BBC News describes the gaffe by Rudd as an attempt to make Bush look like a fool. It is a great way of treating our most important ally! Imagine how the Chinese and other nations see the stupidity and immaturity of the Rudd blunder. No one would trust him again.
Malcolm Turnbull is quite correct in remarking that:
"Mr Rudd's desperate desire to big-note himself has done real harm to our relations with the US.Kevin Rudd's glib meaningless 'I will do whatever it takes' assurances, his declarations of war everywhere on every issue and his thin skin when the opposition takes him to task on any of his stupid policy measures - the unlimited deposit guarantee to the banks and the decision to encourage 450,000 Australians to abandon private health insurance - mark him as the worst PM Australia has had since Paul Keating. No qualifications - Rudd is a disaster.
It is clear enough that the US President has been deeply offended. President Obama and other American leaders in the future will be very wary about saying anything to Mr Rudd and other Prime Ministers, in case what they say winds up on the front page of a newspaper.
"Mr Rudd has sacrificed our nation's reputation for trustworthiness and discretion on the altar of his own vanity.'' (my bold)
Rudd is unreliable in a crisis and pretentious to the point where he believes the meaningless pollie drivel he offers the media as opinion. Rudd has seriously damaged Australia and I am confident will do more damage.
Update: Catallaxy has a discussion K Dudd a national embarrassment. The Age discusses the meeting between Rudd and Bush - "Rudd looks sheepish. Bush looks prickly". Scraping the bottom of the barrell of Labor's cheersquad we have Mark Banish from Larvatus who doesn't deny Rudd gossipped about Bush's stupidity to the media - he just argues Rudd has done us all a favour in pointing out Bush's ignorance!
Posts
30 comments:
I think you often have intelligent and interesting things to say Harry. However, I find this post to be pure partisan drivel.
Al
Yea, the quicker he goes the better. But he doesn't seem to be going anywhere as the polls still have him as a popular PM.
I wish it wasn't the case but it is.
Semsester's over HC. You can relax. Also, I can't see why you hate Keating so much -- sure he messed up on some things (I would know, being lucky enough to have finished my degree in 1992 and now working in the university sector, which was wrecked by Dawkins), but he did things the Liberal can on dream about, like getting the $A floated, implementing national superannuation, and describing Mahathir like every other white person was afraid to. If you compare him to some do-nothing nobody like Fraser, he's leaps and bounds ahead.
"1 dozen fresh oysters with lemon and a side salad of tomato, lettuce, sliced kiwi fruit and orange."
Yummy.
Rudd will be fine once Obama is in charge.
"1 glass of Yalumba Viognier 2007"
I don't believe you!!!
harry - heartburn? were the oysters or prawns a bit off? Golf swing all up shit creek after taxpayer funded Beijing junket?
Rudd is not the son of god - he's just a younger version of Howard only more suited to the times. He's pretty boring, but he does have a tendency to policies rather than Howard's knee jerk self interest.
Face it Harry - at the end it was so bad that even Pork Barrel "Sling 'em muck" Johnny couldn't save his own bloody seat - how embarrassment - completely lost touch with the great unwashed AND his own cabinet and party. Let's not mention Costello.
Harry, as you admitted in your previous post
"The [was] sun outside, beating down"
You should have had a nap before posting this tripe.
Your good posts are good, but your posts are real shockers.
It is interesting how the Labor cheersquad approach criticisms of the Great Leader Kim Il Rudd.
Not one comment on the issue of blabbing to the media on the content of a private phone message to our most important ally.
Their minds are closed - they cannot think - its the cheersquad who are partisan not me. It is blind defence of the Party boss with never a thought whether this nitwit has damaged Australia. Its a pity.
Harry, do you really reckon this was worse than Howard calling Obama the Al Qaeda candidate?
And of course you are assuming that Rudd leaked the conversation to big note himself. Until the Australian reveals their source, that is merely a presumption that is motivated by your prejudices.
Regardless, Rudd and Obama will get on like a house on fire, and you will be proven wrong about the damage to US Australia relations.
I knew that a Labor sycophant was going to raise Howard's behaviour.
Howard's behaviour was an error of judgment and should be condemned as such. This has nothing to do with the idiocy of Rudd.
Prejudice doesn't come into it. I believe The Australian's story. Rudd has been ambivalent on the issue - not denying he blabbed to The Australian but saying that Bush didn't say a silly thing. He won't be contradicted on that!
Obama and other leaders of the world won't trust such a foolish, loquacious man. Nor will they appreciate having the American Head of State ridiculed by a hick Aussie.
The damage runs way beyond the personal insult damage to Bush.
Have to agree with you on this one Harry.
The silence from the left is deafening. And it's not just the leaking of the phone call that's an issue, but the embellishment of it in order to make Kevin look smart, while playing to the GWB prejudices of his fellow travellers. Not to mention what this says about Rudd's character and trustworthiness.
But his boosters would have you believe its all just a storm in a teacup and "aren't there more important things to be discussing?". Could you imagine if it was Alexander Downer who had done this?
