Hey Rommers. Just the I'd be the first to post, alas I am. Yay for me.

and i, the second

good work on the blog romstar. i look forward to reading more in the future.

Another good demonstration of the value of a good education and perceptive mind.
Why don't you add yr previous published letters to editors which I have followed with interest over the years.
John

I knew I knew you

Awesome article man... I wrote on the subject earlier this month... I like the guy, but really, he couldn't possibly have any idea about our domestic politics... If you are interested, i have linked it Link

Good to see another Aussie on board JU!

BAM!!!

I'd love to write more but a stinky nappy takes precedence... Basically my thoughts on the Bush administration "interfering" in our politics is this: The comments made from their administration have been all (at least to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) in relation to the Iraq issue. Oddly enough Iraq matters quite a lot to the US of A. Although we have a rather small contingent in Iraq our political support is apparently quite important on the world stage, at least when it comes to Iraq anyway.

Bush believes, and to be honest I tend to agree, that any sign of doubt or a withdrawal would only serve to increase terrorist attacks in Iraq, the US and probably Australia. Spain is a great example. Coming up to an election the opposition said they'd withdraw troops if they won. It may just be coincidence but not long before their election terrorists attacked and the government lost at the election.

So given that US troops and citizens may possibly be in danger I think he has every right to tell Latham to think it through because it's a dangerous idea.

On a side note, Latham’s actual withdrawal figures show he would actually only withdraw less then a third by Christmas, the rest would stay on indefinitely. Re Bush working with Latham should him win, notice the strategic elevation of Beazley? Notice Rudd (I may be wrong, pretty certain it was him) on a brown nosing tour of the states? Whatever Bush said, Latham listened. At least he does think some things through....

I was raised in a town one county away from Flint where Moore grew up and first launched his propagandist career. Roger & Me, was about the poor underpaid union workers who were laid off as a result of the Flint Buick plant closing. What Moore failed to accurately report then was that those workers put that plant out of business. In the late 1970s unskilled labor made roughly about 70k a year. Moreover, Buick provided retraining (college) or early retirement incentives, and the rest were transferred to other GM plants in about 20 miles away--so the poor downtrodden weren't really all that down.

Now as far as my President "interfering" in politics of an ally...I agree with FishHead up there. It is quite clear by the socialist agenda in the EU and in my own country, AL Qaeda has figured out how to play the westerners. Anyway, US and Australia just signed a major missile defense treaty, I don't see the possiblity of a breakup any time soon.

Fisho I'm glad you know about this blog, this is going to be fun.
I have no problem with Bush having his opinion and telling it to Latham, but it's poor diplomacy to broadcast a comment like that to the entire media. Negotiations on divisive political issues like this should take place behind closed doors, particularly when they are quite clearly going to be one of the deciding factors in our upcoming election. It was irresponsible of Bush.
Yes I agree that Latham has been moving to make himself more palatable to the Yanks and I support this move. I've been arguing for some time that Beazley belongs on the front bench. It was a terrible waste of talent to have the greatest Defence Minister of alltime sitting on the backbench. Rudd is my 2nd favourite Laborite and that's because he has a fair bit of nouse on these issues.
But this doesn't excuse what Bush did. A lot of blame has been placed on Latho for making relations with the Yanks difficult. This is blame shifting. And now it seems that it is the ALP who is being required to fix up the pieces for the Yanks.
Joe Blow, I realise Mr Moore distorts things. And I'll probably post a full article on that one some other time. But in the case of Moore criticisng our PM, I was actually saying that what Moore did was wrong. But it wasn't unacceptable, as what Bush did was. Now in this particular instance no one is accusing Moore of distorting the truth because there was no presentation of facts in this case. It was just his opinion that the ALP should win the next election. That was why I said Moore should stick to documentaries. I would see no problem with him doing a docco on John Howard. Then let the debate commence on what bits were true and what bits were typical Moore distortions.
Muggaz, I'll be round to your place on the web soon mate.

