In which the pond dedicates a late arvo post to fatuous Phil and ancient Troy ...

 

One of the peculiarities of the lizard Oz is the way these climate science denialists are determined content recyclers, on a waste not, want not basis. If everybody was so canny, it's likely the planet would be cooling.

They really do like to use every scrap of every pig that comes their way.

Some hapless reptile is assigned to do a re-versioning of an opinion piece, while over on the extreme far right the opinion piece can also be viewed.

This doubling down is also a reminder that endless repetition is the modus operandi for the hive mind.

This day sorry Sarah draw the short straw.

Usually this sort of EXCLUSIVE rewrite would feature prominently in the "news" section, but Sarah came in well down the page ...

The war on China had suddenly swooped back on to the reptile radar, and sorry Sarah was one of the casualties ...

Lesser member of the Kelly gang, Joe, was on the case, as was Max, agonising yet again in the reptile way about AUKUS ... (apologies in advance, some days the archive is worse than having no archive at all)

The pond reckons when it comes to Gina being able to make massive amounts of moola flogging rare earths to China, the reptiles will quickly come to their senses.

Meanwhile, the pond was stuck with unsavvy Sarah ...

EXCLUSIVE
Former Liberal minister Philip Ruddock, left, and Opposition Leader Sussan Ley.
Ruddock urges Libs not to surrender to ALP on multiculturalism
by Sarah Ison

Sarah did her best with the flimsy material to make an omelette out of the sow's ear ...

The header: Philip Ruddock urges Libs not to surrender multiculturalism to Labor, Liberal luminary Philip Ruddock has issued a plea to the Coalition not to allow the concerns of MPs like Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Andrew Hastie to unfairly colour migration policy.

The caption: Former Liberal minister Philip Ruddock. Picture: Jason Edwards

Sarah struggled to turn it into a three minute read:

Liberal luminary Philip Ruddock has issued a plea to the Coalition not to allow concerns of MPs such as Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Andrew Hastie to colour migration policy, as Sussan Ley indicates she will soon unveil her party’s revamped policy platform.
The stark warning from the former attorney-general followed senior Liberal frontbencher James Paterson on Tuesday night urging the party against following the populism of conservative movements ofin the UK and the US, while arguing against surrendering the culture wars to Labor.
Senator Paterson insisted his intervention during the fractious period of Liberal Party introspection was aimed at “ideas, not personalities”. However, his language was seen as a clear rebuke of Mr Hastie and Senator Price for divisive comments while serving on Ms Ley’s frontbench.
Both Liberal MPs raised concern with the level of immigration, with Senator Price later back-pedalling on comments that suggested the intake of Indian migrants was beneficial to the government because the demographic tended to vote for Labor.
Writing in The Australian, Mr Ruddock said disagreements over multiculturalism needed to take place “within the bounds of respect and a shared commitment to Australia’s democratic institutions”.
“To my friends in the Coalition, I would say this: never forget that multiculturalism is not a Labor invention. It is rooted in the Liberal tradition of individual freedom and opportunity,” Mr Ruddock writes.
“From (Harold) Holt’s dismantling of the White Australia policy to (Michael) MacKellar’s principles of non-discrimination, inclusion has always been part of our story. When we retreat into fear or suspicion, we betray that inheritance.”

As a distraction, the reptiles dragged in hapless Susssan yet again, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley. Picture: NewsWire / Andrew Henshaw

Go lettuce ... 

Go Sarah, already bored with Phil, and so turning to the shameless Sharma for another Lib to summarise ...

The Coalition’s policy under Peter Dutton’s leadership was predicated on a promise to cut back permanent migration by 25 per cent, from 185,000 to 140,000, as part of the opposition leader’s 2024 budget reply. Ms Ley has maintained the position of her predecessor that the migration program is being mishandled by the ALP government, but is yet to release her policy plan.
In a speech to the Sydney Institute on Wednesday, moderate Liberal MP Dave Sharma warned “the only thing keeping our headline GDP in positive territory is high migration”.
“We are confusing population growth with prosperity – they are not the same thing,” he said in his speech, seen by The Australian.
“Our national pie is getting slightly bigger, but everyone’s slice is getting smaller.”
In his analysis of where the Coalition must focus its energy, Senator Sharma said the opposition needed to address the “competition deficit” facing Australia.
“We need a new wave of bold, structural reform, just like in the 90s and 2000s,” he said.
“We must cut the regulatory dead weight that is holding business back …. We must rein in out-of-control government spending that is starving the private sector of resources.
“We must roll out the red carpet for international investment, not the red tape (and) … we must champion new technology like AI, not shun it.”

