Bring it you Vichy French little bitches...

"ACCORDING to my dictionary, the word "ally" comes from the Old French. Very Old French, I'd say. For the New French, the word has a largely postmodern definition of "duplicitous charmer who undermines you at every opportunity".
For the less enthusiastically obstructive NATO members, "ally" means "wealthy country with no military capability that requires years of diplomatic wooing and black-tie banquets in order to agree to a token contribution of 23.08 troops." Incidentally, that 23.08 isn't artistic licence on my part. The 2004 NATO summit in Turkey was presented as a triumph of multilateral co-operation because the 26 members agreed to contribute between them an additional 600 troops and three helicopters to the Afghan mission. That's 23.08 troops and a ninth of a helicopter per ally. In fairness, Turkey chipped in the three helicopters single-handed, though the deal required them to return to Ankara after three months.
And these days troops is something of an elastic term, too. In Norwegian, it means "fighting men who are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, as long as they don't have to do any fighting and there are at least two provinces between their shoulders and the American ones". That's to say, Norway is "participating" in Afghanistan, but, because its troops are "not sufficiently trained to take part in combat", they've been mainly back at the barracks manning the photocopier or staging amateur performances of Peer Gynt for the amusement of US special forces who like nothing better than to unwind with five acts of Ibsen after a hard day hunting the Taliban. "

Conservative and unapologetic about it - I'm sold, America Alone is my first purchase of the weekend as soon as I get into Angus and Roberston (t-ville has no borders, let alone a Myer).
Quit whingeing about Hicks and get a life.....

Hey and why don't you demand your right to disrupt the traffic of hundreds of thousands to parade your bigoted anti-American opinions down main street Sydney with your all of two hundred turn out... leftist wankers...

Was the age opinion editor on holidays?

How did a story like this get printed over yet another David Hicks / Climate Change / John Howard is the devil op-ed piece? One of the most interesting, yet unrealised attribute of the liberal left in recent times has been the alliance with extremist Muslim interest groups. A short glance at the 2006 Israel - Hezbollah conflict, Iraq and even Iran - all situations where the Left has chosen the side of extremists with ideologies diametrically opposed in every way except for a common hatred of the USA.

What does it say about the liberal left when they would rather side with dictators, terrorists and those that do not abide by the laws of armed conflict in any way, shape or form than the democratic USA?

When 'bringing home the troops' means leaving 900 indefinitely in Iraq...

Australian has 1400 troops deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Kevin Rudd has promised to bring them home - in consultation with our allies. In doing so Rudd has won the kudos of the anti-Bush, anti-war in Iraq pundits, while claiming to also protect our relations with our allies in the US and UK.

What the press has failed to seize on, and it is indicative that the honeymoon is still in bloom, is the fact that Rudd is really bringing just 500 troops home. This leaves almost two thirds of the current commitment in Iraq. While professing an ideological belief that we should withdraw our troops, his actions speak much louder than his words - 900 troops remain without a time line for withdrawal. Rudd heavily criticised Howard's lack of stated timeline (although stating a time for withdrawal worked so well for the US in Vietnam and Somalia!!) for withdrawal, while glossing over the fact that he has only announced a plan for Overwatch Battle Group West.

The Overwatch Battlegroup is supporting two provinces already under Iraqi control - being As Samawah and Dhi Qar. Australians provide training, civil-military liaison, engineering and medical support as well as a back up for Iraqi forces in the worst case scenario.

Rudd and Labor claim that a withdrawal would trigger more action by the Iraqi Government to look after its own problem. His policy however, withdraws the only Australian element that is providing invaluable support to provinces only recently handed over to full Iraqi control.

The most glaringly obvious fault in this plan has been shown in Rudd's avoidance of answering questions on what he believes will happen to Iraq should a full withdrawal occur. This is because he knows very well that whatever the level of human suffering Iraq currently has, what will follow a withdrawal will be one of the bloodiest civil wars the world has seen. The civil war would surely drag Iraq's neighbours into a destabilising catastrophe that has the potential to dramatically affect the Middle East, and the world. Terrorist extremists will emerge greatly strengthened, and the US will withdraw to an increasingly isolationist stance that will greatly increase instability in the international environment.

Rudd knows this - that why he can never answer the question when put to him - it clearly shows that he is willing to make poor security decisions to gain popular support. The hard decisions are better left to Howard, someone who doesn't shirk from an unpopular, but necessary decision.

Costello shows Turnbull who really commands the floor...

There has been some talk of Turnbull's flair and colourful style in the press this week, but the true performer was Costello. In a week where Howard took more punishment than he inflicted, Costello rattled Rudd with some cutting question time performance.

"Labor is drawing inspiration for its economic analysis from a Donald Duck magazine. This is the evolutionary cycle of the Labor Party. We have moved from Mark Latham's roosters to Kevin Rudd's ducks...Managing the Australian economy, which is a $1 trillion economy, takes experience and commitment and you do not get your analysis from Donald Duck comics. It is much more serious than that. That is why only a Coalition government can manage the Australian economy."

