Keep Calm Abbott is not PM

You bought up that ALP policy was to wait for UN approval not me. That was the only subject change.... as all I'd pointed out was that afaik the ALP also agreed that Iraq had WMD. So by your logic I guess you knew at the time you were wrong and thats why you did it... thats ok because I knew you were wrong as well, but dont expect to turn it around and not get noticed.

You have not yet proven Howard or the Government at the time knew WMD did not exist. For it to be a lie they would have had to know they did not exist AND then tell everyone they did. Half way is not enough.

Now compare that to Juliar who made an election statement/pledge/promise in the last week before polling, only to do a 180 on within a 12 months. First she says the reason was 'things have changed'... the only thing to change is deeper global financial weakness which is a reason not to do it, and now she is saying 'it is just the right thing to do' well then that just supports you cannot take her word for anything because statements as clear as hers during an election campaign are promises to the public.

Its clear who is the liar and its not Howard.

 

You sort of sound like someone reading off an ALP crib sheet, including your selected quotes from 8 years ago. That might explain why you didnt have anything to say when I already explained to you in this thread when its ok to lie to the public in times of war. Now all you have to do is prove it was a lie (foreknowledge AND deliberate misleading) and then also argue why military disinformation is not an acceptable use of a lie if its to protect Australian troops and strategic interests in a time of war. You can probably start to understand why ALP supporters mostly sound like dumb art student sheep when you consider the weakness and flaws of your argument

 

The Australian Government knows that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons.

How does saying you "know" something - when you don't "know" it at all (because it was not true) not count as a lie?

If I were to say: "I know you beat your wife". Is that OK?

Or am I simply mistaken?

 

How can you expect to apply comparison against, or hold equivilant, cases of first hand knowledge versus cases of second hand knowledge. Do you really expect government officials to cage every statement to be specifically accurate as to the nature of the information? They have departments to make these assertions, and if accepted by both sides of parliemant, and foreign governments, I think your hiding behind hindsight to argue it can be anything other then reasonably accepted as truth. Like I asked before, do you need each politician to independantly verify every statement before they make it? Its a ridiculous demand to place.

Oh and you ignored my point again that even if they knew in advance it didnt exist, which you havent proven but is required for a lie to occur, that during war misinformation cam be a strategic tool.

 

You're clutching at straws AND splitting hairs AND pathetically trying to rely on semantics Bugsy. Honest John (the man of steel) was just relaying what others, who he must rely on, had told him.

 

When they are about to involve Australia in an illegal war - yes, that would be a good idea. Saying they "know" something that they clearly do not "know" is dishonest. It is a lie

 

'Honest' John? Are you kidding? This is the man who sent us into an illegal war. This is the man responsible for our Australian men coming home in body bags. This is the man who repeatedly lied through his teeth, and you cal him honest! LOL.

 

Oh - like when he claimed that children were thrown overboard?


CATHERINE MCGRATH: Just to clarify, Mike Scrafton, you said to him, we didn't, that is, Defence I take it, didn't believe the incident actually happened.

MIKE SCRAFTON: That's right. And I also told him that I thought that the intelligence he was relying on was suspect.
...

But you're confirming now that the Prime Minister was told by you the event didn't happen?

MIKE SCRAFTON: That's right.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: Did you know for sure it didn't happen or you just suspected it didn't happen?

MIKE SCRAFTON: I knew that there was no evidence held by Defence that indicated that it had happened.

....

CATHERINE MCGRATH: But from what you're indicating, the Government hasn't been honest about this.

MIKE SCRAFTON: They certainly weren't, the advice that… What the Prime Minister said in my view was certainly not qualified enough based on the information that he had.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: And you have no doubt at all that you indicated to him firmly that the story was wrong?

MIKE SCRAFTON: No, none at all. And the clinch is that I can remember clearly advising him that if he wanted to know why the ONA report was wrong that he should talk to Kim Jones. That was a specific part of the discussion.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1177463.htm

 

Johhny didnt lie. I havent seen any evidence where he intentionally knowingly misled (which is what a lie is). I know there was a mania behind getting Rudd into office but it was really baseless despite how much 'noise' is made by the ALP cheersquad.

 

The post above yours details one of the lies Howard told us.

 

All that says is he had competing viewpoints from his intelligence sources. The only real impact that has on this argument proves that Howard actually did have intelligence saying it happened!! Nice one, thanks.

 

This denial you are in is pretty pathetic:

What the Prime Minister said in my view was certainly not qualified enough based on the information that he had.


And the conclusion of the Senate enquiry into the affair:

Mr Scrafton's evidence suggests that Mr Reith, his chief of staff and his media adviser all knew that the photos were being misrepresented, but decided not to correct the public record. His evidence also corroborates the CMI report's findings that the Prime Minister's office was alerted to the misrepresentation of the photographs before the Prime Minister's Press Club appearance on 8 November.
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/scrafton_ctte/report/report.pdf

Seems there is nothing unusual about Prime Ministers telling lies.

 

Turned 180 degrees did she?!?!?!


