Former, and hugely defeated, prime minister John Howard gives a speech warning about climate change "alarmism" under the title, 'One Religion Is Enough.'
That's not what he said in November, 2002. Howard:
"Australia is a nation of many religions...We are not a nation that mandates a particular faith."
In the speech John Howard, as usual, as is mandatory for all conservatives, fails to mention that his beloved Rupert "God?" Murdoch is the King of Climate Change Alarmism. Never diss 'God'.
More than eight years after then prime minister John Howard and foreign minister Alexander Downer promised Australians our involvement in the War On Iraq would be short and sweet, the last of our troops on the ground there are finally heading home :
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Tom Switzer, whoever he is, on the good old days :
[JOHN Howard] was called a “fool” (Michael Leunig), an “unflushable turd” (Mungo MacCallum), a “scheming, mendacious little man” (Alan Ramsey), who silenced dissent (Clive Hamilton), corrupted the public debate (David Marr) and used right-wing religious activists to indoctrinate the nation (Marion Maddox). He was also “far and away the worst prime minister in living memory” (Phillip Adams) who had a “pre-fascist fetish to attack minorities” (Margo Kingston). Under his government, Australia headed towards an “increasingly authoritarian trajectory of the political culture” (Robert Manne), became “a backwater, a racist and inward-looking country” (Greg Barns) and was “condemned at the court of world opinion as callous and inhumane” (Sun-Herald, Sydney).
Nearly all true.
Switzer somehow forgets John Howard was called a "rodent" and even a "lying rodent" by senior members of his own government, though presumably never to his face.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Heath Ledger Was Right About The War On Iraq
"It's Not A Fight For Humanity, It's A Fight For Oil"
Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.
Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.
The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.
The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."
The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.
Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts.
Rupert 'Always Wrong On Iraq' Murdoch knew all about the deal making on Iraq's oil future, and could barely keep his trap shut, boasting a month before the war :
"The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be US$20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."
A bit later, after publicly giving his full and solid backing to the war, Rupert Murdoch explained why, in his deluded old man fantasy world, the War On Iraq was likely to fuel economic recovery :
"We're keeping our heads down, managing the businesses, keeping our profits up. Who knows what the future holds? I have a pretty optimistic medium and long-term view but things are going to be pretty sticky until we get Iraq behind us. But once it's behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else..."
People actually believed that. They really, really did.
At least, until the truth about Australia's ongoing involvement in the War On Iraq became a little clearer in 2007 :
Amusingly, it was Rupert Murdoch's own Australian media empire that spread this bit of truth far and wide. At least they did for a few hours, until Don't Make Rupert Angry censorship survival instinct kicked in and they tried to make their own headlines disappear and went delete crazy on one of the biggest stories of the past decade.
The phone calls from John Howard's office to the head office of Rupert Murdoch's News Limited in Sydney yesterday were less than pleasant.
The News.com.au website, the main portal for Murdoch's network of Australian newspaper websites, reaching some more than 1.5 million Australian readers per day, ran a number of headlines claiming John Howard had said that oil was now a key reason to stay in Iraq. Some of the headlines said the Iraq War was a war for oil. Just like all those protesters back in early 2003 claimed it would be.
By the time Howard moved to deny he said anything such thing, it was too late. The story was out, columns and articles had been written and sent to the printers for today's news racks, and there was no going back.
John Howard's office knew there was little point trying to get Fairfax newspapers to retract their stories, in print or online. Howard Admits War For Iraq's Oil was the story many journos for the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age had been waiting more than four years to write.
But Howard knew the Murdoch media were likely to play ball. If not in print, then at least online, where news.com.au now reaches more Australians than the same company's newspapers do, in print.
But even until the early afternoon today, almost 24 hours later, some of the Murdoch websites were still carrying 'Howard Says Iraq War For Oil' headlines and stories, even though the main news.com.au site had rewritten headlines and stories, inside its own archive, and published the following correction....oh sorry, clarification :
An earlier version of this story from the Australian Associated Press incorrectly reported the Prime Minister as saying oil was a reason for Australia's continued military presence in Iraq.
He said "energy", but as we all know, "energy" is "oil" when it comes to the Middle East, unless Howard is thinking about cutting natural gas deals with Iran sometime soon.
The phone calls from Howard's office to News Limited HQ clearly worked.
News.com.au chose to blame Australian Associated Press for supplying the wire news story that claimed Howard had admitted to a war for oil in Iraq.
