Feb 11 2007

Three Cheers For Howard

Published by at 2:54 pm under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT

Australia’s Prime Minister Howard said the obvious today: al Qaeda would really love for Barack Obama to win the Presidential election in 2008 and hasten the surrender of the West in the ME. Howard has every right to make this statement since he has put his military forces into harms way to fend off the evil that is Islamo Fascism. And it is no small fact that Australia lies much closer to the Islamo Fascist threat and has seen a lot of its own citizens killed in the attacks in Bahli and elsewhere. Howard is just being realistic. Those who are trying to stem the tide of al Qaeda cannot do it without America. As the Tsunami response in Indonesia and elsewhere clearly illustrated, without US logistics no major movements of material and people are possible. US air support, sea power, intelligence are just as critical as our fighting forces on the ground in Baghdad. And Obama represents a complete surrender and withdrawal. We may not like what Howard has to say, but it is because he is right and it is because his people are out there now. They will still be out there if we leave and that makes it uncomfortable for us to hear the truth. Fact is we cannot afford to elect a democrat President unless it is someone just like Joe Lieberman. And if that is what it takes to win, so be it.

39 responses so far

39 Responses to “Three Cheers For Howard”

  1. Dc says:

    I would just add, that part of Obama’s response was ….

    “it was flattering to have one of G. Bush’s allies attack me on the day I announced..”.

    Excuse me? You mean an ally of the United States of America in war?

  2. wickedpinto says:

    DGF? There are dead women in Iraq, how much did they have to do with the fighting?

    Shut up!!!! Bufoon! Service is service, and theatre is theatre.

    As for Howard AJ, I was in AU during his first re-election. The woman that I love most in the world is australian, and she hated that I loved howard then. She’s since changed.

    she has learned since 2K that the man she loves (me) was a Marine, and that Howard has done more for US servicemen in recognizing their memory, than most dem’s.

  3. Terrye says:

    75% Ever notice how thqt number gets bigger everytime these people shoot thier mouths off?

    A lot of peopl want the war to be over, count me among them…but that does not mean that I just want to leave Iraq and neither do 75% of the people in the country.

    The antiwar people who say things like Cindy Sheehan said…this country is not worth fighting for…think that everyone who would like to see the war in Iraq over with thinks like they do. You would think that the Lamont Lieberman campaign might have taught them that the situation is a tad more nuanced than that.

    But they can not see past the ends of their noses. Most people are just tired of hearing about the war and most people are tired of the obnxious socalled anti war crowd. People think that if the war is over, then people like passoing stupid here [or whatever he calls himself} will crawl back under his rock and shut the hell up.

  4. dennisa says:

    “It’s kind of pompous to pigeonhole so many. ”

    I’m only referring to the anti-war legends in their own mind who post on the internet.

  5. ivehadit says:

    DC, that is really a profound comment by Obama…that one of the countries of the world that wants to fight off Islamofascists is referred to in a derogatory manner.

    Sick, sick, sick. I despise these Leftists. Why can’t our countrymen see what they are up to? It’s amazing to me that so many people in our country are in denial about these democrats…that DO NOT want America to succeed…that America needs to be brought down to the level of France…Enraging to me.

    I attended a dinner this week-end where Romney spoke. He was very ARTICULATE 🙂 when speaking about what I call the “silent coup” (from the Anchoress). I am just praying that more Americans will wake up to this very dangerous time we live in…and not be CONNED by the democrats.

  6. ivehadit says:

    Lassoinging, you know absolutely NOTHING about New Orleans and the Levy Board and Corp of Engineers. I lived there 20 years and know EXACTLY what went on. And for the record, the waters went underneath the levy and washed it out…Design flaw.

    And tell me, why would a Levy board own a casino?

    Sorry, but you can’t spout that lib tripe here and get away with it.

  7. Soothsayer says:

    For God’s sake, it’s Bali. Please learn how to spell!

