71

What the ministers were told


 

The head of the International Red Cross is reported to have met with Peter MacKay, Gordon O’Connor and Stockwell Day in the fall of 2006.

Officially, the Red Cross would only say the talks focused on topics including Afghanistan, humanitarian law in modern conflicts and co-operation with Canada. Unofficially, sources in Geneva said the international agency, whose functions include monitoring the treatment of prisoners, was growing frustrated over Canada’s tardy notification of its handover of captured suspected Taliban to Afghan authorities. The delay could often be as much as 34 days, making it difficult to track the detainees.


 

What the ministers were told

  1. "The fact that there were allegations of mistreatment in Afghan prisons was known to us," said David Mulroney, who led the Privy Council's Afghanistan task force. "There was no mention specifically of Canadian-transferred prisoners – that was a deficiency that we later cleared up."

    He also acknowledged there was no way to get credible evidence about abuse of Canadian transferees because there was no proper monitoring of prisoners prior to 2007"

    So lacking any means of confirming that allegations of abuse occured in Afghan prisons, allegations that we acknowledge, we did what for over a year? Sowly, bit by bit this sorry tale unfolds.

    • Actually, we did squat from the time the first Cdn prisoner was handed over in 2002.
      In Colvins rebuke, he pointed out that everyone knew in 2002-2004 what was happening.
      Someone must have 'told' him or he has memos from that time, as he wasn't in the post until 2006.

      • You're an idiot Wilson – how many tmes do you have to be told we were under Us command until 05. Apparently Colvin is prescient when it suits you, but not otherwise. Tell us why the detainee count went way up under the cons Wilson, a good deal higher than our allies? Wasn't "that" the time to improve detainee monitoring? In any case no one is suggesting the libs have nothing to answer for…it's just twerps like you who somehow believe even suspicion of liberal wrong-doing must naturally indicate Conservative innocense. Don't you think it's about time you and your govt take responsibility for their own mistakes?

        • Wilson brings up – unwittingly again – all the more reason to hold a full public inquiry int othe Afghan detainee timeline from 2002 onwards – as supported by the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff.

  2. The pundits and politicians keep saying it doesn't matter, Canadians don't care–but the reporters keep digging stuff up.

    • That's why Conservative pundits are now openly calling for prorogation. Take a look at yesterday's panel on CTV's Question Period of Flanagan, Tory, and Lapierre. They were falling all over each other saying that the issue didn't matter, but prorogation was a great idea to take the heat off.

      • Wow. I didn't think prorogation was seriously on the table. If Harper's not careful, that dreaded coalition might start to look better and better to some.

        • The coalition is probably a big, fat easy target for SH. It would be a perfect channel changer away from Afghanistan and prorogation, and would segue into the need for an election to "stop the political games and focus on the economy". Right now, the economy trumps all.
          In my opinion it's cheap and dirty, but it is not illegal – and given a big bucks advertising push, it will probably work.

          sigh

          • My modest suggestion for the opposition would be to pull the plug should the Conservatives prorogue, and then run with the potential for a coalition on the table. Force Harper to publically denounce a government formed by a majority of MPs, and use that as a starting point to attack his contempt for parliament and democratic institutions. Take the plunge and support the removal of the per vote subsidy.

            It may not even prove a winning strategy, but I suspect it would lay the groundwork for a more equal playing field in the long term.

          • Big move to pull the plug – you get the blame for an election no one wants. I don't think SH would hesitate to rebirth the "separatists and socialists" bedfellows schtick and his contempt for parliament is something he would willingly take on and spin. Remember, it's always everyone else's fault.

            I agree it would be a good move for the opposition (Liberal/NDP) to introduce and support the removal of the per vote subsidy for the "big boys", but make an amendment that would extend funding for smaller parties whose voter support falls between a min and a max. They could argue that this allows for the formation of new parties and is good for democracy nudge nudge possibly even opening some dialogue on the topic of securing the future of Canadian democracy…..

