The Commons: John Baird exceeds himself -

The Commons: John Baird exceeds himself

What’s a government to do when the troops say otherwise?


The Scene. The altogether undramatic sentence, taken from the notes of a Canadian soldier serving in Afghanistan, appeared more than halfway through a story in this morning’s paper. “Local ANP elements were in possession of a PUC detained by CDA troops and subsequently transferred to ANP custody.”

The ANP, in this case, is the Afghan National Police. PUC is apparently short for person under control. And CDA would seem to be a quick way of saying “Canadian” with fewer consonants and vowels. While in the possession of the ANP, having been detained and transferred by the CDAs, it seems that the handcuffed PUC was beaten bloody with shoes. So much so that the CDAs felt it necessary to remove the PUC from the possession of the ANP, the entire incident apparently corroborated by the sorts of soldiers everyone has made clear they support.

This is problematic for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is this government’s repeated reassurances that “there has never been a single, solitary proven allegation of abuse involving a transferred prisoner from Canadian Forces.”

It was on such grounds that Michael Ignatieff rose at the start of Question Period this afternoon to inquire as to precisely what was going on here. And it was here that John Baird, outdoing even his own standards for rebuttal, seemed to imply that Mr. Ignatieff should cease with his inquiries on this file.

“Mr. Speaker, the story which the leader of opposition raises is one that was raised in this House more than two and a half years ago,” the Transport Minister lamented. “The Vice Chief of Defence staff, now the CDS, had issued a statement over two and a half years ago stating that the Afghan in question was not detained, was not captured and was not transferred by the Canadian Forces. I hope the member opposite will stand in this place and apologize to the men and women in uniform.”

There were various catcalls and whoops from the Conservative side, various government members apparently quite eager to side with Mr. Baird’s testimony. Mr. Ignatieff was less convinced.

“Mr. Speaker, the point is the Canadian Forces did their job. The question is whether the government did its job,” he offered. “The issue here is the minister says one thing, but a Canadian field officer’s diary and sworn testimony says another. I would prefer to believe the testimony of the officer and not the minister opposite. Can he give me a reason to believe anything he says?”

A Conservative voice loudly proclaimed “shame” upon the Liberal leader.

Up came Mr. Baird, pumping his fist and speaking quite forcefully, if not particularly dealing with the question at hand. “Mr. Speaker, for more than three years we have seen the Liberal Party and the members opposite smear our brave men and women in uniform,” the Minister declared. “The Chief of Defence Staff, a man who has bravely worn the Canadian uniform for decades, has been abundantly clear. He issued a statement more than two and a half years ago, stating that the Afghan in question was not detained, was not captured, and was not transferred by the Canadian Forces. The leader of the opposition should be up on his feet commending the work of our troops and commending the contribution they have been making under difficult circumstances, and he should stop this fear-mongering.”

Mr. Ignatieff shook his head, perhaps upset, perhaps simply bewildered. He stood seeming quite frustrated, pointing his left index finger and straining the range of his vocal chords.

“Mr. Speaker, this is precisely a case where the Canadian Forces did their job. They saw someone being beaten, his face covered in blood, and they did the right thing,” he pronounced. “This side of the House did the right thing. For a year the government had credible evidence that this had occurred and it did nothing. What kind of government, what kind of Canadian government refuses to act on credible accusations of torture, evidence of torture and in this case evidence provided by Canadian Forces?”

Mr. Baird stood once more to repeat himself. “Mr. Speaker, let me be as clear as I can. When Canadian Forces personnel, when Canadian officials are presented with clear and substantiated evidence, they have always acted,” he said. “Let us be very clear on another point. The Afghan in question was not a Canadian detainee, and our men and women in uniform did the right thing. They should be honoured for that contribution, honoured for their sacrifice, and the member opposite should apologize to those men and women in uniform.”

Several Conservative backbenchers stood to applaud this, the Transport Minister having apparently succeeded in accomplishing something.

