"Don't Know" x6

So Brash on 3 News failed to answer the question about what he'd have done in Iraq - six times. Why? Because it's a "distraction" from the "real issues" like "tax cuts".

I'm sorry Don. A decision about whether you are going to send young Kiwi soldiers to die in wars is not a distraction. In these more dangerous times, it's a fundamental responsibility of political leadership: to know your mind on issues of foreign affairs and to be up front about it.

I also utterly disagree with Don's new line this morning, which is that there's not much difference between Labour's approach to these issues, and National's. Like hell! Labour has only sent NZ forces to the gulf in the wake of UN endorsement of the missions they're there to carry out. Why? Because we believe in collective security on a multilateral basis. We do not believe in unilateral action by the hyperpower, outside of international law, and we won't line New Zealand up alongside that kind of thing.

National on the other hand believes in the old Western alliance; that might is right and the law can go be hanged. Don was crystal clear a few years ago: "I'd have done what President Bush did." Don would have sent New Zealand troops to go and participate in a war which was illegal, immoral and wrong.

The difference is stark and clear. Trying to down play it means the same thing that failing to answer the question means: that he doesn't have the courage to state his convictions in public, because he knows the response will be negative.

There are two words for that.

Duplicitous, and

Gutless.

Comments

[sock thief]

You're being a bit ingenuous Jordan. Labour is obviuosly throwing up Iraq and Bush etc as a distraction from tax cuts etc.

As a tactic it might work but I'm skeptical about foreign policy being that significant for most people. The risk of this approach is that Labour will be seen trying to avoid the issues most voters are concerned with. And that comes back to tax and the economy.

Posters of French atmospheric tests and Bush might muddy the waters for Labour.

[Jordan]

sock, that would be the case if Labour was, or was intending, to avoid those issues.

It's a simple rule in politics: turn the debate onto issues you own. That for us this year seems to mean foreign affairs, health, economy and education. Budget/taxes isn't a strong point, but it is one we're competitive on.

Once again, broken record I know but I'll stick with it, wait and see how the campaign develops. This is only barely the beginning.

[weizguy]

Wait - now it's wrong to try to control the agenda?

While tax is a big issue in this election, it's not the only one. I suspect their would be a lot of NZers concerned about Brash's suggestion that he would send troops to fight for the coalition of the "willing".

As long as the "war on terrorism" continues, the US will continue to act in the same bully-boy manner that they love. This (more than likely) means further invasions, and a need for more troops. Quite frankly, I don't trust a man who won't tell me whether or not he would send us to participate in an illegal war.

In addition, what's the point continuing the discussion of tax when we don't have the facts? We all know that National are waiting for the election to be announced, so shouldn't we look at other issues in the meantime?

Incidentally, weren't the Nats releasing a part of their tax policy every week? Have I missed some?

[Brian]

"Why? Because we believe in collective security on a multilateral basis. We do not believe in unilateral action by the hyperpower, outside of international law, and we won't line New Zealand up alongside that kind of thing."

So you want to line up New Zealand's security up with a dodgy unaccountable proto world government whose members include countries that are no respecters of freedom and democracy? Certainly the US does not want to. Good on them. They know that the things they stand for are more important than your so-called international law. If international law stands in the way of us liberating people from tyranny because the law values sovereignty higher than human lives, then the law is an ass.

"National on the other hand believes in the old Western alliance; that might is right and the law can go be hanged. Don was crystal clear a few years ago: "I'd have done what President Bush did." Don would have sent New Zealand troops to go and participate in a war which was
illegal, immoral and wrong."

No, Jordan, the Western Alliance is not about "might is right". It is about protecting the things that are most important: life, freedom, and human rights. I would much rather put my trust in a coalition of free countries than in the United Nations. And leaving Saddam in power was: Legal? Moral? Right?

[dogsbody]

I was going to suggest "Hide under the bed with Helen" for Labour's campaign slogan, but I fear Rodney might sue.

[Tom S]

Brash's string of gaffes are very encouraging.

[ZenTiger]

You might think you represent mainstream NZ Jordan (whatever that is), but you bandy the word "we" about as if there is only one valid opinion on world affairs.

[Paul]

back to the issuue at hand,

you have all been taking lessons from the Brash school of avoidance and diversion.

Meanwhile a little boy waits for a foreign policy stance, tax policy, any policy.....