Before the election she said:

"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983

And now she is legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism with an initial fixed price period.

How is doing what she said she may do, with a minor amendment to ensure its passage through Parliament "doing a 180"?!?!?

Sure - her pre-election statement was stupid (after all, Tony calls everything a "great big tax") - but in the end, she is delivering what she was elected to deliver - a price on carbon. Just as the previous Parliament was also elected to deliver - before the 'unelected' Leader of the Opposition went against the wishes of the Australian Public and scuttled a scheme that both major parties had campaigned for prior to the 07 election.

 

The feeling is mutual. You and your selective quoting, who is that now?

So not correcting a statement now is your evidence of a lie. If I was a politician and had conflicting information I would not be in a rush to chase the latest version of events. The actuality of it is when it happens everyone wants to know as soon as possible what is going on, and you'd try to meet that demand but when their has been a breakdown in the flow of information which is what happened then you usually stop talking until the facts can be ascertained. Unfortunatly your ALP spin is way off target despite how hard you guys want to believe. Not one of your attempts has stuck yet, keep trying though if you want.

 

I dont think it was stupid to say that, it was stupid to go against her word because it makes her look like a soulless machine of the party who will say and do anything. Your price on carbon really hasnt happened yet anyway, and probably would have happened quicker if Rudd had not been elected.

She wasnt elected. Didnt the Liberal Party got more primary votes which means more Australians wanted Abbott then Gillard. Juliar was just lucky a few pollies traded favors for association, because they knew the ALP is keen to do those sort of unethical backroom deals. If they'd looked at the majorities in their own electorates and supported whom their electorates supported, then Juliar wouldnt be PM.

 

Unethical backroom deals?!?! Ha ha ha!!

No - Abbott was more into unethical backdoor deals.

"I remember him saying 'Tony, I would do anything for this job. The only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse, but I'd have to give serious thought to it',"

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/abb...or/story-e6frfkvr-1226123790715#ixzz1Wb6RBry7

Tried to buy Wilkie's vote too, didn't he:
Mr Wilkie revealed Mr Abbott had offered $1bn to rebuild the hospital, but the MP for Denison, which takes in parts of Hobart, said Labor's proposal was "a much more ethical way to go than simply just grabbing $1bn for Tasmania".
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tal-offer-of-1bn/story-fn59niix-1225913517932


But of course - if Tone did give Windsor his arse and Wilkie his hospital and became PM - would you be on here banging on about "Unethical backroom deals".

Sorry Champ. The Coalition lost the election. That is how the Westminister Parliamentary system works. And before you whinge some more, no, they won't be replaying last years Grand Final either. You need to learn to accept results.

 

Congratulations that is the stupidest thing I have read here, you're telling people if they "Learn from experience" that they are blind.

It's just too stupid to comment further

 

..................................................................................................

 

It would be stupid to say that, but stupid is as stupid does and if thats the best you can intepret from what I wrote then that says something.

I'll spell it out for you, in context, people who are blind to the details, rely on prior examples to build an understanding. The problem with this is you dont know the details to begin with to set the conditions for selecting prior examples.

 

Assuming we discount that it was probably deliberate misinformation for strategic reasons (in which case suck it up and grow a pair) you still havent proved he 'suspected' or 'knew' they didnt exist.

The fact that the nuclear program was actually found to be in neighboring Syria does prove things were going on in that region at that time. Saddam was acting like he had something to hide and when pressed by the UN and finally the US he wouldnt even save his nation by handing himself over.

Effectively all your arguing is that the intelligence wasnt perfectly accurate and that the Australian public was not included in the details of intelligence briefs. Its such a childish argument being peddled by the ALP cheersquad in real world terms. Just admit your using baby speak to appeal emotionally to a voting audience who know no better, and bullying a decent elderly man who has spent his whole life working to the betterment of Australia... I mean we are talking about the union party - bullying is their modus operandi.

 

What a droll reply

people who are blind to the details,
That's me, I do not have a crystal ball!
rely on prior examples
In the past business has resorted to dumping chemicals such as ammonia directly into our river systems
Businesses are known to do nearly anything to avoid expensive waste handling costs.
We have never been given many examples to show it would not be any different in the future without heavy pressure from governments and civil action groups.
build an understanding
So I figure, if we don't start now, it will be a bigger mess when the inevitable happens

 

Look you can dress it up all you like. If someone says that they KNOW, when they know that they do not KNOW. Then that no matter how pretty you make it is a LIE. And not one upon which we went to an election, but one to which we went to war.

 

He might have been wrong, but that doesnt make it a lie, as I've explained a few times. You need to prove he knew otherwise.

 

No-one denies Juliar is the PM duh....I was responding to your claim Juliar was 'elected' when in fact it was the Liberals who got the greater number of votes so if anyone was 'elected' it was Abbott, but because of the nature of the electoral system in place those negotiations were required.

Sorry champ, noone won the election, it required negotiations afterwards for someone to form a government.

 

Hmm, like the lie he told about the children overboard? And yes, he knew that one was a lie.