I must say, that it came as a surprise to members of my Government when General George Casey recently re-asserted the right of the US military to plant paid-for stories in the Iraqi press. We believe this sets an unfortunate precedent, in that it may lead to suspicion among Iraqi citizens that that the West prefers a paid press to a free press.
I also noted in my 2004 speech that 'Australia had helped to re-establish the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, [and] set up a payments system for the 2003 harvest and used our experience to help Iraqi farmers bring in the bumper summer grains harvest'. Perhaps I should have been more forthright about that experience. For many years the Australian Wheat Board has been helping the Iraqi Government bring in bumper summer grains from Australia. We have achieved this by channelling millions of dollars of hidden commissions into the coffers of the man previously described as a loathsome and repellent dictator. To be frank, we had been privately funding a regime that we publicly claimed was a threat to the world, and I can see now that this might lead some people to question our probity.
All in all, since the war began I have consistently maintained that the situation in Iraq was measurably better than it was under Saddam Hussein.
I held to this belief even during the dark days of the Abu Ghraib abuses, which caused many in the region to question whether democracy would make the slightest difference. But I strongly argued at the time that the difference would be apparent for all to see, because the victims of abuse would not only able, but would be encouraged to speak out, to seek redress and to find justice.
Sadly, very few victims have been able to find justice. And those senior figures who issued the orders to turn up the heat on detainees, have not been properly investigated. In the matter of our own citizen, David Hicks, who remains to this day Guantanamo Bay, often in solitary isolation, it is becoming increasing difficult to distinguish his predicament from that which would have faced a prisoner of Saddam Hussein. I believe the Department of Foreign Affairs has been remiss in accepting the assurances of some US officials at face value.
I speak to you here openly, and with sadness. I have no intention of repeating or elaborating these remarks outside this room. For decades, many of you have stayed loyal the principles of our Party. However, it is not wise for any leader to mislead himself, and I have no wish to mislead you. Like our good friend Tony Blair, I too admit to episodes of anguish. I worry the situation is getting worse. Not only in Iraq, but elsewhere in the world. You will of course be making up your own minds as you watch the news in the coming weeks.
I note that the latest US Country Reports on Human Rights concedes that in Iraq, 'civic life and the social fabric remain under intense strain from the widespread violence'. The US ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, has said we have 'opened a Pandora’s box in Iraq'. There is mounting evidence of arbitrary detention and torture committed by government forces, both police and military.
During my recent trip to India, also horribly touched with extremist violence, I was reminded by their soft spoken Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, that the British had seriously erred by clinging too long to their former colony. Despite widespread opposition to their presence, British politicians continued to insist that their departure would lead to chaos. Dr Singh said, 'But it would be our chaos, don’t you see?' At that moment I understood what he was saying.
There is tremendous pressure from the US for our troops to remain in Iraq, and of course mutual loyalty is a vital component of the alliance. But the longer the Coalition of the Willing remains, the more we are detested, and the more blood is shed. The country is already tearing itself apart, so I am asking you, could our departure really make it any worse?
Perhaps it is time for Iraqis to regain control of their future, and for the coalition of the willing to be willing to leave the stage. When I say this, I speak as a troubled private citizen, and not as the Prime Minister of Australia.
Flying home from India, I started to ask myself what a leader like Mahatma Gandhi would do, but I feared I would not be able to live up to the answer, unless I have some wise advice form my longtime friends. Please look into your hearts and let me know what you find.
POSTSCRIPT: 15/March/06
JOHN HOWARD’S APOLOGY is an act of satire and culture jamming. It’s impact was way beyond expectation, as was the variation in feedback. So many people wanted to believe in John Howard’s U-turn, and even felt he “stood taller” as a result. Others suspected he was sniffing the wind and cutting his cloth to enhance his career. It made them hate Howard even more. An A-list radical emailed “this speech proves Howard is smarter than Tony Blair". To heighten its impact, I created a site that resembled the official speech page of the Australian Prime Minister, as well as his personality – oodles of grey.
There was a trail of clues. The name of the registrant can be found on Who Is? - me. The links were a give-away. Lotsa typos.
Still, some people are angry at me. As I type this, an email arrives from Arizona: “I would love to break both of your legs. And I am a non-violent anti-war pacifist …” His neck of the woods must be a satire free zone.