I can understand how you say that it should've probably done through diplomatic channels but I have a few problems with it as well. Firstly, this is Latham we're talking about, the same Latham who openly bashed Bush, and not what I'd call nicely. Same guy who called the Libs a "conga line of suck holes", which even if you think that is correct there are more "diplomatic" ways to get your message across. Latham quite clearly doesn't want to do things the "diplomatic" way. He wants to turn our usually well run election campaigns into US-style elections with his appearance on shows like Rove Live and the Footy Show, shows that get the chance to show him as a nice guy but nothing about how he'd run the country.

Latham is also a bully who can't take what he serves out. Notice no proof of those allegations about media attacking stuff about his family when they were 13 and 15? But that's just a side note; the point is he doesn't like to be diplomatic so why bother?

Another point is I think that we as the Australian public have a right to know how his decision would affect our relationship with the US. Did you know that Latham's plan to pull troops is out of sync with every major leader, and importantly every opposition leader? Both the US Democrat challenger and the UK's opposition leader support the troops in Iraq and won't pull them should they win. The UN has even finally endorsed the troops being there (you know my feelings on the UN though so to me that doesn't mean much). So Latham's shoot-from-the-hip-and-think-about-consequences-later style has put him out of kilter with our most important allies. But seriously he'd be a great leader of the country wouldn't he?

Small note on Beazley, he retired. Oh and then got really sick hence not in politics for a while.

I'm not sure what comment it was that Latham made about Bush, but one other major difference here is that the US media was hardly likely to report it to the US public and thus it was hardly likely to influence their election. That's not a great excuse, but it IS a difference. As to calling the Libs a conga line of suckholes, good on him. There is no need to exercise diplomacy when criticising the other side of politics in Australia. In fact there is a duty to openly criticise the other side and both sides fulfil that duty all the time. Maybe you don't like Latham's turn of phrase, but that's a question of taste.
I can see your point about the appearances on Rove. I don't think he's alone in turning our elections into being something that is not about how they will run the country. (Why did Howard feel the need to comment on Muralitharan? I don't think that's a great example, but it just came to mind).
I don't think we yet really know how his policy would affect our relationship with the Yanks. I'm personally not that bothered, the Kiwis survive perfectly well not being part of the ANZUS Treaty as it is still called for some reason, but let's go along the lines that we want to maintain that relationship. I would like to think that if Latho were our PM that Bush would sit down and chat with him. What is more, Latho's policy has been so grossly misrepresented that Bush wasn't even really commenting on it. He was simply commenting on what Howard claims the policy is about. There were always conditions placed on the withdrawal of troops, but hardly anyone ever bothers mentioning that. Not even the supposedly left W ABC.
As for other people's stances on the issue, I take those statements of position with a grain of salt. The UN is practical enough to realise there's not much point in denouncing the invasion now. It would only lead to more disunity (I can't think of the real word right now) in the UN. We have to try to work with the rogue state.
Just as Bush has created the political climate in the US and I don't think their Democrats would have a hope in hell of winning at the moment if they spoke out against the war in the first place or the continued occupation. There is a culture of fear and lies in the country that has brainwashed so many in Australia and the US that one can't speak out against these things and still win the election. So I don't have a problem with Latham's position being out of step with whoever. He's in line with the Spanish because they are the only ones who've had it brought home to them that the War in Iraq has made their own country MORE open to terrorism.

OK, last night I saw the comment by Latham on Bush, made in Parliament. And by the way I'll mention that I saw it on the ABC. MediaWatch what is more, and even I would acknowledge that MW is left leaning. It was an inappropriate comment. But that doesn't mean that Bush should have sunk to Latham's level. That's called hypocrisy. And yes Latham is a hypocrite too, but that doesn't take away the fact that Bush is a hypocrite here.

"Notice no proof of those allegations about media attacking stuff about his family when they were 13 and 15?"

I havent heard about it either but I accidentally just found this in a transcript from GMA:
NEWTON: But did you set a new agenda, because you gave mention to issues that we knew nothing about?

LATHAM: Those matters were subsequently published -

NEWTON: But not at that stage.

LATHAM: No, no, but journalists were asking questions about it. When I raised them at the press conference, there was no shortage of questions about them. People in the press gallery knew about them. They knew these rumours and were jumping up to ask questions about them. If journalists are asking questions, they've obviously got an intention to publish.