John Howard versus Barack Obama

John Howard and Barack Obama. As Billy Bragg would say, which side are you on?

Barack Obama has introduced legislation mandating the withdrawl of US combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.

And in response, on Sunday the Australian Prime Minister said this:

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.

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.

Here's the problem. John Howard should not interfere in the US elections. It is, apart from anything else, very short-sighted. What if Obama wins?

On the other hand... he's completely correct. Whatever the merits of withdrawal, providing an arbitrary date for withdrawal is lunacy.

So tactless, but right. Tough call, but I go with right. You?

Comments

[Ian Deans]

What election is Mr Howard interfering with? The March 2008 policy isn't a platform of his Presidential campaign because that election is not until November 2008.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I personally think we should have more politicians like John Howard - and who can argue with his electoral record.

[Ravster]

Howard is clearly playing politics in the manner of Gerhard Schroeder at the launch of the Iraq war, simply from the other side of the debate than the ex-Chancellor. Howard is facing an election himself and trailing in the opinion polls.

[Nick]

Of course, you avoid printing Obama's response:

"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 ... I take that as a compliment." [ http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=2867210 ]

and then:

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400, so if he is (ready) 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." [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6352785.stm ]

So perhaps before Howard shoots his mouth off again, he could, you know, help?

[Akram]

trust finklestein to see this as a neocon crusade rather than loud mouthed, ignorant and idiotic australian.

whether you love or hate him john howard is very much an aussie george bush

[adam]

I have no idea why Howard is doing this. The only people who give a toss, here in the US, about what John Howard thinks aren't going to vote for Obama anyhow. All he can achieve is starting a fight with someone who might end up as President of the country to which Howard has hitched his wagon.

Furthermore, even Blair couldn't drum up much enthusiasm for the war here and he's probably more popular than Bush is; Howard's not speaking to anyone who hasn't already mde up their mind.

[adam]

Yeah, and Nick's right, Obama, pinko though he is, has done pretty well in response, which leaves Howard in the situation of being Obama's straight man. It's almost as if Howard should have kept his mouth shut.

[Drew]

Good Lord, someone still uses the word "pinko" in political commentary?

[yucca]

wait, tactless is a bit generous. you say yourself that the problem ain't etiquette, but interference in another countries' democratic process. so he should not have done it, even though he might have said something true.

on the other hand, though, you might avoid to comment specifically on someone's proposal. but pretty much anything you say on iraq will show your opinion of someone else's position...

[adam]

Absolutely, Drew. Political retro-chic is the very Next Big Thing.

[dave]

John Kerrys' sister went to Australia on the eve of an election to campaign against John Howard so how come there wasn't as much as whisper from anybody then?

[adam]

Dave: yes, that's also pretty stupid. However, unless Kerry sent her, we can't really complain about it. She doesn't have an official position; Kerry doing it would clearly have been inappropriate. If he did it, it was inappropriate and stupid.

But in any case, Howard must be playing to a domestic audience; no one in the US is going to be affected, in terms of their votes, by this unless they liked Obama's comeback. If Howards wins and then, in 2008, Obama wins (unlikely, I think) then President Obama is probably going to find it less problematic to have antagonised the Australian PM than Howard is going to have found it to have antagonised the US President.

The Tory dirt-digging on Clinton over the 92 US election was also inappropriate and stupid, incidentally, in my opinion.

[Frank]

Jonathon Sheppard, What would arguing with your electoral record mean? I won the election, the world's flat? Seems a bit odd.

[Kathy]

John Howard, what is he doing to help our water crisis and the global warming. here's an idea, maybe he could make a rule that water tanks should be compulsary on blocks of land that can fit them. We need more seasalt stations(whatever they're called) to change seawater in drinking water. He's building the dams in the wrong places, by the time the clouds get to the dams there is no water left. He needs to do something about it.

[Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD]

Hillary no one else????

[Todd]

Howard is right, and there is no reason he shouldn't speak his mind on something that ultimately affects Australia (the Global War on Terror) as well as the U.S. Lord knows the French and German governments certainly made their views on George Bush clear enough before the 2004 election. I love Australia. They are probably closer than what I think of as the American ideal (as opposed to the American reality) than America is. Common sense and love of freedom (as opposed to the nanny-state) seems to be more abundant there than in just about ny other country in the world.