last night (25/10/10) Howard was in brilliant porkie mode... He told bullshit galore... When he affirmed that Bush never claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, I fell off my chair, lost a shoe and apparently, from my lounge room, it landed in the studio...

Never get the truth interfere with a good story.

A Hunter Valley man is making no apologies for hurling his shoes at John Howard during last night's Q&A program.

Peter Gray threw his shoes at Mr Howard while the former prime minister was defending his decision to send Australian troops into Iraq.

"I did it so there was a chance that thousands of people, tens of thousands of people, in the rest of the world, particularly in the Middle East, could see that not every Australian was behind the decision to invade and rule in the country of Iraq," Mr Gray said.

"I did it for tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dead and those that are still living."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/26/3048149.htm

----------------------------

Gus: my hat to Peter Gray. With ALL his answers Johnnee took us for fools... But eventually he fouled himself by saying:

"It's all very well to sneer, but if you have evidence - material presented to you - indicating that those weapons do exist and you ignore that and subsequently they are used against you, then you have every right to be condemned as having neglected the interests of the country,"

Poor Johnnee: "neglected the interests of the country?"... Rot galore.... There were no threats to Australia from Iraq — direct or indirect.

WE knew the evidence of WMDs in Iraq was rather flimsy at best and total crap at worse. In the comfort of our lounge rooms, we knew it was a lot of codswallop. So how come an educated man like John Howard tells us this shit and how do we know it's crap? When the first rumours of invasion of Iraq came up in 2001-2, we knew it was a crock because contrary to what Blair, Bush and Rattus were lying about we ALSO HAD strong evidence to the contrary (see this site for those)... We knew via many sources that the CIA and other "intelligence" organisms in the UK and the USA were collecting (fabricating) "evidence" that did not stack up.

And best of all, as J. C Masterman, Master of Spies, tells us:

..If the word "Military Intelligence " are flung at me, I respond immediately with "Valmy". Though only a canonade and not a battle, Valmy was a turning point in the history of Europe. The Duke of Brunswick, invading Revolutionary France, turned back—"he did not know what was on the other side of the hill."

   There is the classic example of the failure of military intelligence—the failure to know... ...the function of an intelligence service is to "know"—to know what are the intentions of the enemy, to know his plans and resources, the disposition of his troops and their morale.

(J. C. Masterman was the leader of the Double-Cross System in England during WWII.)

The SHEER FACT that the US were telling us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction but did not know where these were, TELLS US either Saddam was a formidable enemy that it would be very foolish to attack the way the US did OR that the commanders and the US government knew that Saddam had zip and was going to be a pushover... We knew — and Johnnee, Blair and Bush would have been silly fools not to know either — which it was: Saddam had ZIP.

Blair, Bush and Howard LIED big time and used a compliant public and private media to promote their lies.

Of course, the foot-soldiers were not in on the scam, though their generals had to be in on it...

The foot soldiers would have been shitting themselves at the prospect of nerve gas, chemical and bacterial warfare, without realising that they — with their depleted uranium bullets and white phosphorus bombs — were the agents of a chemical and dirty-nuke war.

The alarm in the ranks of our brave SAS should have started to ring LOUD AND CLEAR when in their bravest fortnight BEFORE the invasion, they were sent on a dangerous mission to sabotage "fixed weapon of mass destruction factories" and the only one they got was a cement-making outfit.

According to one military report (citation to come), this cement factory was "heavily-guarded" behind a fortified wall (Saddam did not trust some element of the Iraqi population) and our brave (way outnumbered!!!) SAS soldiers decided to call for US airforce reinforment. But NO BOMBING was ordered (that would have been too overt and bloody BEFORE the war), only a smart LOW flyover of the factory, to give the "illusion of bombing" with the strong double "BOOM" typical of flying beyond the speed of sound... By then, everyone was panic-striken and got out of the fortified compound. The SAS disarmed the soldiers and send them on their way into the desert. They did not have "facilities" nor the orders to "make prisoners"... No-one was hurt... When the SAS entered the compound they discovered it was a typical cement-making factory. NOTHING ELSE.

At this stage, even this late late stage, this incident should have awaken the soldiers that their "military intelligence" was CRAP. PURE CRAP!... In the same vein as the crap "intelligence" that was fed to Hans Bix and his weapons inspectors...

