John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

It has got a hell of a lot to do with it! It illustrates the range of views within the Democratic Party on the issue of Iraq—and Senator Clinton is, of course, on the record as having voted in favour of the military operation against Iraq.

Before I come to what I said yesterday and the implications of the Leader of the Opposition’s censure motion, can I take up the Leader of the Opposition on the remarks he made towards the end of his speech about the scepticism he shared about what we said about Saddam Hussein three years ago. He would have us believe that he was highly sceptical, that he was not satisfied that the evidence we presented three years ago was strong enough. Let me remind you of what he said on the Sunrise program on 9 September 2002:

I’ve said repeatedly that there is a significant threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.

On Sunrise again, on 16 September, he said:

No one disputes that Saddam Hussein is in violation of a range of UN Security Council resolutions. He is to be condemned utterly for that ...

And in the most remarkable statement of all—and I ask the House to listen to this carefully because it goes to the credibility of what he said a few moments ago—he said:

Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction …

He said that in his normal, unequivocal, unconditional fashion. He then ratchets it up even more:

This is a matter of empirical fact.

It is not a suspicion or a hunch; it is an ‘empirical fact’. He then goes on:

If you don’t believe the intelligence assessments—

and he was hinting a moment ago that he did not—

you simply read the most recent bulletins from the Federation of American Scientists, which list Iraq among the number of states in possession of chemical ... biological weapons and with the capacity to develop a nuclear program.

Laurie Oakes asked, on 16 February 2003:

OAKES: But you know that Saddam Hussein does have chemical and biological weapons?

RUDD: Absolutely, that’s always been part of our official position on Iraq.

On Sunrise again Mr Rudd said:

… we’ve said from the beginning that Saddam Hussein does possess weapons of mass destruction.

Then on Meet the Press two weeks later he said:

Biological weapons is right in the middle of the sandwich when it comes to the critique currently, legitimate critique, of the Iraqi regime.

And so the list goes on. The Leader of the Opposition was front and centre three years ago in believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, yet a moment ago he came into the House and said that he was always sceptical of that. The truth is that three years ago the only real division between the Leader of the Opposition and me in a formal sense—we both agreed that Saddam ought to go; we both agreed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, because that was the available evidence—was that he wanted us to get yet another United Nations resolution, which it was obvious that the Security Council was not going to give us. That was the only real difference three years ago.

But let me return to the other charges that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition. The fundamental one is that he believes that what I have done has been damaging to the alliance between Australia and the United States. Let me put it to him, as calmly as one can in the context of this sort of debate: what is America’s most difficult diplomatic and foreign policy issue at the present time? It is undeniably Iraq. Whether you were for the war or against the war, as things have transpired that is undeniably America’s most difficult foreign policy position. Is it in the interests of the West, is it in the interests of Australia, is it in the interests of the security of our country, that America be defeated in Iraq? I ask anybody who sits opposite: do they really believe that it is in the interests of this nation that America should leave Iraq in circumstances of defeat? I ask any of the doubters out there in the Australian community, and I know there are many doubters about the policy I have pursued: is it in Australia’s interests that our great ally, the greatest and most powerful nation the world has ever seen—and still, for all the criticism that is made of her, a beacon for democracy and openness around the world—be defeated in Iraq? Will that do other than bring about an enormous resurgence of morale amongst terrorists around the world? The answer to that is undeniably, unarguably, that it would be very much against the interests of the West and very much against the interests of Australia.

What does America need in this hour of pressure and trial and need? You may say, ‘Why is it that a country as powerful as that should be under pressure and be under trial and be in need?’ That is the reality of the world. I think she needs some loyalty and some understanding from her closest friends. She does not want a country and a friend that will leave her in the lurch. And they are the words of the Leader of the Opposition. He will not do it immediately. He will try and pretend that it is not happening. I would say the greatest current threat to the quality of the alliance would be a sense in the United States that Australia had deserted her in her hour of need. That, I believe, will do more damage potentially to the alliance than anything I might say about a single aspirant for the Democrat nomination.

I do not apologise for criticising Senator Obama’s observations, because I thought what he said was wrong, just as those who sit opposite reserve the right to criticise Republican presidents. The Leader of the Opposition kept quoting again and again something that I said three years ago. The truth is that three years ago the Leader of the Opposition defended the right of Mark Latham to say what he said about George Bush. He did not criticise him. He pretended yesterday that he privately spoke to him: ‘I said to Latham—’. We can just imagine! The truth is that he did not say anything of the kind. He defended Latham. He said Latham was right to do it. That was only the half of it.

The member for Fremantle quoted something from a Guardian editorial—you can imagine what it said—which said that the United States under George Bush had torn up more international treaties and defied more international conventions than the rest of the world put together over the last 20 years. The truth is that the Leader of the Opposition has double standards on this issue. When it came to a generic attack on the character of the President of the United States, Mark Latham did not stand up and say, ‘I think Bush’s policy on Iraq is wrong’—I mean, he did say that, but what really drew the attention of people was his remark that he was the most dangerous and incompetent President of the United States in living memory.

According to the Leader of the Opposition, that was an exercise in robust free speech. That is apparently all right. But when I say that I think a policy espoused by an aspirant to the Democrat nomination for the presidency of the United States is against our country’s interests and I also think that it gives aid and comfort to terrorists then I am the worst in the world, I am endangering the alliance and I am bringing the nation into disrepute. It is a monumental example of double standards.

See this speech in context