- ‹ previous
- 4335 of 8943
- next ›
A Look Back at John Howard
Today Australian Prime Minister John Howard was ousted by the Labor Party, which easily took back control of Parliament from Howard's party. The defeat was so severe Howard may even lose his own seat.
So, now is a good time to look back at something little-noticed in America: Howard's shameless lying on Iraq.
Howard's most important Iraq speech was delivered to Parliament on February 4, 2003. Here's some of what he said:
The point must clearly be understood that, following its defeat in the Gulf War, Iraq admitted to possessing chemical and biological weapons and to developing a nuclear programme. In those circumstances the overwhelming imperative is that Iraq demonstrates to the world that it has destroyed those weapons and disbanded those programmes. That, in fact, is what this debate is all about.
The world demands to know precisely what happened to Iraq's pre-1998 weapons and material. Iraq claims to have destroyed them...
In 1995, the international community was confronted by Iraq's massive programme for developing offensive biological weapons--one of the largest and most advanced in the world.
Despite four years of intensive inquiries and searches, the weapons inspectors did not even know of its existence until Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal defected. Faced with its duplicity Iraq finally admitted to producing aflatoxin--which causes cancers, the paralysing poison botulinum and anthrax bacteria.
Howard is lying so enthusiastically about such a complex story it's difficult to untangle it all, but I'll try. Howard's story, rephrased slightly, goes like this:
We know Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and a nuclear program. They claim to have destroyed the unaccounted parts in secret, but if they're lying there's no reason to think UN inspections will find anything. After all, the inspectors didn't even know Iraq had a massive ongoing biological weapons program right under their nosesincluding aflatoxin, botulinum, and anthraxuntil Saddam's son-in-law defected in 1995 and told them.
This turns reality completely on its head, and not just in today's hindsight. When Howard spoke, this is what was known with 100% certainty:
After the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq admitted to possessing chemical weapons and a nuclear weapons program. Butdespite the suspicions of the UNIraq denied producing biological weapons. Over the next several years, as Iraq turned over its chemical weapons to the UN to be destroyed, the UN uncovered clear evidence Iraq had had a biological weapons program. When confronted with this excellent work by the inspectors, Iraq finally admitted in July, 1995 to having produced anthrax and botulinumbefore the Gulf War. However, they claimed to have secretly destroyed everything long before, and, in 1995, to have nothing.
Hussein Kamel did not defect until a month later, in August, 1995. And not only was he not the reason the inspections uncovered Iraq's biological weapons program, he also emphatically said Iraq had indeed destroyed everything years previously, and since the Gulf War had had no ongoing WMD programs. As Kamel told the UN, "All weaponsbiological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed." (What Kamel did reveal is Iraq still had not come clean about the entire extent of its pre-91 programs, including the production of aflatoxin, and was hiding relevant documents.)
Thus, Howard's statement was truly a masterpiece of lying. It included everything humans use when they want to deceive others, from the omission of important information to misleading language to outright fabrication.
And Howard's efforts were impressively brazen. Again, it's not in hindsight they can be seen to be false. Anyone with access to the internet could have proven this within ten minutes of Howard making his speech.
Take Howard's claim about the UN only learning about the biological weapons program from Kamel's defection. Here's the timeline the US State Department had online by January, 2003:
July 1, 1995Iraq admits for the first time existence of offensive biological weapons program August 8, 1995Hussein KamalSaddam's son-in-law and figure in charge of Iraq's WMD effortdefects
Then there are the specifics of Howard's claimthat it was only after Kamel defected that the UN learned about Iraq's anthrax and botulinum. Here's a New York Times story from July 6, 1995:
The chairman, Rolf Ekeus, told the Council that the Iraqis admitted in a meeting Saturday in Baghdad that they had produced "large quantities" of two deadly biological agents, the bacteria that cause botulism and anthrax. Iraqis maintain that the toxic agents were later destroyed...
"It is important that Iraq has finally admitted what it was denying only a week ago: that it had an offensive biological weapons program," Madeleine K. Albright, the United States representative said after the letter was circulated in the Security Council today. "This admission demonstrates again that the Council can get results when it is firm and consistent in demanding Iraqi compliance"...
"This is an important step the Government of Iraq has taken," Charles Duelfler, deputy chairman of the commission, said today.
(You may remember Charles Duelfer led the CIA's investigation nine years later into what happened to Iraq's WMD.)
Then there's Howard's omission of what Kamel said about whether or not Iraq still possessed WMD. Here's Kamel on CNN on September 21, 1995:
SADLER: Can you state here and now -- does Iraq still to this day hold weapons of mass destruction?
KAMEL: No. Iraq does not possess any weapons of mass destruction. I am being completely honest about this.
And as little-known as Howard's false claims are in America, even fewer people here are aware of something even uglier: the story of Bob Mathews, one of Australia's top WMD experts. Before the war, Matthews was warning everyone within the government (including Howard) about the weakness of the WMD evidence. Hearing this, Howard's underlings snapped into action: they immediately created a plan to smear Mathews if he went public. After the war, they punished Mathews for being correct. His security clearance was removed, his travel overseas was restricted, and they threatened to prosecute him for revealing classified information.
