11

David Mulroney’s side of the story


 

Early reviews from the Canadian PressGlobe, StarCanwest, CTV, CBC and Inside Politics.

Analysis of one of Mulroney’s points from our John Geddes.


 

David Mulroney’s side of the story

  1. It's interesting that the Libertrolls have gone silent. This must be a sign of the powerful non-partisan testimony by Ambassador Mulroney. Perhaps the Libertrolls should wait for the whole story to be known. They'll hve even less to say then. This is a non-story that will be relegated to the back pages of the blogs within days.

    • Libertrolls…and tomorrow you'll be back to pretending how unpartisan you are.

    • I've been pretty vocal about this. But I promise you it has nothing to do with partisan leanings (which aren't particularly LPC, anyway). To witness potential complicity in torture compounded with blatant spin and obfuscation is unacceptable – regardless of party.

      • well said Sean.

    • With Mulroney's testimony today,
      it became too obvious for Liberals that the root of the problem was them.
      The inadequate 2005 agreement, inadequate green uniforms, inadequate light vehicles, Red Cross not getting detainee info for up to 3 months.

      A rookie government turned that bad situation around, less than a year on the job, they fixed the mess they inherited.
      Now Canada had the best equipted and trained soldiers, most civilians in Afghanistan, best detainee agreement, effectted real change in the Afghan prison system.

      There is no war crime complicity here.

  2. If you aren't going to stand behind our troops,
    you are welcome to stand infront of them.

    That's a bumper sticker.

      • I should add it's not my best piece of writing, but I stand behind the argument.

  3. If anything this testimony actually confirms Colvin's story:

    1. Mulroney concurs the problem stemmed from the transfer agreement;
    2. He has no answer about whether there could have been mistreatment of transferred detainees in 2006 before other than to say there was no evidence and "it was a terrible year" which begs the question, why change the agreement in 2007, then?
    3. Mulroney confirms that he told Colvin to talk on the phone instead of sending memos

    As far I can see this all adds to Colvin's credibility. Now Peter Mackay needs to explain himself.

  4. I so agree with two yen here, but even more interesting are the 500-600 comments on the "climategate" (god I hate that handle) and the continued ignoring of the story by the news side of Macleans (and CBC/CTV/Canwest/G&M etc.)

    I think the scientific fraud on this file is pretty much bang on with long-standing scientific fraud in Pharma/professional journal/ university research world regarding natural medicine. I would go so far as to say they have retained the same PR firms to push their hype.

Sign in to comment.