9 posts tagged “helen clark”

Whether you support the war in Iraq or you don’t—and here in New Zealand we have the luxury to criticize the United States—David Horowitz’s recollection (video found originally on Humbled Infidel’s blog) of why the US went in certainly correlates with my own. It’s why I have always held back attacking President George W. Bush, because faced with what he had in front of him, I cannot honestly say I would not have done the same thing. As Horowitz reveals, neither would Al Gore, who supported Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech in 2002.
   The end of this video (cut short) goes into the rationale for war surrounding UN Security Council resolution 1441, which PM Tony Blair managed to sell to Parliament—but which, I always felt, the US was less successful at doing. There are legal arguments there based on the UN Charter but it was always about 1441. 
   This is one of the problems I tend to have with the US Democratic Party, for all my own left-leaning tendencies. Right now, for example, constituents are begging the super-delegates that they should not select who will best beat Sen. John McCain and the Republicans, but who represents their position. The fact this question has even arisen is disturbing: as representatives of the people of course one should represent the citizens. The minute you do not, you do not have a democracy: it is a quest for power among élites ignoring the citizenry, the sort of thing people were getting away from when the US was founded. 
   I am not saying that the GOP wouldn’t look after its own, but given that they have fielded men like Sen. Bob Dole—who from a marketing perspective was a tough sell against President Clinton—it seems that it might be more willing to represent its base than look at seizing power. The 42nd president gifted them the Monica Lewinsky situation, which hurt the Democrats. I would say that they never forgave the GOP or Kenneth Starr who were steadfast in their condemnation and investigation. That power-hungriness from the Democrats is very apparent in the way the Bush administration has been undermined in the last eight years.

   I say if one opposes the war, then there are ways to do it without resorting to revisionism. I might not agree with our PM, Helen Clark, on her courses of action, but at least she took a position based on the facts before her and said ‘No’ to going in to Iraq. She has never gone and revised history, and simply held firm on her principles. She has good support for it because most New Zealanders opposed the war and carried out her job (on that occasion) as a servant and representative of the people.
   The consequences of Resolution 1441 were always clear but the means of acting upon them were less so because of the way the UN Charter is written, and that ambiguity effectively gave some countries a chance of opting out. Our PM took it, as did the leaders of many other nations. It is respectful, even if she later made a gaffe about how she did not think a Gore presidency would have gone to war. (As Horowitz reminds us, that is probably an incorrect position.) They believed that an extra resolution was needed before war; the US, UK, Australia and others did not.
   The Democratic Party and the anti-war movement probably think that this is all too tough to sell to the public, so they engage in other tactics, shaming US troops or the administration and pressuring those who have short memories to join their cause. I am not saying that what they have uncovered is all untrue—of course I accept there are dodgy dealings surrounding the war and I even accept some misconduct—but they’d earn my respect if they didn’t flip-flop or cover up the truth. Sen. Clinton, who voted for the war, who voted for the increase in expenditure alongside Sen. John Kerry, is one of those very high-profile politicians who has changed depending on the trade winds of public opinion.
   Of course a senator or a future president must be representative but she must also stand on truth. ‘I was wrong to have supported the war because …’ would have been a good start. ‘Now the American people are telling me that it is time to withdraw our troops.
   ‘My support was founded on the belief that resolution 1441 was inviolable. It was not, and we have carried out the due punishment needed on Saddam Hussein’s régime.’
   There are millions of ways to spin it, especially ways to do it without demoralizing the young men and women serving in Iraq—and I am not even a politician.
   This would also mean she’d have to go against her husband’s attacks on Kosovo, which also did not have that additional Security Council resolution but was a preemptive strike by the US. George W. Bush is not alone, just that the media give him more grief over it.
   But a mea culpa is not flip-flopping and it is not pandering. It is being honest, something the Beltway sees very rarely.
   What concerns me, however, is that the road to war is a serious matter. It should not be so easily bent because the decision should be founded on principle—and if those principles existed after resolution 1441 was broken then they exist today. Congress voted for the war, with bipartisan support. There needs to be a far bigger shift for any US representative to say no to the war now—so what is it?
   A poor entry strategy, a poor exit strategy, the belief that the US’s only task was to oust Saddam Hussein, the belief that the parameters of the original declaration of war have been fulfilled—what? Certainly Sen. Clinton needs to tell us.
   She has said that she would not have voted for the war if she knew there were no WMDs. But as Horowitz points out, the existence of WMDs was not the basis for war. Did Sen. Clinton “misspeak” again?
   There is a popular notion that that was what resolution 1441 was all about and we all remember Sec. Powell’s Powerpoint presentations to the UN.
   But unless Sen. Clinton has misremembered this incident as well, resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 was about Iraq’s non-compliance with conditions laid down by the international community over disarmament, which included WMDs, but they were not the core issue.
   When Iraq lied about what it did with its WMDs, which the international community confirmed it had as late as 1998, the US took a hard line.
   Iraq itself never offered an explanation on the discrepancy between its claims and tests by the inspectors.
   That was one legal justification for the US and the UK, and, skipping over a few issues, the war began.
   I sure wish the US politicians would just tell the truth about the vote at that time because they should have a better understanding of it, having been there—rather than let people like me catch them out.
   This is another reason to not dislike Bush: he said he would stay the course, so he did. The majority of Americans voted for him in 2004 (regardless of whether one is counting the electoral college or the popular vote) and knew this full well. And while I think some of his spending has sent that US deficit soaring, he has stayed firm on his belief in his tax cuts. He seems content because he thinks he is protecting the Constitution and that he needs to continue his strategy. Maybe that is the Bush world-view. (He saw how his Dad got burned on the ‘No new taxes’ and learned from it. He saw how his Dad lost the support of the right wing of the GOP and learned from it. And he saw how he was criticized for being too smart when he ran for Congress—which is where the folksy public image comes from. Welcome to Bushland.)
   Had the war successfully concluded people would praise him on his steadfastness.
   For if a leader bends based on the trade winds, then will she bend based on pressure from other sovereign nations? If Saudi Arabia put pressure to bear on the US, would Sen. Clinton cave in? If a communist nation put pressure on Sen. Obama, would he? Or, for that matter, how far will Sen. McCain bend to foreign pressure? 
   We cannot turn back the clock now and see how the message could have been better communicated to the US. We should know, from the Horowitz video, why the US went in and understand who is now lying to the American public: that is important. For all his failings in everything from the Patriot Act (which I am no fan of, and it has restricted the movement of people who could benefit the US) to the Alberto González judicial appointments, I do not think it was President Bush. I have never called him a bare-faced liar.
   The next presidential election is a chance to address those failings. The economy can be fixed but what is in dire need of repair are the values to which not only Americans want moral leadership, but most of us in the western world. Get the values right, get the truth right, and the rest will follow.
   At the end of the day I care not if the president is a Democrat or a Republican, and I have no say in it anyway, as long as our common values are restored and preserved, and the leader is truthful. And that the decision for staying the course or withdrawing is also founded on truth.

