Poor John McCain

I'm not going to make this a "woe is he" posting so much as a set of observations about various factors seemingly conspiring against the Republican presidential candidate. I do believe that his experience and leadership qualities will emerge to the forefront in the final 2 months of this campaign (I'll muse on the hilarity that there actually will be a Canadian election first at some other point) that may help him triumph over Obama, but at this point it's going to take a bit of work to overcome the optical politics that have been at play in recent weeks.
First, the Democratic National Convention was truly a sight to behold. It played really well on TV to have the Clintons go to bat for Obama, it played well to have all the celebrities in attendance, and of course the spectacle of Obama giving an impassioned speech in front of 70,000 screaming supporters at Invesco Field played brilliantly. The Democrats have the appearance of being youthful, vital, energetic, and ready to lead. This comes in spite of their horrid performance in Congress since winning the mid-term elections in 2006, which has left them with a 9% approval rating. That brand of "change" hasn't played well at all, yet Obama's message of hope and change appears to be carrying the day.
So within 24 hours of the Democrats wrapping it up, McCain announced Sarah Palin would be his VP candidate. An astute move, to be sure, as Palin's political credentials will go well with the Republican base, her reformer creds will help reach out to independents, and yeah, the gender card may play a role in winning over some disaffected former Clinton supporters still miffed that their candidate was snubbed by Obama. For 24 hours, the choice dominated the headlines for many of the right reasons. Then came the news that her 17-year old daughter is 5 months pregnant. Despite the Democrats exhorting that they would not go to make political hay out of this, the media is certainly making this preferred non-issue an issue. It's everywhere. Pundits are wondering what else may have been missed in the vetting process. They're loudly hollering about the fact that Bristol is not married and only 17, and revelling in the fact that the VP candidate is an advocate for abstinence education. Whatever goodwill may have been generated by the selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate has quickly been shoved aside for the gutter politics of sliming her family.
And of course we have Hurricane Gustav compelling the Republicans to dramatically alter their plans for their convention. Instead of receiving wall-to-wall coverage like the Obama coronation, the Republicans have sat idly as CNN et al. devoted a lot of time in the past few days to the hurricane. They've adjusted plans, they've scaled it back, President Bush spoke via satellite instead of live in-person to offer his endorsement of his former rival. The feeling around this convention is reminiscent of the determined soldier getting ready to put his down for another hard push, compared to the sense of celebration and impending grand triumph. Republicans themselves may be completely fine with that--they've been deriding Obama for his celebrity status for months, after all. But optical politics plays a very large role in real politics these days. How much will all of these factors affect McCain's chance at the presidency? Will this matter much during and after the debates? I knew back in 2004 that Bush had it sealed and delivered after the Republican convention; this time, however, it is all very much up in the air.

Election Fever v.235

The Canadian media has long been obsessed with an election; this is not news to anybody that has turned on the TV at any time since about March 2006 (they gave the Conservatives something of a honeymoon after their January win). There have been daily suggestions that the opposition will topple the government or that the government--in defiance of its own professed desire to govern until the fixed election date in September 2009--will indeed manufacture its own demise to head to the polls in search of a majority against a weak-willed and indecisive Liberal leadership. Consequently, people have largely tuned out, burned out about election talk after numerous false threats and empty promises that we'd be heading to the polls at any time with our five-weeks notice. It's a sad state that people are sick of an election when the election has yet to actually take place; the only thing one can compare Canada's election fever to is the hockey world's never-ending wait for Mats Sundin to make a decision about his playing future. You can be sure that, in both cases, when the trigger is finally pulled and a concrete decision made, people will sigh a collective sigh of relief, say "it's about time that's over with," and finally be able to get on with their lives.

It is with all of this election impasse in mind that we turn to today's latest threat, this one coming from "senior Conservative sources." Supposedly we are now to believe that the Prime Minister is ready to go as early as September 5th, paving the way for a Thanksgiving election. You can insert your turkey jokes here. I'll begin with former Liberal "star candidate" Marc Garneau's proclamation that the Conservatives want an election now so that they can avoid talking about issues like the economy. Now, I realize that because once upon a time a Conservative Prime Minister said that an election is no time to talk about policy issues, therefore all Conservatives believe that an election is no time to talk about policy issues. But, come on, can we get serious for just a moment? Has Mr. Garneau not paid an ounce of attention to what's happening in the United States? The majority of airtime these days is devoted equally to how many houses John McCain owns and the economy! It's like 1992 all over again: it's the economy, stupid! If Mr. Garneau honestly believes that the economy won't come up during an election campaign, well, he's just another talking turkey.

