007 @ 10:30am

     No, Mask, it was not's Chimi's comment - it was another of your endless hypotheticals.

     Please stay honest.

     CHIMI, what about people (maybe Bush, Cheney, Condi or another) who say "I DON'T SUPPORT FIDEL CASTRO OR CUBA. What is more, I WOULD SUPPORT A US INVASION OF CUBA IN ORDER TO TAKE OUT FIDEL AND TRULY LIBERATE THE 11 MILLION PEOPLE SUFFERING UNDER HIS REGIME."

     Posted by MASK 02/13/2007 @ 3:03pm

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2007 @ 1:46pm

118. Posted by MASK 02/15/2007 @ 12:52am

     CPT's "thoughts" on any given matter are rarely his own, and when they are, they are so hopelessly deluded as to be useless - unless, of course, he is looking for a job with the propaganda arm of the Bush administration.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2007 @ 1:47pm

119. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/15/2007 @ 1:46pm

     Sigh...okay....WHOLE quote and reference---

     "I DON'T SUPPORT FIDEL CASTRO OR CUBA. What is more, I WOULD SUPPORT A US INVASION OF CUBA IN ORDER TO TAKE OUT FIDEL AND TRULY LIBERATE THE 11 MILLION PEOPLE SUFFERING UNDER HIS REGIME."----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/20/2006 @ 2:07pm

     It was a POKE at CHIMI, ND....he KNEW he had said that, as did I.

     Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 2:23pm

120. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/15/2007 @ 1:47pm

     Well, he finds his corroborations same place as many (even on the Left) at "friendly" media and websites.

     But his basic view of the Constitutional authority and democratic principles of the United States at war...are HIGHLY skewed towards authoritarianism....but PARTISAN authoritarianism, where by Bush can order the military to invade any country, any time, under any Bush-determined provocation...

     and if the Congress, under Democrat-control due to our electoral process of democracy, opposes that, then CPT (and others) get to claim they are "hurting the troops" or "want the enemy to win".

     By his own rationale, CPT would HAVE to allow Bush to invade ISRAEL and say that the US Congress should make NO move to stop him or end such an invasion.

     Again, he would never argue for investing such authority in a Democratic Presidency...and thereby shows that he cares nothing for the Constitution or rule of law...but of partisan chauvinism.

     Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 2:29pm

121. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/15/2007 @ 1:46pm

     Sigh...okay....WHOLE quote and reference---

     "I DON'T SUPPORT FIDEL CASTRO OR CUBA. What is more, I WOULD SUPPORT A US INVASION OF CUBA IN ORDER TO TAKE OUT FIDEL AND TRULY LIBERATE THE 11 MILLION PEOPLE SUFFERING UNDER HIS REGIME."----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/20/2006 @ 2:07pm

     It was a POKE at CHIMI, ND....he KNEW he had said that, as did I.

     Posted by MASK 02/15/2007 @ 2:23pm

     Hey, man, I can't remember conversations between you and Chimi from December of last year. I was going by this thread. My bad.

     ;)

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2007 @ 2:39pm

122. Posted by MASK 02/15/2007 @ 2:29pm

     Very fine.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/15/2007 @ 2:39pm

123. Posted by LMILES 02/15/2007

     Dude, if don't like the content, don't post/drop-in or read/visit. Go to bed grandad.

     Posted by k330k at 02/15/2007 @ 3:08pm

124. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/15/2007 @ 2:39pm

     Given CHIMI's "América es muy mala" attitude and Chavezista adoration....I found that statement by him VERY surprising, so I thought I'd hang onto it as a "Notepad" file.

     Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 3:48pm

125. Howard criticised Obama's policy on Iraq because it was about Obama that he was asked a question. It had nothing to do with Obama's race. If he had been asked about Edwards's or somebody else's Iraq policy, he would probably have reacted in the same way. He was, in fact, defending his own policy of not withdrawing the small Australian contingent. Pace the claims in this article, Howard was a prominent politician long before his views on multiculturalism attracted attention. He was a Fraser government minister for over seven years, 1975-83.

     Posted by kward at 02/15/2007 @ 4:47pm

126. Rio Loco

     During the Dark Ages, when your Christian heroes like Torquemada were plucking out eyeballs, disemboweling, roasting alive -- or any of the other 666 ways they "saved" the unrepentant, the Muslim world invented algebra, the zero, colleges (borrowed from the Muslims), optics, much of the basis for modern chemistry, and advances in medicine (like aspects of epidemiology) hundreds of years before Europeans "discovered" it.

