A rotten lousy disgrace

Webdiarist Robert Lawton noted in a recent email that Latham was acting like a governor general. Above politics. Measured. Relaxed. Straight. So it�s a matter of heightened significance when he first chooses to go for the throat, and on what topic.

 

Who�d have thought it � the topic was national security at a time when the topic was as hot as.

For the first time since he became leader, Latham asked all the opposition�s questions today. They were all on one matter � the dealings between Howard and Mick Keelty last week after Keelty opined that Spain�s backing of the war on Iraq was a possible reason for the Madrid bombings.

Latham asked eight low key requests for information:

1. What did Howard�s chief of staff Arthur Sinodinis say to Keelty when he rang him, on Howard�s instructions, within minutes of the Sunday interview with Jana Wendt? Confidential.

2. What did Howard tell Sinodinis to say to Keelty? No comment.

3. Why didn�t the public have the right to know what the PM�s man said to Keelty in relation to PUBLIC statements by our chief law officer on a matter of grave national importance? No answer.

4. What was the involvement of Howard, his staff or his department in Keelty�s �clarification� statement two days later claiming he�d been taken �out of context� (By whom? Howard?) �I don�t intend to go into it.�

5. Did Howard�s office see any drafts of the statement? �There were discussions.�

6. Why wouldn�t Howard tell the people of Australia whether Howard or his office saw any drafts? No comment.

7. Did Howard expect the people of Australia to believe that Keelty drafted the statement alone? Howard said the police commissioner said it was �his statement�.

8. Keelty had also said in the interview that honesty was required at this time. Why was Keelty rebuked for expressing his honest opinion, and what guarantees could Howard give that senior public officers would not be �rebuked and shamed for simply telling the truth”? Howard said all exchanges between the government and Keelty had been �entirely proper�.

Latham could not have hoped for a better springboard to his first censure motion against the Prime Minister. Howard knew what was coming and just before he sat down after not answering eight questions in a row he said, �Bring it on.�

Latham did just that, seeking to censure Howard for political interference in the AFP compromising the standing and independence of our first law officer, refusing to rule out further interference, and compromising national security.

�His sin was nothing more than telling the truth�, a truth that has since been reinforced by no lesser figure than one of the US neo-conservative Iraq war architects, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz. �That�s what Howard finds so offensive�, that Keelty had �a level of honesty he has not got himself�.

You can see how Latham will stress this theme in the lead-up to the election. He cited kids overboard, ethanol and the Weapons of Mass Destruction that never were. �It�s a pattern of behaviour.”

“With this Prime Minister there is always a missing piece to the puzzle… He�s always loose with the truth.�

Latham has been building �honest politics� as a core theme to win Labor office for some time now, but this was the first time he�d dared take the issue to the heart of Howard�s core strength � trustworthiness on national security.

And then, the statement so many Australians have been waiting so long to hear from a Labor leader: Howard snuffed out Keelty because he said the unsayable, that Howard’s “policy on Iraq has made things worse”.

Yes! It�s the debate we�ve very nearly had for so long but that Labor has never persisted with. Howard�s decision was disastrous because invading Iraq would NOT make the world safer, but would make it more dangerous, and make life in Australia more dangerous too.

Latham reminded us that Tony Abbott had warned that invading Iraq would make us a bigger target for terrorism in a speech before the war, and that Howard had also carpeted him for telling the Australian people the truth. The truth was that Howard had capitulated to the US neocons� doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, now “hidden away in the attic like a mad uncle” since Iraq. Howard’s government “cannot stomach the truth of their policy failings”. Simple as that.

Latham then made what will � like in the pending US presidential election � become the key difference between the parties on national security � while Howard wants to fight ground wars on the American nod, Latham, echoing Democrats presidential candidate John Kerry, believes that �the war against terror is primarily an intelligence war…the conflict in Iraq diverted resources away from that process of targeting the terrorists � Al Qaeda and bin Laden.�.

Howard�s problem in the Keelty scandal, Latham said, was that he, like the former Spanish government after the Madrid bombing, had put his narrow political interest ahead of the national interest. �Politics has no place in the management of our national security.�

Latham loosened his lips too, for an assault on Alexander Downer, who�d claimed last week that Keelty was sprouting Al Qaeda propaganda. Downer was �a rotten lousy disgrace�. The heat is on, at last.

You could tell when Howard spoke. I�ve never seen him so jumpy, and so intent on standing sideways to address not only the opposition but also his own backbenchers. As he castigated a �red faced� Latham for insulting Downer, I looked at the faces of all three. Only one face was red, and it was that of John Howard, as red as the face he wore when Bob Brown interjected on George Bush.

Invading Iraq was �a decision I will never apologise for and never retreat from,” he thundered.

The battle is joined. Howard�s behaviour last week has given Latham the opportunity to become a winner on national security, using the most effective weapon there is against Howard � his lack of candour. He�s now got proof most Australians accept that Howard also stops his top officials telling the truth, allowing Latham to bleed credibility from the entire administration.

National security takes centre stage. Could Howard be a victim of his own wedge?

Leave a Reply