At least that meant the shameless Sharma scored a snap, borrowed from the cardigan wearers, Dave Sharma. Picture: ABC

It turned out that was it for Phil, as Sarah tried every angle to add some fizz to her chore, from Jimbo to the beefy boofhead from down Goulburn way...

Senator Sharma, who returned to parliament this year after being ousted in the 2022 teal wave. declared that “the role of government is not to preside over a managed national decline”.
“We have time and the national will to act,” he said. “But it must be action, not just talk of future abundance, and endless government sponsored roundtables.”
While the Liberal Party’s election review is not due for months, Senator Paterson’s urging for the opposition’s “apology tour” to come to an end was met with a commitment by Ms Ley to unveil policies in coming weeks. “I can reassure everyone that we are, across my team, working on policy development,” she said in Melbourne.
“My shadow ministers are reviewing the policies, yes, but also bringing forward new ones and they’re going through all the processes that they should. Watch closely in the next few weeks, and there’ll be more policy announcements.”
Ms Ley said she was given a copy of Senator Paterson’s address to an audience in Sydney before it was delivered, remarking that it was an “excellent speech”. It follows Ms Ley bringing Senator Paterson back into the leadership group, having carved him out of the inner circle.
Ms Ley this week unveiled her third frontbench line-up since winning the battle for leadership against Angus Taylor, with newly appointed education spokesman Julian Leeser on Wednesday saying it was time to “listen more deeply” to Australians.
“Australia today is more educated, more urbanised, and more diverse than it was a generation ago,” he said in a speech to the Menzies Institute.
Mr Leeser, who quit Mr Dutton’s frontbench over disagreements on the party’s position on the Indigenous voice to parliament, argued that the “forgotten people” or quiet Australians had shifted in recent decades.
In comments suggesting the Coalition broaden its view on which voters to recapture, Mr Leeser said “the new forgotten people” included lawyers, accountants, aged care workers, pharmacists and public servants.
The Coalition came under fire for a policy unveiled ahead of the May 3 election that would have forced public servants back into the office, in a move that was quickly seized upon by Labor in its campaigning.

What a tragic exercise.

Might not Sarah have at least mentioned a key reason for the current reptile jihad on furriners and multiculturalism? You know, the devotion to Nigel, busy making plans, and King Donald, carrying out raids, persecuting people in the way Xians love to do ...

And so to Phil himself, and what a dismal outing it was ...

Couldn't someone in the retirement home have taken away the old duffer's keyboard?

The hapless, hopeless header: Don’t let division tear apart nation’s social compact, Each generation must decide whether multiculturalism will remain a living compact as our society becomes more complex and our global connections deepen.

Tear us apart? The pond was reminded immediately of the Joyless Division lyrics ...

When routine bites hard and ambitions are low
And resentment rides high, but emotions won't grow
And we're changing our ways, taking different roads
Then love, love will tear us apart again
Love, love will tear us apart again
Why is the bedroom so cold? You've turned away on your side
Is my timing that flawed? Our respect runs so dry
Yet there's still this appeal that we've kept through our lives
But love, love will tear us apart again
Love, love will tear us apart again

And so on, as the reptiles dragged in a snap: A citizenship ceremony at the Perth Convention Centre last February. Picture: Colin Murty

It was only a three minute read, so the reptiles said, but the reptiles decided they were was bored as the pond was, and loaded up Phil with endless AV distractions and promotions...

Australia has long prided itself on being one of the world’s most successful multicultural nations. But in recent years, that confidence has been tested. Conflicts overseas have echoed on our streets. Communities that once lived side-by-side now find themselves divided by events thousands of kilometres away.
I have seen this cycle before. Each generation of Australians must decide whether multiculturalism will remain a living compact or become an empty slogan.
When I first entered parliament in the 1970s, the word multiculturalism was still contentious. Many saw it as a challenge to the idea of a single Australian identity.
The policy that evolved, under both Liberal and Labor governments, was never about fragmenting the nation. It was about strengthening it through inclusion, shared responsibility, and respect for the institutions that hold us together.

Boring, and with a boring snap of Phil, always gormless, even in his hey day ... Then immigration minister Philip Ruddock welcomes new citizens during a Harmony Day citizenship ceremony outside Parliament House in Canberra in 2002. Picture: Ray Strange

The thing is, Phil is the sort of straw dog, the token wet, dragged in to keep the fuss, the jihad, the mindless crusade alive ...

