Top StoriesMay’s sharp fall in jobless numbers added to the greenness of the ‘recovery’ (or less bad) thesis; overnight June’s unemployment figures were so awful that they could have stunted at least, the wavering shoots.
Bob Brown, G20, the Oz and Australia’s right to know
|
Why has Greens leader Bob Brown stopped the Senate Inquiry Senator Fielding proposed into the serious damage to our diplomatic relations caused by the leak of the telephone conversation between the US President and Prime Minister Rudd? Why is Brown protecting the PM? It was bad enough that there was a leak. It was worse that it was wrong. It is absolutely appalling that the PM — a former diplomat — knew all along that it was wrong and did not immediately denounce it. The story grossly inflated the importance of the PM and seriously demeaned the President. Even the prompting of the US Ambassador was not enough to prompt the PM to denounce the story. He only admitted it was untrue after an exasperated White House took the highly unusual course of briefing a Washington newspaper about it. The leak was in a report by Matthew Franklin in The Australian on 24 October “PM Kevin Rudd’s role in international crisis summit“ that Mr. Rudd had, all by himself, persuaded President Bush to call a meeting of the G20 to deal with the international financial crisis. The story just did not ring true. Bush was reported as asking “What’s the G20?”, never mind that he had already decided to refer the crisis to them. The reporter denied the Prime Minister was the source for the leak. Mr Rudd was entertaining guests at Kirribilli House when the pre-arranged call came through. Chris Mitchell, the editor-in-chief of The Australian, was among the guests. This could be the first case of a journalist’s source being … his own editor. If so the journalist could hardly say he had to protect the confidentiality of his editor. This rule was devised to protect whistleblowers, not the media. Whistleblowers risk their jobs, and the possibility of expensive litigation; editors don’t. In the meantime The Australian is trying to distance itself from the real story — the damage which the leak did. They were of course absolutely right to publish the original story, although they could have invited a White House comment and publish that simultaneously. Now they must follow through with the resulting story which is bigger than the original one. And that made the front page. Curiously, anything strongly critical of the role of the PM in this is not getting on to the opinion page. There were four letters published today, all attacking Turnbull. (One is from a “DJ Fraser” who seems to have a guaranteed place on the page.) What happened to freedom to know? The Australian seems to be behaving like the very politicians it criticises. During the debate of a motion of no confidence moved by Malcolm Turnbull, the front bench looked very worried. The Prime Minister studiously avoided denying he was the ultimate source of the story. His answer was an irrelevance — to point to a gaffe by John Howard about Barack Obama. Howard should not have said that, but it was made in public. In the debate Rudd made the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith takes the brunt of Turnbull’s powerful onslaught. A Senate inquiry would have been exactly the right place to find out who caused this serious damage to our international relations. We are entitled to know this. Franklin could hardly have pleaded a confidential source, if as everyone thinks, it was Mitchell. And it could have been that Mitchell overheard the conversation. He would hardly have invented such a silly story. This is a matter of legitimate public interest. It is about our international relations. So why did Brown squib the inquiry? Why is Brown protecting the Prime Minister? Has there been some deal? And why is the national newspaper not applying to itself what it rightly lectures politicians about — the right of the public to know? |
|
|
22 Comments
Why give space to a repetition of what yesterday was reasonably denounced as rubbish and uninteresting to anyone except journalists and obsessives? The answer to Flint’s question in his opening paragraph is that outside Australia nobody repeat nobody cares.
Some things you just don’t need a Senate enquiry for. The Children Overboard enquiry was a bit of a debacle procedurally and it didn’t come down with much hard evidence because it failed to interview teh right people, but we don’t need to read the report to know the reality that some Howard Government ministers played up an anti-refo yarn for electoral gain. Just as now, we don’t need to know whether the PM told Mitchell or just let him overhear bits and pieces or whether any of Rudd’s advisers were involved to know the reality that the PM divulged some stuff he shouldn’t have to make himself look like a world leader. If Flinty reckons we need a Senate inquiry every time a politician lets his ego blur his better judgement then he’s a clown. The Senate inquiry system is best suited for inquiries involving receiving submissions from stakeholders and other interested parties into matters of national significance. As a political tool for trying to bash the other side, the majority/minority reporting system makes it pretty useless.