By the way, it appears Howard was in fact correct in his assessment:
"Islamist movements consider Barack Obama's victory to be a victory for them. It is as if the Democratic candidate had waged the battle on their behalf, or as if the fall of the slogan of the "New Middle East", which those movements fought to eliminate, was also the aim of the campaign led by the Senator from Illinois to reach the highest position in the United States, and even in the world.
This is why reactions to this victory by those who speak in the name of such movements were mostly positive. Indeed, they deemed that a new phase, characterized by realism, may begin with the new administration. Indeed in their view, realism means that the new administration learn from the mistakes of the Bush administration, and take into account the ability of those who are "defiant" to thwart any American plan in the region if it does not agree with their objectives and their interests."
http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/OPED/11-2008/Article-20081110-858400fd-c0a8-10ed-011c-4d16081d81e6/story.html
harry - after xmas sometime into the new year we will have colour pics on tv and news papers of Obama with his arm around Kev saying Australia is USA bestest friend.
I'll be just as un-impressed as I was when Howard and Bush were pissing in each others pockets.
Partisan - my arse.
Why don't you tell us what you really think of Rudd Harry? I mean this is a post of spite, anger and hatred. Why don't you re-read what you wrote tomorrow? You might be shocked. I thought you showed a bit more respect for others than that (even those who you disagree with and dislike). Perhaps I was wrong about you.
I do not doubt that Rudd may have behaved inappropriately, although it is hard to be sure what happened. No one except a handful of people knows for sure what happened.
You are correct that what Howard did (or Joe next door for that matter) is irrelevant in this case.
This may have damaged relations with the US a little, but then again it may not. You can't possibly know what effect it has had on Australia-US relations. I can't believe it would be have anything more than a minor impact.
Oh and by the way, I am no fan of Labor or any other political party for that matter. I just think you should show a bit more respect towards our Prime-Minister than that.
Al
For the record it's Sunday night, mild day cooling off, I'm drinking Bowmore Islay Single Malt.
http://www.bowmore.co.uk/home.aspx
"do you really reckon this was worse than Howard calling Obama the Al Qaeda candidate?"
Yes and tony spells out fairly succinctly why. Taking a public stance against against another public stance ie a Latham openly deriding Bush policy or Howard vis a vis Obama is a different matter. They will be judged publicly on their respective stances. However if either ascribed something to another personally as a result of private conversations and subsequently was not prepared to back that accusation publicly, there is a problem. Someone is deliberately lying to us about another, rather than them simply holding fallacious or differing views. There is a big difference.
Public Kev: George Bush is in the pocket of Wall St, big oil, big arms, yada, yada..
Public: Ho, hum.... snooze.
Private Kev: Hey get this guys! I just got off the phone with Bushie and he doesn't even know what the G20 is. Can you believe that? The man's not fit to run a lemonade stand.
Public: What the..! Run that one by us all again Kev?
Public Kev: Well, umm, err... moving right along to the war on everything!
Public: Hmmm.....Brian Burke and now George Bush.
Observa, Enjoyed the humour - spot (!) on.
Harry,
I drop in on your blog from time to time in order to get an intelligent take on the other side's viewpoint. Disappointed today. Perhaps a reminder of your own conditions is in order:
"Comments: Are welcome although they must avoid personal attacks on anyone."
rabitoh
Observa, you can't be serious. Howard didn't express some mere policy difference with Obama. He as good as called him a terrorist sympathiser. And indeed he said the same about the Democratic Party.
"If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats"
Howard not only explicitly took sides in the US Presidential election, he said that the party that then had the majority in the Congress, and is about to have the White House as well, were traitors.
This is infinitely worse than anything Rudd might have done.
"he said that the party that then had the majority in the Congress, and is about to have the White House as well, were traitors."
Nice try Spiro. Even after putting up what appear to be Howard's exact words, you make this patently false assertion, in the same comment.
Why is it Harry that you dance to the Liberal tune so ardently? Your post could have come from the Liberal Party PR machine, it mimics their thoughts so precisely. And this mix of line and perosnal abuse is not the first time.
But it would be nice if you could get something right, not the least, the spelling of Mark Bahnisch's name. Was it a weak play on words and a Dickensian attempt at humour? How would you like it if someone referred to you as Harry Claque?
You chose to take a sentence out of context of his post to no good effect anyway. The post is about something else.
You make a supposition without real evidence that it was Rudd who leaked an allegged conversation. What evidence is there?
But if even if it were Rudd, this is a minor gaffe compared to Howard's comments about Obama. it led Obama to actually respond with some venom. I did not hear you fulminate about the damage that would cause to Australo-American relations.
But parroting mindless Lib Party propaganda is futile anyway. Note also elsewhere on LP's site:
"Here’s a Galaxy and a Nielsen poll out this morning, both of which show Labor with a 55-45 lead on 2PP, and Kevin Rudd on better numbers than he enjoyed a year ago - and these are some of the last polls (Essential Research follows tonight) before the first anniversary of Labor’s election. This is quite interesting: Coalition attacks on almost every aspect of the Government’s response to the crisis have had no impact."
