Inquiry or bust - Macleans.ca
 

Inquiry or bust


 

Kady O’Malley has all the documents, letters and position papers that may amount to an unprecedented showdown in the coming days over the Afghan detainee documents. The Liberals, meanwhile, offer the government an out, of sorts.

“In terms of the information that we’re seeking from government through the motion in the House, our objective is not to create an impasse with government, our objective is to actually seek disclosure. The government can provide disclosure by way of calling a public inquiry; then there is no question of us demanding disclosure.”


 

Inquiry or bust

  1. Yup, Libs cornered themselves again,
    back on down that hill Liberals.

    Liberals offering Harper and out? That is hilarious.
    Harper will not bite.

    • I dont expect he will, either… but that will show the public the Liberals are willing to be flexible, if Harper and company are willing to be transparent, and what better then a full judicial inquiry, if he doesnt want opposition MP's to see unredacted documents?

      The public will be reminded there must be something awfully embarrassing or politically damaging in there to this government if Harper is willing to go to the brink in order to avoid having to disclose them – either to a Parliamentary committee or a judicial inquiry.

    • Yup, Libs cornered themselves again,
      back on down that hill Liberals.

      They can't actually hear you, you know.

  2. The reason the Libs want a judicial inquiry is they are just now figuring out that the PM was actually defending the nation's honor, sullied by ill considered Liberal policy on their watch in Afstan, not stone-walling parliament. Easy enough to "fix" the terms of reference to exclude that avenue of inquiry…they hope. Not having a crystal ball I don't know how it will work out, but given the drubbing the PM took for his principled position on the file to date I suspect he will opt for spilling the beans and naming Liberal names.

    All bleeding hearts please be aware that we still have 2,000 or so brave soldiers in theatre risking their lives, doing their duty. Somehow I feel their safety and honor are more important than Iggy or jack's posturing and scheming.

    • The Liberals, to their credit, have been clear that they'd support any judicial inquiry that looked at the whole of the Afghan mission.

    • "…PM was actually defending the nation's honor…"

      My Canada excludes torture.

      • Mr Harper's too. My understanding is all the reported problems were under Martin and Chretien and very poor rules of engagement. The world doesn't care who was in power or follow domestic canadian politics. The crazies are real dude and they wouldn't hesitate a heart beat to kill you or those you love. Let's give em' something to really hate us, I'm sure that'll make us all safer…small price to pay to put a carpet bagger into 24 Sussex. Hang onto that moral purity and black and white thinking, I'm certain it gives you comfort in a complex world that has an endless array of gray scale and very little black and white. IR ain't Sunday school.

        • Your understanding is wrong. The reported problems were under the current government, but the real issue is the failure of the current government to acknowledge and react to the problems.

        • I think the last ten years have shown that "Let's give em' something to really hate us, I'm sure that'll make us all safer…" translates into new recruiting opportunities for Muslin extremists. Who really hate us. Which does NOT make us safer.

          I'd rather be hated by people who misunderstand our core values than people who hate us for really abandoning our core values.

          "The crazies are real dude and they wouldn't hesitate a heart beat to kill you or those you love."

          Oh Rudy Giuliani, you little scamp! When did you start posting on Canadian comment boards?

      • Perhaps you should tell Iffy. He has no credibility on the issue given his previous comments on torture and the fact that all this stuff supposedly happened four years ago.

        • you have no credibility on 'iffy's' credibility given your clear inability to read what he actually wrote on this matter, apparently.

        • I thought he had no credibility because he went to Harvard…or was it because he's just visiting or he's in it for himself…wish you guys'd get your smears straight.

  3. Loved the reference to the yr 1649 in Mr Lee's letter to the GG. Gonna get my DVD of Cromwell. God how I love a Protectorate!

  4. 'The reason the Libs want a judicial inquiry is they are just now figuring out that the PM was actually defending the nation's honor.."

    I'm not too sure the nation can take too much more of the PM defending our honour so dishonourably? If this is in fact the case, he should be on this like a politician on a photo op, no?

