Obama blasts Howard on Iraq

[Swagman]

Obama blasts Howard on Iraq
February 12, 2007 - 6:35AM

US presidential hopeful Barack Obama has blasted as "empty rhetoric" Australian Prime Minister John Howard's attack on Obama's plan to bring US troops home from Iraq.

The 45-year-old senator waded into a major foreign policy row just one day after formally announcing his candidacy, telling Mr Howard he should dispatch 20,000 Australians to Iraq if he wanted to back up his comments.

"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," Mr 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 1,400, 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."

Mr Howard earlier attacked Obama's plan to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/obama-blasts-howard-on-iraq/2007/02/12/1171128843178.html

[muntrv]

1. Howard, STFU!!!

[wneilson82]

18. This idiot

needs to stop talking

[jakem]

2. Obama is showing signs of a nice quick and direct response to personal attack-

Is it too much to hope for that he will actively put down the absurd smears that will come his way?!

i cant live through anymore mute responses to swiftboating....

[Catch22Dem]

33. I was thinking the same thing

Good job Obama.

[Martin Eden]

43. He learned from kerry's 2004 campaign ...

... that the rethuglican lie machine must be fought tooth and nail.

[sellitman]

3. I think the right wingnuts are terrified of Obama.

The smears started long ago and this is just the beginning. I am still hoping Gore runs but Obama deserves better than this. Sure looks like he has the pukes in a tizzy huh?

[harun]

68. Me too. It is why they are pushing Hillary so hard (n/t)

[5X]

4. Good for Obama,

makes me like him a bit more.

[sellitman]

5. I was thinking the same thing.

Voted #4 and kicked!

[ohio2007]

6. Oz is in deep with this WOT situation

After the Bali bombing, they have heavily invested and inserted themselves into many programs going on in that part of the world with various regional governments.
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/jan/01/yehey/world/20070101wor4.html


They have missions in Samoa and the Solomon Islands. .

Oz also has immigration issues that rarely make headlines over here

[Superman Returns]

7. Obama is genius

His responses after the "Fox Madrassa Story", the "Biden controversy" and now the "Howard Attacks" have been perfect. He is very talented.

[zonkers]

19. Obama has good instincts.

[rodeodance]

8. take that Howie------you little weinie doggie!

[Kagemusha]

9. Funny how this gets billed as wading into a major row

when Howard a) started it, b) aimed the row directly at Obama

but hey, this is real prominent treatment to a reply by A MERE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND SENATOR, who except for Howard citing him by name and his celebrity status w/ his presidential run, would not merit any coverage at all. Instead he's being treated as the rhetorical equal (or superior) of a sitting prime minister.

[silvermachine]

67. My thoughts exactly...

...the "wading into a major row" bit jumped out at me immediately. As if he was the instigator or something.

[Esra Star]

10. John Howard is nearly as big an embarrassment to us as GWB

is to all progressives in the US.
He is delusional and people in his own party are distancing
themselves from him.
He has only started to think that David Hicks has been in Guantanamo
too long. Decent people would have thought long ago.
On a lighter note, his political party is the "Liberal Party".
This is why we talk of "small l" liberals and their fascist namesakes
Large L.
He also is dead against republicans. He wants to hang onto the British monarchy forever.

[crispini]

23. Yes, that's very weird, the Liberal party being conservative.

:crazy: Wonder how that came about?

[Esra Star]

27. I think Bob Menzies formed it in 1939. Back then the party was

most probably more liberal.
The labour party shifted over time to become the more progressive party, and
the Liberals had to adopt the opposing view and then proceeded to be inhabited
by the right.

[liberalpragmatist]

28. Because Classical Liberalism is more akin to contemporary conservatism

The term "liberal" in the 19th Century was employed in Western (esp. European) politics as meaning democracy, secularism, free speech, freedom of religion, AND free markets and free trade. Think Tom Paine, John Locke, Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson. This "classical Liberalism" contrasted with "classical Conservatism" which was ANTI-free trade, mercantilist, and aristocratic. Basically it was a case of middle-class versus upper-class, with both claiming to be the ones with the interests of the poor in mind.