Here's the pre-furious phone calls from Howard's office Uncorrected Version as it appeared online yesterday : And here's the spiffy new Corrected Version : Note that the sub headlines now put the words relating to 'Iraq War For Oil' squarely in the mouth of defence minister Brendan Nelson, when it was also Howard who publicly talked of needing to "secure" energy resources in Iraq and the Middle East.
The sub headlines were also edited to remove the dead giveaway line 'Another Reason Is To Uphold Prestige Of US, UK', to be replaced with the far more Freedom And Democracy Agenda-friendly 'We'll Stay Until Iraq No Longer Needs Us, Says PM'.
But perhaps more importantly, note that on both the 'corrected' and 'uncorrected' stories above, the byline clearly reads "By Staff Writers And Wires".
AAP may have supplied a story that claimed Howard said Australia had an interest in staying in Iraq to secure future oil supplies, which is, of course, exactly what he said, but unless the byline is a total lie, more than one journo rewrote or added to the text and headline and sub headlines before it went online. Hence "by staff writers and wires".
But to Howard's utter horror, that correction, sorry clarification, only made it onto the story on the main news.com.au site.
The calls for clarifications to the story must not have gotten through to other city newspaper editors and staff in Murdoch's network. Unless, of course, they chose to ignore the clarifications because the story didn't need any clarifying at all. It was true.
And if that was the case, then good on them for not following directions from head office, via the Howard office.
The below pages were all still online through the Murdoch online stable at 10-11am today, and later.
Australia's biggest selling daily newspaper, The Herald Sun, ran the following editorial today, hitting the presses before it could be pulled, and staying online, unchanged, well into the late morning :
The Tasmania Mercury still had this up on their site at midday :
And the Murdoch site in Perth still had this posted after midday today :
Even though the story of Howard's Iraq Oil Slick was running up hundreds of comments an hour on websites around Australia, any mention of it was gone from the news.com.au front page by 10.30am this morning.
Over at Murdoch's flagship 'The Australian' newspaper website, at least three key columnists weighed in supporting Howard's claim that he didn't say what he said, and it really didn't matter even if the prime minister and the defence minister did say what they said. Which they did.
Just to jog your memory, here's a reminder of what John Howard had to say about claims that the, then, still coming War On Iraq was about something other than WMDs and deposing Saddam Hussein back in February, 2003 :
"No criticism is more outrageous than the claim that US behaviour is driven by a wish to take control of Iraq's oil reserves."
And here's what the Murdoch media's favourite political whipping post, Greens Leader Bob Brown had to say in that same week, in 2003 :
This is not Australia's war. This is an oil war. This is the US recognising that, as the economic empire of the age, it needs oil to maintain its pre-eminence.
Back then, 76 percent of Australians were opposed to a War On Iraq.
By midday today, the Australia In Iraq For The Oil scandal was making international news, in a big way.
And the hundreds of headlines from around the world were immune to Howard's attempt to reframe his own comments, and those of his defence minister. They went in hard, using Howard as the first leader of a Coalition Of The Drilling country to finally admit the truth about a war so blackened and poisoned with so many lies :
Some of those same news sites ran Howard's attempts to deny that he said what he said, but his retraction was given mostly backwater coverage. Those international editors knew, like some editors of Murdoch's Australian newspapers knew, that Howard was trying to scam them.
Like he tried to scam the entire nation back in late 2002 when he said he hadn't decided whether or not he would send troops to Iraq, when they were already in the Gulf. And in early March, 2003, when Howard said he hadn't decided yet whether or not commit troops to the coming war, when some of those already deployed troops had already written letters to their children in case they died during the fighting.
So when are we going to have an investigation into the real reasons why Australia became involved in the War On Iraq?
When are we going to have an investigation into Howard government foreign minister Alexander Downer's meetings with some of the world's biggest oil companies in 2002-2004?
When are we going to have an investigation into the false intelligence circulated so enthusiastically by the Howard government and the Murdoch media back in 2002 and early 2003?
Taxpayers who were swindled of almost $20 billion over eight years for the War On Iraq deserve the truth.
The thousands of Australian soldiers who served in Iraq, the hundreds physically & psychologically wounded, those who committed suicide after they got back, the families ruined, deserve nothing less than the truth.
Friday, April 23, 2010
The First Rule Of Elderly Ex-Prime Minister Fight Club Is....
