Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Politics and Culture - February 2007

David Hicks to be Home by October

February 22nd 2007 12:42
It what could only be described as a completely cynical political exercise it is seeming quite likely that John Howard will push to have David Hicks returned to Australia before the next election.

Both Howard and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock have been raising the issue of David Hicks and have been expressing their feigned outrage at his long detention without trial.

It seems as though the Government have suddenly become aware at just how much ordinary Australians have been disgusted by the treatment of Hicks by the Americans as well as the Australian Governments ambivalence to his detention.


Howard is now being quoted as sharing the Australian public’s anger at the long detention without trial of Hicks but it will be interesting to see just what the public’s reaction to this turn around by the government.

The Attorney-General gave even greater credence to the "home before the election" theory when he suggested on SBS the other night that he had been looking into bringing Hicks home if the trial continues to be delayed. (One wonders why this was not done earlier!)
Govt now offers to assist Hicks
Govt offers to Assist Hicks


Terry Hicks the father of David must not know wether to laugh or cry about the sudden urgency now by the government in an election year to have something done about Hicks.


On the hand Hick's father must be pleased that the government is now appearing to become active in this matter but it must sadden and anger him that this appears to be a poll driven concern and one Howard feels must be put to rest before any election.

The Hicks issue is alone would not make voters change their vote but when grouped with other issues like Iraq and Industrial Relations it may well provide the tipping point to make some change their vote and it appears that the government will put up with the derision of any Hicks return before the next election as a completely opportunistic election ploy to have it as a non-issue when voters walk into the polling booth.

John Howard has a long history of cynical election time offerings and this will be just another in a long list.

For David Hicks and his father I hope that no matter what the reason he is returned back to Australia as quickly as possible but if and when it does I only hope that John Howard and Philip Ruddock do not strut around looking for thanks for doing something that they should have done years ago.
50
Vote
   


Last week John Howard was looking like Ricky Ponting was after his sides defeat late in the qualifying rounds of the recent one-day series.
Howard nicks one to slips


Sure he had loss a few games to his opponents but Ponting seemed to put it down to the “if you play a lot of cricket you are bound to lose a few games eventually” and he appeared supremely confident that when it came to the business end of the series the “best of three’ final that his superior form and his experienced team would comfortably win out in the end.

At a press conference today John Howard was looking as nervous as Ponting did when he was caught by an outstanding outswing delivery by now British sports hero Liam Plunkett.

Howard is generally a masterful performer in front of the media but his nervous laughing comments on how opposition leaders like to call for television debates and his admission that it was something he himself had tried seemed to underline just how rattled he has become since his Barak Obama comments to Laurie Oakes on The Sunday program on the weekend.

It has been suggested this was indeed a tactic to shift the focus from the climate change debate where he seem to stumble making an uncharacteristic stumble, in the chamber where he appears most at home, and having to make a late hour apology claiming to have misheard what was said.

Who ever gave Mr Howard this piece of advice must be looking for somewhere to hide as it has back fired and handed Kevin Rudd an area of policy he actually feels most comfortable in debating and it has given Rudd an opportunity to paint Howard into a corner.

When Howard stepped into the US presidential election it was much like the charge into Iraq, it was easy to do but he did not think through any exit strategy or have any idea where it would take him once there.

By claiming the Barak Obama would be the preferred choice of Osama Bin-Laden and terrorsit if they were to be able to vote in the next election he underestimated the support for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq by Americans.

This is not like Howard or his team of advisors to miss a fundamental point such us this and to ignore the fact that just a few months ago the Democrats were swept into majority status both in the US Congress and Senate on a wave of disenchantment over the war in Iraq.

Possibly Howard and his staff did not think his comments would rate a mention with the US media given the US medias obsession with only US news but if this is what he thought he was dead wrong and within a short time it was been discussed on US media outlets all over the country.

Barak Obama’s response was to highlight firstly his surprise that Howard unlike his Republican colleagues in the states was so quick to label him as pro-terrorist and then to ask a question that should have been asked more by the opposition back here and that is that if the Iraq War is so important to win and more importantly a complete disaster for the western world to lose why dose he send when can only be described as a token force?

Not only Democrats were taken aback by this interference in the US presidential race but Republicans as well wished that he would stay out of their domestic politics.

The Republicans could see where this line of reasoning could be eventually taken.

If you accuse Barak Obama of being the terrorist’s friend and their preferred choice of Presidential candidate are you not therefore accusing anyone who suggests withdrawal from Iraq as being the terrorists’ friend and at this moment in time that would be a very large section of the US public.

The other dilemma is in the ever increasing likelihood that the US is forced to withdraw, for example if an all out civil war breaks out or the current Iraqi government collapses if Bush and the republicans do begin withdrawal will they not have to accept they are pandering to the terrorist rather then having the opportunity to put a more positive spin on such a situation.

Domestically in Australia the Rudd lead Labor opposition was able to seize on this blunder at the same time as receiving the news that Kevin Rudd was now the most popular opposition leader since Malcom Fraser back in 1975 when the Whitlam Government was completely on the nose.