A lot of people call George W. Bush a dumbass, because they say he is ignorant about foreign policy and the names of leaders.
   Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is smart and experienced, even if she has memory and “misspeaking” problems caused by sleep deprivation.
   Here’s the latest one that made the front page here in Wellington, New Zealand, in the Australian-owned Dominion Post newspaper. Sen. Clinton called Helen Clark the ‘former prime minister of New Zealand’ even though she’s still in office.
   If she gets in, Americans are still going to get comments about a dumbass, ignorant president from us. So much for restoring America’s international prestige—when she makes mistakes like this.
   No doubt it was caused by sleep deprivation again.
   If you can read the article, the latest Clinton “misstatement” managed to remind the New Zealand press about her gaffe that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, something later revealed to be complete fiction. The Bosnian sniper-fire incident is also in there.
   She’ll say anything, it seems—and in my book, that’s not presidential. The anti-Bush types say that if the world could have voted a US president, he would not have got in. It seems that if New Zealanders could vote in anyone into the White House from here, Hillary Clinton doesn’t look like our pick.

‘I will abolish any court I like. I don’t care if people never voted for that. I am supreme!’

‘Hey, I pass laws all the time that say that any crime I did a few years ago was always perfectly legal. Anyone in my position would.’

‘Do you want to say something against me politically? Of course you can. You just have to meet all the requirements of this new law I’ve passed. Sucker.’

‘Yes, you will find yourself in contempt if you go around making fun of me or any Parliamentary sessions we have. I could have you prosecuted. That’s the fun of being a dictator.’

‘Why should I meet with the Dalai Lama? He’s a dickwad. I’m happier cosying up to Beijing.’

‘What economic policy? As long as the people remain poor, they will give me loyalty.’

‘Screw you. I’ve got my BMWs.’

   What a great legacy Kim Jong Il the Labour Government has left North Korea New Zealand.
   And National’s response: ‘Duh … Euh … Um … Screw it, let’s put that Coldplay track on again and see if we can have a party for under-40 Aucklanders.’