The Stats. Afghanistan, 11 questions. The environment, eight questions. Employment and foreign affairs, five questions each. Mail delivery, labour and taxation, two questions each. Product safety, infrastructure and firearms, one question each.

John Baird, seven answers. Laurie Hawn, six answers. Bev Oda, five answers. Jim Prentice, four answers. Christian Paradis, Rob Nicholson, Rob Merrifield, Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Rona Ambrose, two answers each. Leona Aglukkaq, Jim Flaherty, James Moore, Tony Clement, Helena Guergis and Vic Toews, one answer each.


The Commons: John Baird exceeds himself

  1. It speaks volumes when Mr. Baird is the best the Cons can produce to answer serious questions about possible Canadian government complicity in handing prisoners over to Afghanistan prisons and near-certain torture. He is a pompous pit bull of a person who couldn't engage in civil discourse with children.

    • Encourage the opposition parties to vote non confidence and go to the people if you honestly believe that the Canadian government was complicit in torture. Thought so. No guts, no glory. Talk is cheap. All you can do is call people names. It is not very becoming and certainly doesn't add to the political debate.

      • "All you can do is call people names."

        Thus hollinm, famous logician. I can't remember the last time you added anything to any debate.

        • Just cause you don't agree does not deter me. Look at some of the comments Jack. Are these really what you would call intelligent?

          • hollinm questions my honesty, sincerity and intelligence, and I'm the name-caller? The difference is, my focus was on the Cons, not the person posting.

            Sadly, holinm practices old and very tired Con tricks. Attack the messenger. Go after credibility. Deflect the issue.

            The issue I raised concerned Mr. Baird and his inability to answer serious charges in an adult way. btw, the very low quality of Mr. Harper's "team" also speaks volumes about the PM's lack of leadership skills!

    • Mr Baird has something that Mr Ignatieff doesn't have. Backbone! I admire his ability to go toe to toe with the Liberal mud-slingers and beat them back every time. When he speaks they always end up retreating with their tails between their legs.

      By the way, which "children" are you referring to? The members opposite?

      • Hey Fred, I believe if you asked ordinary Canadians which party is most likely to engage in unfair attacks on their detractors (members opposite, public servants, turncoats, etc.), which party slings mud and name-calls the most, which party is the most ideological and uncompromising, a large majority would respond, the Cons.

        If you asked knowledgeable Canadians the same questions, a larger majority still.

  2. my god – HIS NOSTRILS must have been HUGE! *clown*

  3. So, Baird is basically saying that the paperwork wasn't done, so it didn't happen.

  4. In his contempt, he accidentally snorted up Rona Ambrose and Lisa Raitt. Sexy!

  5. This 'against the troops' nonsense should enrage Canadians of any and all political leanings. It's beyond offensive.

    • It's out-and-out cowardice. And it's the coordinated, deliberate position of Baird's entire party, including the Prime Minister.

      Remember 2004 when the US had the opportunity to reject the Republican disgrace it had elected? Well, soon Canada is going to have such a moment. I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised in our nation's character, while preparing to be sickened and disgusted in my fellow Canadians.

      • I don't know – we might see a lot of nose plugging and mutters about lesser evils.

      • Remember 2004 when the US had the opportunity to reject the Republican disgrace it had elected?

        I remember an election when the US had the opportunity to reject the hack the Democrats put up, and did…

        • There was no honour in to be found in a wealthy, connected draft dodger swift boating a decorated soldier, and no honour to be found in John Baird pointing the against the troops finger at the opposition.

      • while preparing to be sickened and disgusted in my fellow Canadians.

        Can we infer that you were sickened and disgusted by your fellow Canadians when they rejected the Liberal Party in the last election? How about the one before that?

    • It's beyond offensive

      and we're no longer surprised by that, are we?

      • I refuse to completely give up on them (acting with minimal honour) , but it gets harder to expect much different, I agree.

        • If the opposition parties truly believe the government is complicit in torture and that Canadians are sufficiently outraged they can vote non confidence and go to the people. However, we all know what would happen. Canadians would vote for a Conservative majority and Iffy would be heading back to Harvard faster than he could say detainee.

          Why all of you anti Harper gripers can bitch and moan the fact is most Canadians could care less about Afghans torturing Afghans. After all they are slaughtering our men and women. So there is not much sympathy. Don't ask me. Ask Craig Oliver over at CTV the resident grouch.

          • Well, the most recent polls would say you are wrong, but even if you are right, are most Canadians A-OK with the fact the government has been blatently lying to us for years about this issue? Is lying OK when it involves torture? Or maybe it is just OK when conservatives do it.

            Though I have to ask why you care about the opposition attacking the government and the media reporting on it if you also think most Canadians just do not care about torture. Seems to me you should not care about it either then.

            This is not a "call an election or shut up" scenario. In fact, such a scenario does not exist. Opposition parties are responsible for holding the government to account for their actions. The opposition is absolutely correct to hammer away at the government over this. The government does not get to crawl their way out of this by demanding the opposition vote non-confidence in them. Harper can call his own election if that is how he feels.

          • Wait.. there's some sort of law against that, isn't there?

          • Your bloviating again Gayle. I am simply reminding people like you on this board who think you are so high and mighty that you are barking up the wrong tree trying to find political advantage with another faux scandal. Much of this was dealth with 2 1/2 years ago.

            You people could care less about detainees being tortured. Its all about getting Harper.

            The opposition can continue to blather all they want but your buddy heading the Liberal party is the only person other than Harper that can be elected to the job of PM. He has little credibility with many Canadians and so the only choice is Harper whether you like it or not.

            By the way I need no lectures from sombody like you who would criticize Harper even if he discovered a cure for cancer or was able to walk on water.

          • Faux scandal? Two ministers have lied repeatedly in the House and to the media, claiming there was never any indication of torture, all the while trying to suppress reports there was? Taking 18 months to act on the safety of detainees is just incompetence, probably the same level of incompetence that inspired the original agreement drafted by the Liberals. Sad but par for the coures I'm afraid.

            But outright lies and a cover-up, that's a whole different ball game. Why should anyone, including the people in his department, or the suppliers who negotiate contracts believe anything Peter Mackay ever says again?

          • This was not dealt with 2 1/2 years ago because our government LIED 2 1/2 years ago. Is it your position we should simply ignore their lies?

            This is indeed about Harper. It is about the fact he lied to us. It is about the fact he may have been complicit in the torture of prisoners. It is about the fact he fails to take responsibility, each and every time he is confronted with his own failures. It is about the fact he would prefer to lie and to twist this into an attack on the military, and in the process, hide behind them.

            "The opposition can continue to blather all they want but your buddy heading the Liberal party is the only person other than Harper that can be elected to the job of PM. He has little credibility with many Canadians and so the only choice is Harper whether you like it or not."

            Which has what to do with questioning Harper on his government's responsibilities? Oh yeah – nothing. I don't care if the Liberal Party decides to fold tomorrow, that does not mean the opposition and the media should not be trying to get to the bottom of this. Harper does not get to ignore his responsibilities just because some people think Ignatieff has no credibility.

          • "After all they are slaughtering our men and women."

            That kind of hyperbole isn't helpful. First, when you send your army into a hostile territory, there's going to be casualties. It's not like the Taliban forces are attacking civilians in our shopping malls. We need to drop the faux outrage that somebody might actually return fire on our soldiers.

            Second, while any casualties are too many, I think we're a bit short of 'slaughter.' An old friend of mine was on the beaches for D-Day. That was slaughter.

            Finally, if your core humanity and compassion only extends to Canadians, I don't know what to say. We're clearly approaching the world from radically different starting points.

