Prior inconsistent statement
Ken Parish and that goose Fred are arguing the toss about an alleged prior inconsistent statement by Mike Scrafton, and Al Bundy has pitched in to push John Howard’s line.
Let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth:
It is a matter of public record that I did speak to Mr Mike Scrafton on the night of Wednesday 7 November 2001. I told the House of Representatives of this in answer to a question on 19 February 2002, some 2½ years ago. I said in that answer that I had spoken to Mr Scrafton entirely about the video. This was reported in the media the following day.
My sole purpose in ringing him on 7 November 2001 was to obtain his assessment of the video which he had just viewed.
Liar.
In a Four Corners interview in early 2002, Howard admitted that he had discussed the photos. You might remember the interview, because Howard tied himself in all kinds of knots after he realised he wasn’t supposed to admit to having discussed the photos:
JOHN HOWARD: I had some discussion ah with a member of [Peter Reith's] staff who had viewed the video. There was in the terms that I’ve already explained ah a reference to the debate about the photographs and ah…
LIZ JACKSON: Now that’s exactly what I want to ask you about though I don’t want to ask you about the video, I’m just asking you whether or not you were given any indication that there were doubts about the photos, that’s all I’m asking you.
JH: Mm eh eh I have already indicated…
LJ: And you said yes…
JH: No I’ve already indicated that there was a reference to it, I…
LJ: A reference to it?
JH: …would have, I would fry quite frankly ah to know the exact words that I’ve used in the past ah…
LJ: You’ve indicated doubts in the past…
JH: I’ve eh no no I’m sorry, um would you let me answer, I mean this is, you know you you should allow me to answer the question. I was asked about this in a news conference and I gave an answer which referred to the fact that we had, we had discussed the issue…
LJ: Discussed?
JH: I don’t remember the exact words I’ve used I’m not going to testify to the exact words I’ve used without checking them because otherwise that will be thrown back by your or somebody else at me so I’m I’m, you can question me all night Liz about…
LJ: The photo…
JH: …that ah I you, I would simply say I made a reference to that and that reference was correct I don’t have anything to add to that.
LJ: All right well the following day you were asked very directly and very specifically about the photographs. I mean Fran Kelly put it to you that Defence Forces were saying they were the wrong photographs. Why didn’t you indicate at that stage that you’d discussed the photographs the night before and the issue had in your words been raised with you?
JH: Well the reason, the reason why I’d moved on from the photographs…
LJ: And but she was asking you about the photographs.
JH: No, no I’m sorry, I’m sorry, well I…
LJ: I mean you you might want to move on but the whole of the Australian…
JH: No I, no, no no, no I’m sorry I’m sorry, no what I’d like, what I would like to do is to be allowed to answer your question and not constantly interrupted. The reason why I gave the answer that I did to Fran Kelly was that in my mind the important thing was the release of the video and I don’t have anything to regret or retract about the answer that I gave to Fran Kelly at all times ah the explanation that I have given is consistent with my clear recollection of the circumstances. Ah I repeat, I was never told by my Department I was never told by Mr Reith that the original advice ah had been contradicted and and that remains the position and nothing has emerged, nothing has emerged ah to alter that fact.
LJ: When were you going to tell the Australian public that you had a little bit of doubt about the photos?
JH: That implies that I was covering something up and I reject that completely.
Let me repeat the key sentence:
There was in the terms that I’ve already explained ah a reference to the debate about the photographs and ah…
What was that about prior inconsistent statements?
(More discussion at Back Pages, John Quiggin, Barista and MUSU hack Alex White’s Psephological Catechism.)
I note Scrafton’s offered to take a lie-detector test. I’d love to see Howard do the same!
Well done Robert.
Honest Johnny won’t submit to a polygraph.
I really have to question the timing of whoever decided to launch this one, I mean – first week of the Olympics.
Here is my letter to the editor posted to every major paper in Australia on their coverage of this issue. I wonder how many will publish it?
With Mike Scrafton exposing Howard’s outrageous lies just before the 2001 Federal election, it is interesting to look back at the PM’s behaviour after he knew children were not thrown overboard.
On the night of November 7 the PM clearly knew his ONA report was merely a rehash of inaccurate ministerial claims about the (non) incident. The day after Scrafton’s clarifying phone calls, the PM told the National press club luncheon he had an ONA report proving his children overboard allegations were correct.
Rather than correct the record Howard ‘batted on’, misleading the Australian people up until election day. John Howard is arguably Australia’s most astute politician and on November 7 he must have suspected election day was just too close for any real damage to be done. Unfortunately for the Australian people only four journalists (David Marr, Marian Wilkinson, Peter Charlton, and Andrew Clennell) exposed the bogus ONA report.
With respect to the four journalists mentioned above, it was a case of too little too late by the fourth estate.
John Howard, should resign over this issue, but as he regularly argues, his political future is up to the Australian people. How well informed the Australian people are will ultimately determine Howard’s political future in 2004.
Let’s hope the tabloid media’s performance in 2001 isn’t repeated in 2004 where outright lies told by ministers, not only went unchecked, but then reappear in editorials supporting the government’s action.
