Skip to main content

Hypocrisy writ large!

John Howard and his minions continue to bray about Kevin Rudd. He isn't honest, etc. etc. Coming from John Howard - he who faced an electoral campaign last election directly challenging his honesty [remember Not Happy John?] - it's all a bit rich and hypocritical.

In her blog in The Australian Caroline Overington hits the nail on the head:

"It is too easy to get cynical about politics in an election year but, from time to time, you read something in the papers that is so hideously hypocritical it makes the toast fall out of your mouth.

Yesterday’s newspapers carried the news that John Howard had “sacrificed” a cabinet minister, Ian Campbell, for - get this - having a 20-minute meeting with a man called Brian Burke.

Now Burke is a dodgy dude, no doubt about it. He’s a former premier of Western Australia who spent time in the slammer, he clearly eats too much and he wears bad hats. The Labor Party once banned all contact with him by any of its members - but he has been out of jail for 10 years and the Liberal Party never had a ban on meeting him.

Still, Campbell, the human services minister, got the boot for seeing him for less than 30 minutes on a matter of some importance to his then environment portfolio. Let’s make the obvious comparison: as far as we know, Burke doesn’t send money to odious regimes. He doesn’t do deals with countries - like, say, Iraq - that Australia is about to invade. We know who did that - it was Australia’s wheat exporter, AWB. They’ve admitted it and apologised for it.

Two of John Howard’s most senior colleagues, Alexander Downer and Mark Vaile, had ministerial responsibility for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the time of the Iraq kickback scandal. They admit that they were told and told - and told again - that AWB was up to its neck in corruption."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...