Tired of Labor's 3 Amigos (Hawke, Rudd & Evans), as that prince of pundits Greg Sheridan refers to them? How about Labor's 3 Alt-Amigos then?
Read on:
There's Kimmie, a Middle East specialist who could have pulled off a peace deal between Palestine and Israel long ago if only Bill Clinton hadn't hogged the stage:
"Former Labor leader Kim Beazley has waded into the growing rift within Labor over formal recognition of Palestine, saying Palestinian leaders have become 'very comfortable' applying moral pressure on Israel but have not undertaken the hard yards necessary to reach a lasting peace... Mr Beazley said the focus on Israel and Mr Netanyahu, who he described as a 'difficult messenger' for social democrats to bear, had effectively given the Palestinians a free pass on hard questions such as the issue of Palestinian returns [?] and the status of East Jerusalem." (Palestinians must do the hard yards: Beazley, Paul Maley, The Australian, 24/2/17)
And Kimmie knows all about the hard yards. That slog in Washington as Australia's ambassador was hell. Hell! So bad, in fact, it drove the poor man to drink: "Former Labor leader Kim Beazley charged taxpayers $3, 420 for 12 bottles of Penfolds Grange during his time as ambassador to the US in 2014, an expenditure list shows." (Kim Beazley charged taxpayers thousands of dollars for bottles of Penfolds Grange while US ambassador, Uma Patel, ABC News, 29/9/16)
There's Mr Bean. For sheer depth of knowledge of the Palestine problem, he's in a class of his own, as these perceptive comments show:
"A Right faction powerbroker, Senator Dastyari, who does not support immediate recognition of a Palestinian state as advocated by Bob Hawke, Mr Evans and Mr Carr, said the party should not ignore other humanitarian challenges abroad. In recent years, there have been atrocities in Syria, Libya, Iraq and throughout the Middle East... I have always been a strong supporter of a two-state solution and of Australia playing a role to help facilitate that (but) the Labor Party can't afford to focus on the Palestinian question at the expense of the other humanitarian challenges.' The Iranian-born senator said he supported the party reviewing its policy but made it clear recent interventions in support of Palestine by Mr Hawke, Mr Evans and Mr Carr were unhelpful prior to Mr Netanyahu's visit." (Sam Dastyari berates Labor Party push to endorse Palestinian state, Troy Bramston, The Australian, 20/2/17)
Finally, there's the legendary Richo, who, as an ALP factional warrior, brings his unique experience of Ultimate Cage Fighting (UCF), ALP-style, to say nothing of his wealth of expertise and profound insight on the subject of Palestine/Israel, to bear on that fraught matter:
"An emboldened Netanyahu has since expanded his plans to settle more Israelis in the West Bank. The new settlements are at the heart of why those Labor elders like Bob Hawke and Bob Carr, Gareth Evans and Kevin Rudd are walking away from Israel and seek succour and comfort in the tender arms of the PLO and Hamas. Frankly I don't see much comfort there and I can't go along with recognising the Palestinian state unless and until Hamas resiles from its commitment to boot every Jew out of Israel... Ever since I was born there have been troubles in Israel and that will continue till I am gone and beyond." (Netanyahu not a man given to compromise, Graham Richardson, The Australian, 24/2/17)
No doubt about it, Labor's got talent.
Showing posts with label Graham Richardson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Graham Richardson. Show all posts
Monday, February 27, 2017
Sunday, March 6, 2016
The Unbearable Cluelessness of Graham Richardson
"That war is a dirty business is a proposition that cannot be challenged. Both innocence and the innocent are the victims, and when the war has been going on for years..."
That's how colorful Labor identity and Murdoch muppet Graham 'Richo' Richardson begins his column on NSW MLA Shaoquett Moselmane's threatened defamation action against Richo's fellow Murdoch muppett Sharri Markson. (Talk at lunch, not in court, The Australiam, 4/3/16)
And that's how he misrepresents what has been going on "for years" in Palestine. Nothing to do with colonisation. Or dispossession. Or ethnic cleansing. Or occupation. Or apartheid. Just another "dirty war" between equals. That's what this boofhead thinks is/has been going on over there. That's what he thinks it's all about.