In the lead up to this election, all journalists, must take a more sceptical approach. Given the benefit of hindsight, political journalists should reread their articles in 2001 and understand that unquestioningly repeating the Howard government’s claims as facts was everything journalism shouldn’t be.
Iain Lygo
Author of News Overboard; The Tabloid Media, Race Politics, and Islam.
Iain,
The Manly Daily MAY run it.
Good luck.
I wrote a similar letter to a few, posted on by blog as well.
Don’t like my chances.
Now that Scrafton has questioned the government’s honesty, I not sure whether he is a sundowner sipping senior citizen or a pissed, pedantic, pontificating, procastinating public servant.
They can all run it- it is a dead story. When the porno fan lashed himself into the polygraph, he became a laughing-stock.
Great witness- a publicity-seeking loony.
You all ignore the fact that the people in question scuttled the boat within days of the video being produced, reducing any question of hurled infants moot- they pitched everyone on board the craft into the briny, so they would be rescued by the navy- exactly the point the government was trying to make.
If you sad bastards think this has legs, you must also think a carpet snake is a likely winner in the 100m at Athens.
Good luck.
Funny how it’s all quiet over at Tim Blair-ville. Well, I just got banned for trying to alter that fact.
Tim Blair is no more a journalist than Andrew G.
Banned for life once again, from Tim Blair am I,
Along with Miranda Divide and Jeremy, oh why why why?
It’s not like I was being rude or causing discord,
I was just curious re their thoughts on “Howard Overboard”.
It’s obviously something they don’t wanna talk about,
Ilibcc, Evilpundit, PW, Quentin George, all silently stout.
I was just having a fleeting dig, like Rob Millsy and Paris,
To no avail as it where – I’ve been banned by Andrea Harris.
It’s a worrying trend they’ve got going there,
Crushing dissent and uncomfortable facts with hardly a care.
The motivation is simple, can’t afford to make Tim look bad,
After all, he’s an aspiring Rush Limbaugh, an avatar for the raving mad.
A few facts on the ground I urge you to see,
Tim Blair is no more a journalist than fucking Andrew G.
He pens his hack-like Bulletin “articles” oh so imperiously,
What a pity that the Journalistic world never takes him seriously.
He’s only got the gig because he’s a divisive figure,
That, and we can all laugh at his lack of intellectual vigour.
He doesn’t mind, he has his mindless arse-licking weblog devotees,
A sickening, creeped-out, felch-fest, “everyone drop to their knees!”
Sortelli, Real Jeffs, Gary Gravett, the conservatively political,
Free reign for neo-con luncacy, Andrea will ban anyone who’s critical.
How about his allegiance, is he still fair dinkum true blue?
He’s such a pro-Bush yankophile – probably has Stars & Stripes poo.
How about his pathetic hounding of that REAL journalist, Margo?
Can’t critique her on issues and facts so he rants on about her argot.
And how about his anti-ABC stance, or didn’t you know?
He couldn’t cut it there, they cancelled his shithouse show!
His humour is racially geared and composed with little skill,
Why, I’ve seen funnier shit on re-runs of Benny Hill.
Anyway, I think Darpie has made his point clear,
I’ll say what the fuck I want, without any fear.
Oh, Timbo, those Fox News pieces of yours really sucked,
So to you, Andrea and the gang – I bid you all, GET FUCKED!
Love Darp.
I don’t like to defend Tim Blair, but he’s not posting about anything at the moment (he seems to be doing some kind of whistlestop tour), so it’s a bit much to bag him for not covering this particular story.
Not going for the job in the mortuary, mental health, cricket umpiring, or as a snake wrangler are we PB?
Good luck.
there are more far reaching implications in my humble opinion that howard lying re children overboard. The senate inquiry into the tampa unequivocably demonstrated that the federal governmet was directly resposible for keeping those on board in a ‘life threatening situation for 22 hrs”. Even as the boat floundered and children were in the water it took 51 minutes before they were given permission to bring the chlidren on baord the HMAS Adelaide. Since when did the navy need ‘permission’ to rescue peoply at sea?
The P.M. did indeed lie i dont think there can be any argument regarding this, by for my part having a prime minister been shown to be lying is miniscule when compared to having a P.M. and his government deliberatly and wantoningly behaving in a manner which is not only reprehensible but completly lacking in moral integrity. Perhaps if the senate inquiry is reopened we could focus on the role of the government in the disruption program. The litany of lies extends much further than phone calls between scrafton and howard. It goes beyond the gag placed on scrafton at that time; questions need to answered directly regarding the level of intimidation and coerce used to gag all of the public service and the use of them to carry out immoral and perhaps even illegal acts, whilst the minsiters and their leader pretend not to see what it is they have instructed them to do…
jd
another thing,
As nominations for Australian of the year close this Fri, I’d like to nominate Bruce from Melbourne as moron of the year, for nominating Andrew Bolt as Australian of the year on ABC 774’s open line today.
What a fuckin dill.
Yeah, he IS touring around. Still managing to post once a day atleast.
I would have thought that Australia’s “most influential political blogger” would have found the time to post SOMETHING regarding this issue …but …he’s more interested in Tortillas and funny hats right now.