[Jeremy]

I would never offend Jordan by refering to him as "mainstream". Certianly not after Brash's interpretation of the word...

[Tom S]

Brian:

Legal? Leaving Saddam in power was the legal thing to do. Invading non-threatening third world countries on the flimiest of flim flam made up evidence is not legal. Whats worse, places like Iran and North Korea and probably a host of other countries have observed the arrogance of the neo-con imperialism in Washington, and have drawn the correct conclusions - and are now developing nuclear weapons to protect themselves from a rogue US administraion just as fast as they can. Remember, the sort of sycophancy Brash shows to the US would tie us to such things as the US withdrawl from the non-proliferation treaty and ditching the ABM treaty.

Moral? No one likes Mugabe or Saddam or Kim Il Jung or any one of a dozen murderous despots artound the globe. But is the answer to hide behind a wall of trite and sanctimonious holier-than-thou imperialism from the United States or to rely on the slower legal route of the United Nations? The United Nations was set up specifically to prevent another WWII. It served that purpose nobly through the cold War. Since the current bunch of arrogant imperialist seized power in the USA the world has become more dangerous and the morality more murky, not less.

Right? I would say 25,000 dead Iraqi's, 2000 odd dead Americans, plus God knows how many others in Afghanistan etc etc might have if view on the righteousness of the Bush crusade - if they were still alive.

Thats the morass that Helen Clark has kept us out of, and where Brash wants to take us.

[Gooner]

Labour knows it is failing to compete on the real issues (tax, health, crime). So it is moving the goalposts to try and get some traction. People see this for what it is. A desperate attempt to gain some momentum. Won't work.

[Paul]

Tom,

I couldn't agree more.

But let me save the others from the time and effort for their emphatic retort.

Evil Un hugging socialist naive saps, living off the hard work and dedicated effort of great desisive hard working nations, willing to make the hard decisions to instigate regime change.

So something as unimaginative like that?

So Brash what's your answer buddie?

A little boy waits for anything from this stuck record.

Actually I am now willing to take bets that Tim is Brash's long lost broken record son.

[Gooner]

Anyway Jordan, what's this mean "In these more dangerous times..."

I thought we lived in a "benign strategic environment".

Ha ha.

[Tony]

It is insulting that Brash says the war on Iraq is irrelevent. The War on Iraq is relevant.

The most important decision a leader can make is whether or not to send our kids to war. On this, Brash fails.

[Paul]

Gooner.

"real issues (tax, health, crime)."

Well we'd love to debate these real issues with REAL policy, but as we all know Brash is keeping his cards so close to his chest that we can't see anything, just speculation.

Hardly a basisi for real world debating.

[Nick Eynon]

I think asking hypothetical questions about historical events like that are a distraction.
The Iraq war started TWO years ago.
The upcoming election is to elect a Government that is to govern from 2005-2008 not 2002-2005.

Unless Brash was actually PM at the time there is no way to answer the question "correctly" let alone prove or disprove your answer.
Soon we will descend to asking Clark if she were PM in the 60s would she have sent troops to Vietnam or would she have supported Britain in WWII.
The questions (and there are many many questions) on National's foreign policy should be about the now and what National would do in the future to ensure this country's security.

That's of course not to say this campaign won't be as successful as National's equally retarded Kiwi/Iwi adverts. If there was actually a moral high ground in election campaigning Labour have lost it now.

[Jim]

Given that at the time the whole world was led to believe that Iraq had WMD's, I can understand why Brash said what he did (at the time).

[Simon]

Fairly interesting for the NZ left to say so long the UN says it ok then war is legal, moral and right.

[tim barclay]

Keep batting on this wicket Jordan you might make a little bit of traction. But really it is hardly the sort of stuff that excites the public. Nor are your very complex policies that reinforce failure and punish success (through excess taxation).

[weizguy]

International legal opinion says that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

The whole world was led to believe that there were WMDs? No they weren't - they fooled the US senate, Blair, and Howard - hardly the whole world (unless you're amerocentric).

We made our own decision - we were right.

Knowing whether Brash would have sent troops is important - it would be naive to think that the US won't invade elsewhere in its continued "war on terror". We need to know whether Brash will do a Blair, and send us in direct contradiction of the wishes of the people.

