Is this the face of Al Qaeda’s best friend?
Will John Howard be “standing up for Australia” and ensuring Brendan Nelson’s kids aren’t slaughtered by Al Qaeda by denouncing US Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates? I mean, doesn’t Howard owe it to our national interest to denounce any skerrick of defeatism from our great ally?
AS America’s troop surge in Baghdad gathers force, Robert Gates, the defence secretary, is already planning for failure. If the battle for security in Iraq does not succeed, he has told Congress he is prepared to move troops “out of harm’s way”.
By the way, if you were wondering what the progress of the “surge” is, look no further than TomDispatch.
Note: If you’re wondering why there’s no link to the transcript of Nelson’s pure comedy gold appearance on Lateline which I’m referring to, it’s because the ABC has outsourced a lot of the interview transcripts. Consequently they don’t turn up within a few hours on some programs, but within a week or so if we’re lucky.
Update: Nelson transcript now online.
But you’re reading this all wrong. Bill Kristol told me hisself: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/04/kristol-worried/
See? It’s all A Good Thing. Just one more Friedman and things will be different, just you wait.
You gotta remember Gates has been a career officer in the world’s largest and most bureaucratic intelligence agency for most of his working life. And joined the Company at a time when it was really starting to lose the plot.
To rise without trace in such circumstances suggests a man without qualities who will say anything to anyone if it makes him more of a someone to them. Plus as the Iran-Contra caper proved, he’s a stand up man who won’t fold at the first plea bargain offer. In short, a perfect fall guy who’ll take a few lucrative directorships for the team. And boy oh boy will they be looking for fall guys soon.
Obama makes a very good point.
John Howard is as committed and vocal on Iraqi issues as George Bush, and therefore should match the US commitment proportionally.
Australia’s troop level in Iraq should therefore be around 10,000. The extra 8,5000 would make a very significant difference to the effort, if anything is true in this whole debacle. Howard’s approach, given his high profile position, is like taking one dose of antibiotic and saving the rest for later. In fact Australia could yet be blamed for the failures in Iraq. This very clearly highlights Howard’s miserly attitudes. All talk, no delivery.
After the thousands of Australian military personel who have been killed and maimed since we joined our American allies in bestowing god’s gift of democracy upon Iraq, “ginned up” Johnny has every right to yap-yap-yap like a lap dog in support of his Crawford Ranch sleepover buddy. Blood sacrifice has its privileges.
Put a circle around that.
EC
Don’t you mean killed and maimed AMERICAN personel (25,000 wounded and killed by one report)? Australia has had only one fatal casualty as far as I am aware.
Obamas’s reply shows Howard to be a paper tiger, not the kind of friend to have in a fight. Howard should have kept his big mouth shut.
Psssst, BilB, it’s satire meant to draw attention to the tokenism of Howard’s cocooned military contribution, a contribution, as Emma Tom might say, that is “all tits and tattoos”. Let’s join the push and get with Bush(variant of All The Way With LBJ) but we don’t want to be the first ones on the block to have our boys and girls come home in a box, do we?
Rodentlogic dictates that pocket pissing is fine, but dead and miamed Aussies in a bullshit war like Iraq, would damage him domestically. Am in total accord with your last two sentences.
I think what John Howard would like to say is that all those Americans who are now against the war in Iraq are been unAustralian.
I thought it was great when Tony Jones asked Nelson if America got out of Iraq, would Australia still be there – because you know, we can’t afford to be “defeated” in Iraq. Oh, that’s hypothetical and ridiculous said Nelson. Nelson got ambushed by Jones royally last night. I hope Howard was watching.
What’s this talk of defeat? I honestly thought we were all wrapped up in victory when Bush declared the mission accomplished in May 2003.
What a shame I didn’t stay the course watching that interview then. I had to flip channels. Nelson’s haircut frightens me.
The transcript is now online
here — makes amusing reading in parts.
Kinda wish I’d stayed up to watch it, and not given in to my initial reaction of turning the tv off when I heard Nelson was going to be on…
I liked it when he refered to the troops in Iraq as “peacekeepers”. Surely all of these people hate going on Lateline b/c they know Tony Jones will get them with some question that will inevitably be in the news the next morning.
I think George Bush should invade Australia.
Remember: If he breaks us, he owns us.
Oh, wait…
Yes, it was indeed a stunning performance from ol’ Thunderbirds.
The Thinking Countries is a great improvement over The West.
But if the war in Iraq is so important that our children will never overcome the consequences of defeat, then why won’t he commit an actual fighting force over there? Too dangerous?
Robert Bollard – I think he’s aiming for a Nth Korean bouffant, but can’t vouch for it.
My other favorite quote came somewhere near the end of the interview where he said something along the lines of “no matter what color that us administration is”….now i assume he meant red v blue there but was very innapropriate in terms of barack obama
Yairs, we “democratically elected” the new Iraqi government after we “democratically” ousted the old one.
Re Nabs’
which applied to Nelson, reminds me of Robert Townsend and “Up the Organisation”–there seems to be little doubt that Nelson has
Brendan Nelson demonstrates his deep understanding of the motives and ambitions of al Qaeda:
1. So “thinking nations’” policy formulation is essentially reactive. “Thinking nations” wait for al Qaeda to announce their strategy. Then “thinking nations” accept these statements as an accurate representation of al Qaeda policy. Hasn’t Nelson heard of disinformation? This doesn’t appear to be a very good advertisement for the quality of policy-making in a “thinking nation”.
2. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before the overthrow of Saddam. If al Qaeda in fact represents a more dangerous peril to Nelson’s children than Saddam did, then it is an inescapable conclusion that “thinking nations” have made matters worse for the world in Iraq.
3. Al Qaeda challenged the “thinking nations” to test their strength in Iraq. Just as the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan, so have the “thinking nations” blundered into a trap. By flailing about in Iraq, “thinking nations” have created conditions for the spread of Islamism. Or to put it in terms of the “Lateline” interview: “there’s a coincidence between ["thinking nations'] interests and that of al Qaeda.” In other words, “thinking nations” are dupes of al Qaeda.
What are you guys going to say when the democratically elected government of Iraq becomes a success and the Coaltion forces are able to withdraw – the cost wasn’t worth it??
Razor,
Which political groups in Iraq have a set of policies and objectives that amount to satisfactory victory conditions for the COW?
The answer is: none of them, which means that the COW can never leave.
This necessitates one of two conclusions:
1. The COW are dills in denial.
OR
2. The COW are cynics who never want Iraq to be self-governing.
What John Howard said is spot on – if the US and it’s allies pull out of Iraq before it is stable then the terrorists have a new base. I didn’t hear this carry on from the old lefties when Latham was around criticising the US. But we have learnt over the years that lefties don’t have a consistent message.
How many Friedman Units will that be, BeeF?
Razor:
I won’t have words, I’ll be too busy scanning the skies for wayward pigshit.
I giggled most at Nelson when he was being critical of Obama "(setting), if you like, artificial deadlines and timelines (for withdrawal)."
Artifical deadlines for withdrawal bad, artificial deadlines for invasion good.
BTW: I’m sure that Howard appreciated the Orwellian nature of appointing Nelson to his post: Medical Doctor for War (the perpetual war for perpetual peace). As ministers are supposed to avoid conflicts of interest with their portfolio, did he hand back his registration to the AMA?
I had never before seen the funny side of John Howard……but right now (having read the above) I think that he is absolutely hilarious!!!
Razor,
“What are you guys going to say when the democratically elected government of Iraq becomes a success and the Coaltion forces are able to withdraw – the cost wasn’t worth it??”
An interesting comment from someone who didn’t have to pay said cost.
Considering that the yanks let the country dissolve into anarchy and, indeed, implemented policies to escalate the dissolution I am quite prepared to say that even in the gobsmackingly unlikely event of the democratically elected government of Iraq becomes a success etc etc that it wasn’t worth it. It would have been better to leave Saddam in power.
As of now, by any credible measure, it would have been better to leave Saddam in power.
>>>>Christine Keeler on 13 February 2007 at 12:46 pm
>>>>>How many Friedman Units will that be, BeeF?
It will be a hell of a lot if dickheads like you lefties somehow take charge. God help the world.
Oh, ouch! Smackdown! I am so owned!
I think that must be Bill O’Reilly using a sock puppet!
The wit! The bitchslappin!