     You sir are a bigot, racist and general lout and not worth a pint of lukewarm piss. Your ignorance on subjects you attempt to address is so underwhelming as to be beneath contempt.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/15/2007 @ 4:56pm

127. Posted by DJACKMANSON 02/14/2007 @ 8:27pm | ignore this person

     I used to live on the Canadian border for years, and while I personally love Canada and Canadians (nice, educated people, great flyfishing and if I spent any time watching sports, and I do not, it would be hockey), it was interesting to observe how obssessed they were about the lack of interest most Americans showed toward their fellow WASP neighbors. I'd say the Australians coming here to defend their clownish PM are displaying some of the sad insecurity other Anglo nations exhibit due to their inferior status at the Wasp Imperial Chess Game; America has been the top dog in carrying out the White Man's Burden and these chaps riding Corporate America's coat tails do have their pride.

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/15/2007 @ 4:59pm

128. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/15/2007 @ 4:56pm

     One of my favorite lines from "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962)--

     "Prince Feisal" (Alec Guiness): But you know, Lieutenant, in the Arab city of Cordoba were two miles of public lighting in the streets when London was a village?

     Of course, RIO probably never saw the film..."an Englishter made it, them guys are all pansies!"

     Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 9:12pm

129. "I'd say the Australians coming here to defend their clownish PM are displaying some of the sad insecurity other Anglo nations exhibit due to their inferior status at the Wasp Imperial Chess "AAGame; America has been the top dog in carrying out the White Man's Burden and these chaps riding Corporate America's coat tails do have their pride."

     Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/15/2007 @ 4:59pm

     You have a point there Ouster, in that the US has been carrying the white man's burden since you shed your isolationism, as in this excerpt from Geoffrey Wheatcroft. But remember from whence you learned it. The cubs have no need of American patronage as they trace directly, as you do, to the old lioness herself:

     Take up the White Man's burden -

     Send forth the best ye breed -

     Go bind your sons to exile

     To serve your captives' need;

     To wait in heavy harness

     On fluttered folk and wild -

     Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

     Half devil and half child.

     Why, K-For could almost take that stanza as its motto. Our soldiers in Pristina and Prizren had better remember

     In patience to abide,

     To veil the threat of terror

     And check the show of pride.

     If Kipling's poem had a purpose, it was remarkably successful. He sent "The White Man's Burden" to Theodore Roosevelt, hero of the war against Spain in Cuba, destined to be president from 1901-09, and one of the more ludicrous recipients of the Nobel peace prize. Roosevelt passed it on to Henry Cabot Lodge, saying wrongly that it was "rather poor poetry" but rightly that it was "good sense from the expansionist viewpoint".

     And the Americans did take up the white man's burden. Woodrow Wilson was acting in Kipling's spirit when he finally broke with the American isolationist tradition and took the US into the Great War in 1917. Shortly before, he explained that he had attacked Mexico "to teach these people to elect good men".

     That strange mixture of expansionism and moralism continued through another world war and a cold war. Even the left applauded when the GIs were "fighting fascism" in 1941-45. Yet American conservatives suspected then that idealistic war-waging to make the world safe for democracy might one day meet its nemesis, as it did in Vietnam. But remember that was not a reactionary war in its origins, and the US had no material motive in South-east Asia. It was famously begun by "the brightest and the best", the Kennedy liberals, who would have been unable to sleep at night if they had not intervened on behalf of civilisation and justice.

     So there is a clear line running from President Roosevelt to President Wilson to the second President Roosevelt to President Kennedy, and thence to President Clinton. Kennedy's inaugural speech promised that America would pay any price and shoulder any burden for the defence of freedom; that burden again, generations after Kipling.

     What goes around comes around. We have spent most of the 20th century shedding the white man's burden. How strange that, a century after the phrase entered the language, we should be taking it again. And we must be prepared once more, in Kipling's blunt and bleak words, to

     Watch Sloth and heathen Folly

     Bring all your hope to nought.

     And we had better get used once more to

     The blame of those ye better,

     The hate of those ye guard.

     And Wheatcroft's words were penned before that other Anglo war, Iraq 2003.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 02/15/2007 @ 11:41pm

130. Tired of endless conquest and occupation, the citizens of Rome discovered one day those barbarians were at their gates. They sacked Rome. The Dark Ages followed.

     Posted by NEW DAWN 02/15/2007 @ 12:09am

     The interesting thing is that the romans treated the goths like your average hamster conservative treats just about everyone that isn't hamster conservative.