          • Ignatieff ruled out a coalition months ago. It would hurt his credibility if he suddenly put it back on the table.

            As for yanking the subsidy for "big boys" only, I'm not a fan. The only reason I like eliminating the per-vote subsidy is because it would effectively get rid of the Bloc (or at least seriously compromise its warchest, and force it to actually make an effort to raise money like the other parties).

            If we exclude that, then I say don't bother. Might as well let every party indulge in the per-vote subsidy, rather than turn it into an exclusive club.

          • Why would you want to end the sub guys? i don't think it's top of many Canadian's wish lists and why not suggest ending all the subs, if you go down that road? Harper's a master bluffer…no need for anyone to panic here…the coaltion should be a hail Mary only, or a hidden club – although Iggy may have thrown that away…unwisely IMHO…besides the Bloc will never agree to any meaure that cuts their subs.

          • That gives me an idea. The Libs could run on ending the tax subsidy for donations, and the Cons could run on ending the per-vote subsidy. I'm not sure it would help or solve anything, but it would be novel at the very least. :)

            I disagree about the coaltion. It would hurt Iggy in the short term, but in the long term it would provide a viable means for restoring a bit of stability to parliament. And it could (again, in the long term) better benefit the Libs and NDP than any attempts to unite with, or crush, each other.

          • I was thinking that ending the sub took away a potential "poison pill". Harper is a bully and would love to make them swallow that one to avoid an election. Proposing some sort of amendment helps to avoid the flip flop label and possibly steer some dialogue.

            As for SH being a master bluffer? Agreed. But he is damned good at it.

          • I like Sean's idea. You cancel your favourite sub and i'll cancel mine.
            As to the coalition…i too prefer it as a concept then uniting the left, which u,ltimately plays into Harper's view of the country, and would provide less diversity. But after the last fiasco it would take some very clever poltical salesmanship…it also promises to turn off reasonable cons who are equally as disgusted by Harper's contempt for parliament as libs/dips…i have no idea if the Bloc respects parliament…although their behaviour is often preferable to the other belligerents.
            Danby makes a good point re. poison pills, although i don't like the idea of conceding a principle that i don't believe is in any way illegimate…per vote subs in particular are fine…i don't want my countries pols moonlighting as tele-marketing clowns…besides, i might need that job.

  3. We may not know everything that happened in Afghanistan in 2006 but we know enough to know that Liberal and NDP Mp`s and the media are prolonging this story for crass political purposes so even though we might not like everything about the Harper government we will probably give him a majority just to make this foolish rehashing and bickering stop.

    Here`s all we need to know about this issue. Canadian troops were on the front lines in Afghanistan in 2006 because none of our allies would go there. Because we were on the front lines we took most of the detainees. Amidst all the chaos and killing, we handed over the prisoners to the Afghan police according to the agreement negotiated by our government in 2005. Because, like most Canadians, including government and military leaders, Canadian soldiers are fair-minded and decent people they did their best to ensure that these detainees were treated well. But this is war, not a traffic violation on a city street, so if the Afghan police did some things that Canadian police would not do we feel no reason to blame any Canadians for that.

    End of story. Move on to your next phony scandal.

    • Wow, what a tidy, self-serving description of the issue.

      "if the Afghan police did some things that Canadian police would not do we feel no reason to blame any Canadians for that."

      Actually the Geneva Conventions make it pretty clear that sort of thing is a problem Canadians should worry about.

      • We can disregard the Geneva Conventions, like our enemy, and still claim the moral high ground.

        Semantics are a wonderful thing.

    • I have little doubt that the Canadian troops on the ground did what they could to ensure the security of the prisoners that they transferred. Our troops are fighting not only a physical war but a PR war, they can't secure the trust of the Afghan people if they're known to torture just as their enemy does.

      However, what is becoming ever more public is that though our troops and officials took note of detainees being mistreated, and passed their information up the food chain, those at the top took over a year to listen and do something about it. It's sounding more and more like the boys at the top hung our troops out to dry, whether by action or inaction.

