PDA

View Full Version : Put up or shut up, Obama tells Howard



stephanie
02-12-2007, 12:57 AM
Obama is speaking to one of our closet allies, like some punk kid would speak....Real Presidential....This idiot can not become our Commander in Cheif..:(

By Peter Mitchell and Peter Veness in Los Angeles
February 12, 2007 01:32pm

US presidential candidate Barack Obama has told Prime Minister John Howard to put up or shut up.

Mr Obama, speaking at a packed press conference in Iowa today, said if MrHoward was concerned about the situation in Iraq he should send 20,000 Australian troops to the strife-torn nation.

The Illinois senator added that if Mr Howard did not send the troops, then the prime minister's attack on the Democrat presidential hopefuls Iraq policy was "empty rhetoric''.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now and my understanding is that Mr Howard has deployed 1400,''Mr Obama, who next year could become the first African American to be elected US president, said.

"So, if he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them up to Iraq.

"Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric.''

Mr Howard sparked the war of words yesterday when he took the extraordinary step of declaring that he hoped Mr Obama did not become president of the US, and that his election would be disastrous for the war on terrorism.

Mr Howard said Mr Osama's plan to pull America's combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, was a strategy that would "destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists''.

"If I were running al-Qaeda 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,'' Mr Howard said.

Mr Howard's comments came a day after Mr Obama officially launched his US presidential campaign and the clash quickly became one of the top news stories in the US.

Spokesman for Mr Obama, Robert Gibbs, travelling with the senator in Iowa, told American reporters Mr Howard should contribute more Australian troops "so some American troops can come home''.

"It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices,'' Mr Gibbs said.

Mr Howard's attack also drew criticism from other senior US Democrats.

Oregon senator Ron Wyden said: "The most charitable thing you can say about Mr Howard's comment is bizarre''.

"We'll make our own judgments in this country with respect to elections and Barack Obama is a terrific public servant.''

Mr Obama and Terry McAuliffe, a former chairman of the Democratic National Convention, noted Mr Howard's close relationship with Republican president George W Bush.

"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,'' Mr Obama said.

"I take that as a compliment.''

Mr Howard also managed to upset at least one Republican senator.

"I would prefer that Mr Howard stay out of our domestic politics and we will stay out of his domestic politics,'' Texas Republican senator John Cornyn said.

Mr Obama, 45, is the top challenger to Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the Democratic Party's candidate for next year's US presidential election.

Mr Obama has vowed to end the Iraq war if elected president.

Mr Howard's comments received plenty of airplay in the US, with 24-hour news channels CNN and Fox News regularly running reports about the war of words.

But he appeared unrepentant today, saying Mr Obama had failed to address the substance of the war in Iraq.

"I think the most interesting thing about (Senator Osama's comments) is that it didn't really address the substance of the issue,'' Howard told ABC Radio.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21210989-1702,00.html

avatar4321
02-12-2007, 02:00 AM
Not exactly helping future relations with Australia, although i highly doubt we will have strained relations anytime soon. I still think its wiser not to insult the allies we do have.

Gaffer
02-12-2007, 12:18 PM
Too bad Howards not a US citizen, He's make a good president here.

Pale Rider
02-12-2007, 12:44 PM
I like how the MSM is keeping Osama's middle name, HUSSEIN, reeeeeeaaal quite.

This may piss off some people, but it is my belief, black people are inherently more violent than other races. If we put a black man in the White House.... look out.

Grumplestillskin
02-12-2007, 01:19 PM
Howard is not that well liked in Australia. If the last election had been on Iraq and Iraq alone he would have lost. Unfortunately the liberal party (yes, that is the name of Howard's party) had better ideas on what to do with the economy than the labour party. That being said, Howard had a go at Obama first and he responded. What would you prefer, a wannabe president sitting back and doing nothing when attacked? That seems to go against everything you conservatives hate in such a candidate - a pacifist!

Grumplestillskin
02-12-2007, 01:23 PM
I like how the MSM is keeping Osama's middle name, HUSSEIN, reeeeeeaaal quite.

Yeah, because its' sooooooo relevent...:boohoo:



This may piss off some people, but it is my belief, black people are inherently more violent than other races. If we put a black man in the White House.... look out.

I know what you mean. Just look at all the violent genocides in the world. The Soviet Union in the 1930s - whoops, Stalin was caucasian; how about Adoph - whoops, another whitey; Pol Pot! - no, Asian!; Mao - nope, another Asian! - You can have Rwanda and Idi Amin I guess - even Charles Taylor in Liberia, but Stalin alone is responsible for more deaths than those three put together. Got any more generalisations you wish to impart...

5stringJeff
02-12-2007, 01:26 PM
Howard may be more conservative than most, but he's also a big-time gun grabber. Australia has outlawed the ownership of handguns, pistols, and rifles. :(

Grumplestillskin
02-12-2007, 01:33 PM
Howard may be more conservative than most, but he's also a big-time gun grabber. Australia has outlawed the ownership of handguns, pistols, and rifles. :(

I like most of his stances on gun issues bar the rifle snatching. Pistols/handguns yeah, but not rifles. They have huge pest control issues in Aussie...

5stringJeff
02-12-2007, 01:37 PM
I like most of his stances on gun issues bar the rifle snatching. Pistols/handguns yeah, but not rifles. They have huge pest control issues in Aussie...

Well, I don't want to derail the thread, but I certainly disagree with you on that issue.

Grumplestillskin
02-12-2007, 01:39 PM
Well, I don't want to derail the thread, but I certainly disagree with you on that issue.

I know. Most conservatives do. Different mind sets I guess...

Grumplestillskin
02-12-2007, 02:16 PM
You sure are selective in what you know about grump. You try and come off as knowing a lot about everything, when it looks a whole lot more like you know about a selective few things instead. Your only concern seems to be what your liberal lords TELL you to know, and nothing else.