So there you go Harry. It is all for nothing.
Despite his title Sir Henry is a faithful member of the Rudd cheersquad and gets irritated when criticisms of the Great Leader are made.
The more cogent the criticism the greater the proclivity to introduce irrelevancy and accusations of personal abuse.
Try opening your eyes and hold the apologetics.
Indeed get over it mate. Half of Australia did not vote for Labor. It is scarcely a minority position to want to see Labor out of office and decent leaders installed.
That - on this occasion - I share views of Malcolm Turnbull does not mean my views are wrong. Unambiguously I believe MT would make a better PM than Rudd. But on this occasion that was not the issue.
Rudd refused to deny the allegation that the leak came from his office. Why? Is it because there were several people present that evening and they knew the truth?
Ridiculing the leader of our most important ally is dangerous. It is stupid and shows the personality of this little man.
As I posted above the sins of John Howard are not relevant to assessing Kevin Rudd's actions. Observa's comment is spot on.
What exactly are you showing about the appropriateness of Rudd's actions by citing opinion polls on his popularity? Not much.
I seldom make mistakes spelling names.
Hey JC, what's with the Tony of South Yarra handle?
Spiros, lets get it straight here
http://australianpolitics.com/news/2007/02/07-02-11_howard-obama.shtml
bearing it was early 2007 and the whole world was arguing about staying the course or pulling out-
Oakes:
On that subject, Senator Barack Obama's announced overnight he's running for the Democrat Presidential nomination, and he says if he gets it he has a plan to bring troops home by March, 2008 and his direct quote is "Letting the Iraqis know we'll not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunnis and Shiah to come to the table and find peace". So, basically he's agreeing with the Labor Party.
Howard:
Yes, I think he's wrong, I mean, he's a long way from being President of the United States. I think he's wrong. I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for Obama victory. If I was running Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.
Now Howard's saying that AQ will be praying for his naysayers to win the argument. Seems pretty logical. You can interpret that any way you like and if staying the course and the surge hadn't worked, and the COW were kicking helicopters off aircraft carriers in a hurry to get out now, then Obama might say to Howard he was actually praying at the time it wouldn't come to this with such folly. Touche' and all that Obama.
That's a far cry from a media report that Howard gets off the phone with Obama and says- Hey guess what? Can you believe this Obama guy? He reckons we should pull out of Iraq because he's a Muslim and understands these things. No wonder he's sucking up to these terrorists.
Oh Yeah?.. and I'd want to know exactly what and how he said that and if Howard wanted to fob that off and change the subject all of a sudden, I'd be saying the same thing about him as Rudd now.
Oh and Howard was right and Obama was wrong on that policy at the time-
"Letting the Iraqis know we'll not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunnis and Shiah to come to the table and find peace".
not that it is relevant to actually putting words in people's mouths and then reneging when you're caught out fibbing or bragging about it.
Oh and I'll excuse Rudd for besmirching the Low family by believing they kicked his widowed mum and the family off the farm, since he was after all a kid at the time. They tell me he's over 21 now.
Observa, even Republican Senator John Corwyn, a right winger from Texas, at the time told Howard to butt out of US politics.
But of course the best reponse eas Obama's who said that unless Australia was prepared to send 20,000 troops to Iraq, up from the laughable 1400 at the time (many in non combat roles), what Howard said was just "empty rhetoric".
Which of course it was. Howard delivered a crass insult to the majority party, and soon to be President of our most important ally, just so he could insert his tongue even more firmly in the back orifice of his good friend W.
I am not a member of the Kevin Rudd cheersquad. I would much rather Julia Gillard or Lindsay Tanner as PM.
Your comment about the percentages voting for Labor/KR indicate you do not understand the preferential voting system as it operates federally. Was that meant to suggest Rudd is somehow an illegitimate PM?
What would that make George W Bush who won the presidency with 47.87% in 2000 (Gore - 48.38%) with 60% of eligible voters turning out to vote?
Quick calculation will will tell us GHB won with 28.6% of the electorate voting for him.
It's hardly worth going in to bat for Dubya, isn't it, H?
Spiros, US politicians have every right to tell our pollies to butt out and vise versa. They don't have the right to put false words in each others mouths and then have lapses of memories about it.
Obama may well have been right about Howard contibuting more troops to Iraq at the time in order to fix it up quicker, so he and Rudd can commit more troops to their 'good war' now-
'US President-elect Barack Obama says he will shut down the “war on terror” internment camp at Guantanamo Bay and rebuild “America’s moral stature in the world,” in a major interview aired overnight.
Senator Obama said that from his inauguration, “it is a top priority for us to stamp out al-Qaeda once and for all” and that killing or capturing the group’s mastermind Osama bin Laden was “critical” to US security'
All hail our new moral commander-in-chief no doubt.
Be watching "A Well-Founded Fear" SBS tomorrow night (Wed) 8.30pm. Essential viewing. Be interesting to have your review afterwards, Harry.
Post a Comment