topic Re: Howard "embarrassed in Community Spirit

Howard "embarrassed

purplecarrot-top — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:07:26 GMT

Former prime minister John Howard says he was 'embarrassed' that Australia joined the war in Iraq on intelligence that the country had weapons of mass destruction that later appeared to be inaccurate.

Speaking to Channel Seven, Mr Howard says the intelligence presented to him by United States authorities indicated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which posed a threat to the West.

He says it was on those reports that he along with the National Security Committee of Cabinet sent Australian troops into Iraq.

"I was struck by the force of the language used in the American national intelligence assessment late in November 2002," he told Sunday Night.

"It brought together all the American intelligence and paragraph after paragraph, they said, we judge Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and even talked about potential nuclear capacity."

Mr Howard also spoke on the current terror levels, saying Australia still faced a real threat.

"I don't think any Australian should assume we won't have a terrorist incident here," he said.

He also said a focus on integrating Muslim youths into the mainstream would help prevent them becoming radicalised.

"As many people know I'm not an overwhelming fan of the doctrine of multiculturalism."

"I believe in bringing people of different races, different religions, to this country but once you're here you've got to become part of the mainstream community."

Re: Howard "embarrassed

purplecarrot-top — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:08:36 GMT

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/09/22/howard-embarrassed-about-joining-2003-iraq-war

Re: Howard "embarrassed

debra9275 — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:11:01 GMT

1000's of civilians killed in that war too & for what?

Re: Howard "embarrassed

kilroy_is_here — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:11:33 GMT

I don't think he should be embarrassed he acted on what he thought was in the best interest of the country on information that at the time appeared to be quite credible and while he may well have had the second last word on going to war there would have been many more before him who believed the intellegance as it was presented

Re: Howard "embarrassed

karliandjacko — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:15:12 GMT

@kilroy_is_here wrote:
I don't think he should be embarrassed he acted on what he thought was in the best interest of the country on information that at the time appeared to be quite credible and while he may well have had the second last word on going to war there would have been many more before him who believed the intellegance as it was presented

He was informed the "intelligence" about WMD was wrong and ignored that advice.

Re: Howard "embarrassed

polksaladallie — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:25:36 GMT

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2014/09/bst_20140922_0832.mp3

Andrew Wilkie says he should have been charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder.

Re: Howard "embarrassed

kilroy_is_here — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:27:32 GMT

He would have received lots of advice from lots of different sources and would have had to make a decision after summing up all that was placed before him then he would have recommend a course of action to cabinet who would have to endorsed it , the opposition would have to been briefed , parliament would need to be informed and then before 1 foot could be set out side of a military base the governor General would have to add the queens seal to it.

Re: Howard "embarrassed

the_great_she_elephant — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:39:20 GMT

I didn't watch that interview. did he say whether or not he was embarrassed by the 'children overboard' incident?

Re: Howard "embarrassed

polksaladallie — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:41:30 GMT

Was he embarrassed that he refused to move to Canberra?

Re: Howard "embarrassed

polksaladallie — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:48:19 GMT

@kilroy_is_here wrote:
He would have received lots of advice from lots of different sources and would have had to make a decision after summing up all that was placed before him then he would have recommend a course of action to cabinet who would have to endorsed it , the opposition would have to been briefed , parliament would need to be informed and then before 1 foot could be set out side of a military base the governor General would have to add the queens seal to it.

The government does not have to gain parliamentary approval (or the GG's) to deploy troops or to declare war.

Re: Howard "embarrassed

kilroy_is_here — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:46:48 GMT

Firstly if you bothered to read my post you have seen I said the parliament would have to be informed , I said nothing about gaining their approval , secondly the Governor General is both the queens representative and the commander and chief of the military so I'm sorry he is very much involved in the country going to war

Re: Howard "embarrassed

karliandjacko — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:47:50 GMT

Seeking their endorsement would be the same as seeking their approval.

Re: Howard "embarrassed

purplecarrot-top — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:53:18 GMT

The decision to go to war should not rest with one person. What is it about Liberals, they seem to have to send us to war.

Re: Howard "embarrassed

kilroy_is_here — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:08:17 GMT

Again where did I say seeking endorsement of the parliament

Re: Howard "embarrassed

serendipityricho — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:26:27 GMT

Re Howard embarrassed.

I reckon his most embarrassing time was when he lost his safe seat

in the 2007 election.-to an ex ABC journo........Richo.

Re: Howard "embarrassed

polksaladallie — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:51:20 GMT

@kilroy_is_here wrote:
Firstly if you bothered to read my post you have seen I said the parliament would have to be informed , I said nothing about gaining their approval , secondly the Governor General is both the queens representative and the commander and chief of the military so I'm sorry he is very much involved in the country going to war

Nup. Parliament does not have to be informed. GG does not have to be involved, just signs a sheet of paper whether or not he/she approves.

Re: Howard "embarrassed

pct001wine — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:49:06 GMT

I'm laughing at the term "embarrassed". That should be reserved for less momentous incidents such as leaving the dunny with toilet paper stuck in your dacks, or leaving your fly open, or wearing odd socks. Not for committing people to a war based on dodgy advice.

Maybe "mortified" and "deeply and profoundly sorry" would be more apt.

Re: Howard "embarrassed

karliandjacko — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:14:18 GMT

I don't think he knows those words.

Re: Howard "embarrassed

katydidthat — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 06:18:51 GMT

I think "embarrassed" means he's sorry he was found out.

Re: Howard "embarrassed

***super_nova*** — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:19:59 GMT

I remember watching various experts explaining WHY Saddam does not have what Bush & Blair claims they have. Months before the famous statements like : "smoking gun becomes mushroom cloud" and "we have a proof that Saddam ordered yellow cake from Niger" etc. these claims were refuted by people who who had nothing to gain by it. Actually, mostly they had lots to loose by telling the truth; like Valerie Plame, whose husband Joseph C. Wilson went public with info that the document of sale of yellowcake to Saddam was a crude forgery, because year after that was established, Bush still used it as a reason to go to war. Wilson and his wife both worked for CIA.