As minister for immigration and multicultural affairs under John Howard, I came to see multiculturalism not as a statement of diversity but as a compact of citizenship, an understanding that newcomers share the rights of Australians and also the obligations: respect for law, parliamentary democracy, equality between men and women, freedom of religion and speech, and the peaceful resolution of differences.
Those principles served us well. They allowed Australia to absorb large numbers of migrants and refugees without the social fractures that have troubled other nations. But compacts endure only when both sides keep faith. Governments must set clear expectations and defend the rule of law; communities must ensure that cultural expression never slips into exclusion or antagonism.

How shameless did the reptile distractions get? 

They seized the chance to shove in the onion muncher, monarchist, Pom, blatherer about Anglo-Celts, the glories of the British empire, the importance of the Judaeo-Xian tradition, staunch defender of Western Civilisation, and all that jazz... Explore Australia's history is a landmark three-part Sky News documentary presented by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. From the ancient traditions of Arnhem Land to the bustling streets of modern Cabramatta, the series traces the pivotal moments that shaped Australia’s identity. Abbott embarks on a deeply personal journey, exploring the triumphs, struggles, and transformations that forged our nation, from Sydney Cove to the Eureka Stockade, and from early settlement to a thriving multicultural democracy. Spanning over three nights, this special event provides a powerful reflection on Australia’s past, its current challenges, and its vision for the future.

Sheesh, must it come to this?

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Speaking of that messiah, did correspondents catch up with Charlie Lewis in Crikey?

The enduring cult of Tony Abbott is in the archive, but it's a fun read, worth celebrating...

Catnip, bring on the messiah, the new Jesus, or is he just a naughty boy being pandered to by the Murdochians?

Sorry, any different port in a storm, especially when stuck in said storm with some more blather from wet philosopher Phil ...

In recent years, that balance has begun to fray. The tone of public debate has hardened. Social media has amplified division and rewarded outrage.
Identity has become a weapon rather than a bridge. And at times, governments have responded with hesitation, reluctant to restate the basic truths that multiculturalism is built upon.
Amid these tensions, there are some who wish to politicise the ­debate by suggesting Australians have a fear of becoming strangers in their own country. We, as a ­nation, must resist this flawed ­sentiment.
Australia’s multiculturalism did not arrive in the post-war decades; it dates back to colonisation, to a time when Indigenous Australians encountered waves of settlers, convicts, migrants and refugees who each added to the nation’s complex story. We have always been, in truth, a nation of others.
It is this diversity, not homogeneity, that has given us our strength, kept us young, and made us prosperous. Our openness to the world has been the source of our renewal.

How much worse could it get? 

Well, when reptiles get to sounding the depths, you will likely encounter simpleton Sharri - full disrespect - talking with the lying rodent... Former prime minister John Howard weighs in on the hot topic of immigration in Australia. “I’m strongly in favour of immigration, I think immigration has done wonderful things for this country,” Mr Howard told Sky News host Sharri Markson. “But when somebody comes to Australia, they’ve got to embrace Australian values. “I do think that we have made the mistake of emphasising the tribalism of multiculturalism, rather than the benefits of … an inclusive integrated society.”

Says the man who won an election by shamelessly fear mongering about furriners ...

Remember the glory days, AJN, 28th September 2001, Trove with better version ...

Those were the days ...AJN 16th April 1999 ...