The PM’s office is upset. John Howard has been put in the position of defending the indefensible. Now the site has been blocked. What’s the crime? Defamation? So he must argue…"I support this war. I endorse the tortures, the chaos, the killings. It’s slander to suggest that I’m peace loving…". Anyway, there were 10,500 hits within 24 hours. Then johnhowardpm.org started to disappear, server by server, like watching the lights go out all over Europe. Will the spooks knock on the door? During the debate on Australia’s draconian “anti terror” laws, the PM kept assuring us all that free speech would never be endangered. Sure. Now I’ll post a pdf of the disappeared page on http://www.richardneville.com - let’s see how long it lasts. Here’s the direct link: http://www.richardneville.com.au/satire/howard_speech_150306.pdf
lok at the URL its no the PM's site, the domain name is registered to rneville, california and the the link at the bottom of the article is Richard Neville, so it looks as if Richards up to some funny business
by
craig (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Monday, March 13, 2006 at 6:10:41 PM
[This comment is not by the poster 'ctindale' - there's a bug in the comment posting web page, it's by Mark.]
Hoax is too strong a word, it's very dark political satire. Though it would have been better to put a by-line on the bottom saying 'John Howard spoke exclusively to Richard Neville' or something similar.
Those of us in the 'lucky country' would know Howard would never make a speech that even mentioned the civilian deaths in Iraq, let alone express any regret for his government's part in the killing.
Richard Neville is quite a clever writer. I recall a problem he had getting a story published uncensored in (I think) The Bulletin because he used the term "planet f***ers" to describe corporations who abuse the environment. Quite an appropriate term I reckon.
by
craig (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Monday, March 13, 2006 at 6:29:11 PM
Mark, Yeah your right although it had me going for a while trying to figure it out. Yes us Aussies know John Howard to be incapable of such a speech. But its a bit past satire when you fully integrate a site with its own domain into the official PM's site. Someone's gone to a bit of trouble, so to me its more hoax than satire, enjoyable all the same he is a great writer.
by
craig (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Monday, March 13, 2006 at 7:04:32 PM
The International Red Cross estimates that at least 60% of those killed in the assault on the city were women, children and the elderly; a pattern of destruction that has persisted throughout the occupation of Iraq, and, as much as we would like to shut our eyes, this has served to boost the recruitment of insurgents and harden their resolve. In May last year, the city of al-Qaim near the Syrian border was the target of a major offensive known as Operation Matador, which resulted in hundreds of Iraqi casualties. This operation also displaced thousand of civilians, destroyed entire neighborhoods, polluted water supplies and put one hospital out of action. Six months later in al-Qaim, Operation Steel wiped out the General Hospital, other medical centers, some mosques and schools, even the electricity station.
This is from the Prime Minister of Australia the willingest of the willing.
How long can Americans keep telling themselves we have not become what we fear.
Robert Chapman
Lansing, New York
by
Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 557 comments)
on Monday, March 13, 2006 at 6:26:43 AM
John Howard apologizes I think a bit to late. And if he was a leader he would have known the realities before now. He should be on the phone with Bush telling him he has lost one of his coalition partners and that Australia is pulling out. Instead John is canvassing his public for his leadership duties.
Don't think this apology is going to get you off the hook for supporting these War crimes by the Bush administration. I would suggest that the more action you as a leader take in ending the Bush relationship the better off for Australia.
The reason I think you are coming forward is because you really had nothing to do with the US concocted story in the first place. To include and I am sure you are aware that People are hunkering down into realizing Bush is behind the 911 attack, and duped the world into believing it was caused by Bin Ladin and his terrorist pal Saddam Hussein.
John we need more than your apology, we need you to start saving lives, by getting the hell out of Iraq.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 934 comments)
on Monday, March 13, 2006 at 7:03:01 AM
Howard slaps a disclaimer onto the end of his 'apology'; "I speak as a troubled private citizen, and not as the Prime Minister of Australia". That's not an apology, it's simple politicking. Howard is astute enough to realise that the brown stuff has already hit the spinning thing; all he's trying to do is avoid getting splattered.
But, it's too late for that Johnny Boy; you marched in lock-step with Bush and Blair, condemning uncounted hundreds of thousands to death. And for what? Because it was the 'Christian' thing to do? Because it was part of some secret trade agreement? Because you were promised a job with the Carlysle Group, along with Blair? Because you were trying to be macho to compensate for being a cretinous dwarf?
Whatever the reasons, Howard knew what he was doing when he signed Australia up for the Iraq invasion and no half-arsed mea culpa will change that fact.
I find it exceptionally odd that Howard now 'apologises' for his role in the Iraq slaughter, but has always refused to apologise to the Aboriginal Australians for their centuries-long slaughter by his forebears; the word 'hypocrite' fits comfortably here.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 934 comments)
on Monday, March 13, 2006 at 4:15:07 PM
OpEdNews should be ashamed of itself for publishing such rubbish as this so-called statement by the Australian Prime Minister, without first verifying it's authenticity.