Do I honestly think that there will be a Canadian election in 2008? No. I didn't think there would be one in the spring, summer, or autumn of 2007 when everybody in the media was banging that particular drum, nor was I eager to go for a winter or spring 2008 election. Here's the thing: the Liberals, the media, the Conservatives, the talking heads, just about anybody in the political class these days, has called the election wolf so many times that it's near-impossible to believe that this time they're actually serious about an election. What makes right now so different than June 2007? There's nothing that suggests the Conservatives or Liberals can score a majority, or that the result would be vastly different than the current status. So what would be the point? It all seems like much bluster and little real action. But this is to be expected, because when you're a turkey, nothing you say actually has to make sense.

Environment > Civil Liberties?

I'm a little scared at the idea that we should be taking our cues on the environment from the Communist, human rights-abusing government of China. What I'm even more scared of is how many people in this country think it's a pretty decent idea. The poll results from this G&M survey, while not scientific of course, suggest that nearly a majority of G&M readers support a half-baked concept that will ultimately do very little for the environment over their civil liberties to enjoy their private property and do with it as they see fit. Behold in awe and horror:



This is one of those things that Canadians say they would do, but let's face it, if push came to shove, they'd be screaming bloody murder at whatever level of government had the unmitigated gall to impose such an absurd law. Last I looked, Canadians' rights to do as they please don't only apply on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. That nearly half who have responded to this poll support the idea doesn't speak well for us.

Rove Leaving White House

This just came down about twenty minutes. Karl Rove is resigning from his position as President Bush's chief domestic adviser and other politically-related positions effective the end of August. It's another optical politics blow to the Bush White House, but from an actual politics standpoint, it's less devastating than it seems. Rove, as the domestic adviser, has been ineffective in recent months, as Bush seemingly has no domestic agenda. This is a White House that has bypassed the lame duck phase of its presidency and gone straight to the dead duck portion. I had high hopes for the foreign policy of this Administration as it sought to re-write the rule book to be more effective in implementing positive change in the 21st century and tackling the tough grand strategic issues of our time. That has not panned out particularly well, and with no domestic policy platforms that have any traction, things have not been looking good for the White House for a long time. So losing Rove, while it will be used to make considerably political hay, isn't going to be the death knell for George W. Bush's legacy or any other such nonsense that people will no doubt try to spin out of it. Anti-Bush people will lose one of their favourite punching bags, but there's not much more to it than that other than cutting out a spent force.

Canadians Want to "Negotiate" with Terrorists to End Mission they Oppose

This morning, CTV confronts me with this:

Nearly two out of three Canadians want us to have a little sit-down chat with people who are trying to kill us and send Afghanistan back into its dark ages. CTV also tells us that only 40% of Canadians support the mission, compared to 55% who oppose it. I don't usually do narratives, but I can almost picture how this one would go:

Taliban - Leave, infidels.

Canadian - Look, the people back home support that position, but we want some guarantees. First, no more roadside bomb or other IED attacks on the civilian population. Second, continue allowing girls to go to school and women be represented in Parliament. Third, no more alliances with al Qaeda or similar organizations.

Taliban - We will attack all infidels who betray the will of Allah. That includes all women who defy the law of sharia, appearing in public with their tempting faces uncovered, humiliating their families by speaking of your "human rights" and seeking work that is best done by men. We will work with all organizations that seek to incorporate all of the ummah under Islam, Allah be willing, and we will seek them out in their efforts to rid the Islamic world of the vile oppression of the West.

Canadian - You just basically said that you wouldn't meet any of the guarantees we are seeking. How can you possibly expect us to meet our mutually desired end-state if you aren't willing to give us some accomodation?

Taliban - *stares coldly into Canadian's eyes*

Canadian - You have to give us something here so that we don't look quite as bad when we return home. Nobody except for Denis Coderre will be happy to see that we've totally capitulated and abandoned the mission in Afghanistan.

