Red-faced rose

-----------------------
The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info
-----------------------

Last updated on July 16th, 2017 at 09:52 am

Poor Kevin Rudd has been smeared again:

A Labor candidate in Western Australia has apologised to Kevin Rudd for referring to him as a “filthy Liberal” earlier this year.

The Labor candidate for the federal seat of O’Connor, Dominic Rose, made the comment when writing for his university newspaper, The Pelican, saying Mr Rudd had abandoned the party’s left-leaning principles.

But he says he was ignorant when he wrote the article, and was just trying to be sensationalist.

Mr Rose says Mr Rudd now has his full support.

Kevin was always going to score highly with ignorant sensationalists. Meanwhile, the filthy Liberal is now planning to take down President I’mInaDinnerJacket:

A Labor government would attempt to bring Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, before the International Court of Justice to face charges of “inciting genocide” in an effort to force the rogue Middle East leader to justify his attacks on Israel.

There might be a few problems with that.

(Via LaoHuLi)

Posted by Tim B. on 10/03/2007 at 01:40 AM
    1. I heard this guy on the radio this morning.  He sounded like he was having trouble making up his excuses – too many bong hits for breakfast perhaps?

      Posted by bondo on 2007 10 03 at 02:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. At this point, it is usually appropriate to remind our American readers, that small l “liberal” and capital l “Liberal’ do not mean the same thing in this country.

      In other words, whilst Rudd might very well be a “filthy liberal” he is certainly not a “filthy Liberal”. I hope that clears things up…

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2007 10 03 at 02:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. That’d be the same International Court of Justice that ruled that Israel did not have the right to protect its civilians from terrorists with cross border operations and security barriers because Hamas, Hezbollah, IJ et al were not “states”.

      Posted by geoff on 2007 10 03 at 02:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. Can you imagine Amadmaninajam defending himself in a trial?  He’d speak for three weeks straight…

      And I wonder if this sort of action against the leader of a Muslim country might, you know… make us a bigger target for terrorists?

      Posted by anthony_r on 2007 10 03 at 02:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. Putting aside the technicalities involved in having the International Court of Justice hear the matter Kevvie would first have to get support from within his own Party.Given the anti-Semite sympathy from within,particularly from the Left,I don’t believe that the ICJ will ever need to bother setting aside dates for a hearing.

      Posted by Lew on 2007 10 03 at 02:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. … to face charges of “inciting genocide” in an effort to force the rogue Middle East leader to justify his attacks on Israel.

      Oh, yeah, let’s talk ‘em to death!  And in front of a court.  That’ll do the trick.  Uh huh!  Heck, throw Lurch and Hillary! onto the prosecution team, and the Iranians will be begging for mercy before lunch on the first day of trial.

      Labor has also been previously advised by international prosecutors of difficulties with such a proposal.

      Such as the ICJ has had, ummmmmm, troubles convicting Serbians for genocide.  With lots of evidence.

      Cretins.  Who don’t listen and learn.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 10 03 at 02:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. I like Rudd’s intention but it is likely to fall flat as the ICJ, with its totalitarian cronies, would merely give Ahmadinejad a platform from which to spout his filth. The ICJ, like the UN, would fail in bringing Ahmadinejad to account given that they are heavily biased against Jews to begin with.

      Posted by genius on 2007 10 03 at 02:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. And nobody at the Labor Party thought that maybe, just maybe, a 20 year old might not have the maturity or experience to represent them?

      Posted by blandwagon on 2007 10 03 at 02:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. I always thought it was pronounced: I’mInaJihad(-UpToMyEars) …

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 10 03 at 03:18 AM • permalink

 

    1. That would be the same International Court of Justice that accepts judges on its bench from every country in the world except Israel.

      Posted by geoff on 2007 10 03 at 03:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. “university newspaper, The Pelican”

      Sez it all really.

      Posted by sparrow on 2007 10 03 at 03:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. That would be the same Kevin Rudd who said, after Australia stood with the US in the General Assembly and opposed a resolution condemning Israel for defending itself with a security barrier following the ICJ ruling,

      “A more appropriate course of action would have been for Australia to have abstained on this particular resolution.”