Howard is a fighter however and following concerted attacks on him in the parliament the following day he put on the gloves and came out swinging accusing Rudd of not being willing to say what he though the outcome of a US withdrawal would be and of not having the guts to admit that it would be seen as a win for the terrorist.

This strategy did appear to work with Rudd refusing to be drawn into it and avoiding it and then calling on Howard to debate him on television over it .

Then it would appear that overnight Rudd and his labor team was able to come up with a strategy that again painted Howard into corner.

Rudd began the next day with an interview on ABC National radio program where he quoted and took up the argument for staged withdrawal the US Iraq study group where it was claimed that the only way to bring about a lessening of the violence in Iraq was to have staged withdrawal and put pressure on both sides in what is seemingly more and more a civil conflict between the Shiite and Sunni groupings within Iraq.

The Study Group felt that only by withdrawing troops could you break the reliance on US troops to solve problems that the elected government of Iraq should be solving.

With the release of the finidings of the Iraq Study group, headed by former leading Republican James A Baker, broadly welcomed although not adopted by the US Republican Government as well as being given credit by both Howard and Downer alike (though one thinks in private it was probably resented but International politics in Australia and Party politics in the US prevented both Bush and Hoard saying what they really thought of it) Rudd has been able to trip Howard up.

If Howard is implying, like Barak Obama in the US, Kevin Rudd is the preferred choice of Prime Minister for terrorists is he not saying that the Iraq Study group is also siding with the terrorists to give them victory.

For Howard to take on Rudd over this and attempt to portray him as the “Terrorists mate” is to hope that the Australian public forgets just who it was who was so supportive of the charge into Baghdad under very dubious and eventually established as false reasons.

We are all aware that no WMD’s have ever been found in Iraq and it is now accepted Iraq played no part in the 9-11 terrorist attacks and nor were they supporting Al-Qaeda at the time.

Iraq now has become the number one tourist destination for today’s international terrorist and why is that so because it now has US troops occupying it.

Maybe Howard was spooked by a good performance the week before by Rudd and Labor in the week before his comments but Howard is fighting an uphill battle to win this argument at the moment while every night Australians turn on their TV’s and witness the continuing carnage in Iraq.

Howard needs to fight the upcoming election on the economy and he should not be handing out free kicks to his opponent rather he should at every attempt be shifting his focus back on the economy.

Rather like Ricky Ponting he should not be chasing balls outside off-stump but be playing the percentage shots that will come his way when his opposition stray in their delivery which given Labor’s past track record they probably will.
42
Vote
   


As an Australian I would like to ask Americans who view blogs on Orble just what they think of Australian Prime Minister John Howards comments on Obama Barak and the democrats and how he believed that Al Qaeda would be hoping that they won the next Presidential election.

I have my views but I would really like to hear from some Americans. What do you think? Do you care what John Howard or Australians think for that matter?? Please tell me.

Here is a link to a transcript of his comments.

Howard on Nines Sunday Program
46
Vote
   


Who would Osama Bin Laden vote for??

February 12th 2007 08:37
John Howard proclaimed yesterday that members of Al Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden would be hoping for a victory for U.S. presidential candidate Barak Obama but one might think if Osama was in the polling booth he may well cast his vote for a republican who cares to continue with aggressive US military policies.

There has been no better recruiting tool for Al Qaeda then continual footage of Muslims being attacked and killed by US lead forces and with everyday of continued US presence in Iraq along with other countries such as Afghanistan and Somalia as well as continued threats to Iran the line-up to join such organisations grows longer


[ Click here to read more ]
43
Vote
   


The situation in Queensland following the finalisation and subsequent recommendation to charge Snr sergeant Chris Hurley with the manslaughter and assault of Mulrunji Doomadgee in the Palm Island Police station has been a tense political stand-off between the Government and the Police force.

Retired Justice Sir Laurence Street was asked to review the evidence used by the Queensland’s Director of Public Prosecution in deciding that Sergeant Hurley had no case to answer for the death of an Aboriginal man in his custody despite the States Deputy Coroner having found that Hurley had caused the death of the man


[ Click here to read more ]
58
Vote
   


Queensland Liberals Spineless Deal!

February 4th 2007 13:01
The Queensland Liberal Party has revealed itself this week to be both spineless and inept in its dealing with the majority seat holder in opposition, the National party and has treated Liberal voters with distain.

In a decision that flies in the face of all accepted convention in the Westminster system of government that Australian parliaments have modelled themselves on the Liberal parliamentary leader Dr Bruce Flegg has announced that regardless of which party (Nationals or Liberals) wins the most seats at the next state election and if this was enough to give them a coalition government over Labor the Liberals would accept the current National party leader as premier


[ Click here to read more ]
35
Vote
   


Brisbane people to start drinking piss!

February 4th 2007 04:25
Its official! We here in Brisbane and the rest of south-east Queensland will be drinking recycled sewerage water by the end of 2008.

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie announced a proposed plebiscite on wether we wanted to drink it or not will now not go ahead.
Premier Beattie tries some recycled water

[ Click here to read more ]
58
Vote
   


More Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
77 Posts dating from December 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

Brandon Gay's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Brandon Gay
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]