Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Oh Really?

Geez, there's been so much stuff going on lately that I've neglected my blog. But I felt like commenting on this little gem regarding our PM John Howard:
Prime Minister John Howard has denied that Australia could at greater risk of terrorist attacks because of its close ties with the United States.

A report released in Britain by the Royal Institute of International Affairs said the invasion of Iraq and ongoing occupation by allied troops had been a boon for al-Qaeda, the terrorist group believed to be behind this month's deadly London bombings.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has rejected the report's claims.

Mr Howard also downplayed the report's findings during a joint press conference with US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington.

"Australia was a terrorist target well before the Iraq operation," Mr Howard told reporters.

"We were a terrorist target before the September 11, 2001.

"The first transgression in the eyes of al-Qaeda and [leader Osama] Bin Laden that Australia committed was to go to the assistance of the people of East Timor, an act by the Australian Government that had the overwhelming support of the Australian people."
OK, I'm not following something here. JH reckons that we are at no greater risk of a terrorist attack now than we were before 9-11. So:

"Liberation" of East Timor = Transgression = Certain level of risk to Australia of Terrorist retribution.

Invasion of Afghanistan = 2nd Transgression = Same level of risk of retribution.

Invasion of Iraq = 3rd Transgression = Same level of risk of retribution.

Does this mean we get 3 for the price of 1?

Or is John Howard just maybe, possibly, theoretically, hypothetically LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH?



Post a Comment

<< Home