Note to David Flint & the Liberals:
It’s the economy, stupid! Joe Public doesn’t care about this. At all.
Wake up. It is sad indictment that Bob Brown is more in touch with reality than either of you.
The whole George Bush G20 story has never been more than idle gossip. Possibly a poorly translated dinner party aside.
The only thing giving it legs was that it is consistent with all we love to believe about George Bush.
The whole thing is turning into a John Cleese style farce. The parrot is dead. Move on.
Oh FFS Crikey.
What the heck is going on down there in the engine room.
Publishing David Flint!!!
For God’s sake get a grip and give the interns a go.
A humble suggestion.
Perhaps you could institute an annual event.
“The Dick Cheney memorial quail hunt.”
Starring the fatuous pair, Flint Vs Farris in a death cage match.
Once a year, it would be bearable. Perhaps even a fun event.
Hell, you could get FirstDog to do the commemorative t-shirt.
Meanwhile……please have mercy on us humble subscribers
and spare us the Flint.
Bloody hell, Flint is like a bad smell but worse. Surely this subject has been given all the publicity it deserves and more. It is nothing but a Liberal beat up, a political bash. They think there is some milage to be made by attempting to show the PM is a liar. Its pathetic and its more pathetic that Crikey are giving the likes of a useless spent windbag like Flint the space ,that it has been shown time and time again the great majority of subscribers do not want to waste their time on. I presume this fool is not being paid for his articles, if he is I will be looking very closely at my next subscription. I am not interested in my money going to that excuse for a columnist. Pension him off for sanity sake.
Wouldn’t it be funny if George Bush had actually said “What’s the G20? …. Oh we call that the G8 plus 12 over here.” As you would in Modern Rome when the fringe SME economies are 2nd order concerns in the ‘situation room’ or at the Big Desk (carved out of the Resolute timbers etc, gift of Queen Victoria or something).
Only I heard Fran Kelly talk about “knock on effect’ on RN this morning to a US economist who found our terminology here in the provinces cute, saying to the effect of “we call that the spillover in the States”.
What’s the bet this G20 thing is simply a lost in translation thing, as rediculous as that??? We should get Bill Clinton to write something for Crikey to clarify it all.
The Libs and the Man Who Would be King should give up on this one. Remember when Peter Costello in his first year as Treasurer boasted of what Alan Greenspan had told him in confidence ?. The world of international relations was going to fall apart then and that was with people who were involved in both the US & Aussie administrations for the next ten years. The great Aussie public couldn’t give a fig about what George Bush said and probably loved hearing the comment-if it is true.
The Republicans have been banging on likewise about Barack Obama apparently making a slight comment on his private discussion between he and Bush in their White House meeting, claiming breaches of confidentiality-yet there today on the telly was George W. prattling on on-stop about the conversation..what bedrooms the Obama kddies would have and such. Rather than damaging international relations, I think this will just endure Rudd to other leaders and probably make a great cocktail party opener.
Anyway it’s always good to hear from Mr Flint-he brightens my day. Hope to take this subject up with you in greater depth David at the Australian Monarchists Dinner tomorrow night. You will be there yes ?
does anybody know a bigger wanker than david flint, oh, I forget, piers ackerman, glenn miln alan jones and steve price.
David flint is right; this whole affair is appalling, but mainly because it is boring the Australian public senseless.
I can understand why crikey is running with this story, it’s so lame its become newsworthy because of it’s lameness.
Oh and this would be a lame issue even if it was a liberal party gaffe .
I didn’t subscribe to Crikey to read pieces like this - if I wanted to read drivel like this I would read the Australian online - free.
And what happend to Ben Sandilands? Did Geoff Dixon put the squeeze on Crikey to get him offline and stop embarrassing Qantas?
Crikey is not what is used to be.
Extremely mild piece with the usual leftist rant rabid response from the usual suspects.
The original story that broke in the Weekend Australian is not the story now.