We strongly support your position on this unjust war, but this act (publishing the article) is something that President Bush would resort to.
Here's hoping that John Howard takes you to court for libel and drives you out of business!
by
Kay & Carl Hunter (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 at 11:29:50 AM
Yes its Richard as I suspected. For those who dont know Richard he is like the Rush Limbaugh of far left journalism. He suffers from a form of Journalistic Narcistic Personality Disorder that infects commentators on both sides . Symptoms include
Kantor (1992, pp. 203-204) describes the clinical characteristics of NPD as:
* inordinate self-pride;
* self-concern;
* an exaggeration of the importance of one's experiences and feelings;
* ideas of perfection;
* a reluctance to accept blame or criticism;
* absence of altruism although gestures may be made for the sake of appearance;
* empathy deficit; and,
* grandiosity.
Problem is I share many of his beliefs, unfortunately his manner destroys the credibility of his cause and the impact he might otherwise make on the world.
STOP PRESS!!
15 March 2006
JOHN HOWARD'S APOLOGY
Reflections of the Situation in Iraq.
The site hosting this controversial speech has been shut down by persons unknown. Within 24 hrs of its posting it received 8,500 visits. The web hoster, Yahoo, has not yet responded to enquiries. A low res pdf is all that's available at the moment. We are working to restore www.johnhowardpm.org and to host replica of the original. "The new anti terror laws will not target free speech", John Howard.
To download the low res PDF, click here.
To link to a text only version, click here
by
craig (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 at 12:16:22 AM
That Really Sucks Rob,
by ikster. Submitted on 2006-03-25 08:17:20
ikster says:
You know Rob that really sucks, allowing people to write fake, unreal, articles. I think that gives OpedNews a bad rap. My question is did you know this before it was written, and why would you go along with it?
If you did....I see you have got a problem.
Yeah Rob it really sucks when someone is writing comments using my name. The following in the John Howard article is not my comment, yet they have used my name and it is in my file. What the hell is this?
I did not write this comment... the following..
That's not an apology
by ikster. Submitted on 2006-03-13 17:15:07
ikster says:
Howard slaps a disclaimer onto the end of his 'apology'; 'I speak as a troubled private citizen, and not as the Prime Minister of Australia'. That's not an apology, it's simple politicking. Howard is astute enough to realise that the brown stuff has already hit the spinning thing; all he's trying to do is avoid getting splattered.
But, it's too late for that Johnny Boy; you marched in lock-step with Bush and Blair, condemning uncounted hundreds of thousands to death. And for what? Because it was the 'Christian' thing to do? Because it was part of some secret trade agreement? Because you were promised a job with the Carlysle Group, along with Blair? Because you were trying to be macho to compensate for being a cretinous dwarf?
Whatever the reasons, Howard knew what he was doing when he signed Australia up for the Iraq invasion and no half-arsed mea culpa will change that fact.
I find it exceptionally odd that Howard now 'apologises' for his role in the Iraq slaughter, but has always refused to apologise to the Aboriginal Australians for their centuries-long slaughter by his forebears; the word 'hypocrite' fits comfortably here.
I wrote: Get the Hell out of Iraq
by ikster. Submitted on 2006-03-13 08:03:01
ikster says:
John Howard apologizes I think a bit to late. And if he was a leader he would have known the realities before now. He should be on the phone with Bush telling him he has lost one of his coalition partners and that Australia is pulling out. Instead John is canvassing his public for his leadership duties.
Don't think this apology is going to get you off the hook for supporting these War crimes by the Bush administration. I would suggest that the more action you as a leader take in ending the Bush relationship the better off for Australia.
The reason I think you are coming forward is because you really had nothing to do with the US concocted story in the first place. To include and I am sure you are aware that People are hunkering down into realizing Bush is behind the 911 attack, and duped the world into believing it was caused by Bin Ladin and his terrorist pal Saddam Hussein.
John we need more than your apology, we need you to start saving lives, by getting the hell out of Iraq.
---------------------------------------------
And to Mr. Neville,
The moment you start writing fake and false articles, is the moment you lose creditability, not John Howard. Forging apologies to make him say UNCLE is really stupid writing. It is neither cute, legitimate, or honorable. John Howard can also go to hell, as far as I'm concerned.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 934 comments)
on Saturday, March 25, 2006 at 8:10:56 AM
