John Howard Bi*ch Slaps The Press

[Annie]

I wish some other leaders would do more of this:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_17_corner-archive.asp#070312

JOHN HOWARD [K. J. Lopez]
This quickie transcript was just sent to me by someone who described it as "a direct, devastating bitch-slap to the nonsense that the U.S., Britain and Australia brought this on themselves from any other leader":

PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter.)

 

[-Cp]

I love that guy! He's a great Prime Minister - well at least when it comes to his way of dealing with terrorists...

 

[Annie]

I love that guy! He's a great Prime Minister - well at least when it comes to his way of dealing with terrorists...

I agree, he's not afraid of dealing with the terrorists, the press, or his own party. He's no one's puppet!

 

[Adam's Apple]

I agree, he's not afraid of dealing with the terrorists, the press, or his own party. He's no one's puppet!

When the Republicans select their candidate for 2008, let's hope they select a man like John Howard. Any looming on the horizon, at this early stage, that you can see?

 

[Annie]

When the Republicans select their candidate for 2008, let's hope they select a man like John Howard. Any looming on the horizon, at this early stage, that you can see?

Honestly, no. I do however like Mark Kirk who's in the House. He's from northern Chicago suburbs. He was gone for awhile, serving in I believe Iraq with the Reserves. He's too young and not well enough known to be running.

 

[Gabriella84]

This is normal proceedure for Howard. He is known to be rather blustery. The Australian press does not operate under the political and economic restraints that the American press do, so they mostly ignore his rants.
Australia has some of the best newspapers in the world, by the way. The Age in Melbourne, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian are great sources of information. Many of you will classify them as "liberal," since they dare to present both sides of the story.

 

[insein]

This is normal proceedure for Howard. He is known to be rather blustery. The Australian press does not operate under the political and economic restraints that the American press do, so they mostly ignore his rants.
Australia has some of the best newspapers in the world, by the way. The Age in Melbourne, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian are great sources of information. Many of you will classify them as "liberal," since they dare to present both sides of the story.

No i believe the definition of a Liberal Newspaper is one that promotes its agenda by pushing specific stories that reenforce their ideals and ommitting ones that dont fit their propaganda, i.e. NY Times, LA Times, Boston Herald, Philadelphia Inquirer. Its not just the stories they keep in, its the ones they leave out or place on page 20, in the bottom corner, near the fold, where no one will see it.

The definition holds true for a conservative newspaper that does the same thing if there were such a thing as a conservative newspaper. :read:

 

[Gabriella84]

If the NY Times and the LA Times are so "liberal," why are they owned by one of the most conservative companies in the world, the Times-Mirror Group? Why do they consistently endorse Republican candidates for public office? If you want actual story count, go to Editor and Publisher for their review of coverage of the election campaign. I believe Bush had something like 52 percent of front page stories (normal for an incumbent).

The normal conservative ideology is to declare that any newspaper that questions Bush Administration policies to be "liberal."

 

[5stringJeff]

If the NY Times and the LA Times are so "liberal," why are they owned by one of the most conservative companies in the world, the Times-Mirror Group? Why do they consistently endorse Republican candidates for public office? If you want actual story count, go to Editor and Publisher for their review of coverage of the election campaign. I believe Bush had something like 52 percent of front page stories (normal for an incumbent).

The normal conservative ideology is to declare that any newspaper that questions Bush Administration policies to be "liberal."

First of all, ownership of the NYT or LAT by a "conservative" company does not dictate the editorial policy of those papers.

Secondly, it's not the number of stories on or about a candidate, it's the spin of those stories. I remember reading (somewhere) a media watchdog group showed that something like 2/3 of the stories about Kerry in the NYT had a positive spin, while 2/3 of stories about Bush had a negative spin.

 

[insein]

If the NY Times and the LA Times are so "liberal," why are they owned by one of the most conservative companies in the world, the Times-Mirror Group? Why do they consistently endorse Republican candidates for public office? If you want actual story count, go to Editor and Publisher for their review of coverage of the election campaign. I believe Bush had something like 52 percent of front page stories (normal for an incumbent).

The normal conservative ideology is to declare that any newspaper that questions Bush Administration policies to be "liberal."

Yes as the normal liberal ideology is to label any Conservative a war-mongering, gas-guzzling, earth-killing, racist. The difference is that the media (newspapers being a part of that) chooses to "investigate" a conservative when the seriousness of the charge is great enough (Rathergate, Karl rove accusations) and ignore any liberal in trouble even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against them (Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton, Dan rather).