This video story from Lateline explains what's going on behind this excellent photo from an AAP photographer, which appears to show former Australian prime ministers Bob Hawke and John Howard on the verge of exchanging blows....or Hawke beating Howard in a particularly aggressive game of Rock, Paper, Scissors :
When the Australian Broadcasting Corporation launched its political analysis program Insiders in 2001 the public broadcaster's own staff were forbidden from being panelists.
John Howard's coalition government was closely monitoring the ABC, which it viewed as enemy territory, and network programmers mindful of not agitating outspoken communications minister Richard Alston approved the show on condition only external commentators representing a spectrum of different views were used.
And yet, despite very strong opinions and criticisms from ABC journalists and commentators against prime minister Kevin Rudd all over ABC radio, TV and online, not one journalist has so far revealed any pressure coming from the PM's office to tone it down or shut up.
Monday, November 23, 2009
If Tony Blair Is A War Criminal, Then So Is John Howard
By Darryl Mason
I've been saying it here for years, but has any Australian journalist ever asked John Howard, "While you were in Washington DC, between Sept 11 and Sept 15, did you make a commitment to President George W. Bush that Australian troops would fight the War On Iraq?"
Leaked docs reveal then British PM Tony Blair committed troops to the War On Iraq as early as February 2002.
Did President Bush use Howard's Sept 2001 commitment to fighting the War On Iraq to push Tony Blair to sign on, too?
The documents - transcripts of interviews from an internal defence ministry review of the conflict - disclose that some planning for the Iraq war had begun in February 2002. Major General Graeme Lamb, then head of Britain's special forces, was quoted as saying he had been "working the war up since early 2002", according to the newspaper.
In July 2002, Blair told lawmakers at a House of Commons committee session there were no preparations to invade Iraq.
Critics of the war have long insisted Blair offered President George W Bush an assurance as early as mid-2002 - before British MPs voted in 2003 to approve UK involvement - that Britain would join the war.
The leaked documents are likely to be supplied to a public inquiry established by Prime Minister Gordon Brown to scrutinise prewar intelligence and postwar planning, and which will hold its first evidence sessions later this week.
Brown appointed ex-civil servant John Chilcot to lead the panel, which will call Blair and the current and former heads of Britain's MI6 intelligence agency - John Sawers and John Scarlett - to give testimony in person.
When will John Howard finally face the kind of interrogation Tony Blair is about to undergo?
If you piss off the Indonesians, the cartoonists at the Jakarta Post will go hard and shred you mercilessly, even if you are the prime minister of Australia.
As John Howard and Alexander Downer discovered, in April 2006 :
You probably didn't need to see that again. No doubt, it's already burned into your mind, forever.
UPDATE : I spoke to soon. The Indonesian president is reportedly heading to Australia next month for "crisis talks" with Kevin Rudd. Jakarta Post cartoonists sit ready and waiting....
It’s all Kevin Rudd’s fault. Here we are, nearly two years out of the Howard years and happily consigning them to well-deserved oblivion.
And then Rudd has to mention the war; and of course John Howard and Peter Costello lurch out of the political cemetery to boast about the size and quality of their tombstones and pretend they are not really dead after all, and Malcolm Turnbull feels that he has to join in and defend the two people in the world he most wants to forget. Such is the level of discussion in contemporary Australia.
The trigger, of course, was Paul Kelly’s latest blockbuster, a weighty, indeed ponderous, attempt to spin the 24 years of government by Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard with (in alphabetical order) Peter Costello into one seamless thread of economic reform.
Launching the book, Rudd predictably dismissed the Howard-Costello period as a mere hiatus; he and only he was the true bearer of the flame kindled in 1983. This admittedly partisan view was derided as mean-spirited and mendacious, but it did invite a critical appraisal of Howard’s legacy and what, if anything it has left us. And on close examination it is not a legacy which can be dismissed lightly. It can, however, be dismissed heavily, so here goes.
The proudest boast of Howard and Costello was that they handed over a robust and vibrant economy, free of debt and sizzling with growth. It was indeed free of government debt; on the other hand private debt, vigorously encouraged by government policy, was through the roof and still climbing. And certainly Australia’s economy was growing and had been for many years.
The problem was that the growth had been squandered on election bribes to middle class voters. Vast quantities of tax had been collected only to be handed back, although the hand outs disproportionately favoured the top end of town. Very little was invested in infrastructure and still less set aside for the inevitable downturn – thus Rudd’s need to borrow large amounts, which is now the target of coalition outrage.
