Gina-Marie CheesemanRudd catches Howard chasing a ball outside off-stump.
February 14th 2007 15:39
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.
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.
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 |
Subscribe to this blog
