Quick, we need a distraction

Defence is in the gun again over emails denigrating women.

General  Morrison, Chief of Army is cranky and  told reporters that a broader group of about 90 Defence personnel – overwhelmingly from the Army – may be on the periphery of the group involved in the email exchange.

…. he said the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service (ADFIS) told ADF chief David Hurley about the matter on April 10.

General Morrison was overseas at the time but was told when he returned soon after. Defence Minister Stephen Smith was also informed at the time.

I presume we have been sitting on this for two months waiting for an ideal time to announce the torrid details and today was definitely an ideal time to change the subject after yesterday’s ALP embarrassment over a derogatory menu.

Based on Tweets from a lib hater who would “rather be raped by a pitbull with aids than live in Abbott’s Australia”  it all went pear-shape after the author stated the menu never left the kitchen and it was a joke between himself and his son.  This became known last night but fully ninety minutes later the ABC were still on the case reveling in Pilbersec going on and on about that terrible Abbott and his team.

She had to know by that time so she was simply lying and the ABC, who also would have known there was nothing in the story, encouraged her.

I still haven’t heard any apologies or withdrawal from the ALP desparates or the ABC and I don’t expect any.

Catallaxy Files has a pretty good coverage of the affair – be sure to read the comments if you haven’t seen them yet.

You can just see them at ALP HQ…. “quickly we need a distraction – Defence Minister isn’t there a report you have been sitting on for two months? – let’s announce that!

And  Defence saves the day again.

It makes sense, doesn’t it?

16 Responses to Quick, we need a distraction

  1. 1735099 says:

    It makes sense alright. Mal Brough’s ex-army. Join the dots…..

    • Kev says:

      Too many dots mate and by the way I don’t think Mal would be waiting for an RSM to tell him what to do.  I seem to recall he was a Captain before resigning.

      Quite a good operator as I recall from when he was a minister in Howard’s government.

  2. CB says:

    Ah Numbers, you never fail to kick the can around, do you? What precisely is your point about Mal being ex-Army? So are you apparently, you sexist mysognistic clown.

    • 1735099 says:

      My point is that this abusive behaviour (illustrated so clearly in your post) is deeply embedded in the culture of both the Liberal Party and the ADF, and needs to be called every time it rears its ugly head.

      • harry buttle says:

        What a sad dickhead you are numbers.
        The liberal party only? the Greens and the ALP have quite a number of documented examples of abuse – Mark Latham calling Janet Albrectson a “skanky hoe”, the Bob Hawke birthday party stripper, the Greens built in anti semitism as a few quick examples. so it seems to me, you monumental hypocrite, that its”ugly head” is only to be “called” when it suits your political agenda.
        Re the ADF, yep unacceptable, but I think it is time that the ADF got on the front foot with this stuff and started pointing out that they have no choice but to recruit from the Australian population and given the decline in standards, educational (yes I am looking directly at the failure of teachers to teach), societal (many parents try parenting your children) and judicial, by definition standards in the ADF will fall because of the lowered standard of the recruiting pool – also imposing social experiments on the military will also contribute to these problems, however in spite of all of this, on a per capita basis, the general public commit significantly more crimes in every category than members of the defence force.

        • 1735099 says:

          What a sad dickhead you are numbers.
          You can’t make a comment without abuse.
          QED

          • harry buttle says:

            I’m quite capable of commenting without abuse you pathetic lackwitted hypocrite.
            See, for example, my last comment in reply to Bob (and my next one BTW), not a trace of abuse. QED.
            I choose to abuse you, because you are a contemptible liar, a hypocrite, an obsessive and a pathetic whiner.

        • Bob says:

          Sort of explains the standards of the educators, higher educated and even the pollies…..they all attended universities where most of this stuff is rife.  I guess those in positions of priveledge and even 1735099 can call on their expertise when pointing the finger. The only thing that’s changed over the years is that instead of a written note or a joke passed around the bar between like souls (or R souls depending on how you look at it) these fools seek to use electronic media which is either company controlled and therefore audited or their e-mail source signs off on them and therefore gives them up when forwarded on.  It’s always been unacceptable but never been more easy to get sprung.

          • harry buttle says:

            All true, but in this day and age it is probably worth impressing upon everyone that, unless you choose the location, given the size and inexpensive nature of cameras these days, there is a significant chance you are being filmed at any given time.
            Privacy is nearly dead and the culture and the law has not caught up with that fact yet.

        • 1735099 says:

          you pathetic lackwitted hypocrite.
          you are a contemptible liar, a hypocrite, an obsessive and a pathetic whiner.
           
          QED (again)
           
          Keep digging……:)
           

          • harry buttle says:

            and yet you cannot reply to the fact that you are the only person I abuse and the reason is that you have consistently demonstrated that you are beneath contempt.
            Hence, you hiding behind an mendacious “QED” when it is demonstrably not “demonstrandum” (ie the 2 examples I just gave) show not just that you are wrong, they show what a dishonest piece of shit you are.
            You see, unlike others here, you’ve earned the abuse you get.

        • 1735099 says:

          you are the only person I abuse
          Yep – and the Pope’s a Presbyterian.

          • Harry Buttle says:

            Then back your assertion you pathetic lying piece of shit, show an example of me abusing someone but you, or admit that you are a liar, have been caught yet again and accept that you deserve the abuse you get.

        • 1735099 says:

          Are you angry with someone? Pray for that person. That is what Christian love is.
          For Harry Buttle (from Pope Francis’ Twitter feed…..
          Anger management might also be useful:)

          • Harry Buttle says:

            I’m not a Christian, I’m also not deceived by your attempt to steer the topic away from the fact that your latest lie has been called. do you ever get tired of getting caught lying?
            Truth management might help in your case.
            BTW, since you decided to bring religious quotes into play, you do know that there is a commandment against “bearing false witness” don’t you, you lying piece of shit.
             
             

  3. harry buttle says:

    I don’t really give a toss what Morrison thinks -
    http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/changing-the-culture-in-the-australian-military-20130608-2nwal.html
    “To get women into more senior ranks, Morrison has told the hierarchy to rethink recognition of merit. When I asked for an example, he said we should value the ”skills that come with having and looking after children”. He has begun promoting women when they return from maternity leave in order to retain them.”
     
     Seriously, he is promoting women because they have the ability to give birth and then return to work? promotion on the basis of maternity leave?
    This is PC gone wild (much as I hate that phrase).
    Imagine for a moment that, rather than promoting women for having a child (and, as noted above, no other reason), he demoted them. he would be sacked in a heartbeat, if the latter is unacceptable, why isn’t the former?

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