            None of this is meant to diminish the sacrifice of our soldiers and their families. Not for a second. If anything, I think it respects them more to avoid using their efforts as a symbolic club to beat the nuance and respect out of our discourse.

    • Doesn't offend me.

      • When you find comfort in gawking in the age old abrasive jerk method instead of touching base with the issue, ennui becomes you.

      • But at least we'd be less in debt and less feeling like lady #21 on Tiger's speed dial…

      • I see.. so assuming without evidence that another party would do worse excuses the actions of the current? Do you feel the same way when a contractor screws up a job at your house? If he turned and said, "Sure, I cracked your foundation, but the other guys would do worse.." that'd make it okay with you?


  6. Has anyone ever tried yelling back at Bairds fat face when goes all 'partisan hulk' in the house? My bet is he'd start weeping, and then begin to apologize for his whole decietful life.

  7. Baird: The Vice Chief of Defence staff, now the CDS, had issued a statement over two and a half years ago stating that the Afghan in question was not detained, was not captured and was not transferred by the Canadian Forces.

    Here's a link to Lt-Gen Natynczyk's statement on May 4, 2007:

    So why the discrepancy between Lt-Gen Natynczyk's version and the master-corporal's notes?

    First, there is the question of who made the initial arrest. Natynczyk claims it was the ANP, but the master-corporal indicated that the CF was the first to detain the man. Perhaps it hinges on the semantic distinction between "detention for questioning" (what the CF did) and "arrest" (what the ANP did).

    Second, there is another semantic distinction regarding the word "detainee". Natynczyk, and the Government, seem to define "detainee" as someone who was officially processed by the CF as such. Apparently, if someone was briefly detained by the CF, released, then immediately arrested by the ANP, that man is not considered to have been a "detainee" who was transferred.

  8. Baird: The Vice Chief of Defence staff, now the CDS, had issued a statement over two and a half years ago stating that the Afghan in question was not detained, was not captured and was not transferred by the Canadian Forces.

    Here's a link to Lt-Gen Natynczyk's statement on May 4, 2007:

    So why the discrepancy between Lt-Gen Natynczyk's version and the master-corporal's notes?

    First, there is the question of who made the initial arrest. Natynczyk claims it was the ANP, but the master-corporal indicated that the CF was the first to detain the man. Perhaps it hinges on the semantic distinction between "detention for questioning" (what the CF did) and "arrest" (what the ANP did).

    Second, there is another semantic distinction regarding the word "detainee". Natynczyk, and the Government, seem to define "detainee" as someone who was officially processed by the CF as such. Apparently, if someone was briefly detained by the CF, released, then immediately arrested by the ANP, that man is not considered to have been a "detainee" who was transferred.

    • I feel so dirty to have to agree with you.

      • You'll feel better after a hot shower.

    • This is what Conservatives refer to as "transparent government". This semantic dicking around is as reprehensible as redacting reams of memos to protect government minister's overfed behinds.

    • Good snuff work!

      I have to admit that this situation is a bit too thin to justify an inquiry… but the liberals still need their ace in the hole.

    • So you're saying they're not really lying.. just weasels.

      • Not really weasels, just fond of using weaselly doublespeak to cover up the fact that they can never admit to any wrongdoing and will lash out using any and all means to smear anyone or anything that dares to challenge their right to govern with accountability and transparency. But weasels?…… that kind of talk is against the troops……

  9. Mr. Baird and any other Conservative shifting the focus from the government onto the troops is simply disgusting. If you are in support of the troops, you don't use the troops to smear those who would hold you to account. Mr Baird shows no respect.

    This Conservative government needs to gather 1/100th the ounce of courage every person serving in Afghanistan has and start dealing with these allegations like adults. Watching this government use the troops as a prop really reinforces the believe that governments are the greatest threat to citizens…

    • To call the generals who testified as liars or promoting a cover up etc as some have and accepting the emails written by Colvin as the gospel truth without any evidence to support his allegations is not supporting the military. What you are suggesting is our troops knowing transferred detainees to the Afghan government knowing they could be tortured. After all you and the rest of the anti war crowd are suggesting everybody knew detainees were being tortured. Last time I looked the generals were part of the military. Oh, I know that's different.