  5. How is it dishonorable to take the heat for others errors and not point fingers? Just because the legion of the misinformed has an axe to grind based on a flawed and incomplete uderstanding doesn't mean their object of hate deserves to be pilloried for arguably his most noble gesture in office. IMHO protecting Canadian soldiers from potential harm, because of someone else's short sighted policy choices, while paying a huge political price, is the epitome of noble sacrifice. Just my two bits, but i predict that once the public figures out Iggy et al are trying to score political points at the expense of CF lives there will be a nasty backlash.

    • Legion, misinform thyself!

      • anyone would think Peter has the inside scoop on this story…the rest of us have a flawed and incomplete understanding of the PM's motives. Points for loyaly, but precious little else.

        • When you see something inexplicable, painfully dragging on, costing support, polling points and prospects you know that pedestrian, partisan knee jerk answers are unlikely to be near the truth. Even you die hards have to confess the Conservatives have played a strong game up till now (whether you support them or not you have to respect their skill). Perhaps, just maybe, there is an explanation beyond the harper=satan meme so prevalent on the left. Maybe saving lives, national honor and good relations with stalwart allies are secondary to you, I assure you they are important to Conservatives.

          • Apparently, to Peter, "Strong" = utter disrespect for Parliamentary tradition.

            They called George W. Bush and Nixon strong too, for similar behaviour.

            But what do I know? Unlike Peter, my understanding is flawed and incomplete.

          • If Harper is taking one for the team, he's doing an awful good job of making it look like the team[ parliament for instance] should be taking one for him.

  6. When in doubt consult WWOD (what would Obama do). As to parliamentary tradition, I find it curious you are such an advocate of it today…seems to me Chretien and Martin and Dion honored it more in the breach than the observance. Let's see, explicity denying a coalition during the 06 election, then a book comes out saying otherwise. Something about the BDC. Oh, oh and the Gomery thingy, remind me what that all about again? Bob Rae carrying on about prorogation, that was rich, and of course the most recent prorogation over (?) Afstan and Martin policies?

    • Silly me, I thought we were talking about the people who have been in power for more than three years and are now going to great lengths to keep secrets.

      As for "the Gomery thing", if Harper produced an investigation as transparent and thorough as the Gomery Inquiry, we wouldn't have a looming crisis, now would we?

      • Keep digging, you'll get out of the hole! If you think Gomery was open and transparent you don't understand terms of reference and limited hangout. Gomery exposed the only the barest tip of the iceberg and satisfied the public's thirst for "guilty parties". The guilty continue to scheme and defraud. The patsies got wrist slaps.

        • Wow, that's a damning indictment of the Gomery Inquiry.

          I don't agree, but isn't it interesting that Harper won't even meet that standard, even if it means triggering a constitutional crisis.

          Oh wait – to your mind, "triggering a constitutional crisis" means "bravely standing up for Canadian democracy even though Harper can't tell you why though he totally wishes he could and will be vindicated someday". Gosh, I wish my understanding of the situation wasn't so small and incomplete. Like yours, you know?

          • I'm going to play with my kids. At least the day won't be a total waste. We're making gold medals and celebrating our country. Go back to hammering things you think you understand, watch your thumbs.

  7. Arf!

  8. This is what I get for feeding the trolls.

    • I rest my case. being called a troll at a news site for defending a mainstream position. Check your url you're not at rabble. In fact between yourself and kcm's (and wherry's and O'malleys but al least they're trying to sell something) relentless blindness i despair for our country's future, but then i remember i too was once an undergrad. Why don't both of you do yourselves a favor and do some reading of real books on political theory and Human Action, then spend 10 years bashing heads with bureacrats in Ottawa and meeting with MPs, travel the world a bit and try and wrap your heads around what a unique and wonderful country this actually is

      • I'd bet iv'e lived and traveled overseas as much as you my friend. You can't seem to get over the fact that others see events a good deal differently than you. I think TJ and i are in good company here…Coyne, Wells and Geddes have all written articles that argue for an entirely different take than yours. As i said, your loyalty is commendable, but it in no way entittles you to some god like omniscience.

  9. Dude, you're adorable.

    Now go play with those lucky, lucky kids.