March 31, 2004
TOO QUICK OFF THE MARK
Mark Latham’s Zapatero plan is in trouble:
Australia's intelligence agencies have been hauled into the furious political debate over Labor's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, appearing to dispute Mark Latham's claim that he had received lengthy briefings on the issue before the decision.
With both sides tossing insults over the Labor policy, the Department of Defence intelligence chief and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service hastily wrote letters that bolstered the Prime Minister's attack on the Labor plan.
Hilariously, Latham is trying to brazen his way out of it:
Labor leader Mark Latham yesterday accused Prime Minister John Howard of keeping Australian troops in Iraq for political gain and of surrendering policy-making to al-Qaeda.
Oh, please. Latham made this an election issue, as Paul Kelly identified days ago:
Mark Latham has taken his most important decision as Opposition Leader – to re-establish Iraq as an election issue by saying he wants to bring our forces home by Christmas.
Now Latham is demanding an apology:
Federal Opposition leader Mark Latham has made a personal explanation to Parliament to insist he did have lengthy intelligence briefings on Iraq from Australia's intelligence agencies and accused the Prime Minister of misrepresenting his position.
"My briefing with ASIS on the 11th of February included substantial security matters relevant to Iraq - these are the facts," Mr Latham said.
Mr Latham told Parliament that in January he had a lengthy meeting with the Deputy Secretary of the Australian Intelligence and Security (ASIS) in the Department of Defence, and was also briefed by the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIO).
"The meeting was scheduled to go from 5:00pm to 5.45pm, and my recollection was that it went longer than that," Mr Latham said.
Laborites wish they'd been told:
Labor MPs are questioning leader Mark Latham's lack of consultation on big policy announcements.
The discontent has appeared following Mr Latham's announcement last week that a Labor government would bring troops in Iraq home by Christmas.
However, it also emerged yesterday in relation to the announcement that Labor would abolish the Aboriginal national body, ATSIC.
At a scheduled Caucus meeting yesterday Mr Latham was told he had not run the announcement past concerned MPs until just before it was made.
But the major issue of unilateral policy statements centred on his pledge to bring troops back.
Senior frontbenchers have not been able to confirm that the decision, and its specific timetable, had been discussed by shadow cabinet.
I completely agree with this revolted observer:
When I saw Latham say we had to bring our 850 troops home after June 30 “to defend Australia” I was disgusted. Pure populism it was, and I thought Australians would see through it big time, which they have.
It was painful to see Latham’s foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd on Lateline last night having to dodge and weave to avoid stating the obvious – that he did not agree with Latham’s hard and fast timetable for exit. Latham has neutralised Kevin Rudd with this decision, damaging one of his best assets on national security.
Is Latham really saying the danger to Australia is so acute that we need 850 troops to join the 51,0000 troops stationed in Australia? That’s scare mongering at its worst.
As Howard rightly said speaking to his motion in the House of Representatives today that troops should not be withdrawn before the job is done, that would mean hauling back our troops from East Timor and the Solomons too.
Damn straight. Meanwhile, Rob Corr wants us to do it for the children.
Posted by Tim Blair at March 31, 2004 12:29 PM
Just love it. If Howard had come up with the 'books at birth' thing, Coor and his fellow travellers would be howling about how it was so '50s and about how Howard was stuck in the past. Same with the 'masculinity' thing.
The capacity of Leftists to do a complete about-face on a moment's notice never ceases to amaze me. They've no capacity to think for themselves, operate solely on received wisdom, and take away their cliches and the best they can do is mumble.
I almost felt sorry for Rudd on lateline squirming and twisting like a worm on a hook. Desperatly trying to parry and fend off making the statement he knew was right. I bet he went home that night wrung his shirt out and thought what a complete dickhead his new boss Latham was.
This Latham is boofheaded, dangerous and far too ambitous for his, or our own good. I just pray that the Australian electorate see through him. Given how many informal votes were returned in my local elections (15%) some people can't even follow instructions on how to register a vote. So maybe dickhead Lithium may be able to con his way into office.
I am not totally against the ALP just Latham.
Posted by: Dog at March 31, 2004 at 01:30 PMOh those leftist conumdrums:
Then: Free Timor!
Now: Howard the aggressor
Then: a free trade agreement with the US will rob us of our culture!
Now: Those who suggest we have a culture worth 'protecting' are racist.
Then: Free the Kurds!
Now: Look at what you have done!
Then: Who is going to protect the kids in Iraq after the violence 'you' began?