So BeeF I take it you view the electoral outcome in November 2006 in the US as equivalent to the invasion of Poland and France?
I take it you agree, that right now, on the issue of the Iraq war, its reasons and its conduct, the Australian electorate’s majority view that it has been a disaster from go to woe is a matter that should never be allowed to influence what our government actually does. What was that about democracy again, the gift that keeps on giving so generously in Iraq?
*sobs* I can’t take it any more Mark. Why can’t these people just let me hate America?
Good lord, Nelson was completely incoherent in that interview.
Was the actual interview as bad as the transcript?
Almost total gobble-di-gook.
This from a Prime Ministerial aspirant!
It was hilarious…
to:amused – >>>>the Australian electorate’s majority view
Where does this statistic come from and are you suggesting that we just run the country based on somebody’s survey.
You can have a vote later this year but in the meantime, the elected Government makes the decisions – that’s democracy.
Keep away from me BeeF! I’m friends with Hitler, so just back off.
So that’s the grand Howard Government Strategy for Iraq: Don’t dare mention withdrawal and we might just trick the insurgents/terrorists into giving up—eventually. Genius.
Brendan Nelson “it is not in the interests of any of us to see that al Qaeda or any of the other terrorist networks inflict their misery upon Iraqis”. Only we are allowed to inflict misery upon them. They are trying to usurp our role in Iraq.
Razor:
Hhhhmmmm. The “democratically elected” government of Iraq becoming a success eh? Well, at the moment, it holds sway in the Green Zone – which is about 8km². Now, my humble SBS “World Guide” tells me that Iraq is 434,924km² in total. Oh joy! That means at this rate, the COW forces will be able to withdraw sometime in the next 18 thousand years and Bush, Howard and Blair will go down as the saviours of civilization when that’s finally accomplished.
I don’t know about you Razor, but 3 thousand US troops dead, 4 years and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead doesn’t really look like a road to success from where I’m sitting – and if you ask many Iraqi citizens I think they’d say the same thing. So, in response to your question, I ask one of you: What are you going to say as it just gets worse and worse and worse? We’ve had 4 years of bullshit so far so what’s a few more porkies, weak justifications and thousands dead eh?
Has anyone done a calculation on when the break even point is due……you know, the point when the number of Iraqis dead under Saddam Hussein equals the number of dead under the COW?
Tony Jones tripped up Brendan Nelson something nasty at the end of the interview when he asked if the Australians will stay if the Americans leave.
That is why the increasingly intemperant Coalition demands that Rudd explain what will happen in Iraq if the US pull out are silly. The writing is on the wall. The American people have lost confidence in the Iraq war and no democratic leader, not even a stubborn ass like Bush, can sustain a war indefinantly without the support of the people who have to pay for it. America is almost certainly going to pull out before the situation in Iraq is stable.
This being the case there is no reason for us to keep our troops in Iraq any longer than we have to. Especially after Howards recent foolish outburst the Americans are likely to see any staying of the course on our part as John Howard being loyal to George Bush, not Australia being loyal to America.
No “hard & fast” figures, but I’ve seen estimates of the order of 100000 “deaths” (= torture/execution), under Saddam since the first Gulf war, and a US – based organisation reports in excess of 600000 since the COW invaded, – difficult to find definite figures, as the COW have taken great care not to account for Iraqui deaths, which is, I understand, in contravention of the requirements of the Geneva Convention.
So – what does everybody here reckon will happen in Iraq if the the US pulls out. Your hero KRudd won’t answer the question – maybe he hasn’t thought about it?
Has Ratty’s outburst made a Democrat victory in the 2008 US presidential election more or less likely?
Etched in the memory of American voters is an image of a red-faced, diminutive, bald-pated, haranguer from a small, faraway place insisting that they make more blood sacrifices.
American voters know little more about this gyrating hobgoblin beyond the memory that it lives by attaching itself to the nether reaches of the large colon of the Right Wing of the GOP.
Flinching at this memory, American voters reach for the Democrat button…
John Howard — Osama bin Laden’s greatest political asset.
Well if it’s that important how many more troops should we commit? And what are the present lot doing there anyway?