Clearly, he knows SFA about the issue. Still, he insists he's learnt 'wisdom' of a practical kind from his late "legendary" Labor mates, bruvver Ducker and Jack Ferguson, namely 'Never sue anyone': "You risk hundreds of thousands of dollars you can't afford and you make certain you relieve [sic] the horror you're trying to forget." And this sage advice he's now dishing out to Moselmane whom he represents as a Richo protege: "I have known Moselmane for quite some time and more than any other individual I am responsible for getting the Labor party to put him into parliament."
So Shaoquett, maaate, listen up!
To clarify the details of Moselmane's defamation action: he said in state parliament in 2013: "I accept the right of people to express their views, even when they are wrong, naive, ill-informed, indoctrinated and blinded by the power of a lobby group that is cancerous and malicious and seeks to deny, misinform and scaremonger." Not apropos nothing, of course, but after coming under attack by another Murdoch muppet, Cassandra Wilkinson.
"These harsh words," says Richo, "were used to describe what could be called 'the Jewish lobby'."
(You can read it all in context in my 27/5/13 post Shaoquett Moselmane Speaks Truth to Power.)
This is what Murdoch muppet Markson wrote in response: "He didn't utter them in the privacy of his own home. He felt comfortable enough broadcasting this anti-Semitic sentiment within the walls of the NSW Parliament..."
Richo apparently has no problem with that malicious, career-destroying, mother-of-all-smears. But Moselmane's words, now that's a different matter: "Parliamentary privilege is a wonderful weapon in the hands of a politician with something nasty to say... It is hard to describe those words as anything but extreme."
Harsh... nasty... extreme. This is supposed to justify Markson hurling the A-bomb at Moselmane, calling him, in effect, from her public perch over at News Corpse, an anti-Semite. For Richo this is merely "free speech" and "commentary."
He puts in a plug for Markson:
"I want a society where strong debate with strong language is welcomed... I don't agree with all that is contained in the Markson commentary. Bob Carr, a friend of mine for more than 40 years, would have every right to be grievously offended by the column. Carr, though, would not call in the lawyers in a bid to shut Markson down. He knows debate is vital to democracy... Markson is tenacious and fearless. She can be irritating and sometimes can go too far. It should be noted, though, that the task of a good journalist is not to make us feel relaxed and comfortable. While I don't agree with much of her column, it would be a great shame if anyone succeeded in shutting her down. Markson is a good advertisement for modern journalism. It doesn't matter to me whether she has crossed some indiscernible legal line. This matter should not finish up in a court of law. Moselmane should rethink and back off. He would be far better to take Markson to lunch and debate the issue. You gave it, Shaoquett, now you have to man up and take it on the chin."
Is he for real? If Markson is "a good advertisement for modern journalism," then God help modern journalism!
It's not as if Richo is unfamiliar with Moselmane's background:
"Moselmane hails from a village in southern Lebanon. When the Israelis last ventured into Lebanon, I can vividly recall Moselmane's reaction when up to 12 children in his village died from aerial and artillery bombardment. Moselmane was quite emotional when discussing this with me. He vented his feelings about the Israeli army and the people who ordered them into his part of southern Lebanon. He would be less than human if the deaths of those children had no effect on his views about Israel and its inhabitants."
So Moselmane's got some skin in the vicious, expansionist games that Israel, as a hyper-aggressive, apartheid state, has been playing for decades in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Jordan, in Egypt, and in Iraq. And then, when he speaks out against the influence and reach of Israel's Australian cheer squad, who, in the words of Richo mate Bob Carr, derive their extraordinary power from "political donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists"* (such as Markson (rambammed: 2015) and Sheehan), he cops The Smear of Smears from Markson, who - and here's the rub - has no skin in the game whatever, other than to have been indoctrinated at some stage with the false Zionist notion that occupied - River to Sea - Palestine is her birthright as a Jew, a bizarre conceit she appears too thick or too full of herself to see through.