Indeed, so extreme had been Howard’s profligacy that if all his 2007 election promises had been honoured, the budget would have gone into structural deficit even if the boom had continued. Not much of a bequest after all.
*************
Rudd’s principal charge against them is that they did almost nothing to boost productivity against the inevitable time when the mining boom came to an end. Education, research and innovation were all allowed to run down, almost to the point of stagnation. This is where the bonanza should have gone and this will be the priority in the years ahead.
In other words, economic reform will certainly continue, but not as an end in itself: it will henceforth be a means towards social reform. And it is by this criterion that Rudd’s own legacy will be judged.
Prime minister Kevin Rudd has succeeded, once again, in getting the past and present stars of the Liberal Party to waffle on defending decisions made one, two and three decades ago. Just as he intended. Dennis Shanahan in The Australian :
John Howard and Peter Costello have struck back politically and personally at Kevin Rudd's characterisation of their government as indolent and uncaring neo-liberals, declaring the Prime Minister has reached "new heights of political mendacity".
Stirred from his sick bed, Australia's second-longest-serving prime minister has accused his successor of politicising and demeaning 30 years of continuing Australian government reforms, including those of the Hawke-Keating era, for partisan benefit.
On Monday, Mr Rudd, at the launch of The March of Patriots, by The Australian's Paul Kelly, said the Howard government had been "indolent" and the Coalition could not claim to be partners with Labor in Australia's economic reforms of the past 30 years.
"The Liberals' failure to advance a framework for increasing national productivity is not a minor blemish on their economic record," Mr Rudd said.
"It reflects a fundamental failure of long-term economic reform and casts legitimate doubt over the extent to which the Liberal Party can be regarded as partners with Labor in the great project of economic modernisation."
Even social reforms that "endured through long periods of Liberal rule" survived, according to the Prime Minister, only because of political expediency and not because of any genuine support or belief.
Rudd has effectively pulled off this kind of caper, of forcing Liberals to go on the defensive about their most important claims to economic success and major reform, from the very first week of his leadership of the Labor Party. Rudd's strategy of getting the Liberals all hackled up succeeded all the way through the 2007 election campaign. And it's still working now for Rudd.
In one fashion or another we are all political warriors, but we have a superior obligation to the national interest. That obligation obtains in opposition as well as in government.
No side of Australian politics has a monopoly of either virtue or merit. Each according to its own value system has attempted to improve the lot of Australians.
In failing to acknowledge this last Monday, my successor diminished himself, and not the Liberal and National Parties.
This 24 hour wonder must have been worth a few good laughs for Rudd.
.
Monday, September 07, 2009
The Symbolism Of Howardism
The Australian's 'editor-at-large' (does this mean he works from home?) Paul Kelly is, curiously, trying to perfume up the wretched stink of The Howard Era with a new book, but Howard's love of the Easiest Option Loaded With Symbolism keeps blasting through the quiet-dignity renovation work from Kelly, continually exposing the phoniness of his 11 years in power :
With John Howard facing political oblivion in September 2007, Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson delivered him a potential re-election strategy in an unprecedented letter.
He suggested three ideas for Howard's election agenda: a referendum to deliver "recognition of indigenous people within a reconciled, indivisible nation", a referendum for an Australian republic based on an affirmation of the British heritage, and a paradigm shift from a "welfare state" to an "opportunity state".
Howard embraced the first proposal but rejected the other two.
You don't get a knighthood if you try to make Australia mature enough to do away with the monarchy.
Meanwhile, a dash of drama in the countdown to John Howard's state funeral :
Former Australian prime minister John Howard was hospitalised over the weekend after a severe allergic reaction to an anaesthetic, it was reported Sunday.Howard, whose conservative administration ruled Australia from 1996 to 2007, spent two nights in hospital after suffering an anaphylactic reaction to anaesthetic during a visit to the dentist...
Howard-Hating Lefties Foil Howard Glorifiers, Again!
By Darryl Mason
Gerard Henderson, Australia's most boring columnist, and former John Howard government staffer, hates a new doco on the Howard era so much he makes me want to watch it. I mean if it shits Gerard Henderson this much, it must be good :
If you want to work out who won what was billed as "the culture wars" during the time of the Howard government, tune into SBS One at 8.30 pm tonight. This is the first episode of the three-part series titled Liberal Rule: The Politics that Changed Australia, which is produced by Nick Torrens Film Productions and written by Nick Torrens and Garry Sturgess.