That’s a good question. Where ARE the 1400 Aussie warriors exactly? Samawa, Tallil? This is not to suggest that we should be insisting our troops are put in harm’s way to be killed. Indeed we should be bringing them home. But the Rat ministry’s hypocrisy is on a monumental scale, barking up the war while ensuring there’s no political price to pay for body bags coming home.
Last year, Brendan Nelson was quoted as saying that Aussie diggers will “become involved in military action only in the event of a crisis.” See
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/06/20/japaniraq20062006.html
It is clear that there is a deal with US administration to quarantine Australian soldiers from the thick of the action for the sake of Howard’s political hide. If the US Dems drill down into this and exploit it, it will be a humilation time.
As an example, Poland is a Coalition of the Willing partner with 900 troops in the theatre, yet their casualties are (from 3 Aug 2003 to 7 Feb 2007) 24 killed and some 160 wounded.
Combat deaths by comparison are US – 3125, UK – 132, Italy – 33, Poland – 19 ( 5 friendly fire), Ukraine – 18, Bulgaria -13, Spain – 11, Denmark -6, El Salvador 5 (from troop numbers of 380). Source: icasualties.org
Australia counts 2 dead, none of them combat related.
Geez. Henry, way to break out the facts — you’re wrecking BeeF’s fanatasy of the CoW. Us Aussies are lead-from-the-front hard-yakka diggers, we couldn’t possibly be tucked away in a quite Shia province miles from anything like combat.
BeeF nothing good will happen in Iraq when the US pulls out. The sectarian chaos will get worse, although the Shiites will probably remain in charge of most of the country by virtue of numerical superiority. Al Qaeda may set up shop in Anbar province, although it is worth noting that foreign militants are not popular among the Iraqi’s. I also have my doubts about how long the other nations in the region, who have an interest in stability, would be willing to put up with Al Qaeda on their doorstep.
The other powers in the region are likely to increase their involvement in Iraq, especially if the Kurds try and declare independence.
I have adressed your point BeeF now perhaps you would care to address mine. Specificaly:
- How can the US sustain its commitment in Iraq until the situation is stabilised when popular support for that commitment has collapsed?
- If a US withdrawal from Iraq is inevitable why should Australia keep our troops there any longer than we have to, especially when their presence looks more like support for Bush than support for the alliance?
Rudd and Howard won’t spell out the answer to Australian troop withdrawal from Iraq publically because its bloody obvious to everyone: we’ll get out the minute we can, but we can’t leave before the Americans.
The amazing performance of Pretty Boy Nelson only underlines how dangerous the Iraq issue is for the Government. Alas, we didn’t have the Downer Defence (a pity, for he’s real entertainment, a comedy genius) and the Hill Headkick is sorely missed. Johnny himself wouldn’t front for an entire day (due to those stinging lacerations) and one imagines his demands for someone to step forward and defend Rattydom and only Brendan was pushed forward by Costello, Turnbull and Downer. What a dispiriting range of choice. On the bright side, you can be sure we’ll see more of Brendan as he builds on this auspicious beginning.
I’m going to have to give up Lateline and the 7.30 Report to retain some sanity.
PS The American Ambassador is laying down the dogma now for the Australian edification in the National Press Club Address. Nothing new here, all couched in that smooth soothing spin to remind us of Bill Hick’s words: You Are Free To Do As We Tell You. He outlines American demands to the Iraqi government and in the same breath extolls their democratic independence. It seems the media needs reeducation just like Iraqis.
Christine Keeler obviously has no idea like KRudd.
Chris
>>>>- How can the US sustain its commitment in Iraq until the situation is stabilised when popular support for that commitment has collapsed?
I don’t see the connection between popular support and sustaining the commitment. Are you suggesting that decisions should only be taken if they have popular support. I don’t think any Government could practically govern like that.
>>>>>>- If a US withdrawal from Iraq is inevitable why should Australia keep our troops there any longer than we have to, especially when their presence looks more like support for Bush than support for the alliance?
Who says a US withdrawal is inevitable or are you talking longer term? I think Australia will stay so long as it is in our interests to stay or if a Labor Government is elected (and if that happens, Iraq will be the least of our worries).
Well geez BeeF, the Defender of Western Civilisation doesn’t seem to have much of a clue either.
Let’s leave aside the foreign-policy expert predicting at the outset of this fiasco that the troops will be there for ‘months not years’ (who would have predicted a civil war? well lots, actually), and the justification for the thing being to REMOVE the threat of terrorism from Iraq (worked well on that front also).