    AJ don’t need no stinkin’ spellcheck! He’s already said – he’s such a buzy man – he don need to spel kerrect in them perlz of wizdum.

  8. Dc says:

    re: Obama’s comment about being attacked by one of “Bush’s” allies:

    Yes, the democrats plan is to attack the enemy (the US and those who support us) and offer support and words of econouragement to anyone who is fighting or working against the “enemy”, (ie..which also includes the entire Executive branch of the US gov or more inclusively..anybody who is a republican or who otherwise doesn’t agree with them). I think that statement by Obama is very telling. He’s not alone in making such statements. Democrats feel selectively part of the US..and then..not. It’s not the US that is at war. It’s not US policy. It’s “Bush’s” war, and Bush’s policy. So, in that mind, they are “only” disagreeing with Bush when they work to undermind the war effort or directly assult US policy makers, undermind national security, etc. To them, they are only attacking and hurting Bush, (not the US). Matter of fact, they get down right indignant if you suggest that this is in fact what they are doing. You have any number of variations of that theme on different fronts..such as the “2 Americas” theme.

    They just haven’t found out yet how to take surrender at all cost and put in in words that most people will find appealling. The entire “we support the troops but not the mission” is a complete failure. It would be as stupid as us trying to suggest that…we support Bush, but not his policies? Or visa-versa.

    Either one of those work for you? I should think not. It didn’t work for J Kerry in 04. And it’s not going to work for the democrats now.

  9. lassoingtruth says:

    First, I repeat, Strata suggests Australia needs the US to protect it against enemies Australia has (whether deservedly or not) and believes it’s just fine for that country’s leader to politick in ours
    against one who would theoretically force that country to defend itself while we prioritize domestic problems. That’s not patriotic
    of you, AJ.
    Kathie, perhaps you haven’t noticed; the war is going so badly,
    at least a third of the Republicans want out as badly as the Dems,
    and if they believed they could get away with it politically,
    perhaps that total would come to 50% or more.

    DC-America’s reputation in the Mideast is shot, stay or leave.
    What it has allowed in Iraq for the past two years,by way of your
    contrast with “all-out civil war” is viewed by 95% of the “Moslem
    street”as disqualifying it from having any positive value as an intervener in the future. It is a lose-lose proposition for us, but
    the greater loss would be allowing Bush to attack Iran, which he is more likely to do if tempted by continued Iraq occupation.

    I’ve had it-if you are so familiar, why can you not spell “levee?”
    Funds for repair of the levees have been misspent for decades
    by corrupt and incompetent La. politicos. But they don’t
    beat the level of corruption and lost dollars spent on Iraq.

    DC-Hillary, Biden, Edwards are “Bush lite” interventionists.
    The Democratic Party hierarchy is not listening to their rank and
    file closely enough if they nominate one of this ilk rather
    than one closer to Kucinich.

  10. Dc says:

    America’s reputation in the ME was shot LONG before Bush ever got into office. It has “always” been a los/lose game to have anything to do with the region. Whether you support the “shah” or shoot him, it doesn’t change the underlying currents that drive issues in that part of the world that are primarily based on sectarian religious, racial and other “blood libel”s that are centuries old.

  11. Dc says:

    the democratic rank and file behind Kucinich is about an nth of one percent of the democratic party (much less the entire voting block)

    That, would be suicide.

  12. dgf says:

    DC —

    America’s reputation in the ME was shot LONG before Bush ever got into office. It has “always” been a los/lose game to have anything to do with the region. Whether you support the “shah” or shoot him, it doesn’t change the underlying currents that drive issues in that part of the world that are primarily based on sectarian religious, racial and other “blood libel”s that are centuries old.
    Yup. Now you mention it, I remember that it was just for those reasons that Bush and Cheney worked so hard to keep us from making the mistake of invading Iraq. Shame they failed.

  13. lassoingtruth says:

    DGF and DC

    James Burnham -an old line conservative , once said “America has only one real interest in the Mideast-oil. And they’ll sell us the oil at market prices,whoever owns it.”

