Most serious withdrawal arguments do not call for an-all-out sudden pull-out but for a definite and steady plan to really get out.

That most important aspect that is simply ignored due to those straw-men and lame arguments is the plan for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq, a withdrawal in any way whatsoever, simply because that was never the intention.

The building of bases, a huge embassy, entrenching the green-zone, etc. are only strategies to mantain the occupation.

But that, nobody wants to talk about.

As for Obama, he has expressed in a concise elocuent way his opposition to the war from the very beggining, and a realistic way to get out. And he is a real hope for change and therefore a huge threat to the bushistas and hoWARd.

Do you think that our racist PM would have compared him to terrorists and attacked in such a way another white senior democrat? Kerry? one of the Kennedys, etc?

No bloody way! It is a callous and stupid attack that comes from the deepest and worst of both current administrations there in the US and here in Australia, from their 50’s mindset and cold war prejudices, mercenary ambitions and their inherent racism.

‘Does anyone seriously doubt that BOTH (the following) statements are accurate despite being official US National Intelligence Estimates.’

1) Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

2) If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution; neighboring countries— invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally—might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; AQI would attempt to use parts of the country—particularly al-Anbar province—to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion.’

If as a progressive you do not doubt this assessment (and a great many people will not doubt the assessment) then consequences flow for Democrats and the ALP in Australia. Obama and Rudd’s position becomes junk. John Howard has Obama picked as a foreign policy dolt while Kevin Rudd is endlessly missing the main point because it’s popular to want out of Iraq.

Obama will not convince his Democrat controled Congress mates that he could manage what Hilary Clinton has already stated she can and will address when she becomes President. She has said that if the war is not ended by Bush, that she will end the war when she is President.

However she also knows that anything that smacks of defeat would be a disaster and would encourage the enemies of all humankind. (Baathism Jihadis and Shia death squads etc) So, she will give herself plenty of time and only accept responsibility when elected president.

On the other hand Obama wants to end it from control of the Congress against the current President. That is a bird that just can’t fly. So, he is either wrong in his estimate that it can fly – or grandstanding despite the reality. Either way he lost the serious Democrat vote as the Clinton type sharks start to slowly circle him.

Like I say, it’s the way that I picture it.

So what possessed him to take a high-risk, low return line like this ?

On Monday night we had hoWARd and a very senior 4 star US general plus some very senior diplomats making him “look” like the respectable statesman, maybe as a build up to Cheney coming later in the month to ask for our support after a manufactured Iranian “attack” and the knee-jerk excalation that will follow.

The US ambassador is giving a speech at the National Press Club of Australia later this week:

14 February, 2007
Robert D. McCallum Jr
Ambassador of the United States of America to Australia

PM hoWARd’s desperate idea is to try to shift the focus onto “security” and “terrorism” his supposed strenghts. But instead, the finesse and media ability he used to have to move the focus into his prefered topics seems to be gone. The Bushistas’ demented idea is to drag the US into escalating attacks and a full blown invasion of IRAN.

Opposotion leader Rudd’s excellent numbers on the polls would have taken hoWARd a bit by suprise I imagine, and perhaps he had to rush this topic into the public eye, earlier than he wanted. Or perhaps he was simply asked (or told!) to return the favour by Dubya.

Or perhaps he’s just lost his mojo and ability to read the public’s reaction and his old ability to manipulate it accordingly.

Then again, it’s just as likely that both the bushistas and the hoWARdistas have simply started to believe their own BS! ;-)

And I’m surprised that there wasn’t a precursor to this controversy with loudmouth Alexander Downer not so long ago, in comments reported by the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger—
Walking on Santa Monica beach Sunday before last, Mr. Downer said he encountered a display of crosses in the sand, representing the American dead in Iraq. “What concerns me about this,” he said, “is that it’s sort of an isolationist sentiment, subconsciously, not consciously, and that would be an enormous problem for the world. I hope the American people understand the importance of not retreating and thinking the world’s problems aren’t theirs.”

Memorial to dead = Isolationism. Classy.

[link for Downer/Henninger]

It was also probably a cost-free response, since we know how popular foreign politicians who involve themselves in US internal affairs get.