Now: Bring them home to defend us!
Imagine the howls if the Libs had talked about disbanding ATSIC?
Pah!
Posted by: nic at March 31, 2004 at 02:02 PMWOT!
Blair "completely agrees" with Margo Kingston!!??
Argh! Say it isn't so!
Ahem. For the record, I completely agree too.With Tim and Margo, that is.
Posted by: Nemesis at March 31, 2004 at 02:07 PMEven a stopped clock (Kingston) is right twice a day.
Posted by: david at March 31, 2004 at 02:19 PMAre those two in the picture Iron Mike's policy advisers?
Posted by: PeterB at March 31, 2004 at 02:22 PMTo be a good Prime Minister of Australia you need to have judgment and maturity. You need to think before you act. You need to have grown out of the adolescent wish to change things just for the sake of it. Labor traditionally has great problems in producing good Prime Ministers. But in Mr Latham they seem to have picked a real blustering loser who has the habit of going off half-cocked.
The press of course is full of ALP sympathisers who are holding their noses and spruking up LAtham for all they are worth. And Latham keeps admitting through his words and actions that the Conservatives have been right on all the fundamental political issues of the past 20 years. If that is the case, then why do we need the ALP in government? Why would we want Tory-lite if we can have the real thing?
Of course, the ALP would not be very right wing if they got into power. No sooner than you can say "professor" they'd be commissioning academics to write a million more usueless reports on why the Governement must regulate yet another area of private life. Once again the endless ranks of the "consultant" trade union organisers and the whole merry gang of humbuggers would be on the gravy train again: pseuds to the pseud.
Posted by: Toryhere at March 31, 2004 at 02:24 PM
If Latham follows Zapatero, does that make him a Zapaterrorist?
Posted by: bailodor at March 31, 2004 at 02:39 PMI think you mean "Mike Carlton's plan."
Read the interview.
CARLTON: Should we then bring our troops home?
LATHAM: Well we should. When they finish their responsibilities for the post war reconstruction.
CARLTON: But that may be ten years away. How long do they stay?
...blah blah...
CARLTON: And you would hope they would be home by Christmas?
LATHAM: Yes...well if that timetable of mid year is adhered to then that would be the case. If a federal election is held this year, say the election was in September and there was a change in Government, we would be hoping to have them back by Christmas certainly.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Pig Head Sucker at March 31, 2004 at 03:22 PMIt looks like your lefties are as dumb as ours. Did Latham happen to serve in Vietnam? He might want to try mentioning that.
Posted by: Big Dog at March 31, 2004 at 03:40 PMPossibly even worse, Big dog. Serve in Vietnam? Hah! He hasn't even held a real job outside of politics!!
Posted by: HippyKiller at March 31, 2004 at 03:48 PM"The meeting was scheduled to go from 5:00pm to 5.45pm, and my recollection was that it went longer than that," Mr Latham said.
So Latham has made a substantial policy decision concerning our military and their involvement in Iraq, that has been almost unanimously agreed will have wide ranging affects on the safety of the troops now, on the terrorists view of Australia, and on the view that our allies have of us - all based on a 45 minute briefing that according to those present had little to do with Iraq!
This guy is really starting to scare me. I've always found Pixie Rudd to be a totally odious little man, but after this exhibition of his dangerous unsuitability for the Prime Ministership, Latham is starting to make Rudd mighty good in comparison.
I had been starting to think that if worst came to worst and the ALP came to power, it would be fairly unpalatable, but it wouldn't a complete disaster because after all, how much damage could Latham do?
Gees, how wrong can a person be?? Even in opposition he's managed to lift our target status to new highs, imagine the mess he could make if he was in power!!
If the ALP comes to power, please let Rudd be at the helm.
(excuse me now while I go and wash my mouth out with hydrochloric acid for saying that)
"security matters relevant to Iraq"
Sounds like a weasel statement to me. Trying to get out of it on a technicality.
Of course what has really happened is that Latham has resorted to Labor's only tried and true tactic: sling the bullsh*t often enough in the hope that some fools start to believe it.
Posted by: Jimi at March 31, 2004 at 04:05 PMThat's funny timbo I don't recall you criticising Johnnee for that policy until he did a U-turn last week.
A couple of things Timbo. If you are going to be a Howard apologist then get to know the man.
how is it Latham hadn't had a briefing, then had a briefing, then had a briefing where was Iraq was discusssed and then had a meeting where it wasn't substantially discussed. Look closely at what he says!