Liberal Rule is a shocker and a disgrace.
There would have been no problem if Torrens and Sturgess had sought to present a balanced picture of the Howard government by seeking a diversity of opinions....
Sounds like they didn't bother to interview Henderson. That's a cardinal sin for producers of documentaries about John Howard.
Over the three episodes, the left has free kick after free kick with the support of the documentary's narrator, who added what Torrens described as "the necessary layers of subtext". In fact, the "balanced picture" of the Howard government was provided by...Howard-haters...
Only people who like John Howard should be interviewed for documentaries about John Howard, apparently.
Unlike the Labor Party, the Liberals do not take their history seriously.
C'mon, Hendo, it's hard for anyone, even some Liberals, to look back at the last five or six years of Liberal Party history and not splutter with laughter.
The Opposition frontbencher George Brandis is one of the brightest Liberals. Writing in The Spectator, he complained that that Liberals are not celebrating the 100th anniversary of the formation of the inaugural Liberal Party. But Brandis could have arranged such a celebration himself.
It was a party even Brandis knew few would bother to attend, even if the booze was free and Peter Costello was booked to do Peter Garrett impersonations. Probably why Henderson didn't organise such an anniversary celebration at his Sydney Institute.
Henderson castigates those he brands Howard-Hating Lefties for spending thousands of hours researching, filming and editing a three hour documentary, for not a whole lot of money, but who else is bothering to make documentaries, even for YouTube, about the Howard years?
What exactly is stopping all these people who truly believe the John Howard years were the golden days of 21st century Australia from going and making their own documentaries?
Absolutely nothing.
With digital video technology, searchable document and record databases, cheap or free sound editing software, and presumably easy access to all the Liberal Party talking heads they could want (and don't forget Gerard Henderson), conservative Howard Hugging documentary makers can go to town spending a couple of years crafting their own version of the Diamond Days Of John Howard without spending hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.
They could probably raise a reasonable production budget at a couple of fund-raising dinners.
But they won't do that, of course.
Pulling together a three hour documentary, featuring dozens of interviews, on a low budget, is fucking hard work.
Watching the same interviews dozens of times until they haunt your sleep, doing transcripts, searching endlessly for that one bit of essential footage or audio clip you were sure you had but now can't find, and when you do finally find it it turns out to be useless, all of this leaches away at your life and spirit. It's not a nine to five job, it becomes an obsession to get the thing right, to make it flow, to make the story move forward, always.
Anyone can do all this now for a small to reasonable budget and make 1, 2, 3 or 12 hour documentaries about that tell the story of the Howard Years that Goddamn Lefties Don't Want Australiia To Know About.
Gerard Henderson could have made a John Howard : He Made This Country What It Is Today You Ungrateful Bastards documentary himself, for very little money, screened it at his Sydney Institute, whined until the ABC paid him for the rights to screen it, complained about them not promoting it enough, or giving him an interview on the 7.30 Report, turned a reasonable profit, and then Gerard could have spent months bitching bitterly about its reviews.
Unlike most of the Liberal Party, and Liberal Party supporters, Howard likes Malcolm Turnbull, a lot :
"Malcolm is very capable and I think he demonstrated last night..."
I'm not running the rest of that quote, you can read it here, it's too early in the morning for that kind of stuff.
Howard also likes Bob Hawke :
"The most talented person I faced..."
Again, too early, the rest of that quote is here, but you may need a strong coffee first.
Howard better not go too far with all this praise, someone might get jealous :
John Howard, the prime minister who lost his seat to a former host from ABC's 7.30 Report and Lateline (that still reads like an alternate reality joke from The Chaser, a very very funny one) is close to finishing his book. A rumour of a working title :
John Howard : How I Made Australia Grate
There will be many photos of John Howard with his favourite men.
Now this, this is a snub. In South Park, John Howard is still prime minister of Australia :
What a waste. South Park could have so much fun with Kevin Rudd :
"John Howard and Vladimir Putin are depicted as still being the leaders of Australia and Russia, respectively, although Howard was defeated in his re-election bid and Putin stepped down as president of Russia, becoming prime minister, before the episode aired," the entry says.
The episode has not yet been broadcast in Australia.
It doesn't matter whether the episode has been 'broadcast' in Australia or not, tens of thousands of Australians have already downloaded the torrent of this episode from The Pirate Bay or other file sharing sites. If SBS isn't prepared to air these new episodes on the same day as American viewers get them, they've only got themselves to blame for decreased ratings.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Howard : You Stupid People, Why Can't You See How Mega I Was?