Thing is that Howard’s performance this week is not about Iraq. It’s about his relationship with George Bush (as opposed to the position of US president), and the opportunity to mention “terrorism” as often as possible.
Fact is our troops are there largely for window-dressing. As I recall they were mainly providing duties as force protection for Japanese engineers who were building a bridge. Japanese have been gone for 12 months, no picture of the bridge on the ADF website, and apart from protecting the Australian embassy it’s difficult to know what the grunts are doing.
Maybe playing desert cricket, I don’t know. All we get are non-specific assurances that they ‘are performing a very valuable role’.
And your solution is? Well, just an open-ended commitment to the Iraqi government: the same government that is sustained by armed militias (i.e “terrorists”); controls no territory; and cannot even provide basic services.
This situation stems largely from the invasion being a completely flawed and discredited enterprise from the get go.
And answer me this: In view of the fact that the US seems likely to unleash yet more genies from the bottle by launching airstrikes on Iran later this year, will you be there barracking from the sidelines as well?
The Iraq war can only get more expensive in terms of both lives and money. Thus the American people, who are the ones who have to pay, are only going to find the commitment more onerous as time goes on. Thus the pressure on Bush to pull out is going to continue to mount.
Perhaps he will be arrogant enough to ignore this pressure. I certainly wouldn’t put it past him. But even if he does the Americans are certainly not going to vote for anyone who intends to stay the course come the next election late next year.
Im talking right at the beginning of 2009 at the very latest. See above.
I asked why Australia should stay if a US pull out before the job is done (it seems like to big a job to do in two years) not wether it will or not.
Bush may have no choice but to “cut and run” if the civil war gets worse. Also worth noting the dissatisfaction of the officers and the appalling morale of the troops on their third or fourth rotations. There’s a reason why there are hundreds of retired generals criticising the thing.
Why isn’t the Australian press asking more questions about where the Aussie diggers are and what are they doing, i.e. if they are no longer defending Japanese bridge builders. Tony Jones research team: are you bloody well reading THIS? Why not ask Michael Ware onto Lateline and ask him?
Brendan Nelson’s cretinous performance on TV last night was not very enlightening. You wouldn’t want him working on your hemmorhhoids or you’d end up with no arsehole. He was sticking to the script like shit to a blanket. Jonesy only nicked him once, and that was at the end (are the Aussie troops going to stay after the Democrats pull the plug?). But Tony could have opened up a jugular and he missed his opportunity. To wit:
Brendan told us that (1) pulling out of Iraq meant a victory for Al Quaida.
Hmmm, I wonder if anyone asked the Shia and their death squads, or the Kurds? Or indeed, the putative backer/supplier of arms to the Shia, Iran. Most observers predict a “bloodbath” if the US leaves. The “bloodbath” presumably would be between Shia and Sunni. Al Quaida is just one ideological element of the minority Sunni insurgent bloc (the other is the Saddamists, most of whom are secularists and therefore enemies of a religiously inclined Al Quaida). Why is Nervous Nellie so convinced of an Al Quaida victory? Or is he using Al Quaida to try and scare mums and dads out there in marginal suburbanland? This is so effing crude a scaremongering that it makes the propaganda of Germans eating babies in WW1 Belgium the apotheosis of veracity. (Hey Keith, is this bloody propaganda, or wot?)
(2) BN:… and this would mean affecting the security of Australia. How? Why? In what way? Please explain. How would an Australian withdrawal from Iraq affect Australia’s security (apart from greatly enhancing it)?
If anyone can explain what Nelson was on about with with the Al Quaida “victory”, and quandary no. 2, calmly and logically, I’d be grateful. Morons please drop off.
The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate suggests that stability in Iraq is unlikely to be established within the timeframe I mentioned.
Of course you can be optimistic and say you think the polarization will diminish, the weakness of the army and state and the violent tendancies of all sides will diminish will suceed soon.
Thing is, this hasn’t been a good war for optimists.
BeeF asks a bovine question:
Here is a sensible answer. It comes from the Australian Constitution:
So, BeeF, between the the start and and of that three-year term, the majority party can do pretty much what they like, within limits, so long as they can guarantee supply for government expenditures.
But at the end of those three years a general election must be held. The voters may vote the warlike rascals out. Even warlike rascals like Ratty prefer to stay in power rather than continue to fight the good fight.
So when the time comes, warlike rascals like Ratty tend to try to dump as much of their warlike rhetoric as is needed to continue to warm the Treasury Benches.
Ya see, BeeF, Ratty knows that this commitment to a loser in Iraq isn’t sustainable.
Well I’ve never been one to be deterred by the perils of making an absolute goose of myself, and I’d say today was the day Howard lost the debate. Not by his penetrating insights on how to fill his water bottle at the sweet mirage of victory, but by his own foolish intransigence.
The following exchange in Parliament today:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21226341-1702,00.html
Good lord. Even GWB was forced to acknowledge in a roundabout way that “mistakes have been made.”
It’s one thing for Howard to stick to the script by portraying ‘courage’ in the face of adversity.
But it’s quite another to display your flabby, pale, naked self before the assembled peasants and declare that you are in fact possessed of quite a fine buff body lusted after by the best courtesans, and clothed in garments that are the envy of the world.
While the debate will undoubtedly continue, I’m afraid it’s game over for Howard on this one. He’s totally fluffed it.
What was that he used to say about hubris?
Yes, I’m hoping the focus stays on Iraq. He was more plausible last week.
I think a lot of Howard’s anger is really directed inward – he know somewhere in the rat trap of his mind that he’s been sold down the river by Bush but he’s completely unable to do the usual flip flop and neutralise it as an election issue.
Though I see from the news someone must have advised that screaming and raving and waving his hands around during question time and claiming to have been “lacerated” is not the best way to portray a sound, steady and statesmanlike war leader.
Perhaps someone should advise him to take a leaf from Churchill’s book and start in on the scotch at 10am? Since he’s, like, the exemplar of war PMs.
That might just work Mark. Now let me close my eyes and imagine George Bush as Franklin D Roosevelt.
Not easy, but perhaps he’s Uncle Joe to Howard’s Churchill?
One of the interesting things about Howard’s brain explosion on Sunday is that it’s actually let the genie out of the bottle and given us much more of a sensible debate (albeit one sided) than we’ve had in this country before on Iraq. Rudd and McLelland are articulating some of the real issues while Winston, Dr Nelson and Dolly rant incoherently about the terrsts. Long may it continue. Massive own goal by Howard.
“…he know somewhere in the rat trap of his mind that he’s been sold down the river by Bush”
Which may also account for the increasingly vituperative comments of many in the pro-war blogosphere.
“…to take a leaf from Churchill’s book and start in on the scotch at 10am?”
A whiskey and soda actually. He was a reasonably responsible warlord for the times, not hitting the unadulterated hard stuff till after his afternoon nap.
“…imagine George Bush as Franklin D Roosevelt.”
And FDR was after an 5pm cocktails man, which is why, even sick and dying, he still outfoxed Churchill and Stalin (an after dark manipulative sipper) to set up the American Empire. It’s kinda fitting that now it’s a dry drunk that’s losing the Yankee Imperium.
Umm… can you pick up it from here Devil Drink? I just cut my thumb on the lead wrapper of a rather nice 18 year old Bowmore and I have to go douse the external and internal wounds with alcohol.
Maybe so Nabs, but when Winston popped over they really enjoyed sitting up all night hitting the piss. Used to drive Elanor nuts apparently.
I should have added that she thought Winston a very bad influence.
When are the religious right going to revive prohibition by the way?
FDR was the only pollie able to straddle that issue.
It was very popular in states like Kentucky, Kansas and West Virginia where the voters were always happy to stagger to the polls to vote against the booze.
Tell me more Mark. Roughly familiar with FDR weaving his webs in the White House (and really, how could anyone not like the man?). Kentucky, Kansas and West Virginia sound like just the sort of places where people might be brewing hooch.
You’re not suggesting that these good folk who adopted Jeebus as their own personal saviour were rigging polls for economic gain are you?
Perish the thought, Christine!
FDR btw continued to drink cocktails through the 20s.
Al Smith (aside from being a Catholic) was killed in the Bible Belt in the 28 election because of his “wet” New Yawkness.