[Lucyna]

How about if Clark has been the French leader in WW2, would she have collaborated with the Nazis, or run for her life to Britain? Enquiring minds need to know - this woman might be PM again!

[Adolf Fiinkensein]

You lefties are so dumb it is beyond belief. Not only dumb but bereft of ideas. You took this straight out of the Flip Flop John Kerry book and you'll get the same answer back. 'Your were against it before you were for it.' Else you would never have sent any troops to Iraq. But no, you idiots wanted to have two bob each way. You are all Cullender clones. Nothing any of you says ever holds water. The people have woken up to that and thet's why there is going to be a change of government, no matter what you say or how loudly you say it. It's all to loud and too late.

[Adolf Fiinkensein]

Jordan, if I were a labour supporter I would be quite angry over the picture of your great leader alongside Saddam Hussein. Did anyone point out to the ad agency that the subliminal message being delivered is that Helen and Saddam are peas in a pod.

[Brian S]

Good questions Lucyna? What would she have thought of the Munich Agreement? Would she have agreed with Chamberlain that it is "peace in our time."

[Tane W]

Lucyna,

There's a slight difference between the situation the French and British were in back in 1939, and that the Americans were in back in 2003. Saddam's Iraq posed a slightly smaller threat than Hitler's Germany, hard to believe though that is. So comparing them is like comparing apples and elephants.

Adolf,

I don't see any problem about sending in troops after the fact, once the UN had approved of reconstruction. It might seem like splitting hairs to you, and is probably totally irrelevant to the jihadis, but there is a real and tangible difference, albeit a legal one. Going in on 'Operation Shock and Awe' was wrong and illegal. Helping pick up the pieces afterwards was right and legal. Simple really.

As for knowing whether Dr Brash would send troops to Iraq, or some similar hotspot at the request and behest of Washington is a valid point. Very valid in my case, as this 'loony lefty' is in the Territorials. Now, there are 10,000 others in the queue ahead of me, but you know, if push comes to shove, maybe, just maybe, I might find myself being ordered to take part in a war I think is illegal and immoral. So knowing what the National Party policy on this point has some relevance to me and my mates. Certainly more than it does to you I imagine (or are you a serving soldier too......?).

So, what are the boys and girls in blue going to do, should they win this election?

[Brian S]

Tom S -

Take note of the phrases you used:

"neo-con imperialism"
"sycophancy"
"rogue US administraion"
"trite and sanctimonious holier-than-thou imperialism"
"seized power in the USA"
"arrogant imperialist"
"Bush crusade"

Typical stock phrases of the left. That you would use them so readily indicates that you are not only a moral relativist but also a "useful idiot".

[rightkiwi]

Lucyna: I reckon that if Clark has been the French leader in WW2, she would have run for her life to Britain. She is known to be a personal coward.

[Gooner]

Tane, why don't you attend a meeting in your electorate and ask the National candidate? Better still, why don't you ring the party itself and ask the bloody question instead of flocking like sheep to shepherds here and asking the same silly, irrelevant question.

No polling I know of, either National or ACT, even comes close to this as an issue. And that is after months and months and months of calling. The removal of Clak is foregone conclusion I reckon. It's just a matter now of finding the replacement.

[dim]

The opposition leaders performance last night doesn't bode well for his chances in the leadership debate. If the campaign ever turns for Labour it's gonna be there. The Nats have an amazing ad campaign, and Labour have a pretty lousy record esp (in the last three years), but the Nats simply don't have anyone in their front bench that they can deploy in a debate on live TV. Okay, maybe Tony Ryall - but the rest of them are gonna get torn limb from limb by Mallard, Clark, Cullen ect - especially if they're as badly briefed and prepared as Don Brash seems to make a habit of being.

[Tony]

I guess this just shows how out of touch the right in NZ really is.

[Gooner]

Tony, our callers phone all sorts of people of all types of political persuasion no doubt. Your comment assumes all those people are out of touch and attaches with it the arrogance of Clak and her cronies which is why you will lose. It is Clak who is out of touch, not the general populace. That's why she will be voted out.

[weizguy]

"No polling I know of, either National or ACT, even comes close to this as an issue."

That's right - tell our armed services that this isn't an issue. "Don't question us son - we know what's best for you. Now go off and blow up some holy sites."

