34

Our cleverness runneth over


 

Conservative backbencher Stephen Woodworth will accept your apologies now.

now that war crimes accusations remain unabated will those who misleadingly said prorogation was to avoid that will admit their error


 

Our cleverness runneth over

  1. Uh, Stephen, just because a tactic failed does not at all suggest that it was not intended to succeed.

    However, to be more specific, if not to avoid these accusations, then for what? Consulting with Canadians? Like you did on the flag issue? Recalibrating the budget? So that it says the same thing as it did last year? C'mon, Woodworth.. what was it for?

    • Come on, Seniors' Day took at least a weekend. And the Prime Ministerial Volunteer Awards? Well, it's not like they had something to copy from like the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award .
      http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=187
      Err, never mind. Seems the PMO web war-room can use google…

    • I sometimes think that Harper prorogued Parliament simply because he could. All of these pesky opponents asking all of those impertinent questions: what a relief it was to make them all go away for a while so that he could concentrate on Strategizing.

      What's the point of having muscle if you don't flex it every now and again?

  2. I have accusations regarding the poor use of grammar and syntax. Twitter is no excuse.

    Since it is a vapid statement, I don't think it deserves much of a retort.

  3. Woodworth's logic is a bit shaky.

    • To assume his logic is shaky is to assume he is not blithering. And I'm not sure that follows.

      • They're not mutually exclusive. One can blither and one's logic can be shaky at the same time.

        Of course, this is just a tweet. Maybe we're overanalyzing it.

        • And here I thought there was deep meaning to be found.

  4. I recall saying at the time Woodworth deserved to be a back bencher…clearly i was wrong.

    • Do some people require it in crayon? Why are we sending people like him to Parliament?We have a shortage of smart people in this country?

  5. Well, I'm sure Harper said this behind closed doors. So is Mr. Woodworth saying the PM is wrong?! Hmmm…

  6. So is he expecting 225,000 apologies?

  7. "now that war crimes accusations remain unabated, will those who misleadingly said prorogation would deflect them admit their error?"

    There, fixed.

  8. A number have jumped on me, because I support Ignatieff (and Jack) going after a public inquiry rather than turning over potentially damaging documents to parliament, which leads me to a question:

    Do we really want Stephen Woodworth to know anything that could hurt Canada?

    • No!

      • Well, even if he learned state secrets dangerous to us all, there seems to be no way he could transmit those secrets in intelligible form.

    • For better or worse, Parliament is the government of Canada. While the idea of giving people such as Woodworth access to sensitive information fills me with horror, perhaps giving backbenchers access to secrets would make them aware that an MP has a responsibility to help govern the country, not just serve as a partisan shill.

      Or, to put it another way: I trust Parliament more than I trust the Prime Minister and the PMO.

  9. so, now that is has been confirmed the Liberal government ignored warnings about detainees, the question is, will Wherry report it?
    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/09/detai

    She had also written three different human rights reports over three years warning that torture was a common problem in Afghanistan.

    But Olexiuk said her advice was ignored by Paul Martin's government.

    "I don't think anybody really cared, quite frankly," she said.

    Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/09/detai

    Strange how nobody cared about it back then, but now the Liberals have a new-found interest in the matter.

  10. so, now that is has been confirmed the Liberal government ignored warnings about detainees, the question is, will Wherry report it?
    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/09/detai

    She had also written three different human rights reports over three years warning that torture was a common problem in Afghanistan.

    But Olexiuk said her advice was ignored by Paul Martin's government.

    "I don't think anybody really cared, quite frankly," she said.

    Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/09/detai

    Strange how nobody cared about it back then, but now the Liberals have a new-found interest in the matter.

    • Check this out from Dr Dawg, who is certainly no Liberal lover, but says this is revisionist history going on here.

      Also a response from Dave at the Galloping Beaver(an ex-military man):

      It will …cause the monosynaptic whipheads at the Blogging Tories to start squawking, "The Liberals did it, too!" Which is non sequitur to the current issue facing the Harperites.

      This is closer to the issue. The Harperites developing a plan, not to correct the situation on the ground and guarantee that government direction did not place troops and diplomats in a condition which might violate international law, but to develop a single story and "stick to it".

      • I am not saying "they did it too" is a valid defense. I'm saying the Liberals are making a mountain out of a molehill, and this proves it. I'm saying the conduct of our forces has been perfectly acceptable.

      • "Monosynaptic" is a great adjective, Scott! I'll have to add that to my lexicon.

      • Apparently the answer to my question is yes.

        • That sounds like a "no".

    • "Strange how nobody cared about it back then, but now the Liberals have a new-found interest in the matter."

      Oh those Liberal partisans, calling for an inquiry that would avoid questions into their own… pardon? How's that? They've been calling for an inquiry going back to 2002? Why, that would implicate a Liberal government if anything was done wrong on their watch!

      There's no amount of spin that can overcome the fact that in this case, the Liberal party is doing the right thing right now. If they were wrong in 2005, they're willing to take the heat. I'll point you to Scott_Tribe above, who links to Dr. Dawg (http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2010/03/tortureg… on why today's kerfuffle doesn't hold water. But you can't claim the Liberals are calling for anything other than a complete and fair assessment of reality on the ground.

      Calling this partisan politics is completely unsupported by the facts.

      • Hey TJCOOK

        Does it not occur to you that the current Liberals may not have known what exPM Paul Martin knew?

        Maybe that was a LIBERAL SECRET!

        Bring our kids home ….. we are doing nothing there.

    • I am not for a moment questioning Olexiuk's memory of writing three different human rights reports over three years.

      What I am unclear on is whether we were, in fact, transferring detainees to Afghanis at the time? I thought we didn't transfer to Afghanis until right around the time of the election–perhaps two weeks at most before the Conservatives took over. Having said that, if we already had warnings about abuse, the weak initial agreement is even more outrageous, but the story makes it sound like she was, at the time of writing the reports, complaining of our behaviour.

      Were we transferring to both the Americans and the Afghanis throughout?

  11. This Woodworth fellow seems to have one of those typical politician split personalities, as Bush the Elder admitted, since intrigued by this tweet, I checked others, and found this: "S210, the Liberal environmental bill I am sposoring in the House has been tabled in Senate.It can go strait to our Cttee if here in 60 days" at http://twitter.com/WoodworthMP/status/10285861673
    Intrigued, I found the explanation, and it seems a sensible little bill: http://www.stephenwoodworth.ca/speeches/2nd-readi… It's a pity that the need to show loyalty means that otherwise sentient MPs, who can do good work, can behave so exasperatingly "for the sake of the party", when it only makes their party, and politics in general, look bad (well it is, as things stand, but why add to it?)

  12. Harper has the documents, including Ms. Eileen Olexiuk's.

    Not once did he release the documents Ms. Olexiuk gave to the Paul Martin Liberal government because he may, like me, understand that the information give aid and comfort to the enemy and may risk our solider's lives.

    EFL …. what is it that the Liberals doing?

    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/09/detai

    • I have three rules:

      1) Never kiss on the first date

      2) Never eat blue food

      3) When, after three barely-comprehensible posts, an anonymous blog commenter orders you to READ something that starts with 'jimbobbysez', don't waste your time.

      • Those seem pretty good rules to live by. Me, I was offended at the first READ and so didn't, to that or any of his other posts.

  13. How very convenient: I have Stephen Woodworth's apology right here.

    Right here.

Sign in to comment.