      And now those same boys at the top are hiding behind our military, claiming that Liberals and Dippers are against the troops to point out that something went wrong, and it didn't get properly fixed.

      That's the scandal.

      • Hopefully all our soldiers did this, but it's entirely possible some did not report what they suspected or even observed. But that is a very minor disciplinary matter compared to being in charge and doing nothing once you know about it.

    • "Here`s all we need to know about this issue."

      Thank you. I'm now relieved. Now I don't need to know or worry about false statements by government ministers and generals, this year and last; or false statements in the House, this year and last; or attempts to muzzle civil and diplomatic personnel and thwart a military complaints commission; or allies and and NGOs who are on record saying things to our leaders in 2006 that the government defiantly insist never came up until a year later; of that our government is withholding subpoenaed documents from elected and appointed authorities, while handing them out to retired generals and friendly journos!

      What a relief!

      • "What a relief! "

        It's a Christmas miracle!

  4. Aaron continues to feed his half-dozen commenter audience their Afghan detainee trivia of the day.

    Meanwhile planet earth, according to some, is now in dire straits as a result of the failure of the nations of the earth to sign a substantive "meaningful agreement" in Copenhagen last week.

    On second thought, carry on with the detainee story Aaron, at least it has some connection to the real world.

    • Don't you ever get bored with yourself?

    • And jarrid makes 7!

      • Nup. It's six, including jarrid.

    • "Reasoning is a robust source of hope in a world darkened by murky deeds." – Amartya Sen

      The government's detainee story does not stand up to reason and the slow trickle of evidence surfacing despite the concerted effort of our government to keep us in the dark is illustrating this rather glaringly…

  5. I think those still arguing that there is no issue here have not only not been paying attention to the slow drip turning into a gushing of evidence showing our government has systematically lied to us, but are also ignoring what the real issue now is: because of Harper's actions, it is no longer just about government accountability but about Parliamentary democracy.

    Harper can't simply pick and choose which laws he will abide by and which ones he won't. Doesn't matter if he thinks it is "too" political; that is always the excuse of the government.

    • So…it's an issue because although it's not an issue, the government has the gall to say it's not an issue, and this proves that it really is an issue, and also that it's symbolic of half a dozen other issues that the opposition wants to bloviate upon as well. Good to know.

      • "this really isn't resonating with voters all that much?"

        On what do you base that assertion?

      • I haven't read the Geneva Conventions myself, but I don't think there's an exemption in case of low public interest.

        Also: "…although it's not an issue…"

        It certainly looks like an issue. It smells like an issue. And the gov't is going to extraordinary lengths to avoid accountability for their actions. There's smoke everywhere, it's pretty reasonable to wonder whether there's fire.

        • There's smoke everywhere, it's pretty reasonable to wonder whether there's fire.

          There was a lot of smoke surrounding the H1N1 "scandal" a few months ago, but as it turned out, out there was no fire after all. Just a lot of Liberals blowing smoke.

          Given the Opposition's track record for smoke-blowing in 2009, aided by a scandal-hungry media, Canadians could be forgiven for wondering if this is just more of the same.

          • So… because there was a media frenzy a few months ago without a proper scandal, we should ignore this issue just in case it's a non-scandal again.

            Does that about sum up your reasoning?

          • I didn't say that we should ignore it, TJ Cook. I support further investigation of the detainee issue.

            I'm just saying that after a year that includes Wafergate, Raitt-Gate,H1N1-Gate and a bunch of other discredited attempts at scandal-mongering, one could be forgiven for healthy skepticism when it comes to Liberals blowing smoke.

          • Wafergate was not a Liberal thing though CR. The only Liberal MPs to speak about it said expressly to drop it.

            H1N1 was not smoke-blowing. The Liberals had been warning for months that the Conservatives were unprepared and they were. Thank goodness it was a minor pandemic. Had that been a full blown epidemic like SARS, we would have had an incredible disaster on our hands.