FDR proposed that beer not be regarded as very alcoholic.
Kinda presaging Clinton’s oral sex isn’t sex line.
We can infer from all this that the best Democratic candidate in the primary is one who is alert to the art of making fine conceptual distinctions!
Well to be perfectly honest, I must say that Bill did have a touch of the Franklins about him – charisma, vision, political operator, knew how to work the media.
I always loved FDR’s sudden transition from Dr New Deal to Dr Win The War. And he did to, at least in the Pacific, while giving Europe a substantial nudge.
So, global war a done deal in four years.
Iraq? We’re governed by gnats.
There’s a nice bit at the beginning of Sidney Blumenthal’s vast right wing conspiracy book about Clinton about Bill’s first visit to Hyde Park as Preznit.
Read teh Clinton Wars and was most impressed by the intro. SB’s a bit too close to his source, but he’s a pretty insightful commentator all the same.
Certainly gave me a more complete view of what all that crap during Clinton’s presidency was all about.
I particularly enjoyed the chapter about Christopher Hitchens, well, basically going off the rails after their long-standing friendship. Kinda puts things into perspective.
Yeah, it’s good stuff, but I wished in one way he’d written more of an insider’s account of the presidency. I enjoyed those bits more – the machinations of the vast right wing conspiracy made depressing reading for me. But it had to be put on the record.
“So, global war a done deal in four years.”
And an Empire laid out beyond. Not bad for a cripple stonkered on overly sweet martinis by 10pm, aided and abetted by a grand vizer with half his guts removed. Giants strode the earth in those days. Or least were trundled over it in kitchen chairs fitted with castors.
He used to mix it up with the odd Old Fashioned!
Dunno if anyone’s seen the telemovie of “FDR’s last year”. Jason Robards was a very credible FDR.
Agree with you there. But it was really such a substantial piece of work on its own. Insider’s account of somebody who worked in the WH, had a family life, committed to the Clintons, and was targeted as a source of evil by the VRWC.
I view it more as a personal memoir. Not the only source of history, but a substantial early perspective nonetheless.
Ooh, I can hear Dolly raving about terrsts on the telly! Question time’s on!
There was a not too shabby at all TV movie (either HBO or TNT) called “Kingfish: A Story of Huey P. Long” – directed by Thomas “West Wing” Schlamme featuring John Goodman in the lead. And in it Bob Gunton was superb as FDR utterly highbinding, silvertalking and outfoxing Huey.
You really got a sense there of what a master pollie FDR was. Him and Lincoln were handed poisoned chalices on coming to power, somehow tipped them into the potted plants, ordered drinks for everyone else and then kept the US going through its two darkest hours to emerge even stronger than before. And they both died just as it all came together.
This new version of “All The King’s Men” could be interesting. Or not.
Seen it. the old one that is. Blaize with Paul Newman as Huey’s younger brother Earl (and eventual successor as Governor) was tops too. You’ve probably seen it, Nabs. Blaize was a stripper Earl hung around with.
Lot of fun stuff – like when his political enemies have him committed and he sacks the state board of mental health so a crony can be appointed medical director and release him.
True story!
Reviews of the new “All the King’s Men” aren’t flash.
Yup, seen Blaze. I’m right into genial Southern good old boy sleaze amid the sweat, spanish moss, melting tarmac, red dirt, crumpled linen suits and well ironed cleavage.
I’ve always felt that in another life I’d make an excellent Governor of Louisiana. Not Mississippi, Alabama or Arkansas though. A man needs standards, y’heah honeychile.
“A man needs standards, y’heah honeychile.”
Gotta rejig that line for my campaign, mon cher.
“Vive L’Acadie. Laissez les bon temps roule like moi.”
Back in the 30s, 40s, 50s or 60s, though, Nabs. Wouldn’t be so much fun now that Norleans has been flattened, and a lot of the colour drained away from Louisiana politics in the 70s when they went all “New South” and responsible.
I was thinking more Manon Lescaut’s N’awlins but with Ford Trimotors to whisk me to DC and NYC, decent tailors, pharmaceutical cocaine available over the counter and T3 broadband.
Read Moorcock’s Blood, Nabs? You’d like it. Now there’s a Norleans of the imagination…
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/m/michael-moorcock/blood.htm
‘Who are the Supreme Command for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq?”
