US Upset Over Latham (AU) Remark

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=74223®ion=7

The United States has objected to comments made by the newly elected Labor Party leader, Mark Latham.

Earlier this year, Mr Latham provoked a diplomatic incident by referring to President Bush as the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory, prompting a complaint from the American
ambassador, Tom Schieffer.

In his first speech after being elected Opposition Leader , Mr Latham said he supported Australia's alliance with the US. However, in a paper for the Australia Defence Association, released on Monday, Mr Latham said Mr Bush had squandered international goodwill, and taken Australia on a march of folly into Iraq.

American State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli says he hasn't seen the remarks, but would take strong issue with them.
<snip>

the Labor Party chose Latham as leader because he ISN'T a stooge for the Republicans and Likudniks.

If you don't like it, close your embassy, get out of Pine Gap and piss off. We want our country back.

we used to see here????

Bwaaaaaa!

:toast:

Labor leader Mark Latham has reportedly launched a new attack on the Bush administration's war on terrorism in a paper for the Australia Defence Association.

In a move likely to reignite tension with the United States, a report written by Mr Latham 11 days ago, and released on Monday, said US President George W Bush had squandered international goodwill and taken Australia on a march of folly into Iraq.

The paper is seemingly at odds with Mr Latham's comments after he was elected Labor's new leader.

He declared himself a supporter of the alliance with the US and deflected questions about his past criticisms of President Bush.

In the paper, titled Reversing Our March of Folly, Mr Latham said the protests that recently greeted President Bush in London were "evidence of the strategic mistakes he has made in prosecuting the war on terror".

<snip>

Mr Latham said Australia should be engaged internationally on its own terms and speak frankly to the US about the failings of its strategy.

The new leader provoked a diplomatic incident earlier this year by referring to Mr Bush as "the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory", prompting a complaint from US ambassador Tom Schieffer.

more:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/03/1070351613443.html

Sweeeeet! As of yesterday Australia has something to wake up to :D

in case anyone missed this bit of backstory:

<snip>

Latham beat former Australian Labor leader Kim Beazley by two votes in a ballot earlier today of the party's federal MPs brought on by the snap resignation of Simon Crean.

Latham is the man most likely to deny Australian Prime Minister John Howard a fourth consecutive term in office in a general election that must be called before the end of next year.

Latham, who has broken a taxi driver's arm in a brawl, has also aimed his sharp tongue at Howard's government, calling it a "conga line of suckholes".

more:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/03/1070351613443.html

"conga line of suckholes". That's brilliant!:toast:

(from GW 1 )

But pleased to meet you all the same!

Incidentally, I found the actual new report by Latham which the article refers to, if I could have made a post yet I would have titled it:

Latham: "America's counter-terrorism program in the Middle East and their environs is a myth."

Iraq should not be the front line in the war against terror, not while Osama bin Laden remains at large, or while al-Qaeda continues to operate in Pakistan and throughout the Middle East, or while terrorist networks continue to grow in South-East Asia. Our first priority must be to clean out the terrorist networks, not wage war against nation-states.

In truth, the US was unaware and unprepared for September 11, and two years later it remains ill-equipped to deal with the new and different threat of terrorism.

More than two years ago, writing in the Atlantic Monthly magazine, former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht said this about the US capacity in counter-terrorism: "I would argue that America's counter-terrorism program in the Middle East and their environs is a myth."

more:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/02/1070351579557.html

Although the title given is Latham quoting, it's nevertheless the point in that he appears to be drawing his policy from the premise that the US is incapable of eliminating terrorism in the middle east.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

http://crikey.com.au/politics/2003/12/02-0007.html

His speech to the House of Reps during the parliamentary debate on Iraq was one of his best rants. It included this vivid description of the government:

"Mr Howard and his government are just yes-men to the United States, a conga line of suckholes on the conservative side of Australian politics. The backbench sucks up to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister sucks up to George Bush - and they have the hide to call themselves Australians. In my book, they are not Australian at all."

A very personal attack on the PM:

"In his statement to the parliament, the Prime Minister dismissed the opposition to war as 'just anti-American prejudice'. Imagine, the member for Bennelong lecturing us about prejudice: the same Member of Parliament who opposed sanctions against South Africa, who wanted to cut Asian immigration, who opposed the Mabo judgment tooth and nail, who welcomed Pauline Hanson's first speech in this place as an outbreak of free speech. He still refuses to say sorry to the stolen generation and, to this day, cannot bear to utter the word "multiculturalism". This bloke has a PhD in prejudice; he has no right to be lecturing anyone else."

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.