     The irony is if we can take them (the hamsters)down without precipitating their lunatic rapture event, we might actually usher in the Bright Ages

     Posted by Will C. at 02/16/2007 @ 12:28am

131. What goes around comes around.

     Posted by QuagmireJONES4 02/15/2007 @ 11:41pm

     which is why war isn't the solution to war

     Posted by Will C. at 02/16/2007 @ 12:30am

132. which is why war isn't the solution to war

     Posted by WILL C. 02/16/2007 @ 12:30am

     Hi Willie,

     Haven't seen you around for a while. Wondering if you hadn't seen the light and headed off to Baghdad with the surgers.

     Just throwing a line overboard. It seems to me that Kipling tells us a bit about why the "Anglos", with your mob in the forefront, these days, are always trying to make the world a better place. They just don't seem to be able to help themselves.

     Ouster reminded us of their influence in world affairs. It may also help us understand why a Democratic Socialist in GB, A Texan Governor born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a "clownish" Australian PM find common ground. Could it all go back to a shared history, which includes Magna Charta and almost a millennium of the development of democratic governance and constitutional law?

     Posted by lrjones4 at 02/16/2007 @ 01:40am

133. Posted by MASK 02/15/2007 @ 9:12pm

     Gotta wonder how Rio Loco manages to read that Bible with his head so firmly up his ass.

     ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------

     Loco-boy

     Now you have a problem with intellect? Or just envious because you possess so little of it? Certainly your clueless leader is on intellectual par with you and yours.....and what a sad statement that makes.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/16/2007 @ 08:12am

134. which is why war isn't the solution to war

     Posted by WILL C. 02/16/2007 @ 12:30am

     Really?...what about Kosovo in 1999?

     Posted by Mask at 02/16/2007 @ 09:19am

135. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/16/2007 @ 08:12am

     It's easy, if you edit out all that "Love thy neighbor" silliness.

     Posted by Mask at 02/16/2007 @ 09:20am

136. Haven't seen you around for a while. Wondering if you hadn't seen the light and headed off to Baghdad with the surgers.

     Posted by QuagmireJONES4 02/16/2007 @ 01:40am

     Oh quagmire. The last place you'll find any of the surgers is baghdad.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/16/2007 @ 09:21am

137. Really?...what about Kosovo in 1999?

     Posted by MASK 02/16/2007 @ 09:19am

     what about it?

     Posted by Will C. at 02/16/2007 @ 09:22am

138. Posted by WILL C. 02/16/2007 @ 09:22am

     Didn't NATO engage in a war, to end a war between Serbians and Kosovo Albanians?

     Posted by Mask at 02/16/2007 @ 11:01am

139. Loco Boy

     To wax intellectual...the real point of course, is that someone dismantles your unfounded defense of racism, and you seek to trivialize the message and the messenger....how very "Bushy" of you

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/16/2007 @ 12:20pm

140. Hot off the wire: 1 million more Iraqi feeling Iraq NEWS

     Does that mean the war is over...as there is no one left to protect?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/16/2007 @ 12:27pm

141. ooops FLEEING (not "feeling")

     Dammit Jim, I'm a scientist, not a typist (to paraphrase Bones on the original Star Trek)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/16/2007 @ 12:29pm

142. Psst! Cricket the great (anglo) uniter of the oppressed and downtrodden (especially by the froggies) and without a smidgen of racism and Howard loves cricket even more than he loves Bush:

     Rwanda snubs France to join Commonwealth

     * Jonathan Clayton * February 17, 2007

     RWANDAN President Paul Kagame says his country will cement its bitter divorce from France and the French-speaking world, which he holds responsible for the 1994 slaughter of up to one million of his countrymen, by joining the Commonwealth. "There are many benefits for us in joining the Commonwealth - cultural, economic, political," Mr Kagame said.

     He has been invited to attend the November Commonwealth summit as an observer and said: "I hope they will then approve our membership. I am looking forward to it."

     Mr Kagame, a lanky former guerilla fighter with an austere manner, rarely shows emotion. But the softly-spoken 50-year-old struggles to contain his anger when discussing France in Africa.

     "They are the ones who armed and trained the militias ... the evidence is everywhere," he said. "They continued to do so even after the genocide started."

     The bitter relations between the two countries came to a head in November when a French judge accused Mr Kagame and several of his top aides of shooting down the aircraft carrying former president Juvenal Habyarimana. The incident triggered the 100-day massacre of Tutsis and of moderate Hutus opposed to his regime.

