California Conservative

Australian Prime Minster John Howard ticked off Democratic Residential hopeful Barak Obama on Monday while discussing the catastrophic consequence of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The Aussie PM suggested that if he were an al-Qaeda leader, he would support Barak Obama for President in 2008:

“I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory.”

“If I were running al-Qa’ida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.”

Obama didn’t appreciate that perspective: 

“I think it’s flattering that one of George Bush’s allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced.”

“I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400, so if he is … to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq.

“Otherwise it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric.”

Well, that was Presidential.  Obama resorted to the oldest deflective trick in the book: changing the subject and shooting the messenger. How many times have peaceniks suggested Pres. Bush draft his twins for service in Iraq? At the end of the day, the Prime Minister has committed more troops to Iraq that Obama would, and that is part of the point.

“Well I thought, I think the most interesting thing about that is that it didn’t really address the substance of the issue but given the size of this country, we are making a very significant and appropriate contribution and I therefore respond to that criticism in that fashion.”

“When you have significant figure in American politics saying that, in effect, America should leave in just over a year, that is picked up around the world, it’s picked up by the terrorists and that was the point I was making yesterday.”

I happen to think it is against the security interests of Australia for America to be defeated in Iraq. I think if America is defeated in Iraq that will be catastrophic for the West and it will have tremendously adverse consequences for Australia. And everybody knows that if America leaves Iraq in March of 2008 it can only be in circumstances of defeat, no matter how it is papered over and explained and rationalised. And if America is defeated in Iraq, the West is defeated in the Middle East and that has enormous consequences for terrorism and for the stability of that region, and also for our own region. Now to me, that is far more important than anything else because it affects Australia’s security. You see, apparently it’s alright for people in the Labor Party to regularly criticise the Bush Administration’s policy on Iraq – and they do that almost on a daily basis, they do – and apparently the American alliance can survive an Australian withdrawal from Iraq at a time when America desperately needs support and friends in the Middle East – apparently all of that can be managed – yet my criticism of the policy position of somebody who is not President, and is not even the Democratic candidate for the presidency, that is interfering in American politics and is absolutely to be forbidden. Well I place a greater store on Australia’s national interests than that and I will continue to be critical of policy positions of anybody of consequence that I think might be damaging to those interests.”

If only Republicans had that kind of chutzpah.  What Howard referred to as “absolutely forbidden” is what Ann Coulter refers to as “liberal infallibility”.  Obama’s message includes concern for dying soldiers in Iraq, making him beyond reproach and above scrutiny on the war in Iraq.  He’s on the wrong side of the issue, but that’s beside the point.

Would al-Qaeda vote for Obama?  Just after the November 2006 mid-term elections, al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri gloated after the Democrats wins at the mid-term elections.  CBS News reported:

The terror group (al-Qaeda) also welcomed the U.S. Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and vowed to continue its fight until the White House is blown up.

Calling Mr. Bush a “coward” and the “most stupid president” in history, al-Qaeda leader al-Masri praised the outcome of Tuesday’s elections in which Democrats swept to power in the House and the Senate, in large part due to U.S. voter dissatisfaction over the handling of the war in Iraq.

“The American people have put their feet on the right path by … realizing their president’s betrayal in supporting Israel,” the terror leader said. “So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections.” He did not explain his logic.

John Kerry confided that he believed an Osama bin Laden tape released days before the 2004 presidential election cost him the victory over George W. Bush. In the tape, bin Laden criticised Bush, resembling those of the Democratic candidates.  Or vice versa.

It’s apparent that Barak Obama couldn’t touch the assertion poised by the Australian Prime Minister so he was left to deflect the awkward reality that if al-Qaeda had to hang their hopes on anyone in the 2008 elections, it would likely be Obama.  For that matter, almost any Democrat would do.

Cross-posted @: Bottom Line Up Front

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 13th, 2007 at 2:09 pm and is filed under Author: Amy Proctor, Election 2008, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.