RSS

John Howard on Iraq

22 Oct

In the debate John Howard continued to skip over the question whether the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 had increased or reduced the threat of terrorism. My own view is that that decision was a bad decision at the time, but now of course we are stuck with the consequences. I further believe that the Iraq War has done little to solve the problem of terrorism and much to compound the problem. See this series of posts, but especially this one from 17 October 2006, and watch the following.

Howard’s line is also clearly subject to that criticism. Even with his broad hint about possible change in the Australian role in the near future, he was as unconvincing as ever.

Site Meter

Advertisements
 
8 Comments

Posted by on October 22, 2007 in Australia and Australian, Iraq, John Howard, terrorism

 

Tags:

8 responses to “John Howard on Iraq

  1. Antony Shen

    October 23, 2007 at 12:46 am

    Unless I missed it, I failed to find any single mention about the disgraceful censoring on broadcasting merely due to the much-loved “worm”. The feed to Channel 9’s special edition of 60 Minutes was cut, from the Honourable Prime Minister John Howard’s party.

    Ray Martin said “Obviously the worm offended someone. So much for free speech in Australia.”

     
  2. ninglun

    October 23, 2007 at 1:00 am

    I can’t mention everything, Antony, and I suspect the war on terror is rather more significant than this storm in a teacup over the worm. Why don’t you comment on what is in the post?

    The worm was dealt with at length from various points of view on Lateline tonight, and also here.

    Ray Martin (who on better days is a good presenter and journalist) was trying it on. He knew the rules. It appears the National Press Club warned them and then they cut the feed, after which Channel Nine took feed from Sky. It has nothing to do with free speech. I really didn’t think it was worth talking about, except as a joke, as Queer Penguin says:

    The worm conspiracy is a bit of a laff. I’d say ‘so much for democracy’ is a tad hyperbolic, cheers Ray, since 9 was under strict instruction not to use it. Plus it’s such a useless gimmick anyway – the figure showing 65% of the studio audience saying Rudd won in favour against Howard’s 29% is what matters.

    Still, says a lot about Howard’s paranoia around public response to his debating that he’s so terrified about the worm’s use, donut?

     
  3. Antony Shen

    October 23, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    The war on terror topic may be more significant, but the censorship over a live TV debate is far more interesting to talk about. As well as for, you guessed it, shaming.

     
  4. alger hiss

    October 24, 2007 at 8:40 pm

    Exactly right, its not al qaeda, but then al qaeda never really existed as a top down military hierarchy.

    According to the Defense Intelligence agency, the opposition in Iraq are mercenaries -they are paid mercenaries, just like in Bosnia, Azerbaijan, and in of course Afghanistan.

    If I were u thought I would not rely too much on the NY Times for my information. There are a large number of board interlocks between the elite media and the propaganda front Council on Foreign Relations, itself tied to BP-Shell, so called “international petroleum cartel.”

    By the way, they also make movies, not just op-eds. Not documentaries, but actually films that look like entertainment but are really informercials.

    see:
    video -ANGELS IN AMERICA -Hiss, Dulles, and the CFR from
    WelcomeToSatanica-Channel Z Zephnet.com

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7773396057834914116

    your blog is intelligent and interesting by the way.

     
  5. ninglun

    October 24, 2007 at 8:57 pm

    On the NY Times: you take each article on its merits, I guess, as far as you can.

     
  6. Antony Shen

    October 26, 2007 at 12:05 am

    Which rule did Nine break?

    You might be interested to know this.

    National Press Club is a misnomer. It’s just another licensed club.

    A press club should fight for freedom of speech, not kowtow to the dictates of the government.

    C’mon, Glenn, show me the contract.

    There was no Nine Network agreement to abide by the Liberal Party’s bullying tactics.

    We agreed to run the debate. Which we did.

    National Press Club the real invertebrate

     
  7. ninglun

    October 26, 2007 at 12:10 am

    Antony I really don’t care one little bit any more. This is now quite trivial. Future commenters, please comment on the post please.

     
  8. Antony Shen

    October 26, 2007 at 1:12 am

    I merely wanted to reply to your comment, I quote

    Ray Martin (who on better days is a good presenter and journalist) was trying it on. He knew the rules. It appears the National Press Club warned them and then they cut the feed,

    Clearly, you suggested it was Nine’s fault of breaching the agreement. And thank you for not continuing.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: