John Howard - make up your own mind.

[weemadando]

Did he win or lose in this interview?


http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s806507.htm

Reporter: Kerry O'Brien

KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program, as the sense of confusion and scramble develops around the UN/Iraq debate, and here in Australia, the PM warns that if we wait for irrefutable proof of the Iraqi threat, we would face a virtual Pearl Harbor.

In what may be his final pitch to Australians before a war, with or without the UN, Mr Howard said, in a National Press Club Address, that he has never walked away from the prospect that military action may be needed to disarm Saddam Hussein.

As he talked, Britain and America were still desperately at work on UN Security Council member countries, trying to shape a compromise resolution that would lock the UN in behind a war on Iraq.

That may involve a slight shift beyond the March 17 deadline for Iraq to disarm, set by America.

But there is no certainty, even then, that a majority of Security Council members would vote in favour of war.

Meanwhile, British PM Tony Blair faces both a public revolt and a revolt within his party.

But public opinion is clearly running against Australian involvement in a war, without UN backing, at least, although Mr Howard certainly doesn't face anything like the situation Mr Blair does.

Mr Howard joins me now.

John Howard, a simple question, first up: are there real, provable links between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network?

JOHN HOWARD, PM: There is evidence of the toleration of an Al Qaeda presence in Baghdad.

There's evidence of links between a branch of Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence, but, Kerry, the argument I put is a broader one than that.

My argument in essence is this: that if you don't disarm Iraq, not only does Iraq keep weapons of mass destruction and have the capacity to use them, and pass them on, but if Iraq is not disarmed, other rogue states will think they can do likewise, and they will.

And the more states, rogue states, that have chemical and biological weapons, so the possibility of those weapons falling into the hands not only of al-Qa'ida but indeed of other terrorist groups.

The other point I would make is that Iraq has a long track record in the past and into the present of supporting terrorist organisations, and of course Iraq regularly supports the suicide bombers that go into Israel.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You referred today to Al Qaeda's long-held desire to have weapons of mass destruction.

You also continue to assert that Iraq has significant stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

If there are real links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, why hasn't Osama bin Laden used those links to get the weapons of mass destruction that he desires so much?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, Kerry, it is true that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons.

There's overwhelming intelligence proof of that.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Then, why hasn't Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda made use of the links that you believe they have with Iraq to get some of those weapons?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, Kerry, the argument I put is that the more countries that have weapons of mass destruction, the greater is the likelihood ... I mean, with respect, your argument sounds very much like saying that until we have proof to a criminal court jury, we shouldn't --

KERRY O'BRIEN: No, just enough to satisfy people around the world that you're on the right course.

JOHN HOWARD: But I think people do understand that sometimes with these situations if you wait for that additional, beyond-all-doubt, you do end up with a Pearl Harbor situation where something happens and then people say, "Why on earth didn't you take preventative measures?".

That's the point.

KERRY O'BRIEN: This isn't asking for irrefutable proof you'd have to establish in a court of law.

It's a matter of simple logic.

JOHN HOWARD: That is my argument, if I may say so, Kerry, you've taken the words out of my mouth.

It is a matter of simple logic to me --

KERRY O'BRIEN: Well let me finish my simple logic first, and then you can tell me yours.

JOHN HOWARD: No, could I just finish?

KERRY O'BRIEN: But I haven't finished the question.

JOHN HOWARD: Well, you did interrupt earlier.

Now let's have a sensible interview.

KERRY O'BRIEN: OK.

JOHN HOWARD: It is a matter of elementary logic that if you have a growing number of rogue states with chemical and biological weapons, the possibility of those weapons, either by gift or misadventure or theft, coming into the hands of a terrorist organisation must increase, and what I say the world must do is to take steps whenever it can to deny rogue states the possession of those weapons.

Now, that, essentially, is my argument.

KERRY O'BRIEN: I understand the argument.

You've repeated that ad nauseam to Australians, but you have also, as have America --

JOHN HOWARD: And can I say I'll go on repeating it.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Can I finish my question.

JOHN HOWARD: Yes.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You have also made much of the point ... of these links that you see between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and it's also a matter of simple logic, I would have thought, that if Iraq really has these weapons of mass destruction and Osama bin Laden really wants these weapons of mass destruction and there is a real link, surely they would have got them?

JOHN HOWARD: Kerry, with respect, you've misrepresented the case I've put, as you say, ad nauseam.

And it is the basic case.

What I have argued is that the more rogue states that have weapons of mass destruction, the greater becomes the likelihood that they will give those or they will get into the hands of terrorists ... and can I remind you that Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organisation in the world.

It is certainly the most lethal and the most dangerous, but there is clear evidence of past links between Iraq and other terrorist organisations, but my case rests very strongly on the logical proposition that if you allow a country like Iraq to get away with hanging on to chemical and biological weapons, other countries are going to say, "We can do likewise".

And it is a matter of ordinary logic that the more countries that have them, the more likely it is that ultimately a terrorist organisation, be it Al Qaeda or be it another terrorist organisation, will get their hands on them.

Now, I don't think the world should take the risk of allowing that possibility to happen.

That is my argument.

If the world waits for irrefutable proof, then it will be, in my view, too late.

KERRY O'BRIEN: There are many people, it seems to me, who are still trying to grapple with the proposition that Iraq represents such a threat right now, such a clear and present danger as to justify a war right now that could take many lives.

What exactly is that current threat?

Do you ... I mean, we know that Saddam had this record with chemical weapons in the '80s, but do you know of any time he's used those weapons of mass destruction in the past 12 years since the Gulf War?

JOHN HOWARD: I don't have any evidence that he's used them in the past 12 years, but I do know that he used them before then.

KERRY O'BRIEN: What's the clear and present danger?

JOHN HOWARD: Hang on.

That was a very long question, so could I at least answer.

I do know also that there's plenty of evidence, Kerry, that he has retained those chemical and biological weapons.

That is clear from published material and also from other material, but, Kerry, the argument is that if you allow Iraq to hold on to these weapons, others will follow Iraq, equally rogue states --

KERRY O'BRIEN: But according to you they've had them for the last 12 years.

JOHN HOWARD: Kerry, as a matter of logic, the more countries that have these weapons, the greater the likelihood that they will fall into the hands of terrorist groups, whether it is Al Qaeda or another terrorist organisation.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But you've been talking about all this for the last six months, if I can say it, 'til you're blue in the face, really, but you still haven't shifted the majority of Australians on this.

Could it be in their eyes that you've simply failed to make a convincing case that Iraq constitutes such a threat, such a clear and present danger right now, as to justify a war in which many people will die?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, Kerry, I'll come to the question of relative suffering in a moment.

But can I make the point that in the end what a government has to do is what it believes is right, and if you determine your policy by testing public opinion every week, then you don't deliver very good policy.

My assessment of Australian public opinion on this issue at the moment is there are a lot of people who disagree with me.

There are a lot of people who support me.

There's probably an even larger number than on both of those sides in the middle, and I think people are still listening to the arguments.

Of course I've talked about this a lot.

It's a very serious issue, and in the end, my solemn obligation to the Australian public is to tell them what I believe, is to say to them what I think is in the best interests of Australia.

Now, if that for a period of time, or perhaps for all time, is a minority view, well, so be it, but the Australian people will always know from me that on issues affecting their security, I will say what I believe is in our national interests.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You've also said again today that you've got faith in the public's judgment.

The public opinion polls have very clearly and consistently measured a clear majority of people in Australia against a war against Iraq without UN approval.

Given the extent to which you have been systematically out of step with public sentiment on this to the extent that you're saying Iraq has to be disarmed one way or the other, has it occurred to you at any time that you might have called this too early and called it wrong?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, Kerry, the question of whether I've called something wrong is ultimately a matter that the Australian people will make a judgment on at election time.

All I can repeat is that I reach conclusions based on my assessment of public opinion.

Could I also make the point that unless and until the option of action without UN approval has disappeared, I don't think you will really have an authentic test of how the public feels on action being taken without UN approval, and I'd make the point on that issue that we have sought the 18th resolution on Iraq, not because of international law.

There's adequate legal authority under existing UN resolutions for enforcement action to be taken.

We've sought an 18th resolution because obviously, from a political and from a world community point of view, it would be more desirable to have marshalled through the Security Council, if possible, the unanimous opinion of the world.

KERRY O'BRIEN: George Bush says he'll disarm Saddam Hussein one way or the other, so does Tony Blair.

You've supported the sentiment, but you'd still have us believe you haven't committed Australia to such a war without the UN.

That clearly implies that there may be a circumstance in which you would say no to America.

What circumstance would that be?

JOHN HOWARD: What it means is that we haven't committed, what you say, we haven't committed.

The reason why we're not going to make that final decision, we're going to wait until the UN processes are resolved, and the reason why you reserve to yourself the opportunity of taking a final decision is because there may be developments, which are now not predictable, which could influence your final decision.

We haven't made a firm commitment and we won't make that firm commitment until the UN process has been gone through.

If the UN passes the 18th resolution, we'll have a look at that and make a decision.

If it doesn't we'll do likewise, but it's only a matter of common prudence to reserve to yourself the right to make the final decision when all of the facts are in front of you.

KERRY O'BRIEN: On the UN front, Mr Howard, the attempt to get a second resolution has become something of a shambles for America and Britain, hasn't it?

JOHN HOWARD: Well, the situation is still very unclear, but it often is unclear until the last moment.

When 1441 -- that's the last resolution, that was the 17th resolution on Iraq -- on the eve of it being passed everything looked a little untidy.

But obviously there are a number of countries that are trying to deny the Americans and the British a majority.

I think their reasons have less to do with the merits of the Iraqi dispute and more to do with international political positioning.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You talked today also about the human rights abuses perpetrated by Saddam Hussein.

Well, I guess the world has known about those human rights abuses and the atrocities and the brutality of them for a very long time, including yourself.

Have you any more sympathy now for the so-called queue jumpers from Iraq who fled the brutality of Saddam and sought safe haven in Australia via leaky boats?

JOHN HOWARD: Kerry, I have a lot of sympathy for people who seek another home.

What we sought there was to defend the integrity of an immigration system and to apply internationally recognised principles of determining whether people were entitled to refugee status.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But can you understand what might have motivated people to jump the so-called queues, given the graphic descriptions you have given of the kind of tortures that went on there, and go on there?

JOHN HOWARD: Kerry, I understand why people would want to find another home in Australia or in another part of the world, of course I understand that.

And those people, even though we were criticised for the policy we enforced, those people were treated humanely by the Australian authorities, far more humanely than many of them had been treated earlier in their lives.

KERRY O'BRIEN: John Howard, thank you very much for talking with us.

JOHN HOWARD: Thank you.

[Crown]

KERRY O'BRIEN: You talked today also about the human rights abuses perpetrated by Saddam Hussein.

Well, I guess the world has known about those human rights abuses and the atrocities and the brutality of them for a very long time, including yourself.

Have you any more sympathy now for the so-called queue jumpers from Iraq who fled the brutality of Saddam and sought safe haven in Australia via leaky boats?

Drill the bastard Kerry! My favourite part of the interview.

[Joe]

I do support the war, but I don't think he did a very good job here. He is right, I think, in his claim that allowing rogue states to possess WMDs will likely lead to either terrorists and/or other rogue states possessing them eventually. Case in point, NK.

That being said, he really should have addressed the question of why Al-Qaeda does not have nukes rather than erecting a wall of ignorance.

[weemadando]

KERRY O'BRIEN: You talked today also about the human rights abuses perpetrated by Saddam Hussein.

Well, I guess the world has known about those human rights abuses and the atrocities and the brutality of them for a very long time, including yourself.

Have you any more sympathy now for the so-called queue jumpers from Iraq who fled the brutality of Saddam and sought safe haven in Australia via leaky boats?

Drill the bastard Kerry! :) My favourite part of the interview.

Yeah, I was listening to the reply on news radio last night just thinking how much Kerry had owned him...

[Joe]

Who exactly is this guy, by the way?

[Crown]

Who exactly is this guy, by the way?

Kerry O'Brien is a journalist for the ABC (Australia), he hosts a question and answer style show that deals with current political affairs... If you are asking about Johnny, no one important

[weemadando]

Who exactly is this guy, by the way?

Kerry O'Brien is a journalist for the ABC (Australia), he hosts a question and answer style show that deals with current political affairs... If you are asking about Johnny, no one important :twisted:

All this is reminding me that that I should re-enrol to vote, goddamn electoral commission un-enrolled me for (horror of horrors) voting from my registered voting address on a postal vote.

Anyhow, hopefully we'll have a double dissolution soon, otherwise I sense that the next 2 years are going to be hideously bad.

Then again this is the same John who said: "No GST . . . never ever." So he might, just to keep up appearances, pull the rug out from under Mr. George W. Bush by suddenly going: [soup-nazi]"No troops for you! Go away! No troops![/soup nazi].

[Crown]

Then again this is the same John who said: "No GST . . . never ever." So he might, just to keep up appearances, pull the rug out from under Mr. George W. Bush by suddenly going: [soup-nazi]"No troops for you! Go away! No troops![/soup nazi].

Aint that the God's honest truth.

[Crown]

Ando did you hear the little Johnny was pelted with eggs in Adelaid today by anti-war rally protestors?

[weemadando]

Ando did you hear the little Johnny was pelted with eggs in Adelaid today by anti-war rally protestors? :D

*begins scouring abc.net.au for pics...*

Poor, poor effort. They only got the rear-window of the car with eggs and tomatos. Damnit, whatever happened to actually nailing the person with an egg?

[Jordie]

Johnny was pelted with eggs in Adelaid today by anti-war rally protestors?

They shoulda used something a little harder than eggs.

[weemadando]

Johnny was pelted with eggs in Adelaid today by anti-war rally protestors?

They shoulda used something a little harder than eggs.

Where are you from again? You seem to understand Australian politics, which means you definately aren't American...

[Jordie]

Melbourne.

EDIT: I don't understand politics, but I also think "Coward" (You should know who I'm talking about) doesn't know much either.

[Crown]

Ando did you hear the little Johnny was pelted with eggs in Adelaid today by anti-war rally protestors?

*begins scouring abc.net.au for pics...*

Poor, poor effort. They only got the rear-window of the car with eggs and tomatos. Damnit, whatever happened to actually nailing the person with an egg?

Well that hasn't happened to a Liberal since Dr John Hussen (spell?) caught the one my cousin threw at him back in the 90's Although there was a brief period of revival back when MS Pleas explain? Was touring the country!

[Mr Flibble]

Ando did you hear the little Johnny was pelted with eggs in Adelaid today by anti-war rally protestors?

Johnny was in Adelaide today? I missed it dammit, my uni is supposed to tell me these things, damn my lousy student union. At the last protest at least we managed to throw a placard at him, but it was a lousy cardboard one.

[weemadando]

Ando did you hear the little Johnny was pelted with eggs in Adelaid today by anti-war rally protestors? :D

Johnny was in Adelaide today? I missed it dammit, my uni is supposed to tell me these things, damn my lousy student union. At the last protest at least we managed to throw a placard at him, but it was a lousy cardboard one.

Pah! I demand hardwood excellence in placards thrown at leaders of the nation!

Last year at societies day we had Senator Eric Abetz at the young liberals stall doing his bit to be seen. Infront of it was our student union president, whom I otherwise despised, walking back and forth with a bull horn shouting "Fuck off Eric."

[Crown]

You are all soft.

[weemadando]

You are all soft.

Soft? How? I wasn't even involved in that effort, just standing around pissed and laughing at Eric's complete inability to cope with it.

I seek knowledge of your great achievements...

[Mr Flibble]

You are all soft.

Soft? I live in Adelaide. We had another person killed here this week. Outside a nightclub I have been known to visit. This place is so dull we have a high murder rate.

[Vympel]

Kerry OWNNNNNNEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDD him.

I especially liked how little Johnny dodged Kerry's question about why Al-Qaeda hasn't gotten it's hands on Iraq's WMD

[Col. Crackpot]

let me get this straight, You Aussies can throw shit at the PM, and get away scott free? What's up with that?

[Crown]

let me get this straight, You Aussies can throw shit at the PM, and get away scott free? What's up with that?

It's every citizens dutie to bag the PM in power. Simple as that.

[Vympel]

let me get this straight, You Aussies can throw shit at the PM, and get away scott free? What's up with that?

No cult of personality surrounds our Prime Minister. He goes on radio and is grilled, and the same happens to him on TV. Reporters also lob questions at him- he has no spokesperson to do his dirty work for him while he just stands in the distance and waves

[Col. Crackpot]

doesn't that blur the lines between "political debate" and Scottish Football Riot"?

[Vympel]

[Little Johny] But it wasn't a core promise![/Little Johnny]