At that stage though, had Saddam got weapons of mass destruction, and the "allies" were still unable to find them before an invasion, it would have been extremely foolish to attack. The first official "attack" by the US was to bomb a restaurant in Bagdad...

The Liars!!!!!!!

Andrew Wilkie was the only intelligence officer IN THE WORLD brave enough to sink his career by spilling the beans on this dubious "intelligence" about Iraq. ALL THE OTHERS "intelligence officers" ARE LIARS. THEY LIED (did not tell the truth) conveniently for governmental porkied purposes...

Bush, Blair and Howard should be facing a war crime tribunal.

And here is a reminder of downer's interpretation of the so-called CIA stuff up analysis after the invasion. Of course this interpretation was a full-blown cover-up of the secret way the CIA was doing double-cross disinformation on the public at large via the White House (filling requests), via the media lapping the biffo and a pitiful exposé by Colin Powell at the United Nations. The whole lot including the report on the failures was a fudge...

A senior Opposition senator has described the Iraq war as a debacle that has made the war in Afghanistan harder.

South Australian Senator and former finance minister Nick Minchin made the remarks in the parliamentary debate on Australia's involvement in the Afghanistan war.

The conflict has claimed the lives of 21 Australian soldiers.

Senator Minchin, a member of the National Security Committee of Cabinet from 2001 until 2007, says he was seriously disturbed in the lead up to the Iraq war by the significant and obvious battle going on in the US administration about the issue.

He says his doubts about US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld were deep and his "heart sank" when the cabinet was told the US had decided to invade.

He says Australia had to support its ally, but he regrets Australia was not more successful in persuading the US to focus on Afghanistan.

Senator Minchin says none of those sitting around the Cabinet table back then would have contemplated that Australia would still be part of the Afghanistan coalition now.

But he says what has made Afghanistan a more difficult situation is what he describes as the West's preoccupation with Iraq.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/26/3048934.htm

----------------------

Gus: I am annoyed beyond punching his lights out. His "regrets" are a bit like a catholic confession of sin, knowing bloody well a sin is committed at the time of action... When we elect these monkeys, we expect they'd be more intelligent and more savvy than to acquiesce going to war on a whim without proper analysis or even common sense. Read the above notes and cartoons...

Former prime minister John Howard says former colleague Nick Minchin never discussed with him his concerns over the Iraq war.

In a speech tabled to the Senate yesterday, Senator Minchin, who was part of Mr Howard's cabinet, described the Iraq war as a "debacle" that made fighting the conflict in Afghanistan harder.

Senator Minchin said his "heart sank" when the cabinet was told the US would be invading Iraq and he regretted the government did not do more to get the US to focus on Afghanistan.

In responses to questions at the National Press Club today, Mr Howard said he did not remember Senator Minchin talking to him about it.

"I have read his speech and it implies that we were trying to persuade the Bush administration not to go ahead with the military action against Iraq - that's not correct," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/27/3049872.htm?section=justin

-------------------

see comment above this one and toons at top and everybloodywhere...

David Hicks' book Guantanamo: My Journey was released last week. Unfortunately, in a media fuelled culture obsessed with judgment rather than truth or evidence, important questions are never asked let alone answered.

Whether or not you believe David Hicks' version of his own story is irrelevant. Since 2001 the low brow focus on whether or not "Hicks had it coming" has successfully diverted attention away from fundamental issues of legal and political importance. It's been so effective, in fact, that it enabled Howard, Downer and Ruddock to disregard habeas corpus, rules of law and of due process, and four Geneva Conventions.

The end result - an unprecedented abuse of public office to the detriment of an Australian citizen - is unforgivable. Such acts of political bastardry will never be seen as the acts of principled leaders, and certainly not of statesmen.

David Hicks has now told his story of the privations and physical and mental suffering he had to endure as a political pawn. But without detracting from that, is not the real story how Howard and the members of his regime, elected representatives of a supposedly free and democratic society, seem to have gotten away with ignoring or dismissing such fundamental legal principles?

Why this occurred, who was responsible, who needs to be held accountable and how it can be prevented from happening again, are questions that should be occupying the mind of every Australian.

Sir Anthony Mason and Geoffrey Lindell noted in 2007 "...a disturbing modern trend under which governments and the media feel increasingly free to prejudge and generate a climate of adverse publicity about persons accused of committing serious criminal offences.  This represents a serious undermining of the presumption of innocence...".