Thank you.

that was such a great day. That look of shock and dismay, Bush*'s plastered smirk and twitchy uneasiness at (gasp!) not being greeted with warmth and respect by their parliament. I wanted to be Australian that day. I want to have representatives *here* with enough backbone to catcall this lying treasonous bastard, every fucking time he opens his mouth. Time for the State of the Union address? Bring on the rotten eggs and veggies! Bring on the hecklers! Stop standing up and applauding this dangerous traitor. BOO HIM OFF THE PODIUM. Then drive him from public life in shame and disgrace. Then.... oh nevermind, our Congress will give him a standing O for deigning to walk up the aisle of the House to lie to them and lie to us. There are only two Reps I can think of worth a damn.

Basically, I want Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee to be cloned.

Elizabeth

The petulant little un-elected fraud is upset.

...still supports the pre-2000 U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

by his remarkes in the slightest.

I rather like a person, especially a prominent political figure, that does not lie about truths, that speaks clearly and succintly the facts and does not embellish bullshit and tell me that what I am seeing are actually sparkling diamonds.

it's the fascist Bush goose-steppers who get upset when they hear the TRUTH.

and surprisingly, it's not only from Labor voters. I'm getting the
distinct feeling that there are conservatives out there who've had
enough of John Howard and his retro-vision too.

Latham, at 42, is the youngest-ever leader of either of the major
Australian parties, so it's a whole generational change. If he
performs well, I won't be surprised if the Libs start wondering
whether it wasn't a mistake for Howard not to have retired at 64 as
he'd planned. He was always yesterday's man, with his focus fixed
firmly on the 1950s, and he's going to look even more outdated than
ever.

Latham is going to have to watch his mouth, but we haven't seen such
finely-honed invective since the days of Paul Keating, and it's
rather a nice change to have a leader who calls a spade a bloody
shovel again. Especially as Howard loves to talk about mateship
and the Anzac spirit, and he couldn't be a real Aussie bloke if he
tried - Latham's the real thing.

And like most of us, he doesn't dislike the U.S. or its people, just
the current resident of the White House. And he sees no reason why
we can't have friendly relations with the U.S. without crawling up
Bush's butt. Many of us agree with that - enough, I hope to change
the leadership of the country next year.

I'm also glad Howard's pet Crean is gone. (He is gone, right?)

He was walking side by side with Latham into the Labour caucus meeting where the leadership was decided and is now very much expected to be given a portfolio on the frontbench.

It isn't really fair to describe Crean as Howards man; it was Kim Beazley, the leader previous to Crean and the other contender in the leadership ballot that Latham won, who adopted the "small target" strategy during the four years of his leadership. This was the true period of wilderness for Labour IMHO. It was just a lazy and arrogant attitude really, assuming that the Australian electorate would see the error of their ways and return to Labour.

When Crean came in after Beazley lost a second election, he made a point of rejecting the small target strategy and he did indeed speak out on a number of issues. He was also very consistent in his views and courageous; for example when the Australian troops were on the dock going to Iraq, it was Crean who said "I don't think you should be going to this war, but as you are, I will support you all the way" or words to that effect. The trouble with Crean seemed to be that his voice sounds exactly like a patronising primary school principal addressing a school assembly. It has this very very unfortunate droning quality that would appall and really offend people. Radio listeners would complain en masse whenever he got on. You could get used to it I suppose, but it really was quite shocking.

It should also be noted that Beazley and his suppporters spent most of Creans period as leader destabilising his leadership and plotting for Beazleys return. Call me cynical, but Latham was able to ride this work of the Beazley supporters all the way into office. Latham just had to say "I am loyal." (which is true) "a vote for Beazley is a vote for treachery." (also true).

Crean will be a shadow minister very soon and I reckon Beazley might be too.

as a backbencher. He's a very committed public servant and believes in being a parliamentarian. He'll probably remain a backbencher for some time. He said he is still the endorsed candidate for his electorate and he will run for reelection and continue to serve his constituents.

He was a great man who would have been a fantastic Prime Minister. He was screwed by timing at the last election.

I s'pose, but he does let media minders control a lot of what comes out of his mouth. At times he sounded like a walking marketing committee, eg: "As Labor leader I would have respect as my watchword" - WTF does that mean? Sorry but I would never have voted for him, I just couldn't get past the warm n' fuzzy projection to find anything of substance. It actually made me distrust him, I'd think 'why is this guy so obsessed with coming over so cuddly? Must be something dodgy about him.'

Anyway, for now I'd settle very happily for a Latham govt with the Greens holding the balance in the Senate, that would be a massive improvement on the status quo. I still wouldn't quite trust Labour with both houses.

I'd very much like to see Beazley with a senior ministry position. Like foreign affairs or education. He has himself hinted at interest in a diplomat or academic post politics career.

for his obviously correct assessment? Hey, I just hit 100 posts! I know it ain't much, but I'm a stay at home mom with 2 kids under 2 1/2. Doesn't leave enough time!

Contact : Mark Latham
Email : M.Latham.MP@aph.gov.au
WWW : http://www.thirdway-aust.com