Immigration on the Run
Prime Minister John Howard is getting tough with his ministers over immigration, both legal and illegal.
First there was the business last week of Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock’s failure to open Australia’s doors to refugees from Kosovo on humanitarian grounds — a lack of action which prompted protests from many quarters, including the Jewish community. This week Mr Howard again stepped in, setting set up a Prime Ministerial Task Force to override the authority of Justice and Customs Minister Amanda Vanstone, whose portfolio includes customs and border control and therefore responsibility for stopping the embarrassing arrivals of Chinese illegal immigrants in north Queensland, New South Wales and off the West Australian coast.
We had the spectacle of Mr Ruddock having to stand alongside Mr Howard at a specially-called media conference while the PM announced that, against Mr Ruddock’s advice, Cabinet had decided to give 4000 Kosovars temporary asylum in Australia. The day before, Mr Ruddock had announced what he described as “a generous and appropriate response” to the crisis. Visitors to Australia from the former Yugoslav republic would, after consideration on a case-by-case basis, be allowed to stay until it was safe to go home.
The Prime Minister announced he was changing immigration policy to allow refugees in temporarily, with special legislation to ensure that they could not obtain permanent sanctuary. He said that what Mr Ruddock had previously announced was “utterly consistent with the government’s position and policy”; but what he was now announcing was a special response to a special situation, separate from the normal refugee and humanitarian program. Mr Ruddock, he said, would “no doubt say something about that”. Mr Ruddock said nothing.
Unpublicised and untelevised was the Prime Minister’s tetchy response to questioning about what prompted the reversal. It was as if he considered journalists were spoiling a glorious occasion to display his humanity by probing for details of the government’s change of mind, the planning of the operation and possible consequences of allowing the refugees in only temporarily.
When a journalist said: “Mr Ruddock argued that people on temporary status were unlikely to go back”, Mr Howard responded: “Well, I haven’t read every single thing Mr Ruddock has said and
Mr Ruddock will speak for himself”. Mr Ruddock remained silent. “I completely endorse in every way his [Mr Ruddock’s] handling of the situation,” Mr Howard said. “We had a discussion about it, we thought about it long and hard, and we decided that this was the right thing to do. If you want to spend the next half-hour asking questions about what
Mr Ruddock said, or thought, or did before today, go ahead. But I won’t be here to answer them because I think the quality of the decision and the appropriateness of the decision that has been taken is the right thing.”
Negative responses to questions about the time the refugees would be allowed to stay in Australia — initially three months, but renewable, depending on developments in Kosovo — revealed how much the decision had been taken on the run. “Let’s take one thing at a time,” the PM said when asked what would happen if the Balkan situation was not resolved quickly. “I’m not prepared to speculate what the situation will be in three weeks, let alone three months.”
Mr Ruddock never got to say a word. Instead, he issued a one page statement which by then was old news.
Three days later, when UN High Commissioner for Refugees Sadako Ogata called a suspension to plans for Australia, the US and Canada to accept refugees while the UN reconsidered the need to send refugees away from Europe, it was left to Mr
In Mr Ruddock’s department, where the refugee crisis had diverted officials from normal duties into a turmoil of hurried meetings, there was a collective sigh of relief at Ms Ogata’s decision. Nevertheless, a team of immigration officials, interpreters and UNHCR representatives is on standby to fly to Skopje in Macedonia if the UN decides to resume evacuation to countries outside Europe.
Meanwhile, immigration and customs officials have had to face the increasingly embarrassing problem of unwelcome people stepping ashore from rusty ships, fishing boats and other vessels, evading those responsible for surveillance of Australia’s 37,000 km of coastline.
This was not an occasion for a prime ministerial media conference, and Senator Vanstone, who is overseas, did not have to stand by while the PM damned with faint praise. The undetected landing closer to home, at Nambucca Heads, on the NSW coast, rather than the more distant happenings over the past 10 years in the Northern Territory, north-west Western Australia and north Queensland, required action. The Prime Minister put out a five paragraph statement saying the NSW landing raised “serious issues regarding Australia’s coastal surveillance arrangements which require a prompt response”.
He put his top public servant, secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Max Moore-Wilton (known as “Max the Axe”), in charge of a high-powered task force, including defence, immigration, customs and intelligence heads, to report by June on the ability of the 14 specially-equipped Coastwatch aircraft to cover Australia’s coastline and the interaction between Coastwatch, defence and intelligence.
FOOTNOTE: Mr Ruddock, in an “open letter to all media outlets” this week, called for more precise use of the word “refugee”. The Kosovars should be called “asylum seekers, not refugees, he said. The UN defines a refugee as someone outside their country and unwilling or unable to return because of a “well-founded” fear of persecution. The Chinese clandestinely arriving in Australia were “unlawful arrivals”.

Meanwhile, back in the present, the always dithering Phil dithered on ...

Today, more than half of Australians (51.5 per cent) are migrants themselves or children of migrants. That is an extraordinary statistic and a truly remarkable achievement. Nowhere else on earth can claim a multicultural nation of such scale and cohesion. Our success is not accidental; it is the product of deliberate policy, grounded in fairness, equality and shared purpose.
It is not enough to say that diversity is our strength. Diversity becomes strength only when it is anchored in shared values. Those values are not abstract. They are the product of generations who believed that freedom, fairness, and civic duty define what it means to be Australian.

