Gee! Rudd was lying

FORMER prime minister Kevin Rudd began legal action against Japan’s whaling program despite strong opposition from senior ministers and bureaucrats who warned it was likely to fail and strengthen the hand of the Japanese.

In October 2008, as Australian officials were working to develop Australia’s case, the embassy reported to Washington that domestic political considerations were high in Mr Rudd’s thinking.

The embassy reported he was likely to eventually see international legal action ”as the least damaging politically of his limited choices in dealing with public anger over whaling”.

Which pretty well sums up my opinion posted over a year ago. Why is is that people couldn’t see Rudd’s actions for what they were – simply a means to put the issue on the backburner…..lying hound!

5 Responses to Gee! Rudd was lying

  1. Peter says:

    Gee a politican, not telling the truth. Now there is something to jump up and down about. Can anyone tell me the name of one who has not lied? I seem to recall Howard and his cabinet colleagues saying children were thrown overboard!

    • Kev says:

      Ah yes! The old children overboard lie.

      You should read the Senate Committee report before you use that as a counter.

      Rudd unequivocally and undeniably stated the government would take legal action against the Japanese leaving the impression that it would resolve the issue when he knew it was not the case.

      Howard only repeated what he had been told by ministers and defence chiefs who when they told him, believed it was the truth.

      The biggest issue with the children overboard event is the ALP’s rabid pursuit of a witch to burn at the stake in their furious reaction to being beaten in the polls….again.

      • 1735099 says:

        Kev
        I read that report when it was first published. The issue for me was the feverish readiness of Reith to jump on the (incorrect) narrative that refugees had thrown children overboard and use it as a dog whistle.
        The accuracy or otherwise of the report was never the point – more significant was the cynical use of the distress of these people to engender loathing in the electorate.
        Whichever way you cut it – this was shameful and unworthy of a minister of the crown.
        The shameful strategy of vilifying refugees for perceived political advantage was discovered by Howard during the Tampa incident, refined by Abbott during the last campaign, and has taken this country back to the xenophobia that was rife during the era of the White Australia Policy.
        It is straight out of the Joseph Geobbels playbook, and has diminished us as a nation.
        Back then xenophobia was bi-partisan. To the eternal shame of the ALP (who have also used the dog whistle recently) it is again.

  2. Peter says:

    “The biggest issue with the children overboard event is the ALP’s rabid pursuit of a witch to burn at the stake in their furious reaction to being beaten in the polls….again.”

    I would suggest to you Kev that that the biggest issue was the desire of the Howard Government to hold on to power at any cost, even using refugees for their own political gain.

    • Kev says:

      For a start, they are not refugees. Refugees arrive at UN sites with papers after having escaped the trials and tribulations of their war torn etc homeland and ask for help. They typically have little money,certainly not enough to pay for plane tickets, are distraught with starving children and plead for resettlement wherever the UN can fit them in.

      The boat people catch a flight to Malaysia/Indonesia and then pay thousands more for a boat ticket to Australia. They destroy their papers on advice from the people smugglers and, if they are in their 20s, lie about their age to get child status. They carry mobile phones with the Australian 000 and Border protection numbers on speed dial. When they land or have their sorry arses saved by the RAN after they have sabotaged their boat, they demand asylum and first world goodies,food and accommodation and social security. If they don’t get it they scream and the Human Rights lawyers queue up to help them in their demands.

      If they are rejected they can go to higher courts of appeal(three levels all the way to the Supreme Court – when the UN only suggests one layer)and you and I are paying for the lot.

      They are clearly not refugees they are opportunists circumventing our immigration laws.

      Secondly – if the coalition make a statement in good faith that is later questioned it is holding onto power at any costs. When the ALP do it it is what exactly?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Facebook