Why would any reasonable professional journalist or politician with an ounce of integrity do it?

On page 382 of his book Hicks says "...Mori then relayed a message to me that had originated in Australia. John Howard told one of his staffers who told Mori to tell me that under no circumstances would he let me return to Australia without my entering a guilty plea...".

Hicks v Howard

Former US President George W Bush still has "a sickening feeling" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, US media report.

The revelation comes in his memoir, "Decision Points", set to be published next week.

He also reveals that he temporarily considered replacing Vice President Dick Cheney, calling him the "Darth Vader of the administration".

But he has no comment on his successor in the White House, Barack Obama.

The 64-year-old former president defends his decision to invade Iraq in his autobiography, which was obtained in advance by the New York Times.

He argues that Iraqi citizens are better off without the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, whom he calls a "homicidal dictator", adding the US is also better off without a Mr Hussein pursuing biological or chemical weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11680239

--------------------

Gus: what a lot of crap... This Bushit "memoir" leaves me with a sickening feeling...

I will post again here what I posted above (see also other places on this site) :

...

And best of all, as J. C Masterman, Master of Spies, tells us:

..If the word "Military Intelligence " are flung at me, I respond immediately with "Valmy". Though only a canonade and not a battle, Valmy was a turning point in the history of Europe. The Duke of Brunswick, invading Revolutionary France, turned back—"he did not know what was on the other side of the hill."

   There is the classic example of the failure of military intelligence—the failure to know... ...the function of an intelligence service is to "know"—to know what are the intentions of the enemy, to know his plans and resources, the disposition of his troops and their morale.

(J. C. Masterman was the leader of the Double-Cross System in England during WWII.)

The SHEER FACT that the US were telling us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction but did not know where these were, TELLS US either Saddam was a formidable enemy that it would be very foolish to attack the way the US did OR that the commanders and the US government knew that Saddam had zip and was going to be a pushover... We knew — and Johnnee, Blair and Bush would have been silly fools not to know either — which it was: Saddam had ZIP.

Blair, Bush and Howard LIED big time and used a compliant public and private media to promote their lies.

Of course, the foot-soldiers were not in on the scam, though their generals had to be in on it...

The foot soldiers would have been shitting themselves at the prospect of nerve gas, chemical and bacterial warfare, without realising that they — with their depleted uranium bullets and white phosphorus bombs — were the agents of a chemical and dirty-nuke war.

The alarm in the ranks of our brave SAS should have started to ring LOUD AND CLEAR when in their bravest fortnight BEFORE the invasion, they were sent on a dangerous mission to sabotage "fixed weapon of mass destruction factories" and the only one they got was a cement-making outfit.

According to one military report (citation to come), this cement factory was "heavily-guarded" behind a fortified wall (Saddam did not trust some element of the Iraqi population) and our brave (way outnumbered!!!) SAS soldiers decided to call for US airforce reinforment. But NO BOMBING was ordered (that would have been too overt and bloody BEFORE the war), only a smart LOW flyover of the factory, to give the "illusion of bombing" with the strong double "BOOM" typical of flying beyond the speed of sound... By then, everyone was panic-striken and got out of the fortified compound. The SAS disarmed the soldiers and send them on their way into the desert. They did not have "facilities" nor the orders to "make prisoners"... No-one was hurt... When the SAS entered the compound they discovered it was a typical cement-making factory. NOTHING ELSE.

At this stage, even this late late stage, this incident should have awaken the soldiers that their "military intelligence" was CRAP. PURE CRAP!... In the same vein as the crap "intelligence" that was fed to Hans Bix and his weapons inspectors...

At that stage though, had Saddam got weapons of mass destruction, and the "allies" were still unable to find them before an invasion, it would have been extremely foolish to attack. The first official "attack" by the US was to bomb a restaurant in Bagdad...

The Liars!!!!!!!

Andrew Wilkie was the only intelligence officer IN THE WORLD brave enough to sink his career by spilling the beans on this dubious "intelligence" about Iraq. ALL THE OTHERS "intelligence officers" ARE LIARS. THEY LIED (did not tell the truth) conveniently for governmental porkied purposes...

Bush, Blair and Howard should be facing a war crime tribunal.

Liz Hannan SMH 17 November 2010

He is the nation's second-longest-serving prime minister - for 11 years its First Tracksuit, an avowed lover of sport.

He stood ready to serve cricket or rugby league, each of which is craving leadership - but both shut the door on John Howard.

Three months ago, the International Cricket Council named its new vice-president, the man who will ascend to the presidency in 2012. It seemed it would be Howard. It wasn't.

In coming weeks, the National Rugby League is due to reveal its inaugural and much anticipated independent commission. Howard should be on it. It's long odds he will be. Which raises the question: is the sport that labradors fear, the game that brought us the Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal, in such good shape there is no room at the table for a man such as he?

...

You don't have to agree with Howard's policies to accept his credentials as a leader and administrator. He would bring credibility to any sporting code.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/only-a-bad-sport-would-say-no-to-john-howard-20101116-17vr8.html

-----------------------

Gus: Ms Liz Hannan... BOLLOCKS!!!

John Howard, the little runt, only got to where he was by lying his way to the top. He lied to go to war in Iraq. An administrator he is not. He should face a war crime tribunal, (but this won't happen) so the best option for everyone is to let him disappear into oblivion. To have him administer a sport would be a disgrace, even to sports where the players are a disgrace. The Cricket Council did the right thing by rejecting Rattus. May the National Rugby League do the same. 

Former prime minister Paul Keating has likened ABC TV's Q&A program to the Punch and Judy show, saying he wouldn't be seen dead on it.

Fronting a Brisbane audience to promote his new book last night, Mr Keating said Q&A sometimes had reasonable panellists but often featured a "ragtag" bunch.

Mr Keating questioned whether government ministers should even participate in the weekly current affairs-focused show fronted by Tony Jones, saying they sometimes shared a stage with people "of no note whatsoever".

Former prime minister John Howard has been appointed a member of the Order of Merit by Queen Elizabeth.

The Order of Merit is a special mark of honour for "exceptional distinction in the arts, learning, sciences and other areas such as public service".

Unlike the New Year's Honours List announced yesterday, which is chosen by government officials, appointments to the Order of Merit are given at the discretion of the monarch.

Mr Howard joins nine other Australians to receive the honour, including Sidney Nolan and Dame Joan Sutherland.

There are only 24 living individuals from Commonwealth countries in the order at any time, as well as additional foreign recipients admitted on an honorary basis.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-01/former-pm-john-howard-appointed-a-member-of-the-order-of-merit/3754100

Obviously, Johnnee Rattus knew how to wash his hands after dishing the crap he instigated... Everyone remembers his unconditional support for an illegal war, for bashing workers and the fiddles with many non-core doozies (pure lies)... The queen of course can be forgiven for forgetting all this whatever smelly stuff — which we have not...

This site was primarily dedicated to fight Rattus and his devious (though sometimes clever) mind, as a branch of the "Not Happy, John" precise exposé by Margot Kingston. But, since, we've fallen into the trap of fart jokes and silly satire, as the world has gone completely arse up. Meanwhile many rich people have lined their pockets with moneys from our future and new political brats have come up the ranks ...

We're still fighting.

See toon at top...

The Queen has appointed Australia’s former conservative Prime Minister John Howard to the Order of Merit. This is an exclusive club of just 24.

Margaret Thatcher is also a member.

Any club that has Howard and Thatcher as members ….

The appointment is for Howard’s ‘exceptional distinction in the arts, learning, sciences and other areas such as public service’.

His main distinction in the arts, learning and sciences was to attack them, denigrate them and underfund them. That was presumably his outstanding public service.

This too to a man who just a few weeks ago was dissing the science of climate change and praising Ian Plimer’s new book of global warming ignorance.

The one percent needs its heroes and rewards. This award shows the rest of the one percent a success from the past and suggests possible options in addressing the problems of capitalism.

‘See,’ this appointment says, ‘John Howard’s neoliberalism is a good precedent to follow. Attack unions. Attack public services. Attack refugees. Attack and kill people in wars for imperialism in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Accelerate the shift in wealth from labour to capital.’

Every report I have read says that this is an award solely in the preserve of the Queen, the one percent’s royal. This is presumably to stress that it wasn’t the Gillard Labor Government who recommended him for the appointment. But don’t mistake the surface differences for the underlying agreement.

The current Gillard Labor Government has already learnt the message this Order of Merit sends out. Neoliberalism is part of Labor’s DNA, and has been since 1983. 

Gillard and co don’t need baubles from the Queen to tell them how they should rule for the one percent. They are doing it right now.

From the point of view of the bourgeoisie John Howard was a very successful Prime Minister for them. He followed down the path laid for him by Hawke and Keating. He has in turn been followed by Rudd and Gillard.

Gillard Labor is now reaping the working class resentment that 30 years of neoliberalism, union class collaboration and Labor’s neoliberal failures in power have built up. The irony is that the other party of neoliberalism will benefit from this.

That will occur until such time as we build a mass revolutionary socialist workers’ party in Australia able to influence and in some cases lead the political debate and class struggle, and ultimately lead a resurgent and powerful working class acting as a class for itself to power.

Then there will be no need for Orders of Merit or Orders of Lenin or royalty or the one percent because we will all be recognised in our work for our contribution to a truly democratic society that organises production to satisfy human need.

C’mon, John Howard Deserves His Order Of Merit

Yes Gus, once a "rattus", always a "rattus" .....

On the first Monday of the new year, on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, former Prime Minister John Howard was pictured below a heading which said that he had been 'honoured for Queen and Country.' Such a tribute – he had been made a member of the British Crown's Order of Merit - belies the man's record.

Even if we were to ignore Howard's leadership over issues such as his hostility towards the Australian prisoners in Guantanamo, Australia's inclusion in the war in Iraq, plus the Howard government's cruel treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, I wonder what the Queen had in mind when she rewarded this man.

Her Majesty is no doubt aware that Howard is a devout monarchist and perhaps she still feels sorry for him that he lost his seat in Bennelong and was ignominiously kicked out of parliament. But even the clear terms of reference of the award make you wonder how on earth John Howard crept in. The terms refer to a subject of the Crown who has rendered exceptionally meritorious service 'towards the advancement of the Arts, Learning, Literature, and Science or such other exceptional service as We are fit to recognize.'

The reference to 'literature' might be about John Howard's autobiography but even those pages of self justification are part of the hypocrisy which sees one set of criteria for judging the rich and powerful versus indifference and even cruelty towards people whom establishment sources would regard a of little significance. John Howard eventually did a deal with Vice President Dick Cheney to produce trumped up charges against Guantanamo prisoner David Hicks so that – for Howard's election purposes - the young Australian could be convicted and then brought home, albeit straight to a Federal prison. But he had languished in Guantanamo for almost six years and Howard had colluded with Donald Rumsfeld and others in regarding Hicks as one of the worst of the worst even tho' there's still no evidence that he harmed let alone killed anyone. Subsequently, under the 'principle' of one law for us, another for them - Hicks is not allowed to sell his book, not allowed to profit from his story about Guantanamo.

I mention David Hicks because this introduces discussion of John Howard's alliance with his US friends in America's war on terror, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. John Howard's foreign policy record was mediocre in several respects. His love for America and the British monarchy was coupled to his disinterest in Australia's place in South East Asia. To ingratiate himself to his big neighbor Indonesia he was indifferent to the plight of West Papuans and the Australian Government's eventual rescue mission in East Timor was followed by a characteristically selfish ' the powerful takes most' division of oil resources in relation to that impoverished country.

But it's Howard's enthusiasm for and justification of the war in Iraq which makes his Order of Merit sound like an act from a Gilbert and Sullivan light opera which would be funny if it was not so deadly serious.

After nearly nine years America declared an end to the war and withdrew its last troops in December 2011. In that war, John Howard, once described by President George W. Bush as a man of steel, was also regarded as the US's staunchest ally. Under his leadership and however small Australia's contribution, this country was seen by the Bush White House as always there, always ready to go the extra mile.

This extra included the lies, the financial costs and the monumental loss of life in one of history's most disastrous foreign policy escapades.

When deliberations about the award to former Prime Minister Howard were being considered, was there no recall that this war was illegal, immoral and initiated under completely false pretences ? There never was any link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, never any weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq. The invasion of that country started, not with any authorization from the UN Security Council but with the much advertised shock and awe bombing of Baghdad.

That bombing of Baghdad, so proudly reported by the mainstream media outlets in countries forming the Coalition of the Willing - USA, UK and Australia - was the beginning of a carnage in which Australia colluded. Almost 5,000 American soldiers were killed and more than 32, 000 seriously wounded. The Pentagon admits that 100,000 Iraqis lost their lives but by several other accounts, over one million Iraqi civilians died in this war. Over five million Iraqis were displaced from their homes and approximately four million became refugees. The long term financial and human costs of running an illegal war do not include the devastation to a fragile environment.