“and a lot of the colour drained away from Louisiana politics in the 70s when they went all “New South� and responsible�.
“Friday morning I was down at the Starbucks
Sippin’ on a latte with the fat left out
I had a bagel and a sudden revelation
I’m finally living in the new south.
They make Mercedes down in Vance, Alabama
And Tennessee is cranking Nissans out
I read about it in my Wall Street Journal
We’re all living in the new south
they’ll valet park you at the Galleria
they’ll hang your coat up for you at the door
they’ll take your check your mastercard or VISA
they love our money at those Yankee stores
it’s getting hard to find good grits and gravy
I know you know what I’m talking about
Well that’s the price you haver to pay for progress
And to be living in the new south
We pulled ourselves up out of Old Man River
And cut away all the kudzu vines
It tooka while but I think we made it
We can finally put those blues behind
We traded in our boots for Italian loafers
And Bichon Frises are our new hounds
Thanks to DisneyWorld and Coca-Cola
We’re finally living in the new south
Y’all come and see us in the new south
(From Kate Campbell’s CD , Monuments)
recorded to a medium tempo N’Orleans swing.
tuba,clarinet ,trombone ,trumpet, acoustic steel guitar
2002.
OK people, calm down. Australia’s most respected foreign-policy analyst, Greg Sheridan, has spoken and declared Howard the winner: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21228880-601,00.html
NineMSN. The only poll that counts.
How on earth does this bloke hang on to his job?
Huey Nabakov: FDR didn’t outfox Uncle Joe. Just realised that he could save a lot of US boys’ lives if he kept up the flow of the Willys, Sudebakers and Dodges. Plus those felt boots. Crazy Joe outfoxed them all, especially Winston, whom he marginalised with such finesse that Eden didn’t notice until 1956.
If we’re into historical analogies, Ratty is most like Arthur Seyss-Inquart.
I wonder what the results would have been if the question had been:
Both questions are utterly loaded to pander to an embattled, but barely, acknowledged, uncertainty about Australian sovereignty.
Unsurprisingly, Sheridan wishes to assert that this result signifies Australian support for involvement in Iraq.
It doesn’t.
Sheridan keeps his job because misrepresentation is his job.
I’m just wondering why Howard doesn’t come up with the ultimate killer attack:
“Defeat in Iraq will mean higher interest rates.”
Things I learned from today’s Australian.
1.Greg Sheridan didn’t have anything to do last Saturday night.
2. The media elite do not include the humble Foreign Affairs editor of the national daily.
3.A phone in poll is a reliable indicator of public opinion.
4.It is highly unusual for the Daily Telegraph to attack Labor. When it does the PM is obviously onto a winner.
This is getting better by the day. I’ve not read the treaty says US envoy:
- Hey you!
- Who, me?
- Yeah, pal. C’mere.
- What?
- What’s your name?
- Bob.
- Bob what?
- Bob McCallum.
- Like the whiskey?
- Yep.
- Wanna be ambassador to Australia?
- Sure. When do I start?
- Right now. Here’s the ticket and some money. Get yousself a nice suit.
- Do they wear suits down there?
- Yeah, in big cities. Here’s a script, learn it quick, son.
Here’s Bob speaking from the script:
“Delays in bringing Hicks to trial were not the fault of the Bush administration but because of the challenges by the lawyers to the military commission process.”
Oh c’mon, Sir Hank. Be reasonable.
Where does it say in the ANZUS Treaty that the US has to read the ANZUS Treaty?
In the event that the nationhood of Australia was being raped by the red/yellow/black/Islamist/Francohile/PoMo hordes, the requirements imposed by the ANZUS Treaty on the US are very modest indeed.
All they are required to do is acknowledge: “Yes indeed, we are the United States of America.”
And then they can move on to the next item of business.
Why should any senior diplomat be burdened with such trivia?
Is Greg Sheridan a coir fibre, rubber, woven, safety, non-slip, wet & dry, anti-fatigue or just a recycled rag?
He will, Christine, he will. Just give him time.
Speaking of the Prime minature, here is a photo of him in his younger years with a well known Nine personality who was almost “Boned” this week
http://www.humphreybbear.com/images/hbb_gall12.gif
He’s giving comfort to the teddybears!