Again, only the Greens seem to be raising a stink in Parliament (National is silent) about the new BMW limousines on order for governmental use.
   As co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons pointed out, the new BMW 730Lds on order from the Bavarian automaker contravenes even the government’s own directives for fuel economy.
   The cars, at least based on list prices, are essentially twice the price of the Ford Fairlanes they are succeeding. The government’s defence, that the Fairlanes will be deleted from Ford Australia’s range, falls on deaf ears, since the rival Holden Statesman is still being made, and sold at a comparable price.
   The Dog & Lemon Guide has warned that maintaining the cars will be pricey, too.
   I happen to agree with the opinions of both Ms Fitzsimons and the Guide’s editor, Clive Matthew-Wilson. These cars will send the wrong message: that politicians are somehow above the rest of us (consider who normally buys 7-series BMWs). Additionally, the cars are a bad choice environmentally—contravening the country’s green image.
   We know that this Labour Government and the opposition National Party both think they are above the rest of us and that they have no trouble with hypocrisy.
   I predict that what might happen is that everyday motorists will block these BMW limousines out of a sense of injustice.
   I still remember the days when Prime Minister Robert Muldoon drove his own Triumph 2500S to work and got stuck in traffic like the rest of us.
   Security might deem that unsafe but as the Irish newspaper points out today, even Ms Fitzsimons drives to work in her own 1·3-litre car.
   There has to be a happy medium, maybe having a diplomatic protection police officer accompany the PM if she wishes to drive to work.
   This is spending at a time when we should be more prudent with taxpayer funds, especially in upcoming years.
   While Mr Matthew-Wilson believes a Toyota Crown or Lexus would be a better bet, I was remarking to myself how the diesel Škoda Superb would be quite good today.
   The Superb is one of the most economical diesels I have tested and the legroom—more than an old Mercedes-Benz S-class—is more than suitable for our MPs.
   I have wondered why even taxi fleets have shied away from the Czech-built car here as it affords far more comfort than the Toyota Camry that is fast becoming the choice of cabbies in Wellington.
   And at NZ$59,990 for the current model (to be replaced next year), it makes infinitely more sense than the BMW.
   If the Superb is good enough for the President of the Czech Republic, it is more than enough for our ministers—which reveals that the decision to go with BMW could not have been motivated by proper policy considerations. Something is rotten in Denmark, but we’ve known that for years.
   Choosing a long-wheelbase BMW at this point makes us look more like Red China—oh, hang on—maybe that is the message.
   What a pity National is not taking the opportunity to use this against Labour—again John Key has not been able to see the massive bullseye target painted on the Internal Affairs’ Minister.

Former prime minister Mike Moore mounted an attack on Helen Clark today in the media over campaign finance. As I heard this broadcast on the radio, I asked myself, ‘Where’s John Key?’
   A guy who is not even in Parliament is doing more work than the Opposition.
   National. Silent during the anti-satire rules being passed in Parliament.
   National. Silent during the visit by HH the Dalai Lama.
   National. Silent while Parliament passed an ex post facto law to legalize formerly illegal election campaign spending.
   If you want a change in 2008, National is not going to give it to you.

Some Americans already think that PM Helen Clark is Ms Photo Op, without the substance. That was the first thing that came to mind when this pic came through from the Ford Motor Company today.
   Considering that New Zealand had natural gas-powered cars when I was a youngster in 1980 (until the National government thought they might be bad for us in the mid-1990s and really pushed us toward good, healthy and cheap petrol) and Todd Park was experimenting with a methanol-powered Mitsubishi in 1983, you can see why I am not terribly impressed with news that we have this revolutionary, new biofuel pump serving E10.
   Little compares with our having a 20-plus-year lead on the rest of the world with LPG and CNG, something this country fails to acknowledge time and time again. Probably to cover up its own inadequacies and lack of vision.
   E10, phooey. Sure it’s a step in the right direction, but such a little step compared to the advances we were making against OPEC in the late 1970s. We should be crying about how our lead and knowledge have been flushed down the toilet, and how no one other than regular citizens gives a toss.

[Cross-posted] The press release says it all, really. No one voted in the Communist Chinese as the government of New Zealand, even if a lot of us voted Labour. Pity that some of our senior government figures and cops decided to take their orders from Beijing, or are too scared to confront the Politburo when given the chance.