The reptiles produced another snap of the lying rodent, Then prime minister John Howard watches Aboriginal dancers during an Australia Day citizenship ceremony in Canberra in 2006. His wife Janette is partly obscured at right. Picture: AAP

Phil returned to his glory days... you know the aforementioned communication and confidence...

During my time as minister, I saw multiculturalism tested by moments of international tension: the Kosovo crisis, conflicts in the Middle East, debates over asylum seekers. Each time, the key was communication and confidence. We worked directly with community leaders, listened to concerns, and made clear that loyalty to Australia was never in conflict with pride in one’s heritage.
That approach still holds. Governments today must speak to all Australians with candour, affirming that our strength lies in unity under one rule of law. The temptation to politicise culture, to seek short-term advantage from division, is corrosive.
Multiculturalism also requires institutional support. That means investing in English-language learning, citizenship education, and programs that bring communities together in practical ways in schools, local councils, and workplaces. It is in these ordinary settings, not on social media or at rallies, that cohesion is built.

Then it was off to the dog botherer, having a chat with philosopher Phil, making his Sophie's choice ... Former immigration minister Philip Ruddock warns the abolishing of temporary protection visas will embolden people smugglers. A group of people, reportedly Chinese nationals, were located in remote Western Australia on the weekend. The group has since been sent to Nauru. The boat's arrival is understood to be the third illegal maritime landing on Australian soil in under six months. “In my view, we need to be recognising that there are 130 million or so people displaced around the world; we can’t take them all,” Mr Ruddock told Sky News host Chris Kenny. “The places should be available to those who need help most, not to those who have got the money to pay a smuggler.”

And that, small mercy, just about did it ...

To my former colleagues on the Labor side, I would say: remember that tolerance without expectation is fragility. Multi­cultural policy must be grounded in civic responsibility, not in symbolism alone.
And to my friends in the Coalition, I would say this: never forget that multiculturalism is not a Labor invention. It is rooted in the Liberal tradition of individual freedom and opportunity. From Holt’s dismantling of the White Australia policy to Mackellar’s principles of non-discrimination, inclusion has always been part of our story. When we retreat into fear or suspicion, we betray that inheritance.
Multiculturalism does not mean we all agree, or that differences disappear. It means that disagreement happens within the bounds of respect and a shared commitment to Australia’s democratic institutions. It is a living compact, renewed by every generation that chooses to call this country home.
As our society becomes more complex and our global connections deepen, we must protect that compact more fiercely than ever. It is what allows us to be a nation of many stories but one future. Our success has never been measured by how many cultures we can count, but by how well we live those values together.
Philip Ruddock is Australia’s longest-serving former federal minister for immigration and multicultural affairs.

Let's not forget he also held the portfolio for supreme windbagger, and jabbering gasbagger supreme ...

Finally the pond just had to know why ancient Troy clambered back into his time machine, and offered yet another example of the reptiles' Gough fixation, and why the reptiles had excitedly dubbed it an EXCLUSIVE in their news splash ... so and thus ...

EXCLUSIVE
US alliance was never at risk: Kissinger
By Troy Bramston

This the reptiles are getting excited about?

It didn't take long to work out, it being just another three minute read, so the reptiles said, meaning that all this really should only involve in reptile total terms, a waste of a late arvo nine minutes ...

The header: US alliance never in danger despite Whitlam-Nixon spat, Kissinger revealed, In an interview before his death, Henry Kissinger downplayed suggestions the US-Australia alliance was ever materially at risk during Gough Whitlam’s government.

The caption for the only snap in the entire piece: Gough Whitlam meets then US president Gerald Ford and secretary of state Henry Kissinger in October 1974.

Outside Watergate and 'Nam, the pond has never had much interest in what war criminals of the Kissinger kind did, and this was no different ...

Perhaps in an idle moment it might be possible to wonder if some reptile took to scribbling in the year 2525 "US alliance never in danger despite the madness of King Donald, and despite reptile hysteria about same", but even sci fi - usually a comfort - failed to excite the pond. 

Perhaps it was the nagging, distracting thought that there had to be something else behind this ancient Troy venture, a feeling that lingered through the whole piece ...

