John Howard misleads public? (1 Viewer)

[Inscrutable]

Is it a lie if circumstances change so that he had to act differently?

no its not a lie if circumstances affected it, but in this case it is a lie because australia doesnt really HAVE to send more troops, its not like 450 is gonna do alot compared to the 150,000 american soldiers

 

[babez_hamp]

i have to say i'm totally not suprised he did this..............it's not the first time johnny has backflipped on an election promise. gst anyone ?

 

[townie]

John Howard always misleads the public, unfourtunatley, most of the public doesnt seem to care.

what really gets me, is when some people do seem to care, they are immediatley labelled "bleeding heart liberals", the "late class" or "chardonay sipping socialists". People like Miranda Devine bitch and whine about how bad Howard UNsupports are, when the great majority of us are actually trying to keep some semblance of democracy and common decency in this country.

our human rights record is appalling, and anybody who criticies is immediately labelled UNaustralian, which 2 seem people seems to be terrorism.

at what cost are we fighting this "war on terror", i'll tell u at what cost, and the cost of OUR freedom, OUR democracy, OUR free speech, OUR human rights....in the mad dash to stop terrorism, we've done exactly what they wanted. destroyed our democracy that the REAL terrorists hate so much.

yet Howard continues to be in power, despite the flack i'll cop for saying this, i feel it has to be said: right now i am ashamed to be an Australian Citizen, and a British Citizen and an AMerican Citizen (yes, i happen to be all three), the world needs to wake up, and take back it's freedom, and not stand for misleading and hiding behind "national security", and respect the basic human decency that we should all be afforded

 

[tennille]

I believe Helen Clark is an excellent PM. We need someone like her. She refused to send troops to Iraq. She has more balls than Howard. Howard is too submissive.

 

[tennille]

Helen Clark is a Lesbian and not a Christian.

Why, because she has short hair?

Who cares. lol.

 

[tennille]

lol. ok.

Women with no children are always a bit "manly".

 

[Riewe]

Back on topic, i saw Howards promise not to send more troops was based on that he saw no need to send more troops. But seeing that circumstances have changed, there is now a need to send more troops to protect the japanese engineers while they rebuild a part of the country. So i don't see Howard breaking an election promise; but if there was still no need to send troops, then yes, he did break his promise. But because there is now a need for more troops, he did not mislead the public

 

[gordo]

lol its all media
they played his pre election speech and in it, howard said that their were currently no plans to increase troop numbers.
that was like a 3 months ago

last week the dutch announced they were pulling out 1000 men (these men were protecting japanese who were building schools and other public civil infrastructure)
its hardly breaking a promise that their are currently no plans (3 months ago), when this new committment of troops wasn't a current plan 3 months ago...

the media are just assholes

 

[tennille]

the media are just assholes

Definitely true.

 

[Generator]

There is more to this than the 'arseholes' in the media... For what it's worth, I'm siding with Bob Brown on this particular issue.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Asquithian, how does saying "Australia currently has no plans to increase troops numbers" mean he never makes committed promises.

Sure he misleads the mases, but that's what ALL politicians do.

 

[Arvin Sloane]

We lie because we can.

 

[Generator]

Sure he misleads the mases, but that's what ALL politicians do.

The problem is that we (Australia in general) just accept this and seem to ignore any sense of accountability.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The masses are stupid, you have to play to their stupidity.
If he would of said "I want to leave the option open to send more troops incase circumstances change", then Latham would of come out and said "He's going to send more troops! this is turning into vietnam", and the public would of had THAT perception.

It's just politics, unless we can breed a race of super-geniuses that are interested in politics and have alot of time on their hands i don't think it'll go away.

 

[Tommy_Lamp]

I don't understand why they have to lie, can't he just say that originally that didnt believe that more troops would be needed, but the situation has changed and they require more troops, of course there's going to be opposition, but not as much when they lie like this.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

... I thought that's what he did say?
Asquithian, he's commital on issues that require commitment..
I don't mind my leader re-assessing the situation all the time, we don't live in a static world.

Tho i can see how it can be decieving.

 

[leetom]

It would have been nice to know the truth about the Government's intention to send more troops during before the election but I doubt it would have altered the results. If we look past Howard's deception (we always do) and look at what sending Australian soldiers to Iraq actually means, we will realise that sending more troops is entirely understandable, if not necessary.

Iraq at the moment, is engaged in a veritable race between peace and anarchy. Democracy is spreading throughout the country, though its progress is threatened by religious extremists whose only promise is more blood and senseless violence, a stark contrast to what a democratic Iraq will offer the Iraqi people. The democratic process still demands protection from those extremist filth, and who better to defend it than Australian soldiers. The success the Iraqi elections have had is undeniable. That success must be consolidatred.

So I urge that despite Howard's misleading of the public, you all acknowledge the absolute necessity of sending more Australian soldiers to the region.

 

[transcendent]

This is my position.

I was against the war in Iraq. Howard went ahead with it. I knew he was full of shit and still is. Can't do anything about it. I support Australia's military in peacekeeping roles. I don't mind boosting troop numbers to assist in the peacekeeping effort.

 

[ZabZu]

I see the violence today coming from two different groups:
- The people who attack the occupying forces or coalition in an attempt to get them to leave.
- The Iraqis (most likely Sunnis) who attack the Shi'ites because they are annoyed of the shift in the balance of power inside Iraq.

While i dont support Howard's decision to send more troops, the subject of foreign troops is a very difficult matter to discuss. The Shi'ites need protection since a strong Iraqi force hasn't been fully established yet. However, these foreign troops become targets for violence too.

And yes Howard did mislead the public. In the bulletin magazine he said that he would not increase the number of troops by a significant proportion or something. Also does anyone remember a few years back, i think Howard said Australia wont participate in the reconstruction of Iraq?

 

[Scanorama]

Howard lies to the public. First he insisted there are Mass Destructive Weapons in Iraq before the war and during the war he insisted they will find it, just a matter of time. But recently, after the US report came out and said they found nothing about the weapons yet more troops are sent.

While Howard uses the money on the troops in Iraq, the money could have well spent on other things, such as education (from public schools to HECS), health (Medicare funding), and some other areas which can benefit all the Australian, not pleasing the American government.

The interest rate is about to rise very soon, I wonder how he will defend it.

Thats another reason and reminds me who to vote for in the next election.