National Security or National Surrender?

At last the ALP is coming to the rescue! I mean to say, what on earth would we do without these stalwarts of national security, as they variously stumble their way into any treaty that moves, handing Australian sovereignty to anyone with a European accent who asks for it (actually, any accent that isn't an American one).

Kim Beazley has urged the US to devise an Iraq exit strategy and called on the Howard Government to instantly move Australian diplomats in Baghdad to protect them.
Thanks so much for that, Kim. What ever would we do without your oh-so-earnest advice? I guess it's slightly better than the 'out by Christmas' gem, but may I suggest you throw in some detail of your own, rather than just harping from the sidelines (as usual)? But that's one of the evergreen problems with Labor. They open their mouths and demonstrate just how inadequate they would be as a Government, or they keep their traps firmly shut (because even they know how unpalatable their 'bugger Australia' policies are to the populace at large) and they come across as harping ninnies. It's a problem. Sucks to be a lefty these days, I guess.

Pledging a sharper and tougher approach by Labor. . .
Let me guess: a summit, followed by immediate surrender. . .

Mr Beazley said he was proud and excited to be given the chance to lead the party back to office.
I guess that'll be three strikes, then, given the last effort, Kim. I wonder what clangers he'll come up with this time? Like the Friday afternoon 'let them in' doorstop he gave over the Tampa (a boat load of people about whom we knew only one thing for sure, and that was that we didn't know who the hell they were), directly following which Labor's electoral stocks sank faster than the Titanic. Those pesky voters! How dare they have a better understanding of what national security actually means than the entire Labor party put together! Red necks, each and every one.

At his first press conference after being re-elected leader, Mr Beazley said he was determined to map out clear differences between Labor and the Government, particularly on national security.

Unfortunately, Kim, talking the talk means you also have to walk the walk, something Labor (and Beazley in particular) has, of recent times, conscientiously failed to do.

"What the Australian Government should say to the United States is, when this election's over, don't get involved in a long-running civil war in Iraq," he said.
Absolutely nothing to say here, other than, 'Keep it up, Kim'. This is looking better and better.

Mr Beazley said Australia had to be a straight-talking ally to the US, rather than being a compliant one.
Uh-huh, and he knows what has or has not been said? Oh - silly me - Labor's just so used to shooting its mouth off to anything with a note pad (or a Russian or Chinese accent) that it immediately assumes everyone else must do the same.

Seriously, though, when are these twits going to wake up?

Actually, I hope they never do. The idea of having old 'spineless' in the Lodge is frankly a bother. That goes for their entire crew.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them