Under the principles enunciated in the Nuremberg tribunals which followed the end of the Second World War , an illegal war was defined as an atrocity which represented a 'crime against peace'. Under that principle the architects of the Iraq war such as former President Bush, and former Prime Ministers Blair and Howard should be in the dock of the International Criminal Court charged with crimes again humanity. They'd each be presumed innocent and entitled to a transparent due process of international law, a right never afforded to David Hicks let alone to the thousands of Iraqi civilians, including many women and children murdered on suspicion of being terrorists or for allegedly aiding enemy insurgents.

John Howard did introduce stricter gun control laws in Australia and that initiative could be regarded as rendering 'extremely meritorious service.' But in so many other respects and my focus on the Iraq war is only one example, the electors of Bennelong not the Queen's advisors have made the most sound judgment of the man's record.

Instead of producing out of date honours for those whose merits have been created by a distorted version of history, it would be a better start to a new year to think just a little - don't let's overdo it – about the notion of a common humanity. Alongside the laudatory remarks about brave war leader John Howard we should perhaps recall Ali Ismail Abbas, a 12 year old Iraqi boy who lost both of his arms, his father, his pregnant mother, his brother and thirteen other members of his family in the Iraq war. A poem about Ali says that smart bombs killed his dreams but it wasn't their fault as they did not know who he was.

By contrast the Sydney Morning Herald's picture reminds us who John Howard is and the invisible Buckingham Palace pundits overlooked his cruel record and have given him an honour he does not deserve.

John Howard's Dishonour

Howard, who before the Trump presidency said he trembled at the thought, says there was a sense of electoral entitlement in the Hillary camp and much of the mainstream media.

Sure I was cautious ... I expressed concern ... I remain concerned. I think his criticism of the intelligence agencies was very foolish.

No genuinely conservative political leader will publicly attack his country’s intelligence agencies.

I think he is too carefree in his communications habits for the president of the United States. Maybe I am reflecting my age. I don’t think random tweeting by the US president is necessarily the right way to take the nation with you.

If tweeting was available in Ronald Reagan’s era, I’m not sure he would have used it. 

read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2017/may/22/coalition-be...

John Howard is a master bullshitter... See The trilogy... Read from top...

Former prime minister John Howard was once derided as "Mr 18 Per Cent". So how did the man who was dumped from the Liberal leadership become Australia's second-longest-serving PM?

Today marks 25 years since Mr Howard's 1996 election win, and he spoke to ABC Radio National about how he sees his successes, his failings, and the nation's future challenges.

Mr Howard was surprised by the extent of his 1996 victory: "I'd become very nervous about even winning." 

"Even though we ran a good campaign. The polls were good. The Liberal Party had had so many setbacks and reverses and I'd had a number at a personal level, politically, as well, so that the size of the majority, which grew and grew as the counting progressed ... surprised me."

At the time, Mr Howard had been widely ridiculed by many, including within his own party. Yet his passion for policy change and support from those closest to him kept him going, despite the critics.

"My family was absolutely magnificent. I had some very close friends. But I was also driven by a belief in policy change," he says. "There were certain things I wanted to achieve in politics."

But he says his time as the opposition spokesman on industrial relations during the early 1990s, rather than his 11 years in the top job, were the most rewarding years he had in politics.

"I felt that the debate that took place at that time over industrial relations was very significant," he says now. "I was actually able to shift the debate, and that's the most rewarding thing to do. [I] remember over the years ... if you're interested in a policy issue, it can be very rewarding, even though you're in opposition. That was my experience. And that was one of the things that kept me going."

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-02/john-howard-commemorates-25th-anniversary-of-being-elected/13203954

Read from top

Read also: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/11276 (nearly 17,000 reads)....

We might have already mentioned a while back how some politicians got the job through various tricks... In the soon to come revelations of who is the minister accused of "sexual misconduct" (rape) in 1988, there allegedly was in the 1980s, teams of Liberal and Labor underlings organising sex sessions with underaged girls... Many of the MPs who supported John Howard as leader had been allegedly bloodied such, for "blackmail"... In the USA, Epstein might have been the maestro of such set ups for blackmail IN BOTH CAMPS OF POLITICS...