So in the UK and in its imperial possessions, the "Liberal Parties" emerged that were generally the reformers and based in the business and middle-classes.

Towards the later part of the 19th century, left-wing critiques of classical liberalism emerged. These critics alleged that industrialization had created the possibility for mass prosperity but that the business classes and laissez-faire market policies failed to trickle down the poor and failed to effectively redistribute wealth. Socialism came to be the major left-wing critique of classical liberalism and socialist and labor parties began to compete for votes in Western European countries, arguing that Liberals were responsive only to the urban middle classes and not to the concerns of the urban workers. So the "Liberal Parties" throughout the UK, its domains (like Australia), and Western Europe, having been considered to be "the Left" came to be the parties of the right, with the left-label now applied to labor and Socialist parties.

The response of classical Liberals to this differed; in Canada, Socialism never became a major ideology; the liberals embraced a lot of Keynesian and progressive economic theory and remained the party of the left. In Australia, the liberals subsumed the conservatives and remained the party of the right. In the UK, the liberals became continually more left-wing over the course of the late-19th Century and early-20th Century. A socially-conscious wing committed to more state intervention and public welfare came into ascendence but because of their middle-class pedigrees, could not compete with the more radical socialists of the Labour Party. The old UK Liberal Party largely faded into irrelevance as left-wing members joined the Labour Party and the right-wing, "traditional liberals" joined the Conservatives. That's why today, the "Liberal Democrats" are only Britain's third party; the Labour Party, despite its lurch to the right remains the major left-wing party; the Tories remain the conservative party and up until the 1980s they retained a large anti-free trade, mercantilist wing that Thatcher destroyed (the remnants of the old "Classical Conservatives").

Thus, today, in Europe and Australia, "liberal" is a term applied to a more specific ideology that is, in US terms, socially-progressive and economically non-interventionist. Most "Liberal Parties" in Western Europe are "centrist." The term applied to the left-wing in Europe are "leftists," "socialists," or "social democrats."

In the U.S., though the term "liberal" originated from the same philosophical underpinnings, the term became a more general term describing anyone on the political left. People like FDR would probably (though somewhat imperfectly) described as social democrats, not Liberals, in Europe (it's imperfect because "Social Democrat" is a broad term that often, though not always, implies an association with Socialism.).

So there's your answer, in a much more complicated form than you probably ever desired.

[crispini]

32. Dang! Thanks!

How fun. My very own mini history lesson. I love DU! :D

[Esra Star]

39. Hey, liberalpragmatist, maybe you should put this in Wiki.

It sounds very good to me.

[kiwilover]

34. Where is OZ ?

Where in OZ are you from. We will be in Sydney at end of Oct. on way to New Zealand.:-)

[Esra Star]

38. I think you know where OZ iz. It is the big island to the left of NZ.

I am in Brisbane.

[kiwilover]

40. Brisbane

We were thinking of taking the train to Brisbane from Sydney then a flight to Hamilton, NZ.

[anakie]

70. hire a car instead

it will be cheaper - I know of at least one company that allows free one way drop off - and far more interesting than an overnight train. The coast between Sydney and Brisbane is worth the trip. Plus the added excitement of driving on the left hand side of the road.

[David Dunham]

11. Obama can blast away, but it's really Edwards v. Hillary for the Dem nomination

Obama has peaked and as the McGlaughlin group said today will slowly fade while Edwards gains ground and Hillary holds her own.

[jefferson_dem]

12. Perhaps. But, as of now, there's not a shred of evidence to support that claim...

even if McGlaughlin, Tony Blankley and the other talking hacks on McGlaughlin Group deem it so...

[David Dunham]

17. Obama's poll numbers have gone down relative to Hillary's in recent weeks

[jefferson_dem]

20. Hillary did get a bit of a "bounce" after her announcement at the expense of other candidates.

Actually, some polls indicate Edwards has been hurt more by Hill's bounce than has Obama. Check out Iowa where Edwards's lead has dissipated. http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20070209231226450

Bottom line is nobody knows how this will shake out in the next year and to make predictions like "Obama's done" is simply silly. I, for one, will be interested to see what the numbers look like in the next week...in the wake of Obama's amazing announcement and media coverage, and his 60 Minutes appearance tonight. Isn't the McGlaughlin Group taped on Friday's anyway - before...?