Taliban - You have heard our demands. You can take them at full value, or you can take nothing. Speaking of your officials, how is Mr. Layton doing?

Canadian - He's fine, and here's the fruit basket that he sent to you. Look, I know that you're a reasonable man, surely we can reach some compromises here.

Taliban - Muslims do not compromise with infidels, strength be with Allah. You come to our country, you violate our sovereignty, you impose your puppet government, and you want us to compromise? You are fortunate that the white sheikh* does not come here personally and slay you by his own hand! Here is your compromise offer: leave, and we won't kill you on your way out.

Canadian - Listen, we're giving you far more than Bush and his neocons would ever give you just by showing up here and talking to you. Remember (in mocking Bush tone) "we don't negotiate with evil, we defeat it?" You can either deal with us or you can deal with the cowboys from Washington.

Taliban - The Great Satan is weak, brought low and humbled by the will of Allah and the spilling of the blood of our brothers here and in Iraq. We will defeat all infidels and restore the caliphate in all lands you have stolen from Muslims.

Canadian - Just give us something here. Promise not to destroy any schools or blow up any dams. Those things are expensive, and it makes our guys look incompetent at protecting people from your attacks.

Taliban - You are incompetent. Leave now, out of the room. It is time for prayer.

Canadian - But, but we have reached any sort of dea--

Taliban - Out, infidel!

Canadian, turning to other official on his way out - Well, that's a start, I think we've made some real progress there. We Canadians can achieve anything, there's nothing we can't solve by sitting across a table and talking, just like the CTV guy said.

*Osama bin Laden

The Defeated Resolution

I've been mulling over whether to do a full post on the now-defeated Coderre resolution that would have purportedly brought an end to Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan in February 2009. After looking at it more closely, I've decided to go ahead on the grounds that the Liberals, for all their claims of seeking "clarity" on Canada's commitment to Afghanistan's reconstruction, would have further muddied the waters. First, the resolution's active clause (for the preambulatory clauses, go here:

this House call upon the government to confirm that Canada’s existing military deployment in Afghanistan will continue until February 2009, at which time Canadian combat operations in Southern Afghanistan will conclude; and call upon the government to notify NATO of this decision immediately.

I am not a linguist by trade, nor am I a lawyer. Nonetheless, I know that the wording of this resolution is deeply flawed if the Liberals truly want to bring an end to all Canadian combat missions in Afghanistan at the current February 2009 deadline. I don't know whether they purposefully or unintentionally left the clause vague, but nonetheless this resolution left open the door for the government to continue military operations beyond February 2009. Allow me to explain.

First, the resolution speaks of the "existing military deployment," which can be interpreted to mean the current operation and not the mission itself. Suppose Canada order a fresh military deployment to another region of Afghanistan, either by sending in new forces or a re-deployment of current Canadian Forces already in Afghanistan. How would such a new deployment relate to this resolution? What if the government were to order a new deployment scheduled to begin in March 2009? These are important questions that the failed Liberal measure does not address.

Second, the resolution calls for "Canadian combat operations" in "Southern Afghanistan" to conclude. It doesn't call for an end to "all Canadian combat operations in Afghanistan" in February 2009. This can allow for the Canadian Forces to deployed in Afghanistan for designated non-combat operations, and it can also allow for them to be re-deployed to another region of Afghanistan for combat operations. Most importantly of all, it doesn't call for all Canadian combat operations to end. The addition of the word "the" before "Canadian combat operations" would make it more restrictive, but worded as it is, it is still left vague and open to interpretation.
This brings to mind something which I read in Alan Dershowitz's book, The Case for Israel. In it, Dershowitz examines the language of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the return of "territories" to a future state called Palestine. It does not call for "all territories" or "the territories" that have been occupied by Israel, though that is the position which most hardliners and the terrorist organizations have claimed to be mandated by the UN. Under that language, Israel will be obligated, and is readily prepared, to concede some territory that will form the nucleus of a Palestinian state. But it is not obligated to return all of the territory.
The Liberal resolution relies upon similar wording, so it is entirely reasonable to interpret it in a similar fashion. By calling for "Canadian combat operations" to end, the resolution does not call for a withdrawal of all Canadian Forces from Kandahar nor does it call for the end of all combat operations in "Southern Afghanistan." Thus, Jack Layton had a point when he said that the resolution opens the door for extending the mission, a point which the Liberals' star blogger has missed, which is something totally anathema to the NDP's desire for immediate withdrawal of all Canadian Forces personnel from combat operations in Afghanistan.