Secondly both Iron Mark and Johnnee are wrong.
you have to eliminate AQ. Troops will be there til doomsday unless you do that.
Dangerous people are people who don't ask the right questions and then go off to a meaningless war while ignoring the organisation that can kill your citizens!
secondly you need to realise that Iron Mark like Hawke has confidnce in capable ministers or shadow ministers in this case.
You have to add their briefings with his.
Unfortunately Howard is the greatest micro-manager we have had in the PM's chair so he doesn't understand delegation.
Wo' there!
Just to make it clear to you boofheads:
Position 1: This war is not a good thing; and
Position 2: Premature withdrawal is not a good thing,
Are not, repeat not, inconsistent positions. There is no about face in this. Neither is either of these positions innately "Leftist" in nature.
When will you clowns get over this Left-Right bullshit? Hands up any of you who think Latham's a lefty.
No? Thought not. Anyone want to label John Kerry a Lefty, while we're at it?
Posted by: Nemesis at March 31, 2004 at 04:31 PMwhat's weird about this is that it's fully obvious that latham's insane and that the lefty media's only supporting him because they hate the liberals/howard so much. if they'd stand back and look objectively at maddogs performance instead of projecting their own fantasies onto him then they'd be really shocked. he's THAT bad.
Posted by: Floral Camper at March 31, 2004 at 04:39 PMThese guys have adopted a "whatever it takes
'strategy to get their hands on the treasury keys. When/if that happens all policy hell will break loose as the greens /carmen lawrence/unions/your name here/dingbats attempt to extract the price of their vote.
What planet do you live on, Nemesis? If you don't think Kerry's a leftist then you must be thinking of a different John Kerry than the one that's running for president right now. You know, John Kerry, the guy rated as the most liberal senator--more liberal than his senior senator, Ted Kennedy? Maybe you're thinking of John Kerry, the guy that lives down the street, or something like that.
Posted by: Big Dog at March 31, 2004 at 05:42 PM"No? Thought not. Anyone want to label John Kerry a Lefty, while we're at it?"
...um,...well yes, I would. John Kerry is a lefty. Is this some sort of major revelation to you? He is in fact the most infuriating kind of lefty -- the classic limosine liberal -- one who affects concern for the poor, unwashed masses without any personal sacrifice of his own. His typical lefty promise to the "proletariat" is that he will tax the wealthy to help them out. You know where his definition of wealthy starts? Any family with total income over $200,000 U.S. per yr. Now $200K is not chump change but a family at this income level will definitely feel an additional deduction above and beyond the over 45% already paid in various income taxes, deductions, etc. And this brilliant idea comes from a man who has five homes valued an estimated $33,000,000. He could fricking pay another $200,000K and it wouldn't even register on the radar screen.
theytre gonna go for it
'run and scream you yellerbellie righties when the slamofascist rain come down
Nemesis, let me explain this to you, in US politics, the Democrats are a "left of centre" party while the Republicans are "right of centre". This isn't some sort of name-calling by Tim Blair...ITS HOW THE PARTIES DESCRIBE THEMSELVES!
You may argue that the "centre" of the US is different to the centre of Australian politics or French politics or Saudia Arabian politics but for gods sake thats the nitpickingingst thing ive ever seen.
Fuck Nemesis, can't you just fucking stop arguing for no real reason?
If Tim says "the sky is blue" you don't have to say, "Yeah, well Bliar would say that, wouldn't he..."
Posted by: Quentin George at March 31, 2004 at 06:45 PMNem:
Just to make it clear to you boofheads:
Position 1: This war is not a good thing; and
Position 2: Premature withdrawal is not a good thing,
Are not, repeat not, inconsistent positions. There is no about face in this. Neither is either of these positions innately "Leftist" in nature.
I don't think they are inconsistent positions either but I'm confused as to why you're bringing this up since this post is about Latham wanting to withdraw prematurely.
As for the Left-Right BS, both positions ARE inately "Leftist" in nature because the "Left" opposed the war because they oppose imperial capitalist agression and what not, and they want the troops out of Iraq immediately because the Left is so friggin' retarded that they believe the troops are wantonly shooting and raping Iraqis all over the place for fun and that the evil Corporate Media is covering up the quagmire.
That's the hard Left, anyway, the Dennis Kucinich Left. The Left that most liberals with common sense don't hang out with but very rarely take exception to since the real enemy is George Bush In The White House. You know, be Gravely Concerned Globally, Stonewall Locally, as the saying goes.
