Since the terrorist attacks in Paris, the rest of the world has caught up with what Tony understood from the start. This is from Andrew Bolt on Turnbull should apologise to Abbott. Or is the US now guilty of “machismo”, too?.

Tony Abbott suggested:

Preferably with Sunni states such as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, as well as with the US, Britain and France, Australia should be prepared to contribute more to a military campaign to destroy this terrorist caliphate on the ground in Syria and Iraq. This could involve less restrictive targeting rules for airstrikes and the deployment of special forces on the ground in support of local forces, similar to the 2001 campaign where the Northern Alliance defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Julie Bishop misrepresented:

As Tony Abbott well knows, Australia does not act unilaterally. We need legal basis under international law to send our forces into other countries.

Malcolm Turnbull rejected:

Yesterday Turnbull was seen to be giving his predecessor a “slap down” in his national security address to parliament suggesting there was no room for “gestures or machismo” and ridiculed any idea of a “unilateral” Australian invasion of Syria or a “Western-led invasion”….

Even as Turnbull said the response to the Paris terror attacks “must be as clear eyed and strategic”, it was “not a time for gestures or machismo” and there was no support “for a large US-led Western army to attempt to conquer ISIL” in Iraq or Syria, the outrage grew that he was putting up a “straw man” argument against Abbott.

The US now accepts:

The United States is deploying ‘specialised’ troops in Iraq to fight the Islamic State group, including by leading raids against the jihadists over the border in Syria, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter says.

Speaking to the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, the Pentagon chief said that a ‘specialised expeditionary targeting force’ was being deployed in Iraq to help Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces battle IS….

He said the special forces would also be able to intervene in neighbouring Syria, where Washington has already announced it is sending about 50 special operations troops.

‘These special operators will over time be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence, and capture ISIL leaders,’ he said.

Malcolm Turnbull’s response? The response of the journalists who joined Turnbull in smashing Abbott’s suggestion?

The saga more than continues but is becoming explosive. The SMH story on the secret conversation of February 8 between Malcolm, Julie and Scott has now got Abbott truly riled. Abbott will let a lot go by but he is old school on this and will not tolerate out and out lying. He was always certain to be angry about what had been done, but this smug leaking of a story – almost certainly by Malcolm himself – that must absolutely have remained subterranean if the tensions were to ebb away must have been the last straw. This from the SMH: Tony Abbott unleashes public attack on Julie Bishop, accusing her of telling falsehoods. Only someone as politically stupid as Turnbull would allow such a potential firestorm to break out. Only he can be the source of the story that has riled Abbott and no doubt many others. He always wants to show how much smarter he is than everyone else. So this is where we now are at.

Tony Abbott has unleashed a public attack on his former deputy, Julie Bishop, to accuse her of telling falsehoods.

In a new outbreak of recriminations over the leadership coup, Mr Abbott has made a four-point repudiation of the Foreign Affairs Minister and deputy Liberal leader.

The former prime minister told Fairfax Media it was “false” that Ms Bishop had warned him of a phone call where Malcolm Turnbull was making plans for a post-Abbott government seven months before he challenged for the leadership.

The call was a clear sign that Mr Turnbull, then communications minister, was considering a leadership strike against Mr Abbott.

In the February 8 call, Mr Turnbull offered Scott Morrison the treasurer’s post in a future Turnbull government, as disclosed by Fairfax Media’s Shirtfronted series this week.

Ms Bishop was in the same room as Mr Turnbull at the time, a silent participant in the call. The three continued to serve in the Abbott cabinet for another seven months and six days.
When Ms Bishop was asked on Channel Nine on Tuesday whether she had told Mr Abbott about the call, she responded: “Of course, of course.”

But Mr Abbott said: “The claim that Julie Bishop made on Channel Nine that she told me about the conversation between Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison that she witnessed is false.”

On a second point, Mr Abbott said it was not true that Ms Bishop had urged him to appoint two more women to his first cabinet.

In part two of Fairfax’s Shirtfronted, Ms Bishop is said to have suggested that Marise Payne and Sussan Ley be appointed to the cabinet, but met opposition from Mr Abbott’s then chief of staff, Peta Credlin, during a leadership dinner at Canberra’s Ottoman restaurant soon after winning power.

But Mr Abbott told Fairfax Media: “The suggestion that Julie Bishop lobbied me to get Marise Payne and Sussan Ley into cabinet in September 2013 is false. The suggestion that Peta Credlin opposed that is also false.”

Mr Abbott also took issue with two more of Ms Bishop’s comments on Channel Nine.

He challenged her remark that his cabinet had held firm during the first and unsuccessful leadership spill in February.

