Aussie PM = Obama's bitch!

[RebootedCorpse]

Cutting through what the whole world now knows has been a thick cloud of lies, misinformation and disingenuousness surrounding the war in Iraq whipped up by its most partisan, ideological backers, just-announced U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama isn't letting Australian Prime Minister John Howard easily off the hook.

The conservative Aussie pol, whose approval ratings are plummeting as he faces re-election, is seen to have played a role second only to that of British PM Tony Blair as a leading cheerleader and fawning "lapdog" of George W. Bush, as some of his own countrymen have described him.


The official photo-portrait of Australia's John Howard, from the conservative prime minister's government-run Web site
After ten years in office and burdened by his stubborn support for the increasingly unpopular war, this past weekend, Howard waded into the perilous waters of American domestic politics. "Howard said [Democratic] Senator Obama's call for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by March 2008 would deliver a victory for terrorists and destabilize the entire Middle East." Howard said: "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats." (Sydney Morning Herald)

In response, Obama, a senator from Illinois, said: "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." (Crikey.com and the Age)

Australia's News. com.au headlined a report about the flap: "Put up or shut up, Obama tells Howard."

Uncharacteristically chastened - and exposed - Howard and the pro-Bush conservatives around him didn't let up. With a new voter-opinion poll showing that the opposition Labor Party, led by Kevin Rudd, is running ahead of Howard's ruling coalition, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer spoke up for his boss, "saying Howard has every right to speak out" and rejecting "Obama's suggestion that Australia should boost its troop commitment to Iraq" if, indeed, the PM really feels "so strongly supportive of the war." (Age)


Reuters
Just-announced Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, didn't let Howard get away with his debate-silencing remarks
Downer said: "It's entirely appropriate the Australian government expresses its view in a free world. You won't get anywhere trying to close down debate...." - which was, of course, exactly what Howard's original comment about Obama set out to do: to stifle any real criticism of the Bush-Blair-Howard Iraq caper. Meanwhile, Rudd said Howard "must not allow his personal relationship with President Bush to impact on Australia's long-term alliance relationship with the United States...." He added: "I disagreed with the coalition's decision to invade Iraq....But I have seen it as my role to discuss the future of Australian foreign policy on Iraq, not lecture United States citizens on how they should vote in the upcoming presidential election." (Age)

Howard's detractors are savoring what they see as his latest gaffe. A reader of Larvatus Prodeo, an Australian, politics-themed blog, commented: "I think this could be loads of fun over the next few days." She chastised Howard for "sticking his beak where it doesn't belong in toadying support for [an] imbecile president nobody wants and embarrassing the hell out of the lot of us...." Another reader, using a nickname Howard's critics sometimes call him, wrote that, with his anti-Obama remarks, this time,"Ratty's jumped the shark."

[NATE!]

But were there people in Kangaroo suits involved in the bitch making? That's the pressing issue here.

[Ryan F]

I'm starting to like Obama more and more.

[Wastrel]

ha! glad he hit back.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Australia doesn't care about black people. Even when they're "clean".

[En Sabah Poo]

Huh. I like how the Aussies say they can support the war to their fullest and criticize others who disagree but not feel the need to actually support the war effort. Sounds a lot like conservative rhetoric around here in America too.

[Ray G.]

Huh. I like how the Aussies say they can support the war to their fullest and criticize others who disagree but not feel the need to actually support the war effort. Sounds a lot like conservative rhetoric around here in America too.

Worst. Argument. Ever.

Obama hit back pretty hard, and I can't say I blame him. Howard was really out of line. At the same time, though, does Obama really gain much from hitting back hard instead of playing off the comments with a minimum of drama? This is why I don't think he'll get the nod. He doesn't have nearly enough experience dealing with shit-slinging, which is sort of a necessity in politics.

[RebootedCorpse]

Best
Response
Ever
That's how you gotta treat these assholes.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Best
Response
Ever
That's how you gotta treat these assholes.

Yeah! Show those Australians that they're assholes! Piss 'em off! England, you're next! The Dems are coming!!!

