and speaking of media, what happened to the earlier post here on this?
From memory then: limited involvement in Iraq, excellently trained and equipped troops with first class commanders, no sordid little procurment scandals involving staff and supporters; no ambitions for Iraq oil - (Note how little media play those submissions to the Cheney energy task force are getting)
No involvement in Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a balanced budget (hoo boy); a managed trade politcy, an industrial policy, national health care -
F***, if Howard were here in the US, Rush would be blasting him every day on the radio as a flaming liberal.
In US terms, this is like Kerry beating Nader, and the "landslide" about which you speak so knowingly was something like 53% to 47%.
Oh yeah - I know what happened to the original post - it got "misplaced" so you could try to b*** s*** us about the Australian elections once again.
ep
Current Events » in reply to Media: Australian victory for Howard? So what?
Let's start with "no casualties in Iraq"
The whole thread (18 posts)
- Media: Australian victory for Howard? So what?
- Let's start with "no casualties in Iraq"
- You are quite right. The Australian election had nothing to with Iraq. It was a completely domestic affair.
- One can tell when the good guys are winning by how little the MSM reports it.