     Rwanda retaliated by severing diplomatic relations with Paris. Thousands of infuriated Rwandans took to the street in government-supported anti-French protests.

     "They are hyping up the downing of the plane," Mr Kagame said.

     "They are trying to present it as the event which started the genocide and divert attention from their prior support of the genocidal regime.

     "The preparation for genocide was going on (before the plane came down) and was known by the international community, and particularly the French. They are trying to shift attention from that."

     Rwanda, like neighbouring Burundi, was colonised by Belgium but after independence in the 1960s was close to France, which sent forces to help Habyarimana repel Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front rebels in 1990.

     Mr Kagame was brought up as a refugee in neighbouring Uganda, where he learned to play cricket.

     He later took command of the RPF and can barely conceal his pleasure at the thought of how Paris will view his country's membership of the Commonwealth, the English-speaking club of countries with colonial ties to Britain.

     He smiles as he asserts that his "entire experience of France and French influence" has been negative. Other than the recent creation of the Rwandan cricket board, it is hard to imagine an act more calculated to put French noses out of joint than joining a body so closely associated with the British empire.

     Commentators say the issue underlines the failure of French policy in the region. Paris was so concerned about the creeping influence of the English language that it followed a policy of "la defense de la ligne de la francophonie" (defence of the French-speaking line) and backed killers such as Habyarimana.

     French policy backfired spectacularly. The Habyarimana regime was driven from office. Rwanda's subsequent pursuit of the genocide planners into neighbouring Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo, led to the fall of another French ally, president Mobutu Sese Seko. He was replaced by an English-speaking exile from Tanzania -- Laurent Kabila, father of the current President, Joseph Kabila, who can barely utter a full sentence in French.

     Today the large French embassy in the centre of the hilly Rwandan capital, Kigali, stands empty and a heavy padlock and chain bar the entrance of the Franco-Rwandan co-operation centre.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 02/17/2007 @ 04:37am

143. Didn't NATO engage in a war, to end a war between Serbians and Kosovo Albanians?

     Posted by MASK 02/16/2007 @ 11:01am

     you really think that the ethnic cleansing of albanians by serbians was war?

     Posted by Will C. at 02/17/2007 @ 11:51pm

144. "Four legs good, two legs bad" George Orwell. Howard must be a racist He is white and Oboma must be a glorious hero, he is black (actually half but good white boys would not mention this.) How Femaracist, the author thinks Howard is a racist because a white man saying something negative against a black man. The writer is acting as an effeminate because he is racist against people that have his mommas and dads skin color, He would never be against a black man that spoke negativly against a white man. He is acting like a self abuseing white effeminate. Howard singled out Oboma because he knows that 90% plus of Americans are to cowardly to say anything negative about a black leader and this Oboma will be a dictator if elected because the white femaracists will say hiel to their furher because they are so afraid of being called a racist. God help Israel, white fairy boys will do anything Obama says. Including turning on Israel.

     Posted by Dan Thomas at 02/18/2007 @ 8:33pm

145. "Four legs good, two legs bad" George Orwell. Howard must be a racist He is white and Oboma must be a glorious hero, he is black (actually half but good white boys would not mention this.) How Femaracist, the author thinks Howard is a racist because a white man saying something negative against a black man. The writer is acting as an effeminate because he is racist against people that have his mommas and dads skin color, He would never be against a black man that spoke negativly against a white man. He is acting like a self abuseing white effeminate. Howard singled out Oboma because he knows that 90% plus of Americans are to cowardly to say anything negative about a black leader and this Oboma will be a dictator if elected because the white femaracists will say hiel to their furher because they are so afraid of being called a racist. God help Israel, white fairy boys will do anything Obama says. Including turning on Israel.

     Posted by Dan Thomas at 02/18/2007 @ 8:33pm

146. "Four legs good, two legs bad" George Orwell. Howard must be a racist He is white and Oboma must be a glorious hero, he is black (actually half but good white boys would not mention this.) How Femaracist, the author thinks Howard is a racist because a white man saying something negative against a black man. The writer is acting as an effeminate because he is racist against people that have his mommas and dads skin color, He would never be against a black man that spoke negativly against a white man. He is acting like a self abuseing white effeminate. Howard singled out Oboma because he knows that 90% plus of Americans are to cowardly to say anything negative about a black leader and this Oboma will be a dictator if elected because the white femaracists will say hiel to their furher because they are so afraid of being called a racist. God help Israel, white fairy boys will do anything Obama says. Including turning on Israel.

     Posted by Dan Thomas at 02/18/2007 @ 8:38pm