Ms Bishop had said: “The cabinet held absolutely firm and 39 people voted for the spill, even though there was no leadership contender,” Ms Bishop said.
“Tony Abbott then said that he wanted six months to turn things around and when the next spill motion came, 54 members of the party voted for a new leader. That’s how I saw the situation,” she said.

“I certainly was not aware of white-anting, although I’m sure that the former prime minister has a number of concerns about what went on in those last six months of his time as prime minister.”
Mr Abbott said: “Julie Bishop’s claim that the cabinet was solidly behind me was rendered ridiculous by the leaking that so obviously took place.”

Most conspicuous was Fairfax Media’s coverage of a cabinet revolt over Mr Abbott’s proposed changes to citizenship laws.

Ms Bishop said that Mr Abbott was mistaken to have said that he’d been “white-anted” from within.

She said the former prime minister was undone by his own performance as leader.

Mr Abbott rejected this too: “If that’s true, why has the government not changed any of its key policies?”

Finally, Mr Abbott rejected the general proposition that he might have saved his prime ministership if he’d removed the controversial Ms Credlin and his treasurer, Joe Hockey.

“The idea that Malcolm Turnbull would have been content to remain a minister if only I’d sacked Credlin and Hockey is fatuous.”

Malcolm is not the man to heal this breach.

This from the SMH: Loyalty, power and the plan to replace a PM.

Malcolm Turnbull offered Scott Morrison the position of treasurer in a Turnbull government in February, seven months before Tony Abbott was removed as prime minister.

It was the day before the first and unsuccessful spill motion against Mr Abbott, in a phone call with Julie Bishop as a silent participant, according to multiple informed sources. . . .

The call took place when Mr Turnbull and Ms Bishop happened to be at the same fundraising event in a private home in the Sydney suburb of Woollahra on Sunday, February 8. They repaired to a quiet room and closed the door for privacy.

Mr Turnbull phoned Mr Morrison, who was in his car driving to Canberra for the spill the next day. The phones at both ends of the call were switched to speaker-phone.

“Multiple informed sources”, were they? So let us see who could have known about this private conversation between Malcolm, Julie and Scott? Why it would be Malcolm, Julie and Scott.

And who come out looking like weaselly and duplicitous, or in other words, who would not have wanted to see this story in the press? Why none other than Julie and Scott. And who had ambitions to lead the party, as a kind of heir to Tony on the conservative side? Here we are down to Scott alone, who since becoming Treasurer and Shadow Minister for Middle Easter Affairs (Frydenberg Division), has done nothing but turn off those of us who still hold Tony in high esteem.

And in whose interests is all this leaking and story telling? I’ll have to think about it and will get back as soon as I can work it out. Whoever it is, must have irritated the others to an incredible extent. At least we can rule out Malcolm because how crazy would you have to be to start leaking against a government you lead.

America has many problems and enemies to go with them but the only enemies Obama really cares about are Republicans. Same for Malcolm. Australia has its own list of problems but the only enemies Malcolm can get himself worked up about are our Republican-equivalents, which just happens to be members of the party he leads. You hardly need to be a genius to work out that a certain measured common sense is needed right now in the Middle East so I hardly think it’s anything other than Malcolm mimicking Barrack to have said so. But there are those who think that something needs to be done in the Middle East, and despair that America is led by someone who, for whatever reason, feels quite content to let things boil over without any involvement. Worst President ever matched possibly by the worst Prime Minister ever. Time will tell but so far Malcolm has excelled only at avoiding dealing with any of our actual problems, either national or international. If ISIS is not a problem to Malcolm, then he is unfit for the job.

This is Dennis Shanahan in a column in which he is even trying to say nice things about Malcolm. But even so, he does note this:

On Tuesday, the Prime Minister’s security statement to parliament on Syria and Iraq was universally viewed as a “slapdown” to the public statements of his predecessor, which only distracted from the core message to the public. . . .

The jibes about machismo were directed against Abbott and former defence minister Kevin Andrews, who publicly advocated, from the backbench, a greater military presence — SAS forces on missions — in Syria.

Turnbull’s public putdown added to a growing atmosphere of paranoia and resentment between thwarted conservative Coalition MPs and those who supported Turnbull’s seizure of the leadership ten weeks ago.

Yet the idea of considering limited “boots on the ground” is not limited to a coterie of Abbott supporters, with West Australian Liberal Luke Simpkins, one of the signatories of the leadership spill against Abbott in February, telling parliament it was something we “need to do”.

No one knows the answer in dealing with ISIS but allowing the problem to fester is not high on the list of possible solutions.