But I guess that's all a bit too subtle for Richo.
[*7.30 Report, 9/4/14]
That's how colorful Labor identity and Murdoch muppet Graham 'Richo' Richardson begins his column on NSW MLA Shaoquett Moselmane's threatened defamation action against Richo's fellow Murdoch muppett Sharri Markson. (Talk at lunch, not in court, The Australiam, 4/3/16)
And that's how he misrepresents what has been going on "for years" in Palestine. Nothing to do with colonisation. Or dispossession. Or ethnic cleansing. Or occupation. Or apartheid. Just another "dirty war" between equals. That's what this boofhead thinks is/has been going on over there. That's what he thinks it's all about.
Clearly, he knows SFA about the issue. Still, he insists he's learnt 'wisdom' of a practical kind from his late "legendary" Labor mates, bruvver Ducker and Jack Ferguson, namely 'Never sue anyone': "You risk hundreds of thousands of dollars you can't afford and you make certain you relieve [sic] the horror you're trying to forget." And this sage advice he's now dishing out to Moselmane whom he represents as a Richo protege: "I have known Moselmane for quite some time and more than any other individual I am responsible for getting the Labor party to put him into parliament."
So Shaoquett, maaate, listen up!
To clarify the details of Moselmane's defamation action: he said in state parliament in 2013: "I accept the right of people to express their views, even when they are wrong, naive, ill-informed, indoctrinated and blinded by the power of a lobby group that is cancerous and malicious and seeks to deny, misinform and scaremonger." Not apropos nothing, of course, but after coming under attack by another Murdoch muppet, Cassandra Wilkinson.
"These harsh words," says Richo, "were used to describe what could be called 'the Jewish lobby'."
(You can read it all in context in my 27/5/13 post Shaoquett Moselmane Speaks Truth to Power.)
This is what Murdoch muppet Markson wrote in response: "He didn't utter them in the privacy of his own home. He felt comfortable enough broadcasting this anti-Semitic sentiment within the walls of the NSW Parliament..."
Richo apparently has no problem with that malicious, career-destroying, mother-of-all-smears. But Moselmane's words, now that's a different matter: "Parliamentary privilege is a wonderful weapon in the hands of a politician with something nasty to say... It is hard to describe those words as anything but extreme."
Harsh... nasty... extreme. This is supposed to justify Markson hurling the A-bomb at Moselmane, calling him, in effect, from her public perch over at News Corpse, an anti-Semite. For Richo this is merely "free speech" and "commentary."
He puts in a plug for Markson:
"I want a society where strong debate with strong language is welcomed... I don't agree with all that is contained in the Markson commentary. Bob Carr, a friend of mine for more than 40 years, would have every right to be grievously offended by the column. Carr, though, would not call in the lawyers in a bid to shut Markson down. He knows debate is vital to democracy... Markson is tenacious and fearless. She can be irritating and sometimes can go too far. It should be noted, though, that the task of a good journalist is not to make us feel relaxed and comfortable. While I don't agree with much of her column, it would be a great shame if anyone succeeded in shutting her down. Markson is a good advertisement for modern journalism. It doesn't matter to me whether she has crossed some indiscernible legal line. This matter should not finish up in a court of law. Moselmane should rethink and back off. He would be far better to take Markson to lunch and debate the issue. You gave it, Shaoquett, now you have to man up and take it on the chin."
Is he for real? If Markson is "a good advertisement for modern journalism," then God help modern journalism!