FINALLY: Here's Howard speaking on Australian radio in August, 1995ironically, just after Hussein Kamel defected, and just before Howard became prime minister:
Truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national political life.





























This is an absurd attempt at a post facto political type lynching.
Does Mr Schwartz really want to open that door? Does he want other political figures of different stripes dissected in the same manner?
As for Mr Schwatz's 'analysis' of the events leading up to the Iraq war and Saddam's WMD program, he would do well to recall President Clinton's speech given to the nation before authorizing the bombing of Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.ht...
Messrs, Howard, Blair, Bush, et al, were in good company.
Plame/Matthews...No difference in what happened to them for standing tall.
Both ruined......
Now it's time to see Howard/Bush and all who support them brought to their knees, investigated and punished accordingly.
John Howard is one of the most disgusting political figures my country has ever courted, and his mendacity is wide and brazen. Thank god he is gone.
Reality Fungus
Bu, bu, CLINTON!
Seriously, can you assholes ever enter any discussion about anything, ever, without trying to make as if Clinton did it too?
New theory: There is not a single conservative on the internet who has developed morally, or intellectually, from being a particularly whiny four year old. Not a single one.
You point out they lied, they come up with the "He did it too" defense - normally without even bothering to check if it is true or not.
They stuff up, they look for someone to blame and try to lay it all on the liberals - even when they have all the power in the world.
Conservatives are immoral, stupid, callous four year olds with about as much common sense as your below average candle seeking moth.
What Clinton did or didn't say is irrelevant to a discussion on John Howard. It is irrelevant to a discussion of GW Bush.
Clinton is his own bloody subject and if it wasn't for whinging, whining conservatives more interested in avoiding their own personal responsibility for the state the world is in today, Clinton would be largely remembered as being an okay-ish former president who presided over easy times which he kept easy.
Instead we have a world media which is trying its damndest to make GW Bush look less like a total moron by finding fault with the previous administration because the whiny whinging head-up-their-asses conservatives (Who loudly condemn political correctness and then shreak like little frigging wussies when they are on the recieving end of some truth) can't handle the facts going against them.
So what about what Clinton did or said? The subject of the discussion is John Howard lying. Clinton (Who history won't exactly remember as a paragon of truth) doing it or not doing too does not impact whether John Howard lied or not. It is irrelevant.
Hey RF -
Nobody's talking about what Clinton thought. This post is about the lies that John Howard told - points that you have apparently chosen not to challenge. Interesting.
Finall, RF, Jonathan Schwarz is happy to apply the same standard to Clinton. He's done so repeatedly at his own blog (tinyrevolution.com). News flash: not everyone opposing the current regime is a reflexive supporter of every Democratic candidate.
Howard is a mendacious little fly, who thought he'd made the big time by hitching his wagon to Bush. He'd have a career as a second hand car salesman, but he's too well recognised.
John Howard has done more to destroy Australia's sense of decency, tolerance and fairness than any other so-called leader before him. After eleven years of this man's lies and manipulation, we were beginning to believe he'd get away with it all. While I still think he (and B1 and B2) should be in The Hague charged with war crimes, I at least have renewed faith in my fellow Australian's ability to smell bullshit a mile away, even if it took 'em long enough.
Spot on Brett, couldn't agree more. Not only should Howard be charged as a war ciminal, his Foreign Minister Alexander Downer should be charged with treason over his turning a blind eye to the bribes by The Australian Wheat Board to Saddam Hussein's regime.
You forgot to mention his big story re the 'people shredding' machines. Boy, that one really convinced us that we should invade Iraq. It is so nice to see the end of the Howard Government. We wake up with lighter hearts now.
Speaking of shredding machines, apparently they've been at it for weeks. Let's just hope there's enough evidence left on hard drives to get at the corruption. Was there anything Howard didn't lie about, manipulate, evade or spin? Children overboard, SIEV X, the AWB scandal, Iraq, whether the government knew anything about Abu Graib, climate change, it goes on and on... Ex-liberal Guy Pearce (not the actor), Andrew Wilkie, Mike Scrafton and Mike Kelly ought to get OAs for their whistle blowing.
Yes Howard lied at every turn especially about Iraq but also about Global Warming as Bush has... the ' Tobacco' style campaign of misinformation works on people who are not smart enough or too lazy to read and get the information for themselves (ie 90% of the population). now watch the right wing try and turn him into a statesman,
He was and always will be sleazy in my book
Howard was a bastard that Australians were happy to have lying for them while Bush was allowed to run unchecked.
Now that Bush is almost finished all the big-talking humanists are surfacing again.
As soon as America jerks the financial chain or starts up another regional conflict in our area, Australia will scurry back to Conservatism.
Wonderful to read this in the wake of Howard's humiliation.
The compliant and cowed mainstream media in Australia allowed Howard to get away with murder.
He was, simply, the worst and most dishonest leader in Australian history, yet he survived eleven years of dishonourable rule.