The Liberals' failed resolution did not bring clarity. I am astonished that their leader, who prides himself and refers to the Clarity Act (1998) as a highlight of his career, allowed the resolution to go as far as it did. Had it been passed, it would have done the opposite of providing clarity to Canada's mission in Afghanistan. The serious unresolved questions that I raised above, combined with the horribly bad wording, would have left the status of Canada's Afghanistan mission with even less clarity, and subject to the interpretation of the governing party.

In The Headlines, Canadian Edition

After going global yesterday, nothing but Canadianna today...

Is it me, or is the media trying to spin Harper's image consultant into an actual issue? They spent two segments on it on Sunday's Question Period. I realize that it's one of those poke-fun-at-the-politician things, but there's other, more important issues that CTV's flagship Sunday talk show should be examining. Bringing in numerous talking heads to discuss from multiple points-of-view is a waste of airtime and insulting to Canadians who expect to see actual issues discussed....such as:

Tonight there is going to be a vote on withdrawing Canadian participation from Afghanistan with a hard deadline of February 2009, regardless of the situation in the country and the wishes of Canada's ISAF and NATO allies. For all their criticism of certain neighbours and their supposed unilateralism, declaring without consulting our allies or making a thorough assessment of the conditions on the ground, the opposition parties seem hellbent on unilaterally ending Canada's significant role in reconstructing Afghanistan. Of course it is our decision to make, but to do so without an eye on Canadian national interests and those of our partners spits in the face of well-meaning Canadian multilateralism that was once a hallmark of Liberal-driven Canadian foreign policy. It's almost farcical that the vote hinges on the NDP lining up with the government to defeat the Liberals and the Bloc.

Sticking with Afghanistan, there are some very loud rumours that Canadians are turning over detainees to the Afghan authorities, who are reportedly torturing them. Though there has been no confirmation or denial on these accusations, they are very serious indeed and go straight to the heart of what distinguishes us and what we're helping to build in Afghanistan, and the vile Taliban regime that instituted its tyrannical oppression prior to 9/11. Simply put, Canadians do not and should not support or condone the use of torture, and we would be justly aghast if it turned out that there was some complicity on Canada's part in certain individuals being tortured. Stephane Dion's assertion that we should re-locate these suspected terrorists to Canada is patently absurd, and I'm not seeing the logic in demanding Gordon O'Connor's resignation before: a) the facts are known, b) there is sufficient evidence that Canadians are turning Taliban insurgents over to Afghan authorities for the purpose of having them tortured. It's ridiculous to demand the resignation of a top-level minister over a rumour. Once we get a) and if true, combined with a solid dose of b), sure, but such demands are out of whack right at this stage.

Happy Earth Day, except to the Goddamn Economists!

Canada's favourite homegrown enviro-propagandist, David Suzuki, has some advice to all Canadians:

"First of all, let's stop listening to the goddamn economists," he said. "Twenty per cent of the economy will disappear. It will cost more than World War I and World War II put together. We'll go into a kind of depression we've never, ever had in all of history." The CBC story containing that little ditty leads off:

Canadians are ready to pay a little extra to help deal with climate change, David Suzuki said Friday before a meeting with the federal environment minister. "I think they're willing to suck it in and accept that they're going to have to pay more but they want it to be fair," Suzuki said during a news conference in Ottawa.

Interesting idea, but he's not correct. Check out the poll over at CTV's website and recall this little ditty that I had up a month ago:

I don't know what is going on with these once-respected public figures, but the hysteria is getting louder by the day and ever-harder to digest rationally. General Canadian interest in "the environment" as an issue is superficial at least and passing at most. They see it on the news all the time, hear the message repeated that it's a pressing concern, and thus respond that it is an issue. It's little different from the turn of the century when "health care" was the dominant issue in multiple elections. Canadians love health care, they list it as a "Canadian value," yet in recent years there has been far less political emphasis on the system despite its continuing shortcomings.