It's not as if Richo is unfamiliar with Moselmane's background:
"Moselmane hails from a village in southern Lebanon. When the Israelis last ventured into Lebanon, I can vividly recall Moselmane's reaction when up to 12 children in his village died from aerial and artillery bombardment. Moselmane was quite emotional when discussing this with me. He vented his feelings about the Israeli army and the people who ordered them into his part of southern Lebanon. He would be less than human if the deaths of those children had no effect on his views about Israel and its inhabitants."
So Moselmane's got some skin in the vicious, expansionist games that Israel, as a hyper-aggressive, apartheid state, has been playing for decades in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Jordan, in Egypt, and in Iraq. And then, when he speaks out against the influence and reach of Israel's Australian cheer squad, who, in the words of Richo mate Bob Carr, derive their extraordinary power from "political donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists"* (such as Markson (rambammed: 2015) and Sheehan), he cops The Smear of Smears from Markson, who - and here's the rub - has no skin in the game whatever, other than to have been indoctrinated at some stage with the false Zionist notion that occupied - River to Sea - Palestine is her birthright as a Jew, a bizarre conceit she appears too thick or too full of herself to see through.
But I guess that's all a bit too subtle for Richo.
[*7.30 Report, 9/4/14]
Friday, January 18, 2013
The PM Who Put Her Job on the Line for Israel
Former Labor power broker Graham Richardson writes in today's Australian about Julia Gillard's failure to impose her reflexively pro-Israel stance on the parliamentary wing of her party in the context of Palestine's bid for observer status in the UN last November.
For Richardson, predictably, the real story of the rebellion in Labor ranks (encompassing both cabinet and caucus) essentially boils down to whether or not the Prime Minister is her own worst enemy. It is difficult, of course, to imagine a more searching analysis appearing in Murdoch's flagship. Still, although the Zionist ties that bind the Prime Minister are neither explored nor critiqued, Richardson's treatment of this singular event certainly invites discussion of them - hence my accompanying commentary:
"In Gillard's case it is easy to see her flaws and failings and judge her accordingly. There are, however, strengths she possesses and these cannot be disputed. On the negative side, her performance on the vote Australia was to cast at the UN on the admission of the Palestinian Authority with observer status provides a classic example. Her at times simplistic lack of political judgment was on display for all to see. When a prime minister sits around a table with her cabinet colleagues and one by one hears at least 10 of them tell her they do not support her position, then that PM has to know the game is up. Only two Victorians offered her succor and comfort. Senator Stephen Conroy and Bill Shorten, leaders of the Victorian Right, maintained the Israel right or wrong stance all the way. In the cabinet room, they were for all intents and purposes on their own." (Gillard's survival technique)
The Israel right or wrong stance? Here's the really big picture question that Richardson never gets around to asking: how is it that a blind, unquestioning allegiance to an apartheid bully on the other side of the globe has become a central feature of Labor's (and the opposition Liberal's) foreign policy position, the current crack in the bilateral consensus notwithstanding? And here's the small: What is Gillard's personal stake in this Israel right or wrong stance?
"The Victorian Right has always been at the epicentre of pro-Israeli thinking and simply can't bring themselves to ever say no to Israel. Bob Carr, with whom I have travelled through Israel, and who formed Israeli friendship groups in NSW, used to hold similar views."
This is beyond strange! Why is it that this faction, in particular, simply can't bring themselves to ever say no to Israel? While they can cast aside just about every principle Labor ever stood for, they can't say no to Israel - ever? What, as they say, gives here? Please explain, Richo.
"Carr has long harboured deep concerns about Israel's policy of allowing more and more settlements on the West Bank. For our Foreign Minister there is no possibility of peace in the Middle East without a two-state solution and he sees no hope of that if the settlements keep spreading. His views are widely shared within the cabinet room and beyond. Minister after minister concurred with Carr's summation and still the PM remained unmoved. Curiously enough the cabinet did not appear to challenge her assertion that she was binding them all to support her. Without a cabinet decision to back her up, and there was no chance of that happening, I cannot even imagine where the power she sought to exercise had sprung from. Gareth Evans, who was lobbying ministers furiously at the time, drew this to the attention of anyone who would listen. No one, with the possible exception of Carr, was moved to demur in any shape or form. While the cabinet met, the national Right convened and the Victorians wanted to bind the group behind the government's decision. Joel Fitzgibbon, the government whip, pointed out that the cabinet was still meeting so no one could say what the government's position was. Accordingly, the meeting broke up vowing to reconvene the next morning. The next morning, Carr again met Gillard and informed her that he would not vote for her proposition if a vote came in caucus. He was told in no uncertain terms what this would mean for his future."
