- 27 Sep 2003 15:29
#28940
I used to be a big supporter of Howard; he heroically outlawed automatic rifles amidst a storm of intimidation from the gun lobby, he had the moral courage not to stoop to Hanson's level and engage her in public debate, and he introduced much needed tax reform.
However my trust in him wavered during the 'children over board' scandal - in which it is now clear that he blatantly lied to the Australian people, and it suffered a devastating blow during the war with Iraq.
Howard was in the US during 9/11 (along with my parents), and he developed a close bond (friendship?) with Dubya - Texas Ranger. Howard said recently that Bush was much misunderstood, and that contrary to popular perception, he actually has a strong grasp of all the issues.
Anyway, Howard made it clear that he would support the US in a war from the moment the issue came up. He initially used the "I'm not going to talk about a hypothetical situation" defence to repeated questions about whether or not this support would mean sending Australian troops. Everyone knew that in Howard talk, this translated into "I will be sending troops, but I'm too scared to tell everyone now". Before long however, Howard committed his forces, which was not insignificant for modest Australia. He incured considerable wrath from the public by asserting that we would go with or without UN approval. Australians united in protest, launching the biggest rallies in Melbourne and Sydney in Australia's history. Howard, unperturbed warned of his "ultimate nightmare" that Saddam would supply WMD to terrorists. During the war Howard made several tactless comments eg that Iraq's hospitals were coping ok with the casualties.
But the real dishonesty and deception was not revealed until after the war. A few weeks before the war started, Andrew Wilkie, an intelligence officer at the Office of National Assesements (ONA) resigned in protest claiming that the intelligence did not show that Saddam was a threat. To clarify, the ONA assesses intelligence passed to Australia from overseas sources. In this case, he was talking about US and UK intelligence, and the discrepency between what the actual intelligence said and what the politicians were saying. Andrew Wilkie has since testified at the Hutton enquiry, continuing his claim that intelligence was distorted by the UK and Australian governments to support their case. But at this stage, no one paid much attention to such descent; after all everyone knew that Saddam was stocked to the gills with WMD - not even the anti-war movement was trying to argue against that. The war came and went, and lo and behold no WMD were found. People began to ask questions about the claims we were hearing from our leaders. Remarkably, Howard has been unscathed by these backlash. He has sworn that he never received intelligence that was contrary to what he was saying to the public.
Now consider this: Wilkie has stated that it would have been inconceivable that Howard did not receive the assesement made by the ONA that Iraq was not the threat the US and UK governments were telling us it was. This was, after all, standard procedure; anything useful the ONA obtains is automatically passed on to the PM's office. Unfortunately, we don't know what happened, but one of four things would have happened:
1. The ONA, contrary to Wilkie's claims, concluded that Saddam was a
threat and passed this information to the PM.
2. The ONA assessed that Saddam was not a threat, but failed to pass
intelligence supporting this claim to the PM's office.
3. The ONA did pass intelligence to the PM's office, saying that Saddam
was not a threat, but the PM did not read it.
4. The PM did read the dissapointing intelligence stating that Saddam was
not a threat, but lied to the people anyway.
As for scenario 1, why would Wilkie risk his reputation and his career to say a lie? And anyway, his assertions have been proved right. Howard, Bush and Blair's claims have been proved wrong, and it has been revealed that the intelligence agencies in the US and UK had been supressed to a degree, such as the warning to Blair that an attack would only INCREASE the terrorist risk, and the CIA plea to not include the uranium-Africa link. If the intelligence agencies were saying to the UK and US governments that Saddam was not a threat, then this intelligence would also have reached the ONA, as Wilkie asserts.
So then we are left with three scenarios. To be kind, lets assume scenario 2 occured. Note again that this is contrary to standard practice, and contrary to Wilkies assertion that the intelligence would definitely have been sent to the PM's office. Nonetheless, lets give the PM the benefit of the doubt. Now consider this: what sort of PM swears solemnly to the public that Saddam is a threat, while not once checking with the intelligence office that analyses the intelligence related to this matter?
So you can see, Howard is one of two things: he is either incredibly incompetent and negligent(at the very best) or he is an out and out liar.
