Posted on 02/11/2007 5:51:17 PM PST by naturalman1975
THE Prime Minister has fired another salvo in his growing war of words with US presidential hopeful Barack Obama, saying the senator had dodged his criticism of his Iraq withdrawal plan.
Senator Obama today challenged John Howard to commit another 20,000 Australian troops to Iraq after the Prime Minister said his call to bring American troops home by March 2008 would be a victory for al Qaeda in Iraq, who would be hoping for a Democrat win in next year's presidential election.
The US senator accused Mr Howard of "empty rhetoric" in his criticism of his stand, as Australia has committed only a fraction of the number of troops the US military has sent to Iraq.
The Federal Opposition has said Mr Howard is letting his personal friendship with US President George W. Bush cloud his judgment and should apoligise.
But far from backing down from the developing spat, Mr Howard has said today that Senator Obama's response missed the point of his criticism.
"I think the most interesting thing about (Senator Obama's comments) is that it didn't really address the substance of the issue," Mr Howard has said on ABC Radio.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
As I just said to someone else, Show me one example of GWB commenting directly, by name, on the positions of a candidate for election in another country, a full year before a single vote is cast, and I'll concede the point.
You rock Ntural Man and encourage your fellow Ozzies to rock with you.
How the heck did the world grow so may PANSIES post WW2?
I don't get it and I am not even 50 yet!
Who are you talking about?
What Howard could do--what would have been more appropriate and not as boneheaded--would be to simply lay out what policies he supports and opposes. Without naming names.
Actually closer to 6 or 7 percent...
If you beleive a statement of opinion is an attack, you are seriously amiss. Obama called for withdrawl of U.S. troops. Howard said that would be a mistake, a win for the terrorists. What exactly do you see wrong?
Yeah, you're right, we should criticize Australia for being our ally.
Your beloved leader Howard. Who are you talking about?
I always thought Obamessiah was a left-winger, and a phony.
Now I know he's also a little s--t.
Just read the quotes in this story. This punk cannot be allowed anywhere near the White House.
What are you talking about? Howard criticized Obama. Obama answered back.
I was talking about your question asking what was 10% of 160,000. Sounds like you're bashing Australia for not sending enough troops. Are you an Obama supporter?
So I can't give you a comment a year before an election.
But I would draw your attention to the following exchange made by President George W. Bush on 3rd June 2004, in the lead up to an Australian Federal election:
QUESTION: Mr. Howard and yourself reaffirmed the commitment that Australia and the U.S. have to staying the course in Iraq. But you would be aware the alternative prime minister in Australia, Mark Latham, has promised to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq by Christmas -
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION:- if he wins the election. What signal -
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, yes -
QUESTION: What signal would that send to the Iraqi people and the other members of the coalition?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I think that would be disastrous. It would be a disastrous decision for the leader of a great country like Australia to say that, we're pulling out. It would dispirit those who love freedom in Iraq. It would say that the Australian government doesn't see the hope of a free and democratic society leading to a peaceful world. It would embolden the enemy who believe that they can shake our will. See, they want to kill innocent life because they think that the Western world and the free world is weak; that when times get tough we will shirk our duty to those who long for freedom, and we'll leave.
No, I'm not. But my first reaction was that it was a good comeback. Howard is complete fool for engaging Obama directly, thus raising his stature and giving strength to an enemy, and also for butting in so specifically into our election process. Hell, can we let one stinkin person VOTE first?
Apparently a senior White House official has issued a statement saying that:
"PM Howard understands that setting a timeline for departure sends the wrong message to our enemies and the wrong message to the people of Iraq".
So, the WH is backing Howard in this issue. Obamarama is going to take a hit on this. I anticipate Hillary to make a statement soon as well...criticizing Obama for not understanding that Austrailia is an ally of the US, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.
Notice he wisely directs his answer at the policy, not the man. This is nothing like what Howard just did. Not to mention GWB was responding to a direct question. Howard served this crap up himself, didn't he?
Democratic legistlators just can't help but engage in inappropriate foreign policy (the job of the executive branch, not Congress). They did so during the Reagan administration and are back to their old tricks, again. Someone needs to slap them down. This is so wrong....
What choice do they have? Back Obama? LoL.
That is in itself a straw man arguement.
GWB has nothing to do with this exchange.
Obama is already a US Senator, and therefore eligible to be slapped down hard when he advocates cutting and running. Frankly, I wish Howard had singled out a few other RAT traitors for the same attention, but osama obama is the golden boy RAT of the moment. I suspect hillary will finish him off sooner or later, by any means necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.