So let me help you out. Let me SHOW YOU....


http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4493/blackonwhitecrimeni1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Can't open your link...comes up with a image hosting site. And my eye sight is not that good. Although it does look intersting reading...:dunno:

What is selective about knowing that Stalin was responsible for 33 million deaths. It is part of history. As is Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler and Mao Tse Tung.

What are my liberal lords supposedly telling me? When it comes to stuff like this, I tell you what I do do. I look up facts using various sources. I then double check those facts and make sure they are correct. I don't go to op-ed pieces and treat them like the writers are gods just because I "think" they back up my POV...We can all post empty rhetoric and inflammatory remarks based on nothing but narrow-minded thinking - that's way too easy....

Pale Rider
02-12-2007, 02:17 PM
I know what you mean. Just look at all the violent genocides in the world. The Soviet Union in the 1930s - whoops, Stalin was caucasian; how about Adoph - whoops, another whitey; Pol Pot! - no, Asian!; Mao - nope, another Asian! - You can have Rwanda and Idi Amin I guess - even Charles Taylor in Liberia, but Stalin alone is responsible for more deaths than those three put together. Got any more generalisations you wish to impart...


You do your best at trying to appear well rounded and educated grump, when in reality it appears more like all you really know about is what your liberal lords TELL you to know about.

So let me help you out here.....

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/5174/blackonwhitecrimede9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://www.newnation.com/NNN-Black-on-White.html

Pale Rider
02-12-2007, 02:21 PM
Can't open your link...comes up with a image hosting site. And my eye sight is not that good. Although it does look intersting reading...:dunno:

What is selective about knowing that Stalin was responsible for 33 million deaths. It is part of history. As is Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler and Mao Tse Tung.
Because youknew nothing of a major crisis here in America.


What are my liberal lords supposedly telling me? When it comes to stuff like this, I tell you what I do do. I look up facts using various sources. I then double check those facts and make sure they are correct. I don't go to op-ed pieces and treat them like the writers are gods just because I "think" they back up my POV...We can all post empty rhetoric and inflammatory remarks based on nothing but narrow-minded thinking - that's way too easy....
Narrow minded. That little ditty makes me chuckle. I think the person using that term must be all full of themselves.

Didn't realize imageshake reduced the file size. I resized it.

Grumplestillskin
02-12-2007, 02:25 PM
You do your best at trying to appear well rounded and educated grump, when in reality it appears more like all you really know about is what your liberal lords TELL you to know about.

So let me help you out here.....

Wow, a link to a clearly racist website. That helps!
I have no liberal lords. I think for myself and don't take sensationalist headlines (see link to NNN) and treat them as the norm. IOW, I think for myself. Give a try. You can do it!

Grumplestillskin
02-12-2007, 02:28 PM
Because youknew nothing of a major crisis here in America.


Narrow minded. That little ditty makes me chuckle. I think the person using that term must be all full of themselves.

Didn't realize imageshake reduced the file size. I resized it.

I know that libs say mroe whites commit crimes than blacks in the US, but per head of population (per 100,000) blacks outnumber whites. The per head is the true number, so yes black people do commit more crimes. But where people disagree is the causes. Are blacks wired to be more criminally minded? Or is it because a lot of them are at the bottom of the social heap? I've read reports that make good cases for both scenarios.

Narrow minded indicates a person has taken a subject, only addressed one aspect of it, and made their decision.

Thanks for upping the image size.

avatar4321
02-12-2007, 04:23 PM
Howard is not that well liked in Australia. If the last election had been on Iraq and Iraq alone he would have lost. Unfortunately the liberal party (yes, that is the name of Howard's party) had better ideas on what to do with the economy than the labour party. That being said, Howard had a go at Obama first and he responded. What would you prefer, a wannabe president sitting back and doing nothing when attacked? That seems to go against everything you conservatives hate in such a candidate - a pacifist!

Pacism should be a disqualifier for anyone contending to be Commander-in-Chief due to the fact that any pacifist would refuse to defend our nation.

manu1959
02-12-2007, 04:29 PM
Yeah, because its' sooooooo relevent...:boohoo: I know what you mean. Just look at all the violent genocides in the world. The Soviet Union in the 1930s - whoops, Stalin was caucasian; how about Adoph - whoops, another whitey; Pol Pot! - no, Asian!; Mao - nope, another Asian! - You can have Rwanda and Idi Amin I guess - even Charles Taylor in Liberia, but Stalin alone is responsible for more deaths than those three put together. Got any more generalisations you wish to impart...


obama ain't black.....

manu1959
02-12-2007, 04:33 PM
Narrow minded indicates a person has taken a subject, only addressed one aspect of it, and made their decision.



you really shouldn't be so hard on yourself...........

Abbey Marie
02-12-2007, 04:52 PM
"If I were running al-Qaeda 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,'' Mr Howard said.


Mr. Howard has an excellent point. He is concerned about the same thing many of us are: God forbid we elect a President in 2008 who is unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to effectively fight terrorists.

As for his suggestion that Australia send send 20,000 more troops to Iraq, why should they do that when HusseinObama advocates removing our troops by March of '08?

stephanie
02-12-2007, 05:00 PM
Mr. Howard has an excellent point. He is concerned about the same thing many of us are: God forbid we elect a President in 2008 who is unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to effectively fight terrorists.

As for his suggestion that Australia send send 20,000 more troops to Iraq, why should they do that when Hussainabad advocates removing our troops by March of '08?

Obama, just proved what I already knew about him..

He's nothing but an airhead empty suit that is taking all this media driven love about him way too serious..

He should drop out now, before he makes a bigger ASS of himself...;)