      • Nice switch from "the generals" knowing to "our troops knowingly transferred detainees… knowing they would be tortured" and mixing them all into a salad and vaguely referring to them all as our military.

        They are all part of the military indeed. But "the troops" i.e. the soldiers on the ground and the top military brass are not the same thing. To accuse the generals of not knowing the truth, being wilfully blind to the truth or ignoring warnings about the truth… is not anywhere near the same thing as saying our troops knew the detainees would be tortured.

        Our soldiers are good and disciplined and honourable. They follow orders. They trust that those orders are sound. They trust that the government is going to do what it says it was going to do, i.e. monitor for torture after handover. In fact, the government did monitor, otherwise Colvin would not have been sent to check things out. However, they chose to ignore what Colvin had to say about circumstances.

        • Once again you cannot start parsing who you believe to be the honourable ones and those who are not. My point remains Colvin said virtually every detainee being turned over was being tortured and it was common knowledge. Ergo, the troops on the ground must have known or suspected this to be the case which makes them guilty. Therefore they knowingly transferred detainees knowing they were going to be tortured.

          It is not clear whether Colvin witnessed first hand or simply was told by others that torture was taking place. So it is not simply as you say it is. He was not outside the wire often and in fact wrote the time he visited the prison conditions were not too bad.

          Hypothetically…..what would we as a country do if we concretely learn that our detainees were tortured? Put Stephen Harper and the country on trial etc. etc.

          The opposition could force an election and guess what Canadians do not care about Afghans allegedly torturing Afghans. They do not want Iffy as PM and so they would re-elect Stephen Harper.

          This is war. Bad things happen. It is only the arm chair quaterbacks sitting in their comfy chairs in Ottawa who see the world and the war as black and white.

  10. And we wonder why Natynczyk was promoted — he is just Rick Hillier, minus the bombast.

  11. Refreshing to see that everything I wanted to say has already been said. Baird is a pompous, lying, disingenuous, disrespectful, offensive waste of space. Shame on Ottawa West-Nepean for electing him, and shame on those who continue to support the government he is a part of in spite of his reprehensible conduct.

    • Why does it bother you so much? If he is all those things just ignore him. Otherwise having so much hatred for someone can cause a nervous breakdown.

      Instead focus on Iffy with his bushy eyebrows fluttering up and down, his scrunched mean look and his lizard like tongue constantly licking his lips and the lanquid way he stands, sits and walks. That will draw your attention from Baird.

      • Well, I'm really a little more interested in disliking someone for reasons of substance that irrelevant stuff like physical appearance. What I wrote was 5 good reasons to hate Baird and be embarrassed of our government. What you wrote was 5 things about Iggy that have nothing to do with his policy. Typical of a Conservative shill.

        • Exactly you were so interested in calling Baird names and merely wanted to show you that two can play that game.

          I must have missed your post where you talked about policy. It was simply a rant and then went on to call Baird all kinds of names. You are one ignorant dude.

          Iffy has no policies so the only thing you can do is attack him personally whether you like it or not.

  12. Don't blame Iggy , he and Tiger are not having, nor have had a good week, and new bombs are falling daily,,with many more to come.

  13. Inside John Bird is an open-line radio talk show host screaming to get out.

    NOw I know why Adler, Green, et al support the CPC so obsequiously . . . . they don't want the competition

  14. Has anyone considered that perhaps Ignatieff and Baird may both be telling the truth? I wonder if perhaps the Afghani in question was captured by Afghanis and then taken out of their custody by CF Personnel when they discovered he'd been beaten. It's just a thought, but it could also explain both men's defiance toward each other.