[En Sabah Poo]

Worst. Argument. Ever.

Obama hit back pretty hard, and I can't say I blame him. Howard was really out of line. At the same time, though, does Obama really gain much from hitting back hard instead of playing off the comments with a minimum of drama? This is why I don't think he'll get the nod. He doesn't have nearly enough experience dealing with shit-slinging, which is sort of a necessity in politics.

No. Its that wishy washy attitude that got dems into trouble many years ago and took them out of power. Democrats need to be firm and strong. They need to stop taking all the right wing shit slinging in the face and serve it back to them with intelligent and hard ass responses.

[RebootedCorpse]

Yeah! Show those Australians that they're assholes! Piss 'em off! England, you're next! The Dems are coming!!!
I meant right wing war mongers. But you knew that, you minx!:grope:

[Kirblar]

Worst. Argument. Ever.

Obama hit back pretty hard, and I can't say I blame him. Howard was really out of line. At the same time, though, does Obama really gain much from hitting back hard instead of playing off the comments with a minimum of drama? This is why I don't think he'll get the nod. He doesn't have nearly enough experience dealing with shit-slinging, which is sort of a necessity in politics.
Think of how Hilary would have responded.

That's why he fired back. He's gotta show as much difference as possible.

[Ryan F]

No. Its that wishy washy attitude that got dems into trouble many years ago and took them out of power. Democrats need to be firm and strong. They need to stop taking all the right wing shit slinging in the face and serve it back to them with intelligent and hard ass responses.

Exactly. Obama is actually showing more savvy than any Democratic candidate since Clinton.

[Mike]

Exactly. Obama is actually showing more savvy than any Democratic candidate since Clinton.

Plus he sounds like The Rock

[Amos Moses]

Plus he sounds like The Rock

CAN YOU SMELL WHAT OBAMA IS COOKIN!?

[Ethan Van Sciver]

No. Its that wishy washy attitude that got dems into trouble many years ago and took them out of power. Democrats need to be firm and strong. They need to stop taking all the right wing shit slinging in the face and serve it back to them with intelligent and hard ass responses.

What bullshit! These Democrats are the noisiest, whiniest, most dishonest bitches in United States history. I love hearing you liberals pretend as though you're cowed and victimized all the time by the Right. You're like a bunch of drunken, nagging fishwives. SHUT IT.

Why can't you just quietly go about raising our taxes and throwing it at causes that disrupt "big business" enterprises? Redistribute our wealth and abort our children without all of the theatrical moping, please. It's silly.

Except for Kirby's Corpse. He has justifiably been abused by conservatives.

[NickT]

Yeah! Show those Australians that they're assholes! Piss 'em off! England, you're next! The Dems are coming!!!
They've been in power since 1997 ;)

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Exactly. Obama is actually showing more savvy than any Democratic candidate since Clinton.

:::Vomits into the hood of sweatshirt:::

[En Sabah Poo]

What bullshit! These Democrats are the noisiest, whiniest, most dishonest bitches in United States history. I love hearing you liberals pretend as though you're cowed and victimized all the time by the Right. You're like a bunch of drunken, nagging fishwives. SHUT IT.

Why can't you just quietly go about raising our taxes and throwing it at causes that disrupt "big business" enterprises? Redistribute our wealth and abort our children without all of the theatrical moping, please. It's silly.

Except for Kirby's Corpse. He has justifiably been abused by conservatives.

Thanks for the comedy. :D
Your parody of the radical right continues to amuse me. Good crazy show!

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Thanks for the comedy. :D
Your parody of the radical right continues to amuse me. Good crazy show!

Love it or leave it, pussy! 8-)

[En Sabah Poo]

Love it or leave it, pussy! 8-)

I love your inane rants. They remind me that people in this world still do have a sense of humor.

[RebootedCorpse]

Watching Ethan go into convulsions is probably the best reason to wish Sen. Clinton into the White House.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

I love your inane rants. They remind me that people in this world still do have a sense of humor.

How can a rant be "inane"? You may have forgotten an "s" there. And Poland.

