An excellent example of the wonderful foreign policy statements we can expect from Obama. I wonder what he has to say to President Putin?

If we acted on Obama's demand and got the troops out of Iraq by March 2008, why should we then vote for him the following November?

PM Howard doesn't put his money where his mouth us, and make any sort of real commitment to Iraq -- he just postures, poses and prances -- because he knows his constituency won't put up with him if he tries to do otherwise.

Buoyed by a surge in public support - which has Labor leading the Coalition by 58 per cent to 42 per cent in the latest AC Nielsen poll - Mr Rudd accused Mr Howard of a "grave error" of judgment.

"To accuse the Democratic Party of the US of being al-Qa'ida's party of choice ... to accuse the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson of being the terrorist's party of choice is a most serious charge," Mr Rudd told Parliament.

The comments were a "reckless act", Mr Rudd claimed, suggesting that Mr Howard's close personal friendship with Mr Bush was clouding broader judgment over the alliance.

The furore over the Prime Minister's remarks suggests that Iraq will feature heavily in this year's election campaign. While national security has been an electoral strength for Mr Howard, Labor strategists are confident of overcoming voter resistance on the issue.

The Coalition meanwhile is planning to attack Labor's decision to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq as an exercise that would damage the US alliance. Mr Howard has forged a close relationship with the US President and many of his senior colleagues.

But his comments on Iraq provoked a trans-Pacific brawl with senior Democratic figures - and even some Republicans - lashing out at the remarks.

He opened a personal slanging match involving senior Australian and US political figures, the likes of which has not been seen since Mr Bush attacked former Labor leader Mark Latham's Iraq policy in 2004.

Even some Republican figures suggested it would be better for Mr Howard to steer clear of the volatile Iraq debate.

"I would prefer that Mr Howard stay out of our domestic politics and we will stay out of his domestic politics," Republican senator John Cornyn said on US television.

PM Howard is nothing more than a Bush butt-kisser. My guess is he's fishing for a nice cushy job at Haliburton, which he will need when Australians run him out of office in the next election.

Howard should spend more time worrying about his own future and not Obama's. New elections will be held at the end of the year, and the Federal party is way down in the polls.

Bush wasn't satisfied with destroying the conservative party in this country, he had to take down Australia's as well.

Howard has a huge jihadi problem in his country. He's seen the our future, because he's living it now.

Howard is Bush-butt kisser, then the dems/liberals are nothing but terrorists and mullahs' butt kisser. It seems that the dems/liberals have been doing what the terrorists and their enablers expect them to do. Lee and fellow travellers are doing their part on this forum as expected of them from the terrorists.

Now we know Howard is just another lying politician -- his lips are moving:

Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Monday denied having a political motive when he said terrorists in Iraq would be pr, , ) to become U.S. president. Howard, a steadfast supporter of President Bush in the Iraq war, insisted his criticism of Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in Iraq by March 31 next year was in Australia's national interest because Obama's plan would represent a defeat for Australia's most important military ally.

The issue overshadowed the results of a new opinion poll published Monday showing Howard, who will attempt to lead his conservative coalition to a fifth term at elections expected later this year, is lagging badly behind Labor opposition leader Kevin Rudd.

Desperate politicians, making policy based on their desire to get re-elected -- this guys does admire President Bush, doesn't he...

Howard at least sent Australian troops to fight alongside the US. The dems supported the French who stabbed the US in the back.

The liberals are so despicable for attacking any ally who is willing to fight alongside the US. The dems/liberals will support anyone who will do the bidding of the terrorists.

I'm sure Obama is crushed to be losing the "Australian Prime Minister vote." I hear they really come out for the Democratic primary.

Of course, Howard 's disapproval will probably help Obama win the Dem primary. He seems to be in tune with the defeatist liberal base.

The liberals are so despicable for attacking any ally who is willing to fight alongside the US. The dems/liberals will support anyone who will do the bidding of the terrorists.

How about you, LoveAmerica Immigrant? Are you fighting alongside our troops? What's your war record?

Kim

How ironic. The Dixie Chicks are reviled because they spoke out of school over in the UK when Natalie Maines made her comments about Bush,
while now you delight in the Aussie neo-con's Bush sycophancy as he injects his opinions about an American candidate who is part of our US electoral process.

Somewhere in this is a towering double-standard and, dare we say, hypocrisy.

Of course any foreign interference w/ the American electoral process is to be applauded if it assuages your "Drunk With Hatred Over the '06 Election Outcome."

I'll bet this Aussie wingnut pig's injection into the American political process just soothes your soul.

How ironic. The Dixie Chicks are reviled because they spoke out of school over in the UK when Natalie Maines made her comments about Bush,
while now you delight in the Aussie neo-con's Bush sycophancy as he injects his opinions about an American candidate who is part of our US electoral process.