Incidentally, if the ACT polling is anything like it was in the last election (my employer took the telemarketing contract), then you are unlikely to find it as an issue - after all, push polls are hardly indicative surveys are they.

[rightkiwi]

Gooner says:

"No polling I know of, either National or ACT, even comes close to this as an issue. And that is after months and months and months of calling."

No polling showed Treaty of Waitangi issues to be such a huge issue before Brash gave his speech; no polling showed tax to be such a big issue until Cullen offended the whole middle class with his Budget "tax cuts".

Labour is onto strong ground for them with this - it is not about "Iraq" but about trustworthiness and competence, and will be doing Brash harm.

The irony, of course, is that it is Labour spinning and telling lies - both about Brash but also about the US, and it is showing its usual knee-jerk hatred of the law and liberty countries.

Nevertheless, National needs to deal with this issue quickly because my pick is that it will move the polls.

[Paul]

Back to the tread at hand, not Iraq, not where's your policy, none of the UN left is evil claims of the above posts.

Your leader has the most fantastic ability to look like a dumb ass on national tv over and over again.

One day he'll make an announcement, the next day retract it, and then spend the next week making his mind up as to what he really meant from the start, if only he could figuure it out.

Harldy the inspiration strong decisive leader that we hope for this country.

But no, go on the right, attack helen. I'd love to see if you even try to defend this guys recent actions (foot in mouth disease over and over again), or will you just ocme out about Iraq, the UN, Socialist world orders, helen has bad teeth, "the polls the polls" (short guy in white suit from Fantasy Island).

Someone tell me why this guy is going to be good for us and not an international let alone local joke.

Or is that too close to the tread for you all.

[Gooner]

Fair call RK. But if it's about "trustworthiness and competence" then Clak has lost already hasn't she :).

[Rich]

"She is known to be a personal coward." That's why she climbs large mountains for a pastime, and travels without a security detail whenever the cops will let her.

(oh sorry - the word "personal bravery" in the New Right dictionary is defined as "sending dumb young kids to get killed in far off countries, while hiding inside a mountain yourself").

[Jim]

""She is known to be a personal coward." That's why she climbs large mountains for a pastime, and travels without a security detail whenever the cops will let her."

She's not a coward at all - thats why she took responsibility for her speeding motorcade. Oh wait...

[weizguy]

Jim

I've just realised why the Nats are so unprepared at select committee...

They don't read in transit.

They're too busy looking out the window, checking that their driver/pilot isn't breaking the speed limit.

Shame on you Helen - you should be keeping your eyes on the road, and off those pesky briefings.

[tim barclay]

I do not think Helen is a personal coward but she might have been a General Petain and did the deal with Hitler just so long as the nuclear free zone legislation remained intact, and the Civil Union Act remained in force. Then she would give away the store. Look I think NZers do not like to see people starving in the street but they do not like seeing welfare policies take people beyond a basic standard of living and punish the successful and hard working and law abiding to finance it. The Labour Party thinks otherwise and that is the divide in NZ politics.

[Tane W]

Gooner,

Excellent suggestion, I will be sure to keep an eye out for the local National party public meeting, and I look forward to asking this very question. Hopefully Nicola Young (Rongotai) will do a better job explaining this than her prospective boss. I have a sneaking suspicion she won't though, as she is only a candidate and it appears that there is no clearly defined National Party policy on this issue..... Maybe one will be formed and promulgated prior to the election.

And for those banging on about how Labour is crapping on about a 'non-issue', please see my previous post and tell me why I should ignore this particular subject? As for Labour 'changing the debate', well of course they are. They kicked themselves in the bollocks over the tax issue (an impressive feat you'll admit) and are now trying to make up lost ground. The fact that they're covering up one of the chinks in their armour by stabbing National in one it's weak spots is hardly a revolutionary concept, in politics, sport or warfare. What next, complaining about the beastly way the All Blacks beat the Lions by running circles round them with their backline and their loosies? Cover your weaknesses, exploit your strengths. Pretty basic stuff really.

Labour has some serious work to do on it's tax policy. Agreed. This does not remove the need for National to let us know whether my mates in the Regular Force need to polish their desert boots and check their body armour. I look forward to some coherence from them on this subject.

[Craig Ranapia]

Dim:

If Garner is going to be moderating Three's leader's debates, I'm sure Clark is going to feel a sudden rush of warmness for her favourite little creep, John Campbell.