[En Sabah Poo]

How can a rant be "inane"? You may have forgotten an "s" there. And Poland.

Heh. See = silly, stupid, childish, idiotic, absurd, Poland.

[The Roman Candle]

Worst. Argument. Ever.

Obama hit back pretty hard, and I can't say I blame him. Howard was really out of line. At the same time, though, does Obama really gain much from hitting back hard instead of playing off the comments with a minimum of drama? This is why I don't think he'll get the nod. He doesn't have nearly enough experience dealing with shit-slinging, which is sort of a necessity in politics.

Absolutely not! Kerry tried the minimum drama route with the swift boat vets and the "flip-flop" routine, and he was attacked (rightfully so) for not hitting back hard enough. If someone says something as damning as Howard's comments in this current climate, you have to hit back hard and hit back loud. You need to more sure that at least as many people know you're response as know about the original attack against you. So far, Obama is on a roll between this and that madrassa business.

[Ryan F]

:::Vomits into the hood of sweatshirt:::

You should get that bile problem looked at...
:mistrust:

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Watching Ethan go into convulsions is probably the best reason to wish Sen. Clinton into the White House.

It'd be the only reason, Kirby. Anyhow, I'd love a new President Clinton, if only for comedy value and the complete and utter failure she'd be as President. The next female president wouldn't be elected for 40 years, and we'd have to repeal the 19th ammendment.

It'd be Gingrich in 2012.

[NickT]

If someone says something as damning as Howard's comments in this current climate, you have to hit back hard and hit back loud.
I think it's important that you hit back smart though. You wont help yourself by getting into a shouting match.


Obama hit back smart.

[Ray G.]

Absolutely not! Kerry tried the minimum drama route with the swift boat vets and the "flip-flop" routine, and he was attacked (rightfully so) for not hitting back hard enough. If someone says something as damning as Howard's comments in this current climate, you have to hit back hard and hit back loud. You need to more sure that at least as many people know you're response as know about the original attack against you. So far, Obama is on a roll between this and that madrassa business.

His handling of the Madrassa business was brilliant. But screaming "Chickenhawk" at foreign leaders.....a little less so.

[JoeE]

Certainly Obama had a right to respond to Howard's comments. But Jesus Christ, 20,000 troops is almost a third of Australia's military. The U.S. hasn't even committed close to a third of its military to the Iraq war, where the hell does Obama get off making such a demand?

[stevapalooza]

Obama is a master of international diplomacy!! Get that man in the white house now!!!!

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Heh. See = silly, stupid, childish, idiotic, absurd, Poland.

I would argue, but I think you broke....


?

[En Sabah Poo]

His handling of the Madrassa business was brilliant. But screaming "Chickenhawk" at foreign leaders.....a little less so.

I think you can call a foreign leader in that position saying what he did a chickenhawk. While we can disagree on its use for regular citizens, foreign leaders have no place spewing bullshit about supporting the war if they dont' even support it with their own leadership and policies. They need to be called out on that.

[Ryan F]

Certainly Obama had a right to respond to Howard's comments. But Jesus Christ, 20,000 troops is almost a third of Australia's military. The U.S. hasn't even committed close to a third of its military to the Iraq war, where the hell does Obama get off making such a demand?

It's called rhetoric. And effective rhetoric at that.

[JoeE]

Obama is a master of international diplomacy!! Get that man in the white house now!!!!

I thought Democrats wanted to bring our allies back and here we have a Presidential candidate outright insulting them. I'm sure they'll do nothing but sing praises for it, too.

[Ray G.]

I think you can call a foreign leader in that position saying what he did a chickenhawk. While we can disagree on its use for regular citizens, foreign leaders have no place spewing bullshit about supporting the war if they dont' even support it with their own leadership and policies. They need to be called out on that.

That's a fair point. I just think Obama came off sounding a bit shrill here. I feel the same way about some of Bush's comments towards anti-war European leaders. A certain finesse is needed when taking leaders down a peg or two.