The Australia-US alliance was never at serious risk during the Whitlam government, revealed former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, and disagreements with Gough Whitlam were as much a factor of personality differences as they were about policy.
In one of his last interviews in the year before his death, Kissinger said differences such as that over the bombing of Vietnam and outbursts from Whitlam and his ministers caused concern in the White House but there was never any concerted move to cease ­military co-operation or end intelligence sharing.
“It’s conceivable (that) people said, ‘This kind of rhetoric should be penalised’,” Kissinger recalled in mid-2022. “It never reached an operational point. And I think it is inconceivable today.”
The interview with Kissinger is disclosed in a new biography of Whitlam that also includes newly declassified records regarding Australia-US relations and a further interview with his special assistant, Winston Lord, who served as US ambassador to China.
It comes as Anthony Albanese prepares to meet Donald Trump at the White House on Monday, with the future of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, the punitive tariff regime imposed by the US, and access to critical rare-earth minerals all on the agenda.
The Nixon and Ford administrations, in which Kissinger also served as national security adviser, were more concerned about “extreme left” ministers such as treasurer Jim Cairns and attorney-general Lionel Murphy than about Whitlam and defence minister Lance Barnard.
In the 1950s and ’60s, Whitlam had defended the alliance within the Labor Party, and newly available State Department and CIA records show they believed he was a “moderate” and could be relied upon to maintain intelligence ­facilities such as Pine Gap, despite his desire for a more “independent” foreign policy.
However, Kissinger did note that Whitlam “expressed the need to challenge the US on overall strategic issues” which caused some consternation in the White House, and was “heavily influenced by European left-wing opinions” which led to “some hostility” in relations.
Kissinger emphasised that his and Nixon’s verbal assaults on Whitlam recorded on secret tapes and contained in memos should not be misunderstood as literal threats given he often spoke figuratively to blow off steam.
Kissinger said he routinely ­ignored Nixon’s tirades.
“(I) tried to discuss these disagreements to see whether there could be found some way (Whitlam) could stick by his positions and Nixon would continue with his,” Kissinger said.
“There were some situations where we thought we were coming close to a kind of consensus, but it would always blow up again. But this was as much a question of personality as it was a question of specific issues.”
Mr Lord was on the National Security Council staff and later director of policy planning at the State Department. He could not recall any discussions with Kissinger or Nixon about downgrading or ending the alliance with Australia and would be “astounded” if it were ever seriously contemplated.
“Australia was regarded as a close ally and partner in the ­Pacific despite differences on some issues,” Mr Lord said. “For Nixon, issues and national interests were much more important than personal chemistry.” He added: “Nixon and Kissinger acted on national security interests, not personal pique.”
In July 1974, Kissinger approved National Security Study Memorandum 204 regarding policy towards Australia. That memo, first revealed by The Australian in December 1995, directed a study into whether to continue but also expand defence facilities in Australia. It underscored concerns about the Whitlam government.
NSSMs were routine, with 206 initiated by the Nixon White House, and an earlier memo in May 1971 during Billy McMahon’s government also directed a review be undertaken into treaty arrangements and defence facilities in Australia and New Zealand.
When NSSM 204 was completed, no department or agency recommended removing defence facilities or ending intelligence sharing. The view of National Security Council staff, working closely with Kissinger and Lord, was to actually “expand” defence co-operation with Australia.
The study found: “Despite some rhetorical excesses, the Whitlam government’s foreign policy behaviour has been more in accord with US policy than otherwise.” A memo earlier that year referencing “US bases in Australia” concluded Whitlam and Barnard “could be counted upon to defend their existence strongly”.

Oh sorry, the pond nodded off there.

Ancient Troy also dragged in the lying rodent, who rarely hit the pitch, and the French clock devotee, a sun god to some ...

Luckily that was about it ...

Former prime ministers Paul Keating and John Howard, MPs during the Whitlam government, rejected suggestions the Australia-US alliance was ever seriously at risk.
Mr Keating, also a minister in the Whitlam government, said the defence facilities in Australia were of critical importance to the US during the Cold War.
“The alliance was never materially in danger in the Whitlam government,” he said.
“They regarded Gough as a sort of friendly local stamping his foot on some matters – to be somewhat abhorred, but not to be worried (about).”
Mr Howard agreed. “I never saw any evidence that they seriously put the alliance under review and I don’t think they ever would have,” he said.
“We were close and there’s a whole history to the alliance.”

So it was all a mindless reptile fuss back in the day?

Is it all a mindless reptile fuss now?

Who knows?

Who cares, what the pond really wanted to know was what was this rehashing was really all about?

Quelle surprise.

It was just a chance for ancient Troy to do an onion muncher, and promote his new book ...and wouldn't you know it, he's a HarperCollins man ...

Troy Bramston’s Gough Whitlam: The Vista of the New is published by HarperCollins on October 28.

Oh just give the pond a Luckovich to round out the day ...