By Darryl Mason
How strong, how formidable a legacy can it really be when John Howard has to repeatedly remind us of how strong and formidable that legacy is supposed to be?
"The legacy of the former Liberal government is one that we should all want to own," says the 2007' Federal Election's Biggest Loser, who, in the words of Dame Elizabeth Murdoch, destroyed the Liberal Party on his way to retirement.
"Australia was a stronger, prouder and more prosperous nation in November 2007 than it had been in March 1996. Yet attempts have been made to discount the contributions of competitive capitalism and more open markets to the remarkable economic growth, in many nations, during these past 30 years."
And how many of those who "prospered" through increased access to cheap and voluminous personal credit remain prosperous today? Enough to sustain that fantasy...sorry, legacy?
John Howard spells out "Who We Liberals Are" for those who have forgotten, and how easily they forget :
"We are a party of the individual rather than of the collective. We see the maximum good for the nation being achieved when each individual is encouraged to do his or her best.
"We are a party that should always see the family as the most important unit in our society, not only as a source of love and emotional security, but also, quite pragmatically, as mankind's most efficient social welfare system. Liberals should always retain their strong belief in the fundamental force of the market. That does not mean that the market always functions smoothly or that it is not open to abuse."
And something from Mr Howard about a new great, or even greater, depression now looms thanks to some of the most outrageous gambles and acts of mega-billion dollar fraud ever committed in the history of the world, perhaps?
No.
"The notion that markets need extensive reregulation is based on a false reading of what has happened to the world economy."
World economy? Do they still even call it that? What's left of it?
It's bad enough that Rudd & Friends dare to claim credit for what was achieved during the Liberal Years Of Peace And Prosperity And Magic Wonderfulness For All, but Howard is so desperate to scrabble for scraps of credibility and respect these days that he is positioning himself as having continued in the tradition of 1980s economic reformers, and former prime ministers, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating.
Heeeeerrrrrre's Johnny :
"In 1980 our nation needed five great reforms. We needed to deregulate our financial system, fundamentally change our taxation system, make our labour markets freer, reduce excessively high tariffs and rid the government of ownership of commercial enterprises that would be better run privately. By 2007 these five great reforms had been achieved."
Folding himself into the legacy of the Hawke and Keating Years must have come as something of a surprise for the Liberal desperates gathered to hear Howard speak yesterday.
Well, gathered to hear Malcolm Turnbull speak, suffering through Howard, stifling snores and groans as they collectively wondered when this loser was going to get the fuck off the stage so Turnbull could wake up himself and get on with leading the Liberal Party into whatever hell awaits them next.
END OF PART ONE
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
John Howard Happy That Al Qaeda's Prayers Have Been Answered
After accepting his Medal Of Freedom from President Bush, ex-Australian prime minister, John Howard, described his happiness that Al Qaeda got what he believed they wanted.
“There is no doubt it is an historic moment for the United States to have for the first time a president who is an African-American and it must be a wonderful thing if you are that part of that section of this country to feel at long last one of your own has been chosen for the highest office," Mr Howard said at a media conference.
“People want him to succeed; I want him to succeed.’’
Obviously he's talking about Barack Obama, but when John Howard doesn't like somebody, he consistently refuses to say their name, even when speaking at length about them. The name "Obama" did not leave Howard's lips during his post-decoration press conference.
"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...be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."
Howard will only say this, now :
“But you say a lot of things to get a point across and I don’t think there is anything served by revisiting it,’’ Mr Howard said.
Here's how President Bush described John Howard, and why he was rewarding Howard for his "loyalty", along with two other "loyal" former leaders, including the already all but forgotten Tony Blair :
“They are the sort of guys who look you in the eye, and tell you the truth and keep their word.”
John Howard gave his word to Bush that Australia would send troops to a War On Iraq within days of the September 11 terror attacks. He didn't bother telling the Australian public that he had committed Australian troops to fight in the Iraq War until the eve of the war itself.
Howard yesterday on Iraq :
“I think it is fair to say that President Bush was right and most of his critics were wrong,’’ saying thanks to the surge there was a reasonable prospect of an “Iraqi version of democracy”.
One of the main reasons why the so-called 'troop surge' succeeded was the implementation of a program where the most deadly of Iraqi insurgents were paid, handsomely, not to kill American troops. Those who we were told were "terrorists!" were rewarded for their ability to slay Australian, American and British soldiers. They didn't negotiate with these terrorists, they just handed them big bags of cash.