Publisher outraged at barring of Nick Wang from Parliamentary event

Jack Yan reminds Red Chinese that their sovereignty ends at Embassy doors

Wellington, March 27 (JY&A Media) Jack Yan, publisher of Lucire, says he is ‘outraged’ by the barring of journalist Nick Wang from a Parliamentary event last night, and says it is among a ‘pattern’ of suppression that the New Zealand Government is either ignoring, or endorsing.
   Earlier reports indicate that Red Chinese Embassy officials had pressured Marie McNicholas, the head of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, to bar Mr Wang from reporting on the visit of Zeng Peiyan (Tsang Pui Yam, 曾培炎), an official from Beijing. Mrs McNicholas refused, and told Radio New Zealand that officials may have approached members of the New Zealand police force.
   ‘We generally have some of the best police officers in the world,’ says Mr Yan. ‘The Red Chinese government needs to understand that they do not have the right to give orders to our cops, especially not the right to suppress a New Zealand-based journalist in the course of his job.
   ‘This is New Zealand territory, and diplomatic missions are here by convention, not by right.
   ‘Red Chinese sovereignty ends at their Embassy’s doors. They do not extend on to New Zealand soil,’ he says. ‘Why certain MPs like Peter Dunne and I have to remind Beijing of this, constantly, is beyond me.’
   Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are saying the incident is a misunderstanding which has been blown out of proportion.
   ‘A free press and New Zealand sovereignty deserve to be protected, and if the Government believes either can be so readily dismissed, then they are ignoring, or endorsing, a pattern of Politburo pressure,’ says Mr Yan.
   ‘Red China’s actions, once again, make me question their understanding of other nations’ rights, and why we should even pursue a free-trade deal with a régime that does not respect New Zealanders or New Zealand jobs.’
   Mr Yan says that he has found Mr Wang to be a fair and balanced journalist, who has never been staunchly anti-Beijing in his reports in the Capital Chinese News.
   Mr Yan adds that he was disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition, John Key, did not raise the matter with Mr Zeng in his meeting earlier today, and questions why no other MP with Chinese ethnicity has publicly stood by Mr Wang.

[Cross-posted] I thought it was the fifth when I made the recording, but it’s actually the sixth. This is a long recording: 15 minutes long, but I think it is more enjoyable than a few of my earlier ones. Click at the left icon to stream.

0.00 Introduction
0.06 My blog-hating phase
0.53 SFist attacks Jennifer Siebel: America does not want transparency
2.40 Earlier today on Good Morning: what if your partner is gay?
4.24 Helen Clark goes to Washington
6.39 The free-trade agreement with the US
7.08 Helen Clark must know that our economy is shaky and visits Arlington National Cemetery
7.57 Irish company outsources editing and layout of its New Zealand publications
8.51 I buy Pam’s orange juice and not the foreign stuff
9.11 Marc Ellis is not the quintessential Kiwi bloke
10.04 Miss Universe New Zealand
10.25 Running into Lorraine Downes: her tips on who should win Miss New Zealand
12.00 Text and vote for Miss Universe New Zealand
14.24 Sponsors of Miss Universe New Zealand

[Cross-posted] Bruce Robinson, the New Zealander in a 15 m² Polish jail cell, with seven other blokes, who is allegedly being ignored by the Foreign Minister-outside-Cabinet and other members of the diplomatic mission in Poland, now has a petition set up for his cause.
   As reported on this blog, both the Minister and now, the Prime Minister, have said they will not interfere in Poland’s sovereign processes.
   This is ironic, since both politicians are quite happy to interfere when the targets are easier.
   Contrary to the Dominion Post report today, the petition was set up by Bruce’s sister, Lyn. And yes, I do have the inside line on this case now, and have done for some time, with the Robinson family’s blessing.
   But at least the Fairfax press has not repeated a one-sided story from the Foreign Minister, who initially accused TV One of being unfair to him when Rawdon Christie first uncovered the story, and The New Zealand Herald willingly obliged with republication.
   I hate it how this guy always plays the victim, just to cover the fact he cannot do his job.
   But let’s not split hairs. It’s important word gets out and we sign this petition and get the government to act. We are paying taxes and I am wondering why the hell we need to, if we do not go to bat for our own.
   Even the Aussies have gone to bat for David Hicks, the alleged terrorist held at Gitmo. Both John Howard and Alexander Downer have seen Bush, Condi, Rumsfeld and Gates and Alberto Gonzales for this one guy. All Bruce is guilty of is patriotism and travelling on his New Zealand passport.
   Sign here, even if you are not in New Zealand.