    This does not satisfy the American oiligarchs who want close control
    and more profit from the oil and who disguise their greed as
    “patriotic.” Nor does it satisfy the neoconservatives who believe
    we have another more important concern in the Mideast:
    assisting Israel’s expansion and continued subjugation of Palestinians.

  14. Dc says:

    Actually, the driving force behind our policy decisions in the region for decades has been….how much trouble is it. (or how much is it going to cost).

    re: Bush and Cheney, I assume you are referring to Gulf1:

    Yes, not invading IRaq was brilliant. 10 years a thorn in our side, sanctions, genocide, how many hundreds of thousands killed, multiple rocket/bomb attacks, air bases in SA for years to establish noflyzone- listed as part of Osama’s list in his first fatwa against the US? We got off cheap didn’t we! No hard feelings in the ME there on that one..no sir.

  15. Dc says:

    Lets just say we disagree entirely. The US is a constitutional republic. I’m assuming you knew that. By definition, there are no “oligarchs” here. Free trade is not oppressive in and of itself.

    It is the offical position of the United States, to support the gov of Israel. It has been since Israel was recognized. If you want to change that, then you’ll need to find an honest candidate to run on that platform. Unfortunately for you, I think you’ll find it’s not just a few rich, greedy, oligarchs that are are “jew lovers” here in the US.
    PS..don’t EVEN come to NYC. Oy.

  16. ivehadit says:

    How many entrepreneurial businesses are formed during a democrat administration, I’d like to know.

    How many people have been set free from tyranny without the United States help?

    How many people are hired by poor people? How many businesses are started by people who can’t read or write?

    What are the GDP numbers for Europe? How many people start their own busineeses in Europe? How many poor people in Europe have cable T.V.?

    How many Europeans own stock in corporations ? How many Europeans have two SUV’s and 3 TV’s per household?

    How many people are trying to immigrate to: W. Europe, Asia, S. America, Russia, Mexico, Africa…?

  17. lassoingtruth says:

    Actually, certain Scandinavian and other European countries
    have verged ahead of the US in cross the board “standard of living” charts in the past few years.

    DC. I am fully aware the very gentile “Christian Zionist”
    Israel-loving “evangelicals” provide a powerful transmission belt for Israeli interests in America. I also am aware the Incas fell at
    the feet of invading ethnic strangers whom they believed supernaturally sent and suffered quite a bit for it. And as Richard
    Haas says , regard for America and its influence is at an all time low in the Mideast due to factors many of which I suggest you analyse
    by reading the brilliant Mearsheimer/Walt report.

    And “Not invading Iraq was brilliant.” Most experts opined,pre Persian Gulf war, if Saddam was allowed to keep Kuwait, he would still sell the oil to us at market prices. Guess where the mistake was originally made in this theatre?

  18. Dc says:

    Everytime oil prices go up, the US looses influence in the world and the dicktaters get uppity (flush with cash/weapons). That’s the way it’s always been. It’s not hard to understand. Don’t know about you, but I’ve seen these things cycle around a few times.

    We could have also just killed Saddam and taken is oil. LOL. “experts”

    It is certainly your right to feel how ever you wish about Israel. I will tell you however, that you are in a decided minority in this country if your view is that Isreal should not be supported by the US as an ally in the region. The rest of your inference is your own brain cumming in your ear.

    Have a nice day.

  19. lassoingtruth says:


    you say “dictators get uppity” but you neglect to say with whom.
    if we are sold the oil, we have no right to meddle,period.
    kinda like, if your grocer sells you the produce you need, you
    have no right to meddle in his marriage by way of “counselling,”
    he and his partner to salvage it, if you are aware it is foundering.

    America can keep defending Israel in the manner it has for
    the past thirty years and continue to see its position in the
    Middle East and the world deteriorate as a result. Included
    in that deterioration is a significant amount of blood loss.
    Or it can neutralize the Zionist Lobby and minimize its losses.