My father, Murray Tindale, was one of about 12 Australian servicemen who received a Medal of Freedom (which I still have) from President Truman after World War II.
My father, who spoke fluent Japanese, received his medal for his service with the 158th Regimental Combat Team, including "successfully handling over 600 prisoners of war during the Luzon campaign" in 1945.
I have the newspaper cutting listing the famous Australians, such as General Frank Berryman and Lieutenant-General Sir Leslie Morshead, who bravely served their country when Australia was in peril. These are normally the sort of people who are awarded this very high honour by the US.
To present the Medal of Freedom to John Howard denigrates the award, its holders and their achievements.
John Howard, February 2007 : Al Qaeda Should "Hang On" In Iraq And Pray "As Many Times As Possible" For Barack Obama To Become The American President
By Darryl Mason
Pointing out that President George W. Bush can have moments of confusion about international forums ("APEC/OPEC"?) is not an international scandal. Kevin Rudd is right. What John Howard tried to do to Barack Obama as soon as it became clear he might have a reasonable shot at ending two centuries of mostly privileged white male rule of the White House was far, far worse, and will be a larger and far more noticed footnote in history now that Obama is president. John Howard was the first high profile conservative to carefully try and link the words 'Obama' and 'Al Qaeda' in the international media, back on February 11, 2007, doing so within hours of Barack Obama announcing he intended to go for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination :
The conservative leader said on commercial television that Senator Obama's pledges on Iraq were good news only for insurgents operating in the war-ravaged country.
"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," Mr Howard told the Nine Network.
"If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March (sic) 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."
"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 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."
"Mr Howard must not allow his personal relationship with President Bush to impact on Australia's long-term alliance relationship with the United States."
"I disagreed with the coalition's decision to invade Iraq ... But I have seen it as my role to discuss the future of Australian foreign policy on Iraq, not lecture United States citizens on how they should vote in the upcoming presidential election."
Of course, Al Qaeda want the wars that have cost the United States tens of thousands of lives, minds and limbs, and more than a trillion dollars, to continue for as long as possible. Bin Laden's announced strategy at the start of the war was to bankrupt the United States through endless war, so Al Qaeda endorsed John McCain :
"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election...(McCain will continue the) failing march of his predecessor."
Howard's unprecedented interference in American elections was the first sign to me that he was was full of panic over the majority of Australians, British and Americans rejecting the continuation of the Iraq War and that he was going to lose the late 2007 elections, if he didn't get tossed from the leadership first. It was an extremely stupid thing to do, and a clear sign that Howard was losing his previously razor-sharp political instincts, perhaps from drinking, or a bit of dementia.
Howard's attack on Obama was the first or second story on every American national news broadcast that Sunday night, and both Republicans and Democrat senators told Howard to butt out of their politics. President Bush did not come to Howard's defence, and made no comment on the incident.
"...my job is to try and call what I think are the consequences of certain actions against Australia's national interest..."
"...if America is defeated in Iraq, it will be a colossal blow to Western prestige and it will give an enormous boost to terrorism and to terrorists not only in the Middle East but in our part of the world and that will not be in Australia's national interest..."
"...if we are out in a year's time it will be in circumstances of defeat."
"Now that would be circumstances of defeat and I know that the consequences of that for the West, its prestige, American prestige and influence in the Middle East, to spur that would give the terrorism in the Middle East, the implications it would have for the stability of other countries in the Middle East and also in our part of the world, the spur to terrorism..."
So will John Howard publicly welcome the Barack Obama administration, and will he apologise for his bizarre and utterly false February 11, 2007 comments?
The Australian Welfare Bludger As Ex-Prime Minister
By Darryl Mason
Ex-Australian Rupert Murdoch has a message for welfare-soakers, like our ex-prime ministers, including his old mate John Howard :
(We should be) working for a society where citizens are not dependent on the government. That means ending subsidies for people who do well...
While a safety net is warranted for those in genuine need, we must avoid institutionalising idleness. The bludger should not be our national icon.
Too bloody right.
John Howard is now clocking up over $8500 per week in 'expenses', beaten only by fellow ex-Liberal prime minister, Malcolm Fraser. And that's on top of their super-super and pensions which total beyond $400,000 a year.
Some of the items and luxuries you can claim as 'expenses' when you're a living Australian ex-prime minister :
$5000 worth of newspapers and magazines, per year.