Either way does not fill me with confidence.
However my trust in him wavered during the 'children over board' scandal - in which it is now clear that he blatantly lied to the Australian people, and it suffered a devastating blow during the war with Iraq.
Howard was in the US during 9/11 (along with my parents), and he developed a close bond (friendship?) with Dubya - Texas Ranger. Howard said recently that Bush was much misunderstood, and that contrary to popular perception, he actually has a strong grasp of all the issues.
Anyway, Howard made it clear that he would support the US in a war from the moment the issue came up. He initially used the "I'm not going to talk about a hypothetical situation" defence to repeated questions about whether or not this support would mean sending Australian troops. Everyone knew that in Howard talk, this translated into "I will be sending troops, but I'm too scared to tell everyone now". Before long however, Howard committed his forces, which was not insignificant for modest Australia. He incured considerable wrath from the public by asserting that we would go with or without UN approval. Australians united in protest, launching the biggest rallies in Melbourne and Sydney in Australia's history. Howard, unperturbed warned of his "ultimate nightmare" that Saddam would supply WMD to terrorists. During the war Howard made several tactless comments eg that Iraq's hospitals were coping ok with the casualties.
But the real dishonesty and deception was not revealed until after the war. A few weeks before the war started, Andrew Wilkie, an intelligence officer at the Office of National Assesements (ONA) resigned in protest claiming that the intelligence did not show that Saddam was a threat. To clarify, the ONA assesses intelligence passed to Australia from overseas sources. In this case, he was talking about US and UK intelligence, and the discrepency between what the actual intelligence said and what the politicians were saying. Andrew Wilkie has since testified at the Hutton enquiry, continuing his claim that intelligence was distorted by the UK and Australian governments to support their case. But at this stage, no one paid much attention to such descent; after all everyone knew that Saddam was stocked to the gills with WMD - not even the anti-war movement was trying to argue against that. The war came and went, and lo and behold no WMD were found. People began to ask questions about the claims we were hearing from our leaders. Remarkably, Howard has been unscathed by these backlash. He has sworn that he never received intelligence that was contrary to what he was saying to the public.
Now consider this: Wilkie has stated that it would have been inconceivable that Howard did not receive the assesement made by the ONA that Iraq was not the threat the US and UK governments were telling us it was. This was, after all, standard procedure; anything useful the ONA obtains is automatically passed on to the PM's office. Unfortunately, we don't know what happened, but one of four things would have happened:
1. The ONA, contrary to Wilkie's claims, concluded that Saddam was a
threat and passed this information to the PM.
2. The ONA assessed that Saddam was not a threat, but failed to pass
intelligence supporting this claim to the PM's office.
3. The ONA did pass intelligence to the PM's office, saying that Saddam
was not a threat, but the PM did not read it.
4. The PM did read the dissapointing intelligence stating that Saddam was
not a threat, but lied to the people anyway.
As for scenario 1, why would Wilkie risk his reputation and his career to say a lie? And anyway, his assertions have been proved right. Howard, Bush and Blair's claims have been proved wrong, and it has been revealed that the intelligence agencies in the US and UK had been supressed to a degree, such as the warning to Blair that an attack would only INCREASE the terrorist risk, and the CIA plea to not include the uranium-Africa link. If the intelligence agencies were saying to the UK and US governments that Saddam was not a threat, then this intelligence would also have reached the ONA, as Wilkie asserts.
So then we are left with three scenarios. To be kind, lets assume scenario 2 occured. Note again that this is contrary to standard practice, and contrary to Wilkies assertion that the intelligence would definitely have been sent to the PM's office. Nonetheless, lets give the PM the benefit of the doubt. Now consider this: what sort of PM swears solemnly to the public that Saddam is a threat, while not once checking with the intelligence office that analyses the intelligence related to this matter?
So you can see, Howard is one of two things: he is either incredibly incompetent and negligent(at the very best) or he is an out and out liar.
Either way does not fill me with confidence.
. THen the dark ages desended and every one stopped voting for the democrats 
.
.
- By Potemkin
- By Puffer Fish