So Carr, Australia's foreign minister, was threatened with the sack - because he was not prepared to kneel, like the Prime Minister, and kiss Israel's ring? And this isn't all over the ms media?
"She called in Anthony Albanese and asked him to ring around his supporters and shore up her position. Albanese told her it was too late and in any case he was in no mind to do so. Finally, with the caucus meeting under way, Gillard ran up the white flag. Had she not done so, her leadership was over that day. Kevin Rudd had played no role in this and yet he got closer to regaining the top job than at any time he had involved himself in the previous 12 months. This was a mess of the PM's own making and it shows she does not control her own destiny. Rudd cannot beat her but she could still defeat herself."
Gillard was prepared to risk her prime ministership, not over any point of principle, but over her blind devotion to the aforementioned apartheid bully? Is this not a most extraordinary state of affairs? Why aren't our pundits addressing this issue?
For Richardson, predictably, the real story of the rebellion in Labor ranks (encompassing both cabinet and caucus) essentially boils down to whether or not the Prime Minister is her own worst enemy. It is difficult, of course, to imagine a more searching analysis appearing in Murdoch's flagship. Still, although the Zionist ties that bind the Prime Minister are neither explored nor critiqued, Richardson's treatment of this singular event certainly invites discussion of them - hence my accompanying commentary:
"In Gillard's case it is easy to see her flaws and failings and judge her accordingly. There are, however, strengths she possesses and these cannot be disputed. On the negative side, her performance on the vote Australia was to cast at the UN on the admission of the Palestinian Authority with observer status provides a classic example. Her at times simplistic lack of political judgment was on display for all to see. When a prime minister sits around a table with her cabinet colleagues and one by one hears at least 10 of them tell her they do not support her position, then that PM has to know the game is up. Only two Victorians offered her succor and comfort. Senator Stephen Conroy and Bill Shorten, leaders of the Victorian Right, maintained the Israel right or wrong stance all the way. In the cabinet room, they were for all intents and purposes on their own." (Gillard's survival technique)
The Israel right or wrong stance? Here's the really big picture question that Richardson never gets around to asking: how is it that a blind, unquestioning allegiance to an apartheid bully on the other side of the globe has become a central feature of Labor's (and the opposition Liberal's) foreign policy position, the current crack in the bilateral consensus notwithstanding? And here's the small: What is Gillard's personal stake in this Israel right or wrong stance?
"The Victorian Right has always been at the epicentre of pro-Israeli thinking and simply can't bring themselves to ever say no to Israel. Bob Carr, with whom I have travelled through Israel, and who formed Israeli friendship groups in NSW, used to hold similar views."
This is beyond strange! Why is it that this faction, in particular, simply can't bring themselves to ever say no to Israel? While they can cast aside just about every principle Labor ever stood for, they can't say no to Israel - ever? What, as they say, gives here? Please explain, Richo.
