In the bible of bile, otherwise known as The Latham Diaries (2005), the former leader of the Labor Party, Mark Latham, reserved a special place of disdain for Kevin Rudd. He portrayed Rudd as irritating, monomaniacal and destabilising. Among many exuberantly hostile quotes about Rudd's character was this: ''Rudd is a terrible piece of work: addicted to the media and leaking.''

A lot of people came to share this view. By the time he had been prime minister for 18 months, most of his colleagues had become Lathamites when it came to Rudd. The minute the opinion polls went south, a dominant majority of his parliamentary Labor colleagues wanted him gone.

What the WikiLeaks cascade of diplomatic cables also reveals is that the West was already well served by its news media. Most of what are deemed revelations in the diplomatic channels were merely confirmation of what had already been revealed by journalists.

We already knew that Rudd had called the Chinese delegation ''rat-f---ers'' at the Copenhagen climate conference because they were blocking his grab for international grandiosity using climate change as the forum.

We already knew that Rudd had alienated Washington, in another overreach for international grandiosity, in his efforts to create an Asia-Pacific forum without first consulting Washington or Beijing.

We already knew that Rudd, in his condescension, had told a dinner party at Kirribilli House, where the guests included the editor-in-chief of The Australian, that President George W. Bush allegedly did not even know what the G20 was.

We already knew what a brow-beating, condescending control freak he was as he drove multiple government departments with a hyperactive flurry of demands the bureaucracies were incapable of meeting. Rudd badly damaged the credibility of the federal public service to efficiently deliver services to the public on any large scale.

Last year, we speculated that Rudd was a more dysfunctional Labor prime minister than Gough Whitlam, whose career ended in scandal, political tumult and crushing electoral defeat. I think the term ''worse than Whitlam'' would now apply. Whitlam won two elections, Rudd was booted by his own party in his first term. Whitlam was a soaring orator, Rudd is a rhetorical drone. Whitlam introduced sweeping policy reform, Rudd never got beyond a host of sweeping policy promises. Whitlam opened the relationship with China, Rudd damaged it.

As Rudd's manic overdrive and his capacity to alienate people receives an ample airing once again, an obvious question emerges: why is Prime Minister Julia Gillard keeping this mistrusted, accident-prone figure as Foreign Minister?

We know she promised him the job before the election to damp down the impression of treachery that was attached to her over his political demise. He was too prominent to ignore or to sack, and Rudd wanted to stay in the game. What else was he going to do? Being Foreign Minister fed his sense of super-competence in foreign policy. He, like Malcolm Turnbull on the other side of politics, also holds the misguided belief that he will one day be called back to lead his party.

It will never happen. Rudd is devoid of charisma, with a chronic deficit of trust. His greatest achievement, and it was considerable, was leading Labor to victory in the 2007 federal election. He did so as an Australian politician fluent in Mandarin, another achievement. He would have a special relationship with the foreign economy that was keeping the Australian economy in a state of boom. He was in a unique position in Beijing. Yet it took him less than a year to stress the relationship.

I came to the certainty that Rudd was a problem as a leader after having lunch with the Chinese ambassador to Canberra, Zhang Junsai (who is just completing his posting here). The lunch was off the record, so I cannot quote him, but I can convey his puzzlement at both the style and substance of Rudd's handling of the relationship. His irritation reflected the view held in Beijing.

All the elements that had soured so many relationships were hiding in plain sight. We never needed WikiLeaks to work out that a train wreck was unfolding. As such, I'd like to revisit several columns:

February 9, 2009 - 17 months before Rudd would be deposed by his own colleagues: ''Kevin Rudd's credibility as an honest politician, as a man who does not engage in evasions, omissions and distortions on a grand scale, finally began to seriously erode last Tuesday.''

November 24, 2009 - five months before Rudd would capitulate on his carbon emissions trading scheme, the beginning of his end: ''Make no mistake, the enmity towards the Rudd-Wong-Turnbull carbon emissions reduction scheme is as deep inside the Labor government as it is inside the opposition.''

February 22, 2010 - two months before the opinion polls went into the red zone for the Rudd government: ''Rarely has a government promised so much, spent so much, said so much, and launched so many nationwide programs, and delivered so little value for money and expectation.''

August 2, 2010 - after his fall: ''Rudd's Napoleonic compulsions had become overbearing. His mania for centralised government had failed. Once the voting public started coming to the same conclusion, an overwhelming majority of Rudd's colleagues wanted him gone. He was a pain in the rectum.''

The man carries excess baggage, yet remains the ultimate traveller. Is this the person the Gillard government should be offering as Australia's principle representative to the world?

twitter Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU