Good research Andrew - but what exactly is your point?
Was Tony meant to know in 1986 that Brian Burke would be twice jailed for fraud and then investigated by the WA CCC?
As great a man as Tony Abbott is, I doubt that he is able to see in to the future.
Fair comment Anon 2.55, of course Abbott couldn't see into the future but nor could anyone else tell that the CCC was going to turn its draconian powers onto Brian Burke.
The political point is that no-one can predict the future and asserting that a failure to do so is a failure of judgment is patent nonsense.
My point about Abbott is that the transformation from boot-licking to butt-kicking is a remarkable one.
His description of Burke as the "Devil" I found particularly odious and unworthy of someone who professes faith in a higher being than the Abbott ego.
The simple fact is that Brian Burke was acquitted of all charges ultimately save one, a point you gloss over by saying he was "jailed twice for fraud."
This is like saying Lindy Chamberlain was "jailed for murder." True, but misleading. She was ultimately cleared after the trial that slotted her was found to be essentially rigged. It's the first case many criminal law students study, to help show them that the system is far from infallible.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Burke was slotted unfairly by juries in WA and has the successful appeals to prove it.
He - perhaps unwisely in retrospect - chose not to appeal the sole outstanding conviction of overclaiming $17,000 of travel expenses. His defence was a pretty good one, he filled out forms during 1986 and 1988 while a busy Premier and made a series of errors on them. How the Crown could prove he intended to steal money in those circumstances is beyond me and I believe it would have beyond any jury that hadn't been tainted by the highly prejudicial WA Inc. Royal Commission related propaganda of the time.
So when he's called a convicted fraudster that's what they're talking about. One conviction, almost certainly a dodgy onr involving travel expense claims. The term "convicted fraudster" are contemptibly designed to paint Burke into being a big-time crook of the Peter Foster kind. Sometimes the words we use can be true and yet convey a false meaning and this is certainly the case here.
Patriots will recall multiple Howard ministers quitting over dodgy travel expenses claims and none of them ended up in the clink. Why? Because none of them had engineered WA Inc., the state government's ultimately disastrous economic policy at the time.
Tony Abbott specifically praises Burke's economic policies including the heart of WA Inc., by referring approvingly to the government's use of businessmen as economic advisers.
He can run but he can't hide from the assessments he's made about Burke's policies and character. The Abbott of 1986 was probably not far off the mark. The Abbott we see now is just trying to score political points by bludgeoning a largely defenceless man. If he was capable of feeling shame, he should feel it in buckets over this, it's disgusting.
Simply, Abbott seeks to hold others to account for not being able to forsee CCC investigations, so we think we're more
"A Catholic with six children and a hefty mortgage, Burke shuns ideological and speaks in terms of a "sense of what is fair." He happily admits to pragmatism but has no time for those "pathetic" politicians who "make decisions that go solely to their own interests and not to what's right."
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAH oh, the ironing is delicious.
andrew once upon a time you sung the praises of abbott as if he was some shining beacon of faith in politics, this guy is a friggin nutter neo christian ,and he is an absolute liar so he should abstain from all aspects of politics and get some absolution for utter two faced bullsit he spins.Abbott and Sophie are wasters , they are the pondscum of politics with no integrity and questionable political skills. Sophie is the devil and abbott is a slithering snake they are the last people on earth that should point the finger at anyone and the first to stick the knife in.
as keating pointed out , this has become "an issue" for the sole reason that howard is starting to look desperate, he is looking like a "dessicated coconut" , less and less a leader and more and more like a lame liar thats losing his integrity and were all getting sick and tired of the bullsit and righteousness, they are rats and and spineless morons
I should never have ended the Harry Potter saga.
What with all this wizardry, evil and moral compromise I am sure there are another two or three blockbusters. Especially since that nice Mr Rudd can easily replace the current actor in the twink of an eye.
Burke's silence is deafening.
He could easily go a long way to ending this as a story by publicly stating that Kevie never sought any favours from him.
Liberals will still say "well he would say that, wouldn't he?" but Burke's refusal to come to Rudd's aid is far more damaging.
As for Rudd, his performance on the 7.30 Report was cringe worthy. "Yours truly", “yours truly”….”personal attack” blah, blah, blah…….. WTF was he thinking?
For Rudd to call Howard's attacks on him "personal" is a bit rich. What about Rudd's "personal" attacks on Howard re:
- Iraq AWB - you would think that John Howard personally signed cheques to Saddam - yet a publicly owned company, AWB was to blame - no evidence that Howard knew a thing (whether he should is another matter).
- Children Overboard – you would think that Johnny took the photos himself and digitally doctored them back at the bunker on the Hill - no evidence that Howard deliberately mislead over his discussion of the photos.
- Iraq Going to War – you would think that Generalissimo Giovani planted the idea to go to war in Bush’s head and personally paid Ahmed Chalabi and other ex pat Iraqis that produced much of the dodgy evidence re WOMD - no evidence that Howard or Blair had any idea that the WOMD were not present in Iraq.
"Personal" attacks, some based on genuine information, others of dubious veracity, happen in Australian politics all the time. Howard has been experiencing them since 1974.
The definition of “personal attack” has been defined by Rudd, Swan and Co as being so wide that any sentence containing Rudd’s name and a negative comment is a “personal attack” A few days a ago the ALP looked unbeatable. Now it looks like a desperate, grasping rabble.
Time for Rudd to grow up.
This is Serious Mum.
sophie is political wall paper, our very own side-show bob, abbot got too many punches to the head
Brian Burke - another typical shonky member of that mysoginistic, child abusing, medieval mens drag club. AKA the Roman Catholic Church.
Bob and Anon 5.48 are tragic anti-religious bigots
Commenting by HaloScan