      Posted by geoff on 2007 10 03 at 03:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. #9, I always thought it was pronounced “I’mMadInTheHead”

      Posted by Gibbo on 2007 10 03 at 04:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. Kevin Rudd – the Foreign Affairs expert – shows his vast grasp of knowledge of International Courts of Justice.

      Apparently the Labor party received advice that a prosecution before the correct Tribunal, the ICC, would not succeed, so he flew off the handle and nominated another one, before finding out how badly his “policy on the run” (hi tim dunlop) failed him.

      Token Rudd strikes again with more puffery than a marshmallow factory!

      Posted by peter m on 2007 10 03 at 06:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. Rudds not advocating a form of regime change in Iran is he? If he is he’s going about it in the wrong way.

      Posted by Penguin on 2007 10 03 at 07:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. According to an interview with Rudd he is claiming his view is in line with, amonig others, John Bolton. In response to a question about Iran Rudd said:

      Firstly, we would like to initiate legal proceedings against President Ahmadinejad on a charge of incitement to genocide. This could occur through the International Court of Justice on reference by the UN Security Council. This option has a growing body of supporters, including former Canadian Attorney-General Irwin Cotler, former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel.

      Though I could be wrong, I can’t imagine Bolton being the sort of guy who (a) would call on an international court to try a head of state or (b) misunderstand basic international law to such an extent as to imagine it might be practically possible in the first place.

      Can anyone remember Bolton ever calling for the ICJ to be the arbiter on Iran’s President?

      Link to answer from Rudd

      Posted by Dylan Kissane on 2007 10 03 at 07:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. Kicks ALP factions in the balls – “Will Choose Own Ministers”
      He’s in league with Bolton? Great!
      He’ll indict Ahfterdinnerjaded? Even Better.
      Reducing Interest Rates?
      It’s Kevin’s War On Everything! Yay!
      (someone tell him he’s dreamin’)

      Posted by blogstrop on 2007 10 03 at 07:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. Book him, Kevvo!

      Posted by dean martin on 2007 10 03 at 08:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. This is Rudd’s first real Latham moment. I suspect it won’t be the last by a long way.

      Posted by McAnzac on 2007 10 03 at 08:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. I think a better action would be to bring Ahmadadirtybird up before a firing squad and just shoot the little bastard.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 10 03 at 09:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. Having thought about this, I can only conclude that Kevin Rudd is the Australian version of Barack Obama:  Lotsa “multicultural” “experience”, limited common sense, politically immature, and an immensely huge ero.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 10 03 at 10:55 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oops!  I meant “ego”, not “ero”.  PIMF!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 10 03 at 10:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. BTW, Rebecca, why waste perfectly good ammunition when one could use a rope?  Good enough for Saddam, good enough for Ahmadinejad.  Save the ammo for the terrorists on the run.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 10 03 at 10:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. #9, I always thought it was pronounced “I’mMadInTheHead”
      It is actually pronounced Imatewithkids – just like that cartoon guy, you know, whatsisname?

      Posted by surfmaster on 2007 10 03 at 11:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. Yes, based on the Law Of Unintended (or Intended?) Consequences, let’s give President Nutbag a global forum in which to justify his nutbaggery.  Brilliant.  I have a better idea.  It involves a firing squad.

      Posted by the wolf on 2007 10 03 at 12:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. BTW, Rebecca, why waste perfectly good ammunition when one could use a rope?  Good enough for Saddam, good enough for Ahmadinejad.

      Good point, JeffS, but only if you tie cinderblocks to his feet.  Otherwise the updraft would save the little twerp.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 10 03 at 03:44 PM • permalink

 

  1. Rudd’s proposal is fatuous and dangerous – to Australia’s interest that is. Indeed, the damage may now have been done, for we are now vulnerable to other states seeking to try our leaders on the basis of genocidal policies towards Aborigines. Such a claim is nonsense, but that will not stop even Australians from urging a state (and Iran I suppose would be happy to oblige) from urging such a course and backing it up be reference to Rudd’s call. On foreign policy, Rudd is a worry, (noting too his fondness for the dictatorial Communist regime in China).

    Posted by ujamaa on 2007 10 03 at 10:13 PM • permalink