$700 to hire indoor plants.
$3000 a week for rental of office space.
$4000 a week for office staff.
$1000 a week for mobile phones.
Naturally, Howard does not want to talk publicly about this awesome display of professional welfare-soaking.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
John The Howard Years : We Will Decide.....What I've Already Decided
More biased ABC programming, funded by taxpayers, loaded with the usual suspects mostly all singing the same song, and all of it aimed at making John The Howard look like an even bigger loser than he already is :
After keeping his peace for almost a year, John Howard will use a forthcoming ABC series to present his version of events leading up to last year's election loss - including why he did not stand aside in 2006.
The program also reveals that three of his government's most important policies - the GST, the Pacific solution and self-determination for East Timor - were decided with little or no discussion.
The Herald has learnt that Mr Howard, who was interviewed extensively for the four-part series, has explained candidly that he did not step aside for Peter Costello in 2006 because the vast majority of his party wanted him to stay.
An outrageous waste of taxpayers money. It's an obvious attempt by Evil Pagan Lefty ABC journalists to make Howard look like some kind of dictator for not bothering to consult with Cabinet on some of the most important decisions of his years in power.
Why won't the ABC just tell the truth - that the Howard Years were the best years in the life of any nation, in history, ever, anywhere, forever, amen?
Isn't it bad enough that Howard had to suffer the icy total humiliation of losing his seat to an ABC journalist in last year's election? Lefty, socialist, watermelon, Marxist, pagan, Whitlam worshipping, ABC brown shirterers are now devoting hours of prime time TV to letting Howard humiliate himself further in public. And you pay for it! Privatise The ABC!
It's amazing how easy it is to write like a thoroughly demented Boltoid.
On the Pacific solution, the former foreign minister, Alexander Downer, says the policy was formulated when he was asked by Mr Howard to "Go and find someone who will take [the asylum-seekers]". Mr Downer says that one of his staff members suggested Nauru, which was desperate for aid money.
The former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer reveals the same lack of consultation when Mr Howard decided to write to the then Indonesian president, B. J. Habibie, telling him Australia would be backing independence for East Timor. The letter "never went to cabinet," he says.
Similarly a former Howard chief of staff, Grahame Morris, says there was "no great discussion" about the GST because the prime minister was afraid of leaks.
Howard knew he couldn't trust most of those closest to him in political power. At all.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Is It Worse To Be Remembered As A Loser Or A Coward? Howard Now Remembered As Both
By Darryl Mason
Obviously all those Evil Pagan Lefty chants of 'Howard The Coward!' really made an impact on the former prime minister during his last years in office.
John Howard now freely admits, to former John Howard staffer Gerry "Brown Tongue" Henderson, that he refused to give up the leadership of the Liberal Party in the months leading up to his devastating 2007 federal election defeat because he didn't want to remembered as a coward who was too scared to face defeat.
So Howard is a loser and a coward, because he ultimately lost the election after he refused to step aside for a new leader when it still might have made a different to the Liberal Party's election chances, all due to his terror at the possible puncturing of his massive ego.
The senior Liberal Andrew Robb told John Howard late last year the Coalition government was headed for a "train wreck" as he mounted a last-ditch bid to have him step aside for Peter Costello.
But Mr Howard told his minister that while he was pessimistic about the election, he "had more show of winning than Peter" and if he stepped down voluntarily, history would regard him as "a coward".
Mr Howard (said) the party as a whole never made its view clear. "If my senior colleagues were, as a group, prepared to own a request for me to go, I'd have gone," he said.
"But I was not going to, out of the blue, go because I didn't think that would have produced a different result and that I would have rightly been criticised for cowardice."
Consider all this an attempt by John Howard, and his loyal former staffer Gerry, to get down on the record their version of what happened before the release of Peter Costello's memoir, which will very likely detail a different reality.
For someone who claimed he would not be around yabbering away in the media all the time after he left office (like former prime minister Paul Keating), John Howard sure spends a lot of time talking to the media (like Paul Keating).
Not complaining of course, it's still very fucking funny indeed to see Howard trying to shore up his version of how he absolutely did not all but destroy the party he led for 12 years because he was terrified of being remembered as a coward, primarily by his wife Janet.
Hilariously, now Howard is remembered as both a Coward and a Loser by former key members of his own government, and much of the Australian public.
Howard is much more entertaining now he's just another whining baby boomer reflecting on past glories, and failures.