Rudd paused - winced perhaps - from his normal routine of studying correspondence in an uninterested manner while the Coalition responded to questions. What is interesting is to think about the future - when Costello shapes up against Rudd as leader of the Coalition. Rudd may think he has the measure of Howard as 'yesterday's man', but in Costello he faces a seasoned veteran who is still quite young in the political world. Costello possesses the trust of many Australians for presiding over a strong economy for over a decade, but would also deliver a fresh purpose and agenda to the Coalition government.

My tip is for this match up to occur shortly after the Howard government is returned with a reduced majority. Howard will bow out, bruised but not beaten, and Costello will finally take the job he has been heir apparent for since the beginnings of the Howard government.

Coal: the 2007 wedge issue?

Bob Brown and Tim Flannery may just be making Howard's job of retaining office a little easier. The battleground is becoming clear - mounting a credible campaign on global warming, while reassuring the nation that the cost will not be too great is essential for victory. Brown and the green extremists have played their cards - revealing that they wish to destroy the coal industry in the name of climate change. Rudd has been quick to distance himself, but will he really be able to play the environmentally friendly, do deals with the Greens for preferences and still be able to convince coal miners and their dependant communities that Howard wouldn't be a safer bet?

I've always thought that a major commitment to cleaner coal in the short term, and clean coal (sequestration ) in the long term would be a critical component of a realistic response to climate change. Australia's comparative advantage in coal, with plentiful reserves, and our major coal export market means abandoning coal would be a massive cost to bear.

Rudd now needs to straddle the divide - show that he is business and mining friendly enough to protect coal, but at the same time green enough to win critical Greens preferences (and convince the punters that he won't do deals with the Greens if he wins office in the senate). It will be a hard ask - Rudd already has the difficult issue of keeping Peter Garrett's moral convictions in check, and a nuclear debate at the next Labor convention.

It will be interesting to see this wedge unfold... Howard is a master politician and will be likely to employ coal along side nuclear in his arsenal of wedge politics in the lead up to the 2007 federal election.

Malcolm needs to sharpen his message...

Just watched a rather average 'debate' format unfold on the 7.30 report. Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Garrett faced off in a interview style 'debate' that saw Turnbull normally lead with Garrett following. This led to Turnbull being on the defensive for the majority of the interview, while Garrett was able to stick to his message and mount an offensive interview. Kerry O'Brien's line of questioning did assist Turnbull's poor performance, but there was no excuse for a lacklustre performance from Turnbull.

Malcolm allowed himself to waffle, often using several quotes in a ineffective manner and being unable to stick to his message. This is the second interview I've seen him botch - its time he and his inner circle do a little work to sharpen his interviewing skills.

Peter Garrett was underwhelming - it wasn't a case of Turnbull being outperformed and forced into a poor showing by a superior debater. Turnbull will have no problem head to head with Garrett once the necessary improvements are made. Parliamentary performance is a different matter - Turnbull has been capturing significant media attention in Question Time, and is clearly out performing Garrett. His television performance is the key area that is letting him down...

Republican dilemmas...

I am watching the US Presidential nomination campaigns with interest. Whilst the Democrats will struggle to choose between Obama, Clinton and Edwards, there would be few members of the party that would complain about a lack of talent in the field. A quick glance over at the Republican side of the house, and there is a far different scenario. Senator John McCain leads a field of nobodies, with his only real challenger at this time deemed to be former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani. Both McCain and Guiliani have little to no support within the traditional Republican voter base - Guiliani is a 'liberal' Republican and McCain's disregard of key Christian leaders is well known.

One big name is yet to enter the field - Newt Gingrich. The once polarising speaker is likely to gain significant support from the Republican base keen to have 'anyone but McCain' but unwilling to put a RINO like Guiliani up for President. Gingrich now has the ability to allow the field to fight each other, before declaring closer to the primaries and gaining the initiative and momentum over 'tired' candidates. Gingrich was always able to capture the nations headlines and attention with his 'contract with America' and other initiatives.

It will be interesting to see if the run eventuates - the biggest issue will be money. Gingrich needs to be able to hold off on declaring for as long as possible, yet still have the money available to run against McCain and Guiliania, who have been fundraising for significantly longer.

The real dream candidate for Republicans won't be throwing his hat in the ring for the 2008 election. Jeb Bush, an immensely popular former Florida Governor with true Republican pedigree and appeal to the base, will need to wait a little while until memories of George W Bush fade a little. Still, nobody should rule out seeing another Bush in the White House - especially with the current crop of potentials...

Parliament resumes ...

Kevin Rudd: "My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now formally repudiate the industry minister's statement in which he said: I am a sceptic of the connection between emissions and climate change?"
John Howard: "No, I will not formally repudiate it. People make different statements about different things over a period of time. I seem to remember the Leader of the Opposition a little under two years ago saying that he was not experienced enough to be the leader of the Labor Party. He now thinks that he is experienced enough to be prime minister."

It is going to be an interesting year...