            And on this, there are a lot of non-Liberals who are also extremely concerned about Harper's lack of accountability and competence on this file, including all of the opposition parties, much of the media, the Red Cross, the British and Danish military, and our own civil service.

          • Wafergate was not a Liberal thing though CR. The only Liberal MPs to speak about it said expressly to drop it.

            Well, Warren Kinsella isn't a Liberal MP, but he and the rest of the Liberal war room sure seemed preoccupied with Wafergate. Also, let's not forget that the whole thing was concocted by esteemed publisher (and Liberal insider) Jamie Irving.

          • Not sure what happened to my response. It was there then it disappeared.

            Anyway, which is closer to the Liberal position: what two elected MPs and members of caucus have to say (Leblanc and Pearson) or what one volunteer Liberal supporter has to say (albeit one who will run the war room when an election comes)? I'll even throw in a few Liberal bloggers.

            Bloggers outraged over something the other side did? Stop all the presses. Do you really want to hold a party to account for its bloggers and supporters? No one even holds Harper to account for the positions and statements of his own caucus.

          • So which do we take as being closer to the Liberal position: two elected representatives and members of caucus (including a former leadership contender) who said expressly to drop it as an issue (the only MPs to speak on this) or a volunteer who will be running the Liberal warroom when we head into an election. I'll even throw in a bunch of Liberal bloggers who took up the "cause". But bloggers getting outraged over something the other side did? That's news?

          • So which do we take as being closer to the Liberal position: two elected representatives and members of caucus (including a former leadership contender) who said expressly to drop it as an issue (the only MPs to speak on this) or a volunteer who will be running the Liberal warroom when we head into an election. I'll even throw in a bunch of Liberal bloggers who took up the "cause". But bloggers getting outraged over something the other side did? That's news?

          • Glen Pearson deserves full credit for saying that the issue should be dropped. Too bad there aren't more like him. Who was the other MP you referred to?

          • Dominic Leblanc also asked that it be dropped.

            Ignatieff was asked about it I think, but did not comment. Which amounts to the same thing.

          • Good for Leblanc, too. It really is a shame that Irving, Kinsella and the rest sullied his dad's funeral like that.

            Ignatieff was asked about it I think, but did not comment. Which amounts to the same thing.

            Not really. Given that Kinsella and key Liberal bloggers were busy fanning the flames of this pseudo-scandal, Ignatieff's silence speaks volumes. It amounts to tacit approval.

          • The Liberals had been warning for months that the Conservatives were unprepared and they were. Thank goodness it was a minor pandemic. Had that been a full blown epidemic like SARS, we would have had an incredible disaster on our hands.

            Yeah, as it turned out the Canadian government was only the second most prepared government in the world, behind Australia. Had there been a full-blown pandemic, Canada would have been well-equipped to deal with it, because our government ordered 50 million doses of vaccine for a country with a population of less than 34 million.

            Of course, this didn't prevent certain Liberal MPs from hysterical panic-mongering and rhetorical blood-flinging in the Commons. Then there was the shameless "body bag" brouhaha, capped off with the lovely ten-percenter that Carolyn Bennett to the reserves.

            As soon as the feds started shipping the vaccine to the provinces, the Liberals started shrieking that the vaccine wasn't getting out fast enough, even though a few months earlier they thought it wouldn't be available until Christmas.

            Having cratered in the polls, the LPC leadership fervently hoped that H1N1 would become the Conservative "Hurricane Katrina". Today, they fervently hope that if they make enough noise with the detainee issue it will become the Conservative "Sponsorship Scandal".

          • Gosh, the way I saw it, the Conservative gov't really got scrambling when the Liberals scored a few PR points on the topic, such as rushing to buy doses of non-adjuvant vaccine for pregnant women.

            You may not have liked it, but to me it looked like an opposition holding the government's feet to the fire.