Erm, ... actually I think I got that saying wrong, nevermind.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 31, 2004 at 07:09 PMLatham is kicking arse, cringing conga line arse. Way to go Latho!
Posted by: Rex at March 31, 2004 at 07:29 PMMark Lackwun is kicking his OWN arse. have you been watching question time on telly rex? GOOSE!
Posted by: Floral Camper at March 31, 2004 at 07:34 PMYes! Vote Mark Latham for the kids! Our kids need to be exposed to more violence and foul language!
Posted by: 2dogs at March 31, 2004 at 07:44 PM2dogs
The problem is that he's got appeal with the yobbos* and dickheads.
Murph
*sorry Sam
Posted by: murph at March 31, 2004 at 09:39 PMWatching the 7.30 report's coverage of the ALP's performance today, it seems that what they now saying is that all the people who lined up to discredit Latham's version of the "briefing" on Iraq in writing are actually lying!! (under pressure from Howard of course)
Funny how these high ranking defense officials don't seem to get the same awed "beyond reproach" respect as Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty did from the ALP.
I wonder why?
It surprises me how readily Latham implies that people are liars. Mick Keelty supposedly lied about his retraction, suposedly under duress from Howard. How many people were outraged at this allegation? And now the two intelligence officers are lying too?
Of course he would never have the balls to actually come out and say it - they simply told "untruths" due to political duress from Howard.
Posted by: TJW at March 31, 2004 at 11:08 PMEither
1) Latham doesn't understand intell -- he spoke to collection not assessment agencies. Big difference. And a worry if he can't figure; or
2) Iraq was mentioned, but not to extent that he says it was (see 1)). In other words, he's sexing it up; or
3) he's lying.
And he has the gall to think he should be PM. Yeah. Right. Am I right in thinking that Rudd refused to go on the 7:30 Report this evening, presumably so he wouldn't have to defend the indefensible?
yes well considering the amount of lies told by our beloved leader and his sidekick GW, and the fact that our dear leader is looking for something to save his skin, plus the fact he has politicized the public service and the Army whose leader does a good imitation of a parrot when called upon, the sooner he is gone the better, and i wonder how many documents will be shredded by honest john and his gang of liars
Posted by: john ryan at April 1, 2004 at 12:10 AMsecondly you need to realise that Iron Mark like Hawke has confidnce in capable ministers or shadow ministers in this case.
You have to add their briefings with his.
No we don't have to add their briefings at all Homer.
Latham is now claiming that all he needed to decide that he had to get the troops out of Iraq because it was such a "fiasco" was the briefing with the head of Defense intelligence.
The so called "lengthy discussions" Latham had in relation to Iraq boils down to "several examples of the role of intelligence in providing operational support to the ADF in Iraq and in other deployments such as Afghanistan" which is what the head of defense intelligence says was all that was said about Iraq.
Thats the extent of Lathams "lengthy discussions" about Iraq, even by his own admission. Nothing about briefings his front benchers supposedly recieved.
No matter how much you try and spin it, Latham lied. He did NOT have lengthy discussions about with any intelligence officials about Iraq. He made a very dangerous and ill-advised policy decision on the run because he thought it was going to be a vote winner, when he tried to lie his way out of cock-up he got caught red-handed.
Posted by: JB at April 1, 2004 at 12:47 AMWell, give Nemesis some credit -- he agrees that premature withdrawl isn't a good thing, and apparently criticizes Latham for establishing an arbitrary deadline.
Give him that much, at least.
Ahhh it was a delight indeed to see Kevin Rudd twisting in the wind last night on Lateline, and with Latham's appalling lack of judgement and self-control, there'll be plenty more where that came from to be sure!
Posted by: Brian. at April 1, 2004 at 03:06 AMHey Tim!
Admit it, mate. She looks sort of sexy too, in a skanky kind of way!
... Another "revolted observer"
Posted by: Bob Bunnett at April 1, 2004 at 08:15 AMNemesis:
Kerry is a left wing liberal. Any further left and he he'd wearing a tinfoil hat to go with his Botox shots.
Posted by: JeffS at April 1, 2004 at 10:48 AMJB, you don't know what knowledge Iron Mark before the briefings happened.
As it is Both Iron Mark and Johnnee are wrong as neither are targetting AQ.
By the way where are all the conservatives up in arms about the way the Government has not only put the intelligent agencies in the spotlight and said they are IN Iraq but the way they have been used for political purposes.
