It mayhap be that Mr. Ford had a bad experience at the Outback Steak House. I for one was massively dissapointed by my bloomin’ onion one time. It was so greasey my wife swears that I may be the only individual to have joined the nukular club.

Any rate them Aussies havin’ nukes ain’t a bad idea, but where do we draw the line? I think we should do like the Russians and sell our Nuke know how to anyone who’s a friend. We should get Japan the bomb and South Korea too. I bet the Germans would appreciate a bomb, and shoot we should probably hook up the new Iraqi government too if everyone’s gotta nuke, then everyone is safe.

From the article:

Australia has no nuclear weapons program, though there is evidence that it considered one briefly in conjunction with Britain in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Possibly one product of this, before the project was shelved, was the amazing Canberra bomber, bought by the U.S. Air Force and still in service in some specialist roles.

Australia today does not even have a nuclear-power generating capacity, though more and more people are coming to think it should have. It has just one nuclear reactor, which is used exclusively for scientific research.

However, what makes Ford's words particularly offensive to many Australians is that Australia since attaining independence in 1901 has always been America's absolutely loyal ally, and not in the rather special sense that Pakistan or Saudi Arabia may at times be called allies.

Australia has probably supported the U.S. in the United Nations more than any other country. It has a number of formal treaties and alliances with the U.S., including the ANZUS treaty.

Moreover, it has supported the U.S. with considerably more than words. Militarily, since World War II it has committed troops to the U.S. side more often and consistently than Britain, Canada, or New Zealand. Australia's aircraft were probably the first into action on the allied side in the Korean War. It sent 50,000 troops to Vietnam (unlike Britain), with about 5,000 casualties, it sent forces to the first Gulf War, and at present has troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and helps maintain the naval patrol in the Gulf. In operation Anaconda in Afghanistan Australian Special Air Service forces played a crucial part in aiding a cut-off and surrounded US formation.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard was in Washington on 9/11 and practically his first statement was: "This is no time to be an 80% ally!" He immediately committed Australian help. Unlike New Zealand, Australia has always welcomed visits by U.S. nuclear-powered warships. It was the Australian Navy that joined the U.S. in going to the aid of the Asian tsunami victims while the United Nations conferred. The U.S. uses Australian training grounds and bombing ranges, and has regular joint exercises and exchanges of military personnel.

The Australian government has received a good deal of abuse from some of the U.S. left, and of course from the domestic left, as being Bush's poodle, or a U.S. deputy sheriff in southeast Asia.

But perhaps Mr. Ford had it confused with Austria, which was, after all, the birthplace of Hitler, who was not really a committed US ally and who did try to get nuclear weapons if not very effectively.

I meant for the entire piece in the above post to be in blockquotes...

In no way did Ford imply that the Australian government had antagonistic intents against the US (i.e. was part of the Axis of Evil). This is absolutely clear (he said that the more countries that have the bomb, the more chance for one [or nuclear material] to get loose, regardless of the intents of their national governments - a very sane position), yet the blogger grasps the faintest possibility that one could mistake his actual assertions for this assertion and hypes it up so as to discredit him generally. Retired Spook, A-10, Alimiranta - do you not see this? The blogger certainly does. Is this kind of discourse what you call patriotic? If you think liberal ideology is bad for the world, why not argue it directly, instead of through this crazy propaganda? Do you think people are too stupid to see the truth? Do you think it will reveal our hand to our enemies? Or, are you really not interested in doing what's best for the world (or, just America, if you please)? Seriously, please answer (though I know that the first rule of disinformation is to never admit that it's disinformation, so my hopes are not high).

Who cares? After watching GWB get solidly trounced in three straight debates against Kerry, the American public still voted for him. This proves that the ability to speak intelligently is simply not important in politics anymore.

Personally, I'm glad that the American public has gotten over their anti-idiot bias. For too long, the nations slow, dim-witted, and feeble-minded have been unfairly kept from the levers of power. Now, thanks to George W Bush, any old schmoe is qualified to be President. As long as he's the kind of guy I can have a beer with, he's fit to hold his finger over the button. Bottoms up and bombs away!!!

BSD--given your name, I would think that the outright un-truths spoken by Ford would give one pause. Given that Australia and South Africa have no intention of seeking nuclear weapons, aren't you a bit concerned that a person who is running for Senate of the United States has so little grasp of the world's security climate? And is so willing himself to play hard and loose with what aren't even facts to risk insulting a nation whose allegiance with and support of America has been nothing less than stellar?

Yet you term my calling Mr. Ford's comments on the carpet an attempt at "propaganda".

Given that you, yourself are so willing to overlook the truth in the matter, my guess would be that you are against any attempt to point out fallacies by the democrat party as "propaganda."

Me thinks that it's time for the pot to take a good look in the mirror, before calling the kettle black.

Wow!

Many thanks steveGA

Steve

He did not get trounced in 3 debates. Regardless, the electorate is smart enough to know that how someone does in a debate doesn't mean crap as to how they would lead.

Hillary Clinton just got her arse handed to her in the Senate debates, but she will win going away.

The idea of debates in today's day and age are a joke. 2 minutes answers, etc....no one worth their salt is going to vote for someone based on their debate answer.

Now, if we had the old Lincoln-Douglas debate style, then fine. But we don't.

The line of the debates....Want Some Wood?

Psychmeister -

Whether Ford was incorrect to say Australia is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons has no bearing on the point I made in my comment. However, insofar as that statement was untrue, I am certainly willing to recognize it and would not label your calling attention to that fact propaganda, except insofar as you might further draw irrational conclusions from it or, through subtle techniques, purposefully cause your readers to draw irrational conclusions from it. Again, I disagree with your assertion that his statements risked offending Australians [in the way you imply] as he in no way questioned the intents they would have in acquiring such weapons, but only the wisdom of us acquiescing to or supporting such plans, given his opinion that proliferation of nuclear weapons, in anybody's hands outside of ours, significantly decreases our overall security. Although I risk offending you by saying so, I believe that you are quite capable of realizing that your response to my comment in no way refutes what I said and that you consciously chose to use a strawman argument in trying to counter it. If this is not the case, I apologize, but I strongly doubt that it is.

I would be more than happy to talk about fallacies and faults of the Democratic party and ideology, but they must be real, not made up ones like Ford implying Australians would have evil intents in acquiring nuclear bombs.

As far as your question as to whether I am worried about someone running for the Senate being incorrect on such an issue as whether the Australians are seeking nuclear bombs: yes, I am; but I would need to know a lot more about the man before I called his overall level of knowledge dangerously low or his penchant for playing hard and loose with facts significant or dangerously wreckless, and I certainly would say that anyone who looked at this single incident and called the man unqualified but then could look at President Bush and not conclude the same with much greater conviction would be being logically inconsistent, and probably disingenuous.

I was told in the 1980's that South Africa had the bomb.

We're looking at nuclear energy, but have no interest in nuclear weapons at this point in time. Besides, even if we wanted them... Australia is hardly a 'threat'.

How misguided are democrats when they are so blind to the threat of Islamofacists, yet feel so threatened even from the closest of allies.