The person who leaked the story lied about the contents and lacks judgment on critical matters.
Whosoever did leak it damaged Australia’s ability to do business with other world leaders.
If that was the PM then it is even worse and he should stand down.
“Whosoever did leak it damaged Australia’s ability to do business with other world leaders.”
Seriously, JamesK, this confected outrage following the leaking of an alleged gaffe pales in comparison to the genuine outrage following John Howard’s labelling of Barak Obama as a terrorist sympathiser last year. Those comments elicited a venomous response at the time, and had the Liberals won the election, the Australian/American alliance would be in a far more treacherous state today.
W is leaving office as popular as Nixon, and the general consensus (barring Sheridan) is that his presidency was a gaffe prone, blind and blunderous escapade. This non event is but a mosquito in the swamp of reflection and regret that Bush will be wading through in two short months time.
I thought it was just the Queen who got your juices flowing, Flint. “…Seriously demeaned the President…” Oh no! I guess you’re just a natural-born sycophant.
‘Confected” Jared? Your allegation that John Howard labelled “Barak Obama as a terrorist sympathiser” is not merely “confected” but a willful lie.
Rabid Howard-haters such as yourself are not only inane but frequently liars as you have just demonstrated.
Presumably you refer to Howard”s response to a question about Obama’s plan in Feb 2007 to have all US combat troops out of Iraq by Mar 2008.
Howard unwisely but correctly said: “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.”
Obama has now seen the fallacy of that original policy idea!
Forget about G.W., he is not the issue. All other leaders will be very careful about what is said in and around Rudd…… especially, as he is an intelligent man, Mr. Obama.
Senator Obama hit back, accusing Mr Howard of “cowboy rhetoric”.
“I think it’s flattering that one of George Bush’s allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced [my presidential] candidacy,” he said.
“I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400.
“So if he is … to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq, otherwise it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric.”
I realise that the Liberals have lost a lot in the last year. They no longer own the US/AU alliance. The man of steel was kicked in the guts by his own electorate. His sheriff is heading into retirement a defeated man.
As you say James, Obama is an intelligent man, and he won’t have forgotten Howard’s remarks as what was essentially the first catapult of mud thrown at him in his race for the Presidency.
The current gossip-gate who-said phone call drama would be stretching to become a page 12 issue on a slow news week. In case you haven’t noticed, the global financial system is collapsing around us. Get some perspective.
Seems die hard conservatives lurk in the shadows, waiting to jump on board any attempt for political mileage whipped up by our dear Malcolm. Bush is yesterdays leader. Its simply not ‘a matter of legitimate public interest’.
Presumably Jared has acknowledged that he lied in his previous post but you might not have guessed it having read the last.
Firstly Howard was correct if stupid and Obama changed his policy.
Secondly this ‘minor matter’ has appeared in opinion pieces in The Times, U.K. and in The Washington Post.
Thirdly the publicity itself is not the issue as even moonbat Crikey writer Barry Everingham, has written in these pages of the negative consequences as perceived by DFAT about a week ago. Another former senior public servant from DFAT has written an oped in The Age along the same lines.
Furthermore Bob Barker’s un-argued assertion that “Its simply not a matter of legitimate public interest” is clearly piffle.
It is not the minor matter you like to think it is.
You know James, an argument does not become more convincing merely because you may froth at the mouth. Good day sir.
Tally Ho Barker!
Jared and Bob suggest the best dicipline re the Jamesk individual is ignore it, like Flint is full of its own importance, not worthy of your time.
I don’t know what was said on that ‘phone call but if it really is true that George W Bush didn’t know what the G20 is, and had revealed his ignorance when talking to Kevin Rudd and it was leaked to the Australian newspaper, has anyone considered that the leak might have come from the office of the President? I understand that John Howard’s son is one of George W’s aids and may have taken the opportunity to try to undermine Kevin Rudd’s credibility by leaking confidential information of which only Rudd and the President’s office were aware. It seems logical to me that if Howard’s son is still Bush’s aid then he would be present when Bush was talking to Australia’s Prime Minister.