Good for you Robert to consider all reasons unlike the self absorbed attention seeking rabble.
He’s on holiday, Darp! He’s posting tourist-style posts and asking people to meet him in pubs!
i was frothing at the mouth almost in anger when stupid people voted howard into government the last time round, the timing was perfect – lets start a war in afghanistan and hey, a few days later, its time for a federal election – lets stick with the current government they know what to do. Perhaps calling some voters stupid people is harsh, but how can they not see how twisted and evil this federal government is? *RAH* just reading this post makes me mad!
Fan of democracy then, Lori? Funny how lefties love the huddled masses until they don’t do what they want them to. Because someone doesn’t share your blinkered world view doesn’t especially qualify them for stupidity- the electorate is probably smarter than you think, which is why they see through the constant polemics offered as media in this country. If the government is really are as twisted and evil as you allege, why aren’t you in a gulag out in the western desert, or in a hole with a coating of lime? Hyperbole thy name is pinko.
And now Hans Blix tells us he warned hoWARd the evidence of WMDs was questionable. Excellent just more fuel for the fire.
Poor Andrew bolt though. He was put on earth to character assassinate anyone who dares to question the government’s honesty. With blix, scrafton, Jenny wots her name, and 43 diplomats all coming out at once, Ruperts vicious little Melbourne “journo” is going to be a very busy boy this week. I don’t even know if he has enough nasty adjectives in his limited vocab to deal with all these people at once.
Hey at least minorities should be safe for a while.
… Because someone doesn’t share your blinkered world view doesn’t especially qualify them for stupidity- the electorate is probably smarter than you think, which is why they see through the constant polemics offered as media in this country. …
Posted by PB at 4:16pm on 18 August 2004.
Meanwhile, over at Back Pages, here is PB’s high opinion of the electorate:
(re children overboard) … It’s ancient history, the average punter has the attention span of a fruitfly and the olympics are on. Expect to see the story dissapear except for the ABC.
Posted by: PB at August 16, 2004 12:39 PM
Mark- you don’t have much to do with the lumpen proleteriat, do you? What sells more- New Idea or Newsweek? The average Joe and Josephine Sixpack (as usual) will be lured by whoever is promising the most payola for the least contribution, unless something scary bobs up, then they will return to worrying if Kylie is gaining weight and whether Ray will go back to Sixty Minutes. …
Posted by: PB at August 16, 2004 04:03 PM
OK Mark, I’ll bite; most of the electorate is shallow, and will go with what they think is the best deal- altruistic navel gazing about porkies three years ago aren’t high on their agenda. … I have visited here in the past, but rarely commented- my own blog is being re-jigged, so I’m at a loose end and enjoy an argument …
Posted by: PB at August 16, 2004 08:39 PM
The spelling mistakes are PB’s. Can’t wait ’til your blog’s fixed, dude.
It’s fixed toots, but I thought you need some calming down. I think the electorate is shallow, self interested and disinterested in politics- not necessarily stupid.
I’ve enjoyed the last few days as some of the RWDBs do various acrobatics to prove that Howard didn’t actually lie as such.
Even if he was telling the truth, the consequences are just as appalling. Intelligence failures, Services failures, Defence Dept failures, ministerial advisers failing to tell their bosses anything important to their credibility … and nobody punished and no procedures put in place to avoid in the future.
Given Howard’s penchant for cricket, an analogy from there (an old Ashley Mallett yarn) might show the point.
When Slug Jordan was given out caught behind to a spinner in India, he was very indignant, claiming he’d not snicked the ball. (According to Mallett, there was no doubt, and you could hear the snick in the grandstand.)
At the lunch interval he confronted the Indian umpire, still angry about the decision.
Unruffled, the umpire responded,
“Well, Mr Jordan, if you did not snick the ball, your pads were very adjacent to the stumps.”
Mr Howard seems in a similar position now.
Howard in the crosshairs
To sum up. As it stands, Mike Scrafton has claimed that he had three phone calls from John Howard on the night of Wednesday 7 October 2001. In the first phone call, Scrafton advised Howard that: (1) the video didn’t…
The PM will probably want to hear this
This has been covered better elsewhere, so I won’t rehash the basics. There was one little snippet that I found very interesting, which seemed to have dropped out of the news reports since I first heard it. It is something…
For Whom the Bell Tolls Polls?
Well, it looks like those dodgy polls (Omnipoll and that other one) were correct. Newspoll also shows Labor in front and going away (54 to 46 per cent on a two-party preferred basis). No wonder Howard looked and sounded like…
Pants on fire
The Prime Minister faces a new assault on his integrity as inconsistencies emerge in his defence against claims that he deliberately misled the public over the “children overboard” affair.
Can I get a witness
The SMH reports that there “were witnesses to the conversation between Mr Howard and Mr Scrafton. The Prime Minister had repeated Mr Scrafton’s concerns to a small group of listeners at the Lodge as the conversation proceeded, Mr Scrafton said….
Howard Overboard
The media have picked this “children overboard” story up again and has started to run with it. Things have recently got worse for Howard with Robert Corr digging up a 2002 Four Corners interview. In this interview Howard admits speaking…