[Superman Returns]

13. How has he peaked?

Obama is consistently gaining ground. Next to Hillary, he is most mentioned candidate on the Democratic side. He has always had a firm anti-war stance. He has more experience in government than Edwards. The only difference is Edwards is white and may be the "safe" choice of some primary voters.

[sendero]

15. I would not..

.. take my eye off that crystal ball too long. Politics is like football, one bad bounce and the game can change in an instant.

I'm not particularly fond of HRC, Edwards OR Obama, but it would be nuts to write ANY of them off at this point in time.

[David Dunham]

16. Obama is like Gary Hart in 1984, "Where's the Beef?" Edwards/HRC have lots of beef

[jefferson_dem]

21. ...And if we "settle" with either of those two we just may end up with the same fate

as we suffered in 1984, with the "beefy" Mondale as nominee and a landslide defeat at the polls.

Geesh. A year away from NH and people are already looking for volumes of white papers on every issue.

EDIT: How about Hill's position(s) on Iraq? Does that qualify as "beefy"? http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070211/pl_afp/usvote2008obama_070211194057

[IndianaGreen]

22. Yep, Edwards and Hillary have lots of beef... IWR beef to be precise!

Edwards has repented of his IWR beef, while Hillary is still munching on it while telling us she didn't mean to feast on it.

Ironically, the more "experienced" Hillary is now sounding like an echo from the White House when it comes to Iran, as she did before on Iraq.

That's not beef, that's a rotting carcass that Hillary has!

[sendero]

26. You're nuts..

..if you think the electorate at large give two hoots about your idea of "beef".

Where was Bill Clinton's "beef"? Where was Jimmy Carter's?

I don't think your political savvy exists.

[silvermachine]

69. Thank you...

...my thoughts exactly.

[Nedsdag]

47. So either Edwards or HRC will face

the same fate as Mondale did and lose 49 states?

Okaaaaay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[qanda]

24. I wouldn't count him out so fast

Sounds like Obama is on his game. I'm so used to seeing Democratic candidates wilting at the least bit of criticism that's it's good to see someone standing up the bullies. The calls into C-SPAN yesterday were fascinating. Perhaps people were just excited at the announcement but there were a lot of people looking for something new and many of them were switching from Hillary over to Obama.

I was on the fence about him, but your post kind of pushed a button and I guess you can say it pushed me off the fence. Now, where's that Obama forum?

[carpe diem]

30. I remember the Clinton campaign in '92...

during the primaries, every time you looked up there was a new eruption of some sort that was supposed to kill his campaign...bimbos, pot-smoking, draft-dodging. Each time the dc pundits and talking heads declared him DOA and many of them did time on McLaughlin and Clinton declared that the American people were going to decide the election and not the pundits, talking heads, etc. And he WON! And the MSM and 'inside the beltway' crowd never forgave him for not dying off when they told him to. He didn't bow before their supposed power to say who's in and who's out and they resent it to this day.

[prolesunited]

37. Wow, you should alert his staff immediately

that they are all wasting their time.

It's well more than a year out, and anything can happen.

And, he hasn't peaked. Lot's of people are just beginning to notice him and with quick, sharp responses like this, a lot more will start paying attention.

[Laurab]

44. I disagree - it's February 2007, he announced yesterday

it certainly didn't look like he had "peaked" to me - watching his announcement, I felt hope and a bit of excitement. I don't have a candidate yet - it's far too early, but it looked like it was just the beginning. Now, he's really going to be making the news, and I'm already impressed by his quick responses.

"Peaked"? The day after his official announcement? I think not.

[CTLawGuy]

50. Do not count the man out

he has the charisma of Clinton without the phony triangulation. And he won't be executing a mentally retarded man in the middle of the campaign either.

[citizen snips]

14. great comeback Obama

John Howard is a fucking hypocrite.