And you put great faith in the world leaders opposing Bush, but no so much faith here.

And you call her a hypocrite?
-=Mike

That's too bad. Basically everyone the west, aside from the dhimmis, were in love with the guy after his speech along side Blair following the London train bombings.

On the other hand, if you guys on the left are going to get serious about Obama, then he had better get used to the criticisms and be able to handle them only slightly better than astigafa ^^.

Showing his gravitas

astifaga
How about you, LoveAmerica Immigrant? Are you fighting alongside our troops? What's your war record?
------------------------------------------------
What is your war record? Is this a desperate attempt to avoid the issue? At least I don't stab the backs of the troops in the field. I don't call them Nazis, occupiers etc... I don't take every opportunity or mistakes they make to smear/slander them. Why do you support the liberals/dems who are taking every opportunity to smear the US military? What is the problems with liberals right on this forum who are attacking allies who fight alongside our troops (at the same time they turn a blind eyes or even excuse the countries like France, Russia who are immersed in the oil-for-food corruption?) Are you honest enough to admit that liberals do not care about the troops?

I'd rather be known as a Bush ass kisser, than a terrorist ass kisser as the democrats are.

Anyway, Obama is showing some real diplomacy there already, eh? lol.

Howard knows what the democrats in this country are all about and he's nailed them on it, and they know it.

Bwahahahahahahaha...I love it.

Communist agent-aRep,
Dixie chicks are reviled because they go to a foreign country slandering the US, their own country. Obama is reviled because he openly called for a date of withdrawal. Anyone with half a brain would know that this is really stupid. The terrorists and their sponsors only need for the US withdrawal before making their moves. Again, you are proof that the liberals are behind those who slander the US and against those who fight alongside the US.

Liberals rather bash Bush than the terrorists. That 's what despicable about them.

"If he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq," Mr. Obama said. "Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

Why, to fill the gaping, sucking hole we leave in Iraq that you plan to create if you win?

His reply to Howard doesn't defend his own position very well...and I find it dissapointing that Obama (or anyone else criticising Howard's opinion) never had anything this sharp to say to Hugo Chavez regarding his various vitrolic rants and raves about our acting President and our country.

Hugo Chavez: Taking advantage of Freedom of Speech.

John Howard: A meddling chickenhawk not entitled to an opinion.

Obama getting off to a rocky start! Even Howard Kurtz criticizes him in his new column.

Hey Barack, San Fran Nan, etc. - it ain't as easy as it looks, is it? Welcome to r.e.a.l.i.t.y. The MSM will try, but they can't cover your ass 24/7. It gets unseemly. They're pretending to be objective journalists after all.

How do you go about "bashing" the terrorists from the comfort of your home, LoveAmerica Immigrant? People with opinions on the internet do not have any influence in goings-on in the Middle East, but do exert at least a modicum of influence on domestic politics and journalism. So yeah, nobody on the left is "bashing" terrorists on blogs, because it's a complete fucking waste of time. Idiot.

And stop referring to people who disapprove of Bush as "liberal", because over 60% of the country disapproves of that piece of incompetent garbage. I hardly think that America is predominantly liberal, but as you seem to suggest the contrary, you are implying that you have a problem with America. Do you, douche bag? Knuckle-dragging 30-percenter to the core, you are.

"If he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq," Mr. Obama said. "Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

Uh, Mr. Obama, you're lack of political experience is showing. ...

On a per capita basis 1,400 troops from Australia is equivalent of 21,000 from the U.S. as far as a judge of commitment goes. While most Australian troops are not serving in combat rolls, nevertheless they serve in vital functions, which the U.S. would have to fill with it's own troops should Australian pull out.

Regardless of the political climate in Australia, Prime Minister Howard speaks as the head of that nation just as President Bush speaks as head of this nation. With Australia having a fifteenth the population of the U.S., Obama's assertion that Australia needs to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq in order to have credibility is ludicrous. That would be like the U.S. sending 300,000 troops. The fact that Obama didn't realize the absurdity of his contention demonstrates his utter lack of knowledge and experience in foreign policy. The fact that Obama uses the chickenhawk argument to insult the head of state of one of our staunchest allies in the war on terror demonstrates a fatal flaw in Obama's character. Now the only thing I want to know is how Hillary set this up.

I am confused? The Prime minister of a another nation interjects his opinion on a candidate for the nomination of a political party. That candidate immediately responds to this charge.

I wish Bush would have immediately responded when the despot leader of Iran started his crap.

Where was this man's interest when whiteguy John Edwards started his campaign with the same position?