            And you sure are more vexed about opposition statements on the detainee issue than you are about the government's undemocratic attempts to avoid accountability. It's almost as though you dislike the Liberals and prefer the Conservatives, and allow that bias to affect your focus.

          • the Conservative gov't really got scrambling when the Liberals scored a few PR points on the topic, such as rushing to buy doses of non-adjuvant vaccine for pregnant women.

            Huh? Do you have a link to support this assertion? Canada's Public Health agency made that call at the start of September, even though it turned out to be unnecessary (both versions are equally safe for pregnant women, according to the WHO).

            You may not have liked it, but to me it looked like an opposition holding the government's feet to the fire.

            Not really. There's a difference between "holding the government's feet to the fire" and what the Liberals attempted to do (see above). It's almost as though you dislike the Conservatives and prefer the Liberals, and allow that bias to affect your focus.

          • How is any of this important? It's the JOB of the opposition to go after the government, and Stephen Harper did plenty of this sort of thing when he sat across the aisle. And gosh, call me crazy, but I'll bet that not *everything* Harper went after turned out to be an actual scandal.

            The question here – which you're neatly dodging – is whether we should focus on the opposition's actions as a potential misfire, or whether we should focus on the unprecedented actions of the government which look for all the world like a clumsy, undemocratic cover-up.

            What do you think?

      • 'So…it's an issue because although it's not an issue, the government has the gall to say it's not an issue, and this proves that it really is an issue…"

        You need to loosen your tie…it's cutting off the blood to your head.

  6. There will be no inquiry,
    and the reasons will become very clear when Manley and Graham testify before committee in the new year.

    So far, the media has been able to dig up ONE case of documented abuse, with a shoe.
    Tho an investigation into a detainee sitting in a detention center that was 'too hot' is on going.

    Anyone see the crowd control videos from Copenhagen?
    They used batons, not shoes.

    • There is the little matter of THIS parliament and THESE ministers' statements before it, too.

    • "Anyone see the crowd control videos from Copenhagen?
      They used batons, not shoes. "

      What's your fixation with bondage and degradation got to do with anything?

      • Look who's talking, Tiggy.

    • Wilson, don't you think there aught to be an inquiry at this point, simply to stop the media from digging, as apparently Canadian Press did here, into top-secret documentation?

      Going on the assumption that at least some of those documents really do have National Security concerns against their publication, I have to think that the government had better take control of the security clearance of those who see them. Because, it is clear that leaks (apparently by people both for and against the government) are continuing. Only with the assurance that an independent person or persons is/are viewing these things will the media (and leakers) back off, I think.

    • Again, Wilson, you are falling behind in the Tory talking points. The "okay, okay, there is ONE case but only ONE case of abuse that we knew about" which replaced the prior talking point of "no, there has never been any abuse and we don't know about any abuse" talking point has now been replaced by "okay, okay, there does appear to be more than ONE, but whenever we did know about abuse (the kind of abuse we denied was occurring or knowing about the week before) we acted".

      When the field notes themselves note blood and harm, note there were many other cases, when the government admits they lied about meeting with the Red Cross about additional cases…. it's time to let go of the old talking points and find some new ones.

      But maybe torture and abuse of non-combatants is not a big deal to you.

  7. What folks like Wilson never seem to address is the most obvious contradiction of all. If this is a faux scandal, only one detainee abused with a shoe…then why all the palaver? Why all the secrecy, the stonewalling, the personal attacks, the patent lies, the obstruction of parliament…all for what, if there be no issue here? It surpases reasonable belief. So, why all the denial Wilson? Why all the fuss over nothing?
    The public aren't stupid…sooner or later this question will resonate.

  8. I do not know what a soldier is thinking of when he is in the middle of a firefight with the Taliban but it is probably not whether he has a copy of the Geneva Convention on him.
    I do not know what was the priorities in the minds of Canadian officals in the fall of 2006 when almost every week there was Canadian soldiers being killed by the cowardly roadside bomb, but if it was that they should hurry and convince Afghan officals to improve the detainee agreement negotiated in 2005, then I would be surprised.