[Vidar]

25. Fighting back, not bad.

[left is right]

29. I have bounced around concerning Obama.

Back in 04, I told all my moderate, mostly non-political friends to keep their eyes on him. He would go far, maybe even first black president, if he didn't fall into some sex scandal (or get Wellstoned by the fascists--actually, I only said that to one other person).
Then he began to seem too cautious and I thought he was too aligned with the DLC, so my impression of him became lower.
But, now, my impression is on the rise again, because he is standing up and fighting back. I like that a lot. It is far too early to say that I want to see an Obama/? ticket or a ?/Obama ticket or someone else entirely. But I do hope that he continues in the stand up/fightback mode.

[hatrack]

31. Thank you, Senator - THAT is how it's done

Howard needs to shut his pie-hole and maybe spend a little more time taking care of the drought-fried forest-fired climate changing basket case of a country.

Every day, four Australian farmers commit suicide because of the worst drought in at least 1,000 years, and he's got time to stick his self-righteous nose into OUR business?

[USA No. 1]

35. Howard is just a Bush butt boy.

Obama has more brains in his little pinky than Georgie Porgie and Howard have in their heads or up their ass.

[antiimperialist]

36. Petraeus first day on the job: 69 dead in Iraq by sectarian violence

Never before had I heard so many ass-kissing and overrated comments about a general.

From MSNBC:
Truck Bomber kills 30 in Tikrit
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17093144/

From Reuters:
8 shot dead in Mosul by machinegun
30 bodies found in Baghdad
1 colonel killed in Baiji
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KAM134897.htm

[Pachamama]

41. Are the Aussie's as proud of Howard as we are of Bush??? Because both of them support eachother and

have followed many of the same disasterous foreign policies. I hope the Australians realize in this years elections what a piece of shit Howard is, just like our own piece of shit Bush.

Howard is the Australian Bush....Vote the bum out!

Because if you don't, it won't be "good on ya'" or any of us!

PS: Loved Obama's response that Howard should go ahead and send 21,500 Aussie troops to Iraq to support Bush!!! How do Australians feel about that???

[rpannier]

42. Great response Obama

Sen Obama showed maturity and good judgement in his response to johnnie howie.

Put up or shut up john!

[Roland99]

45. Hmm...just how much exactly is PM Howard's cut of the war profiteering?

[goforit]

46. Hats off to O'Bama!!!.....The Red Coats ain't gonna rain on his parade!

[geek tragedy]

48. John Howard = Sistah Souljah. eom

[antiimperialist]

49. Howard's war handling: 62% oppose. 28% support

62 per cent of voters opposing John Howard's handling of the conflict.

recent poll

[NobleCynic]

51. Nice touch

[fuzzyball]

52. B.O.'s math is slightly off.....

US population = 292 Million
Australia = 20 Million

US has 140,000 troops
Proportionately Australia should have 20/292 x 140,000 = 9590

Australia already has 1500 troops in Iraq. Therefore it needs
8000 more troops, not 20,000. B.O. is off by 150%.

Also, Australia has many thousand troops in SE Asia helping the
war on terroism.

Lets facts be facts. I hate false accusations against anyone.

[Random_Australian]

53. It's quite true. The implication that we are not doing enough is unfounded.

And we can claim a little - although not enough - more success in the various nations we've deployed to.

So there!


Aside from that, Howard is a suck.

[Hekate]

54. Aw, you know Obama was not dissing Australians as such; it's his snappy comeback to Howard...

...which has us rejoicing.

After the 2000 and 2004 elections when our Dem candidates thought they could just rise above false accusations and personal attacks -- which only gave the RW attack machine time to put their message into spin cycle -- we are SO glad to finally have a candidate who makes an immediate response with a built-in dig at the opposition.

Good luck with your PM. :eyes:

Hekate

[Dr Fate]

74. The FACTUAL implication is Howard is not doing enough to be able to talk trash.

Until Howard commits to raising a larger army (draft?) and make a full commitment that mathces his words, I cant believe he is sincere about the threat- unless he is just counting on us to do all the work.

I think Obama's retort brought both of these possibilities to light-Howard is either insincere about the threat or just expects us to do all the spending & dying.