[En Sabah Poo]

I thought Democrats wanted to bring our allies back and here we have a Presidential candidate outright insulting them. I'm sure they'll do nothing but sing praises for it, too.

I don't think thats the kind of leader/ally we're looking to get back. He's already on the side that lost us our world respect. So, really, who gives a shit about him at this point? He has proven he only wants to support the American rightwing, not America in general.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

I thought Democrats wanted to bring our allies back and here we have a Presidential candidate outright insulting them. I'm sure they'll do nothing but sing praises for it, too.

Democrats are pissed at our loyal allies, but moon after our fairweather friends. And our enemies, who if only they'd sit in a room with a Democrat, would be able to come to a compromise. They are backwards children. And traitors.

[En Sabah Poo]

Democrats are pissed at our loyal allies, but moon after our fairweather friends. And our enemies, who if only they'd sit in a room with a Democrat, would be able to come to a compromise. They are backwards children. And traitors.

Insert picture of Rumsfeld and Bush holding hands with terrorists and Saudis.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Insert picture of Rumsfeld and Bush holding hands with terrorists and Saudis.

You're my whore.

TEXT OF KGB LETTER ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY
_________________________________________

Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV
Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov

On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.

If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.

Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee
V. Chebrikov


Another Democrat stooge, a willing and eager pawn in the betrayal of his own country. 8-)

[En Sabah Poo]

You're my whore.

TEXT OF KGB LETTER ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY
_________________________________________

Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV
Moscow

Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov

On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.

If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.

Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)

2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.

Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.

Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee
V. Chebrikov


Another Democrat stooge, a willing and eager pawn in the betrayal of his own country. 8-)

Thank you Mr. McCarthy for your wonderful information. Yes, better relations between the US and Soviets to prevent nuclear war was a terrible idea. Better to starve out millions of people, lead an entire continent to financial ruin, and destabilize the world in a constat threat of war for decades.

You're my whore. You're so easily predictable and incorrect with nearly everything you say. Thanks again for the comedy. :D

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Thank you Mr. McCarthy for your wonderful information. Yes, better relations between the US and Soviets to prevent nuclear war was a terrible idea. Better to starve out millions of people, lead an entire continent to financial ruin, and destabilize the world in a constat threat of war for decades.

You're my whore. You're so easily predictable and incorrect with nearly everything you say. Thanks again for the comedy. :D

Laaaaugh, though your heart is breaking! I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and I'll have to continue to monitor your phone conversations overseas. Thank you, for the accidental comedy. :)

[En Sabah Poo]

Laaaaugh, though your heart is breaking! I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and I'll have to continue to monitor your phone conversations overseas. Thank you, for the accidental comedy. :)

At least Kennedy didn't sell weapons to the Republican Guard that are now being used to kill our own soldiers. Thank your comrades (whoops, wrong choice of words I guess) on the right for that.

[JoeE]

At least Kennedy didn't sell weapons to the Republican Guard that are now being used to kill our own soldiers. Thank your comrades (whoops, wrong choice of words I guess) on the right for that.

Actually less than 1 percent of Iraq's munitions pre-2003 are from the U.S. government.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

At least Kennedy didn't sell weapons to the Republican Guard that are now being used to kill our own soldiers. Thank your comrades (whoops, wrong choice of words I guess) on the right for that.

No, but his big brother did embolden the Soviet Union with his pussyhood at the Bay of Pigs, convincing them to put missiles into Cuba, only to be removed with the promise of our never invading Cuba and removing our weapons in Turkey. Which in turn, made our brave Jack Kennedy need to flex his spindly little muscles in Viet Nam, costing the United States 58,000 lives and 350,000 casualties. So, well done, comrades. (right choice of words.)

I guess our Ted was the USSR's bitch in Jacks stead.

[kaptain]

I'm surprised that the Right isn't fellating Obama like Cherry Poppens in "Interacial Throatbangers 4" after Obama's tough talk. I mean, I thought blustery swaggering cowboy machosims were at the very heart of sound foreign policy or is that only the case when it's done by Old White Guys.