    • Ok, first: the Geneva Convention contains a lot of no-brainers, you don't need a handbook to comply with them.

      Second: Canadian soldiers are trained in the Geneva Convention and know what they're doing.

      Third: Nobody is accusing the soldiers of violating the Convention during a firefight.

      Fourth: Nobody is accusing the rank-and-file of anything. The questions are about the conduct of the senior military and political leadership.

      Your entire post is like a flock of red herrings trying to carry a giant straw man.

  9. The attitude displayed by many on this topic is foolish in the extreme. The arguments that, "the Taliban are very nasty people;" that, "he was beaten by a SHOE not a baton;" and so on, all miss the point by a mile. There is a reason why nations developed the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. It does not excuse Canada that we did not directly torture or abuse prisoners, we only handed them over in the, presumably, innocent conviction that the Afghanistan forces would treat them properly. We already went through that line of reasoning with Maher Arar, the RCMP and the Americans. No excuses – let's face up to our responsibility as a nation that should be part of the civilized world. I want the high moral ground for Canada, NOT a descent into an ever-degenerating spiral of cruelty and retribution.

  10. Fair enough.

    But I think we're way past healthy skepticism here. In fact, I think an honest review of the various revelations and the Conservatives' undemocratic behaviour pretty much supports everything the opposition has said to date. Do you disagree? Is your skepticism still turned to the Liberals?

    • I think that the Liberals were hoping that a "smoking gun" would show up in the weeks after the Colvin testimony, but this hasn't happened yet (despite the steady "drip, drip, drip" of media reports, thoroughly documented by Mr. Wherry). So now the Liberal focus has turned to the alleged government "cover-up", which also seems to be mostly smoke.

      Obviously, the government's response was blustery and inept, but it's not like it amounts to a "cover-up" based on any evidence that has been produced thus far. I guess we'll have to see what happens when Parliament resumes.

      • Well it's awfully difficult to find the smoking gun when 1) Peter MacKay misleads Parliament, 2) the government takes the unprecedented step of not renewing the contract of the Chair of the Military Police Complains committee (saying it didn't matter since it would be addressed in Parliamentary committee) in the *middle* of the investigation, 3) boycotting – f*cking BOYCOTTING* – the Parliamentary committee, 4) redacting materials for obvious political (as opposed to security reasons), 5) withholding materials from the Parliamentary committee while making it available to witnesses, 6) going on a campaign to assassinate the character of the whistle-blowing diplomat and 7) accusing anyone who questions the actions of the government of slagging the soldiers.

        So I'm willing to give the Liberals a pass on not yet having a smoking gun. The Conservatives are acting like tinpot dictators trying to avoid accountability. This is way beyond merely "inept" and you know it.

        Also – let's hope Parliament resumes, given all the talk of prorogation AGAIN.

        • Hey, I almost forgot #8) Defying a Parliamentary motion to make materials related to this issue available.

          Let's turn to a quote from Coyne's piece: "“This is so fundamental it's not even a matter of confidence. Parliament might not allow itself to be dissolved, and the Governor General should be aware of this.”" (http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/21/parliament-wil

          So if Harper will defy Parliament on this issue, what's next? It doesn't get much more anti-democratic than that. Can we look forward to El Commandant Supremo Harper declaring himself El Presidente For Life and outlawing opposition parties?

          Oh, I'm sorry – you were focused on how this could potentially be a non-scandal like the H1N1 vaccine. Do go on.

          • Can we look forward to El Commandant Supremo Harper declaring himself El Presidente For Life and outlawing opposition parties?

            This statement is representative of the partisan hyperbole that infuses the rest of your points on this issue.

