Justified criticism of Abbott on foreign policy

Governments do not publicly "crucify" previous governments when it comes to foreign policy because it damages Australia's reputation and foreign relationships. But also because most likely the Howard government was doing the exact same thing, and the Abbott government is going to continue to do the same thing that the ALP government was doing. Governments come and go, and DFAT and the security agencies just keep doing their own thing.

 

That assumes the crucification actually happened, which the political right would contest did not happen. The result of the left and the media clowns is its sold one way. The issue here is perception, and like that too the spying allegation is about the perception of an isolated event separate from the wider reality. In this case what can be shown to be believable is an event in 2009 when Kevin Rudd was PM the Australian Intel apparatus apparantly hacked and monitored the Indonesian PM. Politics shouldn't be about nit picking perspectives to suit party agenda's, lets try and stick to reality a little bit.... but I know its hard for ALP supporters to do that because they live in a bubble of spoon fed BS.

 

So going off your opinion here, you would have to agree that not only were Bill Shortens calling for an apology rich with irony considering it was during their tenure in government, but also showed his greeness as a new leader. Shortens mistake number 1. He didn't need to say anything, and if he did it should of been to back up the current government.

Abbott v's Shorten.......... Abbott 1 - 0. Showed more strength in character by backing up the ALP governments move of spying. Yes all governments do it. This just makes Shortens comments that more hollow.

 

You two are saying all that like you assume I disagree.

 

That is the answer of a troll.

I didn't read the rest.

C O N T R I B U T E.

 

Well it is obviously if people don’t read what is said how anybody can understand anything of the debate. So when people wish to stop cherry picking comments maybe they could come back with something rather than the hypocritical comment that has just been made. Talk about trolling...

 

You made an absurd statement and backed it up with nothing.

"You obviously know little about the governance of Hitler’s, so how do you expect to understand what occurred and how it was done."

Show how he knows nothing about "the governance of Hitler's" by providing some countering argument. Basically, just put more effort into your reply. Otherwise why bother replying to that line, don't bother quoting it and move onto something to which you're willing to put more effort into the reply.

 

Perhaps if you decided to read the conversation rather than ONE post then maybe you would have something, but HEY when trolling why bother, EH???

As to the fact of substance, the point is that the opponent to my comment has made the exact same. SO before you want to label anything look to one's self to insure you’re not committing the offence you lay on others
.

 

"ensure".

 

Talk about pot calling the kettle black...