I like a candidate who doesn't just sit back when attacked..Obama did not use the word "chickenhawk"
If that is the word that came into your mind kim you should have phrased it that way..
Obama doesn't need the MSM to cover his ass..it seems he he off to a good start doing that for..himself...by the way do you mean his "friends" in the MSM who keep pushing the "Is he Black enough" line?

I am sorry Kim..it was Mr. Johnson and not you that wrote "chickenhawk"

I am confused? The Prime minister of a another nation interjects his opinion on a candidate for the nomination of a political party. That candidate immediately responds to this charge.

...by labelling him, basically, a chickenhawk. By asking him to send more troops while he plans on yanking ours out.

That is ABYSMAL diplomacy.

Bush never pulled that with Chirac.

Where was this man's interest when whiteguy John Edwards started his campaign with the same position?

Obama is much higher in the polls than Edwards. It'd be like saying "Hey, why isn't Duncan Hunter getting the heat Giuliani is?"
-=Mike

nogo postal:

I am confused? The Prime minister of a another nation interjects his opinion on a candidate for the nomination of a political party. That candidate immediately responds to this charge.

It's how he responded, not that he responded.

Where was this man's interest when whiteguy John Edwards started his campaign with the same position?

Playing the race card? Come on.

I like a candidate who doesn't just sit back when attacked..Obama did not use the word "chickenhawk"

No he didn't use the word "chickhawk"...but what do you think it means when he says "Send more troops, if not, shut up because you have no say in this matter." ?

It's the same logic used in the chickenhawk argument.

Did'n we hear all these warnings last fall that electing Dems would enable the enemy? Why do voters hate America?
Note one..although in danger as is anyone over there Aussies are not listed nor have ever been "combat troops.

Note 2...Edwards made his withdraw beliefs when he announced in December..as for Obama being up in the polls? I would assume Mr. Howard's current election campaign just might put his reading polls way down on his list of things to do...

Sheesh, have you seen the numbers of how many disapprove of congress in general?

Seems like americans pretty much disapprove of everyone in DC, which is not unsual.

But nice try. Not.

So wait, when the President has been criticized for not sending more troops to Iraq, that's the "chickenhawk argument?"

With Australia having a fifteenth the population of the U.S., Obama's assertion that Australia needs to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq in order to have credibility is ludicrous. That would be like the U.S. sending 300,000 troops.

Interesting way to look at it. Another way to look at it would be by recognizing that at present the US has about 0.76% percent of our population contributing to the coalition force. Australia has about 0.1% contributing. In order to be at our level, their force would have to be a bit over seven times the size it is now. If they were to equal our forces, as a percentage of total population, they would have a force size a bit under 20,000. Hey, what a coincidence, that's about the size of the Surge that's going to solve all the problems in Iraq!

Seems like a reasonable response, especially considering the vapidity of Howard's comments.

Interesting way to look at it. Another way to look at it would be by recognizing that at present the US has about 0.76% percent of our population contributing to the coalition force. Australia has about 0.1% contributing. In order to be at our level, their force would have to be a bit over seven times the size it is now. If they were to equal our forces, as a percentage of total population, they would have a force size a bit under 20,000. Hey, what a coincidence, that's about the size of the Surge that's going to solve all the problems in Iraq!

Seems like a reasonable response, especially considering the vapidity of Howard's comments.
-------------------------------------------------
What has France contributed with all the money they got from the oil-for-food bribery scheme? Surprised that you don't consider Obama 's responses vapid. His open call for a withdrawal by March 2008 is really vapid or stupid. His "chickenhawk" response to Howard is even more vapid or a repeat of a stupid argument from liberals.

BTW, according liberal logic, any countries that have not contributed forces to Iraq and have been calling for US withdrawals should be able to freely criticize Bush and US policy? Otherwise, any country that send forces to help cannot voice their opinions? IF Howard is a chickenhawk, so what is Chirac or Obama?

Mantis,

As of mid-November 2006, there were approximately 152,000 US troops deployed to Iraq. With 20,000 more that number would be 172,000. That would be equivilent to 11,467 for Australia, not the bit under 20,000 you cite. Are you saying that we shouldn't respect the opinions of other nations unless they have per capita commitment to Iraq equal to our own? It seems Obama is.

mantis:

The logic I'm referring to is:

1) If you are able to serve, and you support the war, you are a chickenhawk if you are not there.

vs

2) If you are able to contribute more troops, and you support the war, you are a chickenhawk if you do not contribute more.

(with the added bonus of - "because I plan to pull all of ours out")

Am I off base or twisting his meaning to compare these two two examples?

Seems like a reasonable response, especially considering the vapidity of Howard's comments.

How exactly is Howard's statement considered vapid? It seems quite logical, actually.

It's also extremely alienating to call Australia "one of George Bush's allies".

Actually, let me revise my last statement:

"It's also extremely alienating to call John Howard "one of George Bush's allies"."