Obama hits back at Howard
February 12, 2007 - 8:02AM
US presidential hopeful Barack Obama this morning blasted as "empty rhetoric" Australian Prime Minister Howard's attack on his plan for a 2008 withdrawal of Iraq troops.
"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced," Obama told reporters in the mid-western US state of Iowa.
"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.
"Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
Howard earlier attacked Obama's plan to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008.
The conservative leader said on commercial television that Obama's pledges on Iraq were good news only for insurgents operating in the war-ravaged country.
"I think he's wrong. I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Howard told the Nine Network.
"If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."
Democrats react angrily
A string of Democrats have reacted angrily to Mr Howard's comments which have received widespread media coverage in the US.
Terry McAuliffe, a former chairman of the Democratic National Convention, criticised Mr Howard's strong links to US President George Bush.
"The prime minister has been a great friend of George Bush's, he has been with him lock-step from day one on this war in Iraq," Mr McAuliffe said.
"He and George Bush, they can go off and talk to each other, we don't care what he says."
Democrat senator Ron Wyden said it was hard to be polite about Mr Howard.
"The most charitable thing you can say about Mr Howard's comment is bizarre," Senator Wyden said.
"We'll make our own judgments in this country with respect to elections and Barack Obama is a terrific public servant."
Even Republicans have criticised Mr Howard for interfering in US domestic affairs.
"I would prefer that Mr Howard stay out of our domestic politics and we will stay out of his domestic politics," Texas Republican senator John Cornyn said.
However, Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter has defended Mr Howard.
"I think the Aussies have earned a right to comment on the world stage about their partner in this endeavour because they've been fighting side-by-side with us in Iraq," Congressman Hunter said.
Prime Minister John Howard has defended his criticism of US presidential hopeful Barack Obama after Labor accused him of risking Australia's alliance with America.
Mr Howard attacked the Democratic presidential aspirant over his pledge to withdraw American troops from Iraq by March 2008.
The prime minister warned the policy could destroy Iraq and remove hopes of ever achieving peace in the Middle East.
Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd accused Mr Howard of putting the alliance at risk because of his personal relationship with US Republican president George W Bush.
"The prime minister's partisan attack on Mr Obama and the Democratic Party risks the strength of the US alliance," he said.
"Mr Howard must not allow his personal relationship with President Bush to impact on Australia's long-term alliance relationship with the United States.
"The alliance between Australia and the United States has prevailed with such strength and certainty because it has always been above party politics."
But Mr Howard said he had worked closely with both Democrat and Republican leaders.
A spokesman for the prime minister said he had worked closely with Democrat president Bill Clinton and Mr Bush, a Republican.
"The prime minister remains of the view that the policy Mr Obama is advocating regarding Iraq is not in the security interests of the USA or Australia," the spokesman said.
I felt the need to post that because
both
sides have managed to piss me off.
Obama needs to pull his head out of his arse and take a good look at the rest of the world. His comment clearly indicates he has absolutely no fucking idea about Australia, and that is shameful for a man who
may
one day have a powerful voice in the running of the United States. If Australia was to send another 20,000 troops to Iraq, that'd be almost our
entire Armed Forces!
Moreover, proportionally, 1,400 personnel is approximately the same number of US personnel per capita. Therefore, since the US started the fucking war, they should have more than triple the number of personnel they currently have in place.
It doesn't serve anyone to have a (potential) leader of arguably the most powerful nation in the world, who knows so little about the rest of the world, and in particular one of its fucking allies.
As for John Howard, he just needs to fucking die. Preferably from a long, painful cancer of the brain.
If Australia was to send another 20,000 troops to Iraq, that'd be almost our entire Armed Forces!
I think he was speaking rhetorically....
I think he was speaking rhetorically....
Had he simply said he "suggests" we should double our deployment, then I might agree it was rhetoric but since he specified a figure, I can only deduce he is needs a whack from a clue-by-four.
Had he simply said he "suggests" we should double our deployment, then I might agree it was rhetoric but since he specified a figure, I can only deduce he is needs a whack from a clue-by-four.
IIRC, that 20,000 figure refers to the increase in troop numbers that Bush is pushing for, sort of a "if Howard thinks there should be another 20,000 troops in Iraq, he can send his own troops and see how it plays with his electorate". I wasn't entirely impressed with Obama's comment either, but it was pretty clearly for local consumption.
It doesn't serve anyone to have a (potential) leader of arguably the most powerful nation in the world, who knows so little about the rest of the world, and in particular one of its fucking allies
Why change what's been working so well for the last 7 years?
IIRC, that 20,000 figure refers to the increase in troop numbers that Bush is pushing for, sort of a "if Howard thinks there should be another 20,000 troops in Iraq, he can send his own troops and see how it plays with his electorate". I wasn't entirely impressed with Obama's comment either, but it was pretty clearly for local consumption.
That's how moonlit reads Obama's comment too. It's more than likely the truth but in my irascible mind, it still smacks of a foot-in-mouth reaction.
FTR: The figure for the increase of US personnel is 21,500. Obama's quote states the US has, "...close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400...". A note to Mr Obama and his staff: the US has a population of approximately 301,155,237, which is rising by 1 roughly every 12 seconds [link] . Australia has a population of approximately 20,754,774 [link] , which is rising by 1 roughly every 2 minutes. Doesn't take a mathematician to determine who has the greater commitment in Iraq.
FTR: The figure for the increase of US personnel is 21,500. Obama's quote states the US has, "...close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400...". A note to Mr Obama and his staff: the US has a population of approximately 301,155,237, which is rising by 1 roughly every 12 seconds [link] . Australia has a population of approximately 20,754,774 [link] , which is rising by 1 roughly every 2 minutes. Doesn't take a mathematician to determine who has the greater commitment in Iraq.
This is true, and the more so since it was the decision of the American President to initiate the war and subsequent occupation. On a per capita basis, America's commitment of troops is something like six times that of Australia.