[anakie]

71. we dont have "many thousands"

in SE Asia or anywhere else for that matter. Australia talks big but sends troops in hundreds, not thousands.

Also, of our 1450 troops in Iraq only about 600 are combat troops and a fair proportion of the rest are on a naval ship patrolling the Gulf.

Howard is rattled by the new opposition leader Kevin Rudd and it is showing. We have an election in November or December and if the polls stay the same then as they are now Howard will be our next ex-PM.

As for the put down by Obama - you go man.

Peace

[Dr Fate]

73. Wrong- his math is PERFECT. Do you think Joe Six pack gives a crap?

Joe Six pack:

"This Obama fella has a point- if Australia feels so threatened by terrorists in Iraq, then they need to raise and send more troops instead of us doing all the work..."

Aussie troops in SE Asia? So what- Joe Six pack had no idea "we" were even in SE Asia.

Obama's math is perfect, the fact that Australia has such a tiny army only shows Obama's ultimate point- that Howard is a mere bit player who has no business chiming in.

SURELY there a 20,000 able bodied, pro-war Howard supporters in Australia that he could draft or otherwise intice to serve- IF it really is as important as he says.

There are no false accusations being made- Howard can either commit enough troops to "win" or not.

Obama just showed Joe Six Pack that Howard wants to commit OUR troops, but only has excuses when it comes to commiting his own.

[fuzzyball]

76. Obama was correct in principle, wrong on math

and you are right J6P has no clue for even simple math,
thanks to our public schools.

[Seabiscuit]

55. Translation: "Put up or shut up, Mr. Howard!"

[Doondoo]

56. Howard is just shrub's tool. Talk about pathetic.

[CJCRANE]

57. The smart guys in Oz (& the UK) with an eye on the future

should be lining up to make friends with the Democrats not diss them...

[Kaotac]

58. As an Aussie, I gotta say..

Go Obama! I just wish more people would slap Howard around.
There's the Dem Congress, Blaire will be gone soon, and if there is any justice in the world, Kevin Rudd will be PM later in the year.
The future is looking brighter.

[Moloch]

59. Obama hits back after Australian PM slams his Iraq stance

...

Obama, campaigning in Iowa, told reporters Sunday he's flattered that one of Bush's allies "started attacking me the day after I announced (his presidential run) -- I take that as a compliment."

The Democratic presidential hopeful said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war.

"Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.

The Illinois Democrat dismissed the suggestion that his election would help terrorist groups, noting that even the Bush administration's "own intelligence agencies have indicated that the threat of terrorism has increased as a consequence of our actions over there."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/11/obama.comment/index.html?section=cnn_latest

[Kagemusha]

60. Related: Howard under siege in parliament

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x188529

I'm mentioning this to show LBN readers how Howard is working hard to keep this story alive (with a little help from the leader of the loyal Australian opposition, who failed in a party line censure vote).

[Virginia Dare]

61. Perfect response imo...

I'm very impressed with Obama thus far.

[goclark]

64. IMO, he knows how to deal with bullies

and he knows how to end the debate.


On Biden, he sent the signal --- "let's move on." Note he didn't say it was right but he educated the public by naming Shirley C. etc. as those that were "articulate" before he was and gave the signal to move on.

As much as I hated what Biden said about him, I realized that he was smart enough to know that everyone on the planet earth will remember Biden's words so he doesn't need to say another thing else.

He is smart enough to know that he will need Biden later.


As for that fool in Australia, Obama knocked him off his feet! :bounce:

[Cass]

62. Good for him! Quick and to-the-point response.

These remarks coming from Howard especially are pure baloney. Good for the Senator for calling him out on his hypocrisy.

:thumbsup:

[donsu]

63. at least he knows how to fight back

nt

[Forkboy]

65. It's been awhile since we've seen any of that,isn't it?

[Eurobabe]

66. Obama will not be swiftboated n/t

Don't underestimate Barack, yeah he's cocky and he's got wit, and he's no pushover.

Man, my dream team would be Clark and Obama in ANY combo!!!

[EndElectoral]

72. Wonderful comeback....impressed

[HockeyMom]

75. Howard just another Bush ENABLER