Actually, I think Jordan had it right a few days ago: Clark's got her own weak weak spots when it comes to TV debates and over-confidence is misplaced. IMO, Clark is fine as long as she's not knocked off her talking point or subjected to tough, and persistent, lines of questioning she considers beneath her.

And, please, Cullen and Maharey have their own media problems. To be blunt, Cullen has become a media liability when he tries the charm offensive but leaves out the charm - the sarcasm gets bitter and heavy-handed, and he accuses journalists with working tape recorders of making up stories.

Maharey has a more subtle problem. I'd actually think he's smarter - politically and intellectually - than either Clark or Cullen. But under pressure, he has to avoid adopting the condescending air of a lecturer who really can't quite believe his students are so stupid. His performance at the One Insight tax debate was actually pretty good once he stopped the running interjection/commentary, eye-rolling and convulsive head shaking. (Then again, it was much improved after the first commercial break, when everyone was reportedly told to chill out by Ralston himself.)

None of the above might matter much in a capaign that's already been declared a foregone conclusion by the pollsters and media. But that was 2002, this is 2005.

Idiot:

I don't agree with your reading of the interview I saw last night. Big surprise, eh? While I'm all for tormenting politicians - perhaps the only legal and socially respectable form of torture left - I don't resile from my main point. Relitigating the Iraq War might excite hardcore partisans like us, I don't see it having much of an impact out in the real world. Then again, I'm sure the next skirmish in the phony campaign will prove us both wrong.

[Gone by Lunchtime]

Finally David Farrar has posted the offical national party line on this issue. Check out his blog post at 01:07 AM 20 July

[Paul]

So it's left up to a blogger to post offical Nat stance on things.

cool this is the sort of govt and leadership we want, mirrors and unoffical party lines.

[Jordan]

This is hilarious and incredibly informative. The right are scrabbling, and have fallen back on accusing the left of being socialists, economically illterate, etc etc etc.

Rattled.

[RSB]

Jordon, if Bush had called the invasion of Iraq a second-trimester abortion of a dictator would you have supported it?

I wouldn't mind betting that you were one of the people calling for unilateral action in Timor in 1999 and opposing it in Iraq.....

[Craig Ranapia]

Paul:

Oh, calm yourself. 'Gone By Lunchtime' was making a joke - or can't read. Who knows?

[dogsbody]

Tom S.

Let's consider the murder of close to one million people in Rwanda.

The UN did nothing to intervene.

You would, in accordance with your strongly advocated position, have condemned as illegal, immoral and wrong the actions of any country that had acted independantly of the UN to intervene and halt the genocide.

You would sooner stand by and allow genocide than question the decisions (or non-decisions) of that corrupt talking-shop and vehicle of totalitarian despots everywhere, the UN.

With regards to Iraq, the French, for purely selfish reasons related to hugely lucrative oil contracts, made it clear that they would keep Saddam in power by vetoing any UN-sanctioned liberation of the country.
So it was not a wise and hallowed international parliament of nations which decided against liberation for the Iraqis; the French did through the power of their veto. And, thanks to Clark's unthinking and amoral veneration of the UN, that ugly demonstration of French self-interest is what determined New Zealand's policy.

The US chose to invade and toppled a barbaric and virtually pathological regime that has murdered hundreds of thousands of people, started a catastrophic war against neighbouring Iran and invaded Kuwait; attempting instead to introduce democracy and freedom to the population. Yet, again, according to your twisted ideology, it is the US which is at fault here.

[Jordan]

RSB - East Timor was invaded by Indonesia and under foreign occupation. Liberating it was something that should have been done years ago, and only wasn't because Indo were "friendly generals" who upheld the West's geo-political interests.

Iraq had a home grown dictatorship. So do lots of other countries. I don't see us lining up to invade any of them.

Forgive me for being just a shade cynical about just why the US might have wanted to topple a dictator floating on a sea of oil.....

Jordan.

[Brian S]

Jordan -

The old conspiracy theory about the US invading for oil has well and truly been debunked. Strange as it may seem to you, the US invading because it actually believes that bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East is the best way to guarantee it's own security. If the US wanted oil, it would have been much easier to do a deal with Saddam

[Merc]

My Dad's got a garage and he said we can use it as a hut.