[NATE!]

No, but his big brother did embolden the Soviet Union with his pussyhood at the Bay of Pigs, convincing them to put missiles into Cuba, only to be removed with the promise of our never invading Cuba and removing our weapons in Turkey. Which in turn, made our brave Jack Kennedy need to flex his spindly little muscles in Viet Nam, costing the United States 58,000 lives and 350,000 casualties. So, well done, comrades. (right choice of words.)

I guess our Ted was the USSR's bitch in Jacks stead.

Ethan Van Sciver, Torture(d) Artist. :D

[The Roman Candle]

I think it's important that you hit back smart though. You wont help yourself by getting into a shouting match.

Obama hit back smart.

Yes, exactly.

[Fusion]

Cutting through what the whole world now knows has been a thick cloud of lies, misinformation and disingenuousness surrounding the war in Iraq whipped up by its most partisan, ideological backers, just-announced U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama isn't letting Australian Prime Minister John Howard easily off the hook.

The conservative Aussie pol, whose approval ratings are plummeting as he faces re-election, is seen to have played a role second only to that of British PM Tony Blair as a leading cheerleader and fawning "lapdog" of George W. Bush, as some of his own countrymen have described him.


The official photo-portrait of Australia's John Howard, from the conservative prime minister's government-run Web site
After ten years in office and burdened by his stubborn support for the increasingly unpopular war, this past weekend, Howard waded into the perilous waters of American domestic politics. "Howard said [Democratic] Senator Obama's call for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by March 2008 would deliver a victory for terrorists and destabilize the entire Middle East." Howard said: "If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats." (Sydney Morning Herald)

In response, Obama, a senator from Illinois, said: "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." (Crikey.com and the Age)

Australia's News. com.au headlined a report about the flap: "Put up or shut up, Obama tells Howard."

Uncharacteristically chastened - and exposed - Howard and the pro-Bush conservatives around him didn't let up. With a new voter-opinion poll showing that the opposition Labor Party, led by Kevin Rudd, is running ahead of Howard's ruling coalition, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer spoke up for his boss, "saying Howard has every right to speak out" and rejecting "Obama's suggestion that Australia should boost its troop commitment to Iraq" if, indeed, the PM really feels "so strongly supportive of the war." (Age)


Reuters
Just-announced Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, didn't let Howard get away with his debate-silencing remarks
Downer said: "It's entirely appropriate the Australian government expresses its view in a free world. You won't get anywhere trying to close down debate...." - which was, of course, exactly what Howard's original comment about Obama set out to do: to stifle any real criticism of the Bush-Blair-Howard Iraq caper. Meanwhile, Rudd said Howard "must not allow his personal relationship with President Bush to impact on Australia's long-term alliance relationship with the United States...." He added: "I disagreed with the coalition's decision to invade Iraq....But I have seen it as my role to discuss the future of Australian foreign policy on Iraq, not lecture United States citizens on how they should vote in the upcoming presidential election." (Age)

Howard's detractors are savoring what they see as his latest gaffe. A reader of Larvatus Prodeo, an Australian, politics-themed blog, commented: "I think this could be loads of fun over the next few days." She chastised Howard for "sticking his beak where it doesn't belong in toadying support for [an] imbecile president nobody wants and embarrassing the hell out of the lot of us...." Another reader, using a nickname Howard's critics sometimes call him, wrote that, with his anti-Obama remarks, this time,"Ratty's jumped the shark."

Awesome!!!8-) 8-) 8-)

[RebootedCorpse]

I'm surprised that the Right isn't fellating Obama like Cherry Poppens in "Interacial Throatbangers 4" after Obama's tough talk. I mean, I thought blustery swaggering cowboy machosims were at the very heart of sound foreign policy or is that only the case when it's done by Old White Guys.

They prefer their "coloreds" refrain from being upity.

[Jamie Coville]

And in all likelyhood Howard will be out of office soon, so I doubt Obama's remarks will do much "damage" to the relationship between countries. I'm sure the opposition parties that are likely to take power are chuckling away about this.