Keating was disgraceful in his use of the public service Howard is even worse.
He deserved to come out of it wit egg on his face.
I notice the report on Iron mark has now been dowgraded to a filenote.
Also it is interesting how Iraq didn't add to the terrorist threat only a week ago and now this week it has.
Posted by: Homer Paxton at April 1, 2004 at 11:47 AMJB, you don't know what knowledge Iron Mark before the briefings happened.
Yes we do Homer because Latham has specifically pointed to the briefings that he got his information from, and given the credibilty hit he is taking over this issue there is no chance that he is going hold anything back.
The only question is whether he is the one lying about what was said in that briefing or whether the people who briefed him are lying because they have directly contradicted what he originally said, and thats hardly a very vexing question.
JB,
we don't know exactly what the other people thought we only have letters. that in itself is a disgrace.
read Hansard carefully my friend he didn't say that he based his decsion only on that.
Do you or anyone else know what 'substantial' talks are. of course not and it is pertinent to the question what Iron Mark knew from both his shadow ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs.
It is generally accepted they are better than their Ministerial counterparts.
Meanwhile you support leaving our troops there until doomsday because until AQ is eliminated that is how long AQ will be there.
congratulations.
fight a meaningless war and ignore the real enemy.
Now thats even worse than left luvvie philsophy.
JB,
we don't know exactly what the other people thought we only have letters. that in itself is a disgrace.
Are you talking about the letters from the most senior of intelligence and defense officials which detailed what was and more importantly what WASN'T said, and very clearly contradicted what Latham said?
Lathams attempts to besmirch the reputations of those officials to try and get himself out of his predicament is the real discrace (well, other than his intial lies of course)
read Hansard carefully my friend he didn't say that he based his decsion only on that.
From the Hansard:
I suppose I wish there was a record of interview giving word-for-word what Mr Bonighton said about the government's record on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—what he actually said about the government's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I give the government and I give the House this guarantee: I walked away from that briefing knowing and understanding the government's policy in Iraq was a fiasco—an absolute fiasco. What is more, I concluded that the faster Australia could get out of Iraq the better—in response to that policy fiasco
Bonighton's version of the extent of the discussion on Iraq:
"several examples of the role of intelligence in providing operational support to the ADF in Iraq and in other deployments such as Afghanistan"
= one of them is lying. ( and I think we all know who)
Do you or anyone else know what 'substantial' talks are.
When those talks have determined a policy which will have major implications for the safety troops and the Australian public as well as our standing in the world community, they would need to be more than "several examples of the role of intelligence in providing operational support to the ADF in Iraq and in other deployments such as Afghanistan"
what Iron Mark knew from both his shadow ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs.
It is generally accepted they are better than their Ministerial counterparts.
generally accepted? by who? newspoll after newspoll has shown that to be a total crock, the vast majority of Australians clearly put the actual ministers ahead of the shadow ministry on defence and security.
(and whats this "Iron Mark" crap? he's twisted, quivered and changed shape so many times in the last few days that "Aeroplane Jelly Mark" would be more appropriate)
Meanwhile you support leaving our troops there until doomsday because until AQ is eliminated that is how long AQ will be there.
congratulations
You keep on with this "never any peace" in Iraq idea, but its an idea that really doesn't hold any water. Sure there's going to be much pain in the next few years, but already we are seeing the everyday Iraqi embracing freedom with vigour, the poll that showed the majority believed their future is going to be better by far, even though the poll was taking almost with terrorist bombs going off in the background, shows that while many of them may not like the coalition, most are very determined to grab what they are offering with both hands. Once Iraq has complete soverienty and the capability to handle its own security without help from foreign troops Al-Qaeda is going to be about as popular as elevator farts, and of course the ex-baathists are going to be in all sorts of major trouble (which admittedly may lead to a small pothole in the road to peace)
Thats what the coalition need to do, infrastructure reconstruction, facilitation of the democratic elections and the establishment of a security force capable of handling the population by itself. Then the job will be done. It may not be painless and it may not be quick but its absolutely necessary.
Now thats even worse than left luvvie philsophy
Actually I have to admit this whole thing has been a real eye opener for me, its amazed me just how many of the lefty luvvies have actually been horrified by Lathams cut and run policy.
I really did have the idea that most simply couldn't care less how many Iraqi's died, just as long as they could score a few points against Howard/Bush/Blair. But the massive opposition to this policy, even among the lefties, showed that maybe their traditional values of compassion aren't completely lost afterall.