"Carr has long harboured deep concerns about Israel's policy of allowing more and more settlements on the West Bank. For our Foreign Minister there is no possibility of peace in the Middle East without a two-state solution and he sees no hope of that if the settlements keep spreading. His views are widely shared within the cabinet room and beyond. Minister after minister concurred with Carr's summation and still the PM remained unmoved. Curiously enough the cabinet did not appear to challenge her assertion that she was binding them all to support her. Without a cabinet decision to back her up, and there was no chance of that happening, I cannot even imagine where the power she sought to exercise had sprung from. Gareth Evans, who was lobbying ministers furiously at the time, drew this to the attention of anyone who would listen. No one, with the possible exception of Carr, was moved to demur in any shape or form. While the cabinet met, the national Right convened and the Victorians wanted to bind the group behind the government's decision. Joel Fitzgibbon, the government whip, pointed out that the cabinet was still meeting so no one could say what the government's position was. Accordingly, the meeting broke up vowing to reconvene the next morning. The next morning, Carr again met Gillard and informed her that he would not vote for her proposition if a vote came in caucus. He was told in no uncertain terms what this would mean for his future."
So Carr, Australia's foreign minister, was threatened with the sack - because he was not prepared to kneel, like the Prime Minister, and kiss Israel's ring? And this isn't all over the ms media?
"She called in Anthony Albanese and asked him to ring around his supporters and shore up her position. Albanese told her it was too late and in any case he was in no mind to do so. Finally, with the caucus meeting under way, Gillard ran up the white flag. Had she not done so, her leadership was over that day. Kevin Rudd had played no role in this and yet he got closer to regaining the top job than at any time he had involved himself in the previous 12 months. This was a mess of the PM's own making and it shows she does not control her own destiny. Rudd cannot beat her but she could still defeat herself."
Gillard was prepared to risk her prime ministership, not over any point of principle, but over her blind devotion to the aforementioned apartheid bully? Is this not a most extraordinary state of affairs? Why aren't our pundits addressing this issue?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
A Myth Is Born 3
Colorful Labor identity, Graham (Whatever It Takes) Richardson, pronounces that the NSW Greens are so extreme they're practically an al-Qaida affiliate!:
"One thing they [the mob] worked out were the Greens. They were shoo-ins to win two lower house seats: Marrickville and Balmain. In the former, deputy premier Carmel Tebbutt ran a brilliant campaign... She was fortunate to have an opponent who could only be described as being on the very fringe of Australian society. Someone very easy to attack for being way too far out of the mainstream... The problem is that in NSW the [Greens] lurch further and further to the loony left in places and not even Brown can sell that." (NSW Labor has lost its base, & the plot, The Australian, 30/3/11)
Funny that. I wonder why, then, the Greens' 'fringe-dwelling' Fiona Byrne managed to pick up 48.3% of the after preferences* count in Marrickville. [*As of 30/3/11 with 83.5% of the vote counted.]
Does this mean that almost half the Marrickville electorate are loony lefties? And what's a loony leftie in Richo's book anyway? He doesn't say so, but might it not have something to do with the NSW Green's support for BDS? Well, if that was the decider in Marrickville, how come the virulently anti-BDS Liberal/Zionist candidate (as opposed to the merely opportunistically anti-BDS Tebbutt) picked up only 18.8% of the primary vote?
"One thing they [the mob] worked out were the Greens. They were shoo-ins to win two lower house seats: Marrickville and Balmain. In the former, deputy premier Carmel Tebbutt ran a brilliant campaign... She was fortunate to have an opponent who could only be described as being on the very fringe of Australian society. Someone very easy to attack for being way too far out of the mainstream... The problem is that in NSW the [Greens] lurch further and further to the loony left in places and not even Brown can sell that." (NSW Labor has lost its base, & the plot, The Australian, 30/3/11)
Funny that. I wonder why, then, the Greens' 'fringe-dwelling' Fiona Byrne managed to pick up 48.3% of the after preferences* count in Marrickville. [*As of 30/3/11 with 83.5% of the vote counted.]
Does this mean that almost half the Marrickville electorate are loony lefties? And what's a loony leftie in Richo's book anyway? He doesn't say so, but might it not have something to do with the NSW Green's support for BDS? Well, if that was the decider in Marrickville, how come the virulently anti-BDS Liberal/Zionist candidate (as opposed to the merely opportunistically anti-BDS Tebbutt) picked up only 18.8% of the primary vote?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)