    • You are making too much sense, as is often the case.This is done like dinner, next up will be climategate.I mean the climate, Iggy jumps from headline to headline.Poor devil seems all alone in the HOC as of late, shades of things to come no doubt

      • Absolutely true. Iffy is so desperate he is unrelated questions on virtually any issue he thinks may get traction.

        Watching him comment on Copenhagen makes you want to jump through the TV. Obviously having been out of the country for 34 years he does not know the record of the Liberal party on Kyoto and the environment. Typical Liberal hypocrisy pretending they have no record after having majority governments for 13 years.

        • Actually, wasn't it Ignatieff who cried out "you didn't get it done!" in a debate with one of our former Liberal Env mins?

          The Liberals know damn well that their position at Copenhagen would be virtually identical to that currently being taken by the government. No government in Canada can afford the economic consequences that would happen if Canada were to veer too far from from the USA position on climate change. Indeed, as an academic, one of Ignatieff's problems is that deep down he knows the policies a Liberal government would adopt are close to what Harper has adopted.

          • I agree. Nobody is arguing we could as a world be more environmentally conscious. However, that is a far cry from destroying the livelihoods of many middle class Canadians, driving the lower income people even lower by raising prices of virtually every good and service consumed thus driving up inflation and interest rates.

  15. Here's the relevant section from Colonel Noonan's affidavit:

    There was one incident in which the CF took custody of detainee who had been turned over to the local ANP by the CF In this case, the CF learned that the detainee had been beaten by the local ANP. When they learned of this, they approached the local ANP and requested that the detainee be given to them. The ANP complied and the CF subsequently transferred the detainee to the Provincial ANP.

  16. Really..why is the transport minister answering questions regarding national defence?
    Am I asking too much?

    • He is answering leaders' questions in the absence of the PM.

      • He is answering questions for which there is no reason to think he knows the answer.

    • Who doesn't answer questions better than Baird?

  17. Wherry instead of bloviating prove that it was a Canadian detainee that was turned over and was subsequently tortured. By the way does torture now mean beating with shoes. Come on. Get real.

    • I believe it means beating of any sort.
      However, I'm certain there are many who'd be happy to test it out on you so you could determine for yourself if it can truly be classified as torture.

      • Aren't we a smart ass?

    • It doesn't matter if it was an official Canadian detainee or not. Witnessing the beating of a prisoner is evidence that prisoners are being mistreated. Time for alarm bells to go off at headquarters.

      Or do you honestly believe that the Afghan jailers cohorted the detainees by who captured them and then only tortured the ones who weren't turned over by the Canadians? Becasue if that's the case it should have been easy for the Red Cross or anyone to track the Canadian detainees in their specially marked No Torture cells.

      • Typical….did you not listen or are you incapable of being accurate in your comments. It was not a Canadian forces detainee but when our troops saw he was being abused they took him under their wing and gave him medical attention. Lets not tell the truth get in the way because it does not fit into the Liberal narrative.

  18. I never liked Baird as a provincial member of Ontario's parliament. I like him less now. Denying Canada's dismal record on the environment and denying any wrong doing in Afganistan are just two examples. Baird is there to cover the government's dismal record by insulting the opposition. He learned plenty from his hero, Premier Mike Harris, and continues to learn from his new mentor, Harper. Very sad.

    • Reason you don't like Baird is because he makes the opposition parties look foolish. By the way why does it upset you so much? Are you afraid that Canadians watching Question Period accept his answers to whatever silly question the opposition is asking. Otherwise why do you care? Is he hurting you personally?

      • He certainly makes the rest of the House look like grown-ups. That's something. Give him credit.

        • He is doing his job. Getting under the skin of people like you and the opposition. Carry on.

          • His job is to answer, to be accountable to the House for decisions made by his government.

            Insults are what he does in place of doing his job, and he ought to be removed, not for being annoying and insulting, but for failing to be accountable.

          • It is also the job of the opposition to ask serious questions without the spin, fabrication, distortion but I guess because they are the opposition it is perfectly alright.

            If you want to have accountability then we would need to reduce the House to virtually nobody. The opposition also should be held accountable for the questions they ask after they virtually have made a speech before they ask their inane questions. Trouble is the Conservatives play the game too well and they are often embarassed or shown to be uninformed.

  19. Helena was up answering a question?? Geez, must have been a softball pitched from another Tory about the olympics or something.

    • But the Liberals don't support our athletes either, you know. The other day they asked a question about who was hired to do some of the building, those traitors.

  20. […cont]
    Now who "they" are is not clear. Clearly, the government knew a lot more than they have been saying. Did the generals? Was it even their jurisdiction to provide oversight on the detainees once transferred? That's not clear to me. An inquiry would help clear that up though.

  21. The problem I see here is that the motives of the Liberals are not as pure as they claim. They are not trying to bring the truth to light. They are just trying to pin a scandal on the ruling Conservatives. Unfortunately they have picked the wrong issue. To this point they haven't hurt the Conservatives, but they have tarnished the image of Canada's armed forces, called two of our Generals liars, embarassed Canada internationally, and damaged the Red Cross's reputation as a neutral party.

    Very reckless and stupid behaviour.

    • Reckless and stupid.Thats what they have become, they are in an obvious panic, and they do not know what to do when in opposition.I think next year, after Ignatieff has been given the boot, they might have to learn how to start from the ground up.They are becoming irrelevant, and they, more than any talking head, know that.

  22. Fred, you must be too far north, maybe just a little farther than Brandon. Nobody has tarnished the image of the CF other than the Conservative Party with their shameful responses to clear questions on a serious issue. Accusations, now backed by a written, sworn affidavit signed by a full Colonel of the Canadian Forces on-scene in Afghanistan. The question doesn't need to come from the opposition parties; it needs to come from the top in government and in the military.

    Torture is not something we want pinned to the CF and the only way to avoid that labeling is for the government to come forth with all the documents, un-redacted. So far we only have this latest update, seen and logged by a brave Master Corporal and a brave Colonel.

    Torture isn't palatable in western nation, now the holier-than-thou Conservative government REFUSES to support the troops in the field, at the pointy end, by coming out with the TRUTH.

    Oh, Fred, the last time we dealt with torture and death was our Somalia scene. I assume you know that the cavalier leadership on scene at that time was Col. Labbe. Please know that now Mr. Labbe was Mr. Hillier's right hand man in Kabul, as was the current CDS working for the Bravado General in Afghanistan. Let me close with a repeat question from above: who ya gonna believe, the the Generals, present and past, or the MCpl and Col who were at the scene of detainee handover activity??? Your call.

  23. I am so tired of hearing people bitch and complain about this government. Harper has done what he said he would do. Liberals need to get over the fact they lost, and that they are still not all that popular with the Canadian public. The past two Liberal governments got greedy and got caught. As for the Liberals' approval rating near the Conservatives', this shows that a percentage of the Canadian public is either too stupid to remember what the past two Liberal governments did and believes that we would be better off with yet another corrupt government.

    So to the Liberal supporters, I would like to say "get off your soap boxes" This government has been one of the better ones in years.

    No one will agree with everything that each government does, but I believe most would think we are better off with this government than a NDP or Liberal one. As all we see from the NPD's is a man who will never be the PM, and from the Liberals a very broken party, who does nothing but criticize this government for problems that they inherited from them, I.E Afghanistan

  24. "Harper has done what he said he would do."

    You mean, like: not putting us in deficit, not increasing spending, not allowing floor crossings, governing by principle instead of the polls, not taxing income trusts, not increasing our taxes, appointing a Public Appointments Commissioner, vetting all Supreme Court Nominees in public hearings, getting wait time guarantees, being transparent and accountable, not allowing staffers to become lobbyists… etc.

    Harper has broken more promises in the last 4 years than the last 4 Prime Ministers put together.

  25. Try not to embellish, it weakens your argument