            Peter MacKay misleads Parliament

            Peter MacKay repeats assurances provided to him by the military.

            boycotting – f*cking BOYCOTTING* – the Parliamentary committee

            I wasn't thrilled about this one either, but it was just one missed afternoon. Let's not get carried away with the histrionics.

            redacting materials for obvious political (as opposed to security reasons)

            The government wasn't the one doing the redacting – it was the military, which redacts all documents prior to public release. You have no grounds for saying the redactions were improper.

            going on a campaign to assassinate the character of the whistle-blowing diplomat

            More hyperbole. Show me the evidence for this alleged "character assassination campaign". What was the most egregious example? Actual quotes, if possible.

            accusing anyone who questions the actions of the government of slagging the soldiers.

            I agree with you here. It was distasteful.

            Defying a Parliamentary motion to make materials related to this issue available.

            Cf. Norman Spector's analysis of this issue with regards to parliamentary privilege and redacted documents.

  11. I think it would be easier for people to comment on this issue if they were less partisan. Since Liberal and NDP apologists seem to outnumber Conservative supporters by 10 to 1 on this page I will just mention a few comments made by this majority group in the past couple weeks that are so inaccurate that they could only have been made while under the influence of severe partisanship.
    One thought he was supporting the troops when he compared Canadian soldiers in battle to judges handling prisoners they had sentenced. Well, except that judges get paid 10 times as much, don`t have bullets flying over their heads and aren`t cleaning up those nice robes after being involved in yesterday`s roadside bomb.
    One regular thought we should have doubled the size of our army, I don`t know which Liberal government proposed that.
    And another regular near the top of this page was wondering why there would be more prisoners taken after the conservatives took office in 2006. Rather then assuming that there was a directive from the PMO, an objective observer would know that more detainees was a direct result of the 2005 decision to escalate Canada`s role in south Afghanistan.

  12. Amen! Our government has really sunk to new (extremely low) lows here and we should be ridiculously embarassed if we allow for this govt to continue long term or be re-elected without mountains of evidence that they wont act this way any longer…..no, scratch that – there is no way for the trust to be restored in these guys. And to the Conservative voters who actually understand what is going on here – if you vote for this group of MPs and its leadership again , how do you expect to justify it to yourselves?

    CR, perhaps you are enamoured with the CONS longevity in a minority, through various rarely used and interesting to write/read about tactics etc., and dont want to believe that they are poisoining this once great country of ours – but they are, no matter how many of the CPC partys principles align better for yours, they should be roasted for this behaviour.

  13. Settle down, TJ Cook. You really let your emotions get the best of you there. I'll overlook your personal attacks, but in the future please try to keep things civil.

    A little research on the part of one General quickly proved MacKay wrong, wrong, wrong.

    MacKay only knew what the military told him. The shoe-beating story, involving a man who briefly passed through CF hands and was never registered as a detainee, was only revealed by Natynczyk after MacKay made his blanket declarations in the Commons.

    MacKay's attempt to discredit Colvin by accusing him of not having brought up detainee abuse the one time MacKay met with Colvin in Afghanistan.

    With all your cut-and-paste examples, you utterly failed to provide a single legitimate example of "character assassination". Perhaps you could look that term up and figure out what it means.

    I'll deal with the rest of your post later – I have some Christmas shopping to do.

  14. I supported Chretien when he initially got us involved and I understand why Martin was forced due to pressure from the Americans and ambivalence from the Europeans into sending our troops to the south in 2005 and I agree with Harper continuing with the mission from the previous governments.
    And I am sure most other nations involved are grateful to Canadian soldiers and officals for their signifigant contribution. and I believe the Canadian public know that these Canadian soldiers and government officals did excellent work in a very difficult place.
    What i don`t understand is the continuing bleating of the Liberal and NDP people after the public have passed on the subject.
    A little less partisan and alittle more Canadian on these pages would be good.

    • "What i don`t understand is the continuing bleating of the Liberal and NDP people after the public have passed on the subject.

      A little less partisan and alittle more Canadian on these pages would be good."

      Dude, you're priceless. Don't ever change.

      • Thank-you kindly, It is great to see you have seen the light, though after reading some of your comments above you may want to try to be more consistent.

Sign in to comment.