Our Sneaky PM
Anyone watch the John Howard interview on the 7.30 Report last night? Kerry went for the jugular. Recent history has not been kind to his line of questioning, nor his underlying assumption that the terrorist threat is a strawman. Howard must have walked into the interview realising that in a few hours Red Kerry would have to eat his words. Let's take a look at a few excerpts of Kerry's questions:
But by yesterday the Attorney-General Mr Ruddock was hosing down any expectation of arrests or indeed any expectation of a specific threat or any action at all. It rather flew in the face of the sense of urgency that you had created just a few days before
Is it true that other agencies including the Australian Federal Police have asked for the change you introduced with great urgency last week, as long as 18 months ago?
I'm asking you whether the AFP or other agencies sought from the Government as long as 18 months ago the very changes that you have now introduced with urgency and drama in the Parliament last week?
Coming so soon after your last announcement that led to more dramatic headlines, can you understand how the flow of announcements and the media responses, the predictable media responses might raise the level of community alarm, perhaps unnecessarily?
why has Senator Hill found it necessary to come out with this statement now just a couple of days after your statement which I suggest lends an air of drama to the whole issue of terrorism in Australia at the moment?Yes, Kerry, you dim-witted hack, the terrorism threat was all a big beat up to deflect attention away from the IR reform debate.
posted by James Waterton at 9:10 am
2 Comments:
Interesting. What is the significance of the Prime Minister's choice of words here?
JOHN HOWARD: I don't personally recall and I'm not saying it may not have been put to somebody else in the Government, but I don't personally recall - and I say that deliberately, because I don't have an infallible memory, I don't pretend I do. I don't personally recall that particular amendment being previously pressed on me personally with a sense of urgency. [My emphasis.]
Kerry got his point across through a choice of words - which of necessity were repeated when the question was not answered - designed to leave an impression on the viewer. How do you interpret the message that John was trying to convey?
Sounds like he took the safe option. I'm sure he gets told a great many things over a period of time - and it's unreasonable to expect that he'll remember every piece of advice he's been given. Since he doesn't have the option of going back and checking his records during a live interview, I'd suggest that saying "I don't personally recall" is a way of saying "no, but don't quote me on that".
Of course, those ideologically opposed to the man naturally assume the worst.
Post a Comment
<< Home