damning with heavy praise

Shorter John and Alex on Tony:

"We like him because he made the same mistake in Iraq as we did."

Utterly self-serving and hollow.

lie, and think of england

It doesn't make sense to me. If the south of Iraq is stable enough that the British troops are considered to be surplus there, but Baghdad and other parts of Iraq are a hellhole in desperate need of a surge, then why aren't the suddenly spare British troops being redeployed to assist the Coalition's surge? Why endorse a reduction in the Coalition force by 5,000 soldiers at the same time as you are 'augmenting' it by 20,000? And are we really expected to believe that the Allies can now go ahead and unfurl a "Mission Accomplished" banner in Basra while other parts of Iraq remain out of control? What's to stop all the terrorists and insurgents relocating to the South once Baghdad gets too hot to handle?
Kerry O'Brien tried to get an answer from the Foreign Minister as to whether or not the British 'reduction' is known to the Australian Government to be part of a phased withdrawal and Alexander Downer deflected the question by saying 'Well, everyone in the Coalition has an exit strategy'. But O'Brien wasn't asking if the British had a vague open-ended exit strategy, he was asking specifically if it was a 'phased' withdrawal. Because the implications of it being 'phased' are obviously that it is time-based, rather than conditions-based, as Downer would have us believe.
So, are Downer and the Australian Government aware of the mooted timeline of the British exit strategy? Or are their office staff helpfully keeping sensitive information like that from them, in the time-honoured Howard Government fashion?

rat refuses to abandon sinking ship

When will John Howard acknowledge that Iraq was a massive error in judgment? It's obvious that we are now obligated to try to fix the mistake that's he made. But how dare he lecture us about the need to fix his mistake when he doesn't even have the decency to admit he's made one?
Last night on the 7:30 Report the PM tried to share around the blame for his choice to join in the Iraq war, by referring to "the widely-held view that Saddam had WMD". He shamelessly ignores the fact that there was also widely-held opposition to his decision to involve Australia in the conflict. At the time he dismissed us all as 'the mob' and told us he knew best. He told us he was sure Saddam Hussein was an 'imminent threat' to Australia and suggested that Hussein had links to Al-Qaeda.
Well, he didn't know best and he ballsed it up.
Now he claims Australia must remain in Iraq lest the US be humiliated, but he doesn't seem to get that the US has already humiliated itself, that George Bush has single-handedly run America's reputation into the ground. Yes, salvage work is now necessary for both countries. But surely he doesn't expect us to thank him for that.
And maybe it's self-serving for Howard to hypothesise about doom in the Middle East but it displays muddled priorities when he still can't bring himself to take seriously the imminent threat to the entire planet due to climate change.

sticking to their guns

It's frustrating to see that Bush and Howard still refuse to acknowledge that invading Iraq was a mistake. Today in the Herald, Howard again stubbornly insists "We were right to go into Iraq." And he's recently led us to believe that even if he did have private regrets about a war, he’d "have the grace to keep such thoughts to himself". In the face of even the Conservative media referring to it as his "Iraq blunder" and calling on the Australian people to hold him to account, what credibility does our Prime Minister possibly have left on the issue? What I'd love to see squeezed out of him is answers to questions like--does he still endorse the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike? The idea of exporting democracy by force? Giving him the benefit of hindsight, if he knew then what he does now, would he still go into Iraq? At any cost, for any length of time?
To date Howard has been mostly mute on the subject of Iraq, choked by Bush’s bear hug. Everyone knows Howard never had a plan for Iraq beyond "whatever George wants, George gets", so he's hamstrung in any decision-making on the issue. Every time he is cornered on the question, he drags out his stock phrases, which always include something like, "if we leave now, America will look bad". Nowhere do you hear him admit that if America looks bad over Iraq, it only has itself to blame. Nowhere do you find humility and wisdom, any sense he has learned from this colossal mistake. So, we continue to wait for him to concede that the whole idea of invading Iraq was extremely foolish, that if he had his time again, he’d certainly think twice about blindly supporting America’s foreign policy decisions. Instead, all we get is two blokes digging in their heels, unable to find a way to save face, and trapped into continuing their tough guy charade.
Looking at the continuing fallout of their foolish war, Howard and Bush now appear in danger of splitting their own parties on the issue. The Herald carries a story arguing that "once-united Republicans now face an unpleasant choice: stand behind a deeply unpopular troop build-up or take on the head of their party."
Boy, I bet Howard's regretting not quitting while he was ahead.

rat-ionalisations

I am just starting to read Judith Brett's Quarterly Essay entitled "Relaxed & Comfortable: The Liberal Party's Australia", which I got in the mail yesterday. (I seem to still be getting freebie copies, so thanks to mysterious benefactor or generous subscription dept at Black Inc.)
I'm starting out reading it from a position where, while feeling like a strong critic of the PM, I do not identify as a "Howard-hater". Sure, he regularly annoys the hell out of me, and frustrates me.
Just lately he has annoyed me again, by seizing another opportunity for spouting out more retrospective rationalisations for his war in Iraq.

"The nation state remains the focus of legitimate action for order and justice in our world."--John Howard

This bit in the same news story this morning annoys me too:

[Howard] labelled as a failure the UN's inability to agree on action against Iraq before the 2003 invasion by the US and a coalition of countries including Britain and Australia.

So if a group fails to agree, rather than negotiate further, a minority of strong members should seize control and impose a decision? Is that how he wants it to work?
Anyway, wonder how I'll feel towards Howard after reading the Brett essay. (That's if I get to finish it...The last few months have been insanely busy on the home front but I seem to be getting on top of things again now. It sure helps that my son has been to daycare three times now and appears to love going. It's unbelievable how much it helps.)