Stephane Dion has referred to the environment issue as one of great urgency and said that every day that Stephen Harper is in office the situation will continue to worsen. You'd think that this would provide him an impetus to make a grab for power and force an election. Yet he and his party faithful are insistent that it is Harper and only Harper that wants an election. Contradictory message to say in the least.

I care about the environment and am regularly disgusted by the volume of litter that clutters the streets and sidewalks of Halifax. I try do my part: I recycle, I use public transit and my own two feet to get around, and I try to use as little electricity as possible (most electricity here in Nova Scotia is coal-generated). My "carbon footprint" (whatever that is) is a fraction of David Suzuki's or Al Gore's. I have political interests that I believe are a higher priority than "the environment," but that doesn't mean I go around tossing garbage in the streets or contributing to the problem. The people who are--self-appointedly--in charge of the environment movement are doing more to alienate regular people than to bring them in the fold with their hystrionics and bad advice.

On Timetables and Afghanistan

Unfortunately I missed Thursday's parliamentary debate on Afghanistan. Thankfully, I have Hansard, available on the Internet. As I've been reading through it, I am struck by something that the Liberals repeatedly insist about the extent of Canada's commitment to the mission:

Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Halifax about the necessity to show, despite the arguments, that we are trying to help the people of Afghanistan and play a good role. I respect her point of view. I still think we may do good things in the next two years.

Canada is committed until February 2009.

Reading that statement troubles me greatly. We're in it, but we're not in it for "as long it takes" or "until the government of Afghanistan is satisfied with the security situation in the country and requests that ISAF leave effective [insert date]" or "until the Taliban can no longer threaten the people of Afghanistan." No, Canada "is committed until February 2009." Then, pack 'er up, folks, we're going home.

I dread the thought that these people were governing the country in 1915. "Canada is committed until January 1917" or some other such date that had no bearing on, or relation to, the course of the War or the prospects of victory for the Entente countries and their allies. Jay Hill raised a similar point about the Nazis. Imagine if William Mackenzie-King, the Liberal Prime Minister during WWII, had only sufficient backbone to say that Canada would fight Hitler until 1943. Timetables and arbitrary deadlines don't work when applying them ex post facto and they do not work today.

Canada, or at least its political parties, desperately wants to believe in the existence of an international community. I hold no such delusions. Yet I am perplexed: if Canada wants to support the international community, why is it not prepared to participate in its major endeavours until they are completed? A good hockey player doesn't arbitrarily leave the ice with 15 minutes left in the second period (note: NOT AN ANALOGY TO AFGHANISTAN'S CURRENT PROGRESS!), they stick around until the final whistle blows. What if, in February 2009, conditions in Afghanistan, specifically Kandahar, are worse today than they are now? What if the Taliban is only days away from collapsing when we pack up and let, say, the French, who don't leave the base after dark, take over?

Canadians know, or should know, that their government and military forces are doing an incredible job in Afghanistan. Refer to Ted Menzies' contribution to the debate on Thursday to see some of the accolades that Canadians are receiving from the Afghanistan government. The work that we are doing not only in Kandahar, but in providing aid to the entire country to facilitate reconstruction, is invaluable to the progress and hopeful success of that country's people. And of the Liberals, he said, this:

They are unable to see that each of those numbers, each of those millions of little girls going to school, has a name, a face and a hope that there is better life than the one they have known. Canada is not helping numbers. We are helping real people who deserve no less than we do: shelter, food, water and the ability to provide for their families. Why do the Liberals believe the people of Afghanistan deserve to be abandoned?

Which, of course, leads me to the NDP. Try on this for logic:

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): We know that Afghan women are still subject to arbitrary imprisonment, rape, torture and forced marriage. This is why in August last year the NDP asked that the present mission end.

I cannot, for the life of me, contort myself and my thinking to square the circle that because atrocities are still happening in Afghanistan, Canada should no longer participate in Afghanistan to end atrocities. In my view, that quote right there eliminates the NDP from holding any authority or legitimacy when it comes to promoting human rights and equality. They see that gross human rights violations are occurring, and when Canada has the chance to put an end to it, they want Canadians to have no part of it.

I am regularly disappointed by Canadian parliamentarians, and reading Thursday's Hansard provided more of it. When I hear Denis Coderre ranting and raving about Canada purchasing tanks, I cannot help but feel as though Canada is not a truly serious country in international affairs. I can't fathom even Dennis Kucinich going apoplectic in Congress because the Pentagon has announced it is seeking to buy some new tanks so that American forces have the best equipment available to them to win.

Canadians are clearly not in Afghanistan for imperialist reasons, though the nutbar that posts stickers around Halifax claiming we are may disagree with me. We've been looking for an exit strategy before the first CF members set foot in the country. We're there for the very best of reasons that are coinciding with our values and our interests. Yet some factions are decided upon removing Canada from Afghanistan as soon as possible, even though atrocities are still occurring and the mission is not complete. If not Afghanistan, to these people I ask, where?

Thanks to Andrew Coyne putting up some more of Kevin Potvin's filth, we can now have an insight into the Green Party's perspectives about the world around us, a foreign policy that Stephane Dion is giving a free pass in the riding of Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs. The following italicized quotes all come from articles written by Potvin that Coyne has linked to, if you want to read them in full, I suggest visiting Coyne's place. My comments in regular text follow . . .

We share common cause with the Islamist terrorists
Far from being unreasonable fanatics, the terrorists fight for the same things we do. We have a common enemy.

The London subway bombings were not cowardly, despicable and unspeakable acts; they were acts of war, and civilians for a century have been regarded as legitimate targets in war, even if our own warriors don’t admit it.

[I]n fact there is a real and serious war on and that the other side does have great and noble, and compellingly existential, reasons to fight.

I think there's enough suspicion about the origins of 9-11 to make it an issue since it has so much to do with Canadian foreign policy.

Osama bin Laden does not fight for the same things that the Canadian Forces or Canada's allies fight for. To suggest that is the case is the most despicable form of moral equivalency and completely ignorant of basic facts, such as, but not limited to: Osama bin Laden used Afghanistan for the purpose of establishing a base to conduct terrorist acts and used his proxy, the Taliban, to institute a ruthless dictatorship over the people of Afghanistan that denied them basic human rights and freedoms. Canada and its NATO partners are there to undo the damage done to Afghanistan's civil society, and help build democratic institutions, the rule of law, and provide security and defend the rights of the country's people from the attempts of the Taliban insurgency to retake the country. Canada has not a single common cause with Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

Targeting civilians, as was the case in the despicable act of the London subway bombing, is not a legitimate tactic in 21st century warfare. That is the basic reason that Canadian Forces, the Israeli Defence Forces, NATO, and other states and alliances do not condone, and indeed strongly condemn, the deliberate targeting of civilians in military theatres. Those who do intentionally attack civilians are rightly defined as war criminals, and are often brought to trial in democratic states. Israel has possibly the most strict legislation of any country when it comes to inflicting civilian casualties in war, and it is the state that is under considerable duress and threat of being extinguished or, as Iran's president prefers, 'wiped off the map.' Democratic states do not target civilians, and go to great lengths to avoid civilian deaths. We gain no benefit from murdering civilians, and we inflict legal penalties upon those who are found to be guilty of doing so, even in the heat of combat. Terrorists, on the other hand, are not traditional legitimate combatants. They wear no uniform, no identifiable insignia that distinguishes them from civilians. They, unlike us, do deliberately target civilians, and they also benefit from the death of civilians that we are responsible for causing. Whereas we fight with one hand behind our back, they deliberately target those who are not involved in the military conflicts in the many theatres around the world. This is but one of many areas in which Potvin's attempt to place Canada and its democratic allies on a moral par with, as being the same as, terrorists organizations fails miserably any well-thought scrutiny.

Installing a regime of sharia law is not a particularly noble agenda when one considers the implications for the rights of women. We know what those implications are, for we see them on a regular basis in countries such as Pakistan or even some areas of Afghanistan still. The objectives of the terrorists include the destruction of Israel, the religious purification of all lands that have ever been held by Muslims, the death of four million Americans, and the utter destruction of any semblance of democracy in the Middle East. To proclaim these ends as good and noble implies that the means being used to achieve them are also good and noble. Strapping bomb belts to young children, HIV-positive people and pregnant women, and sending them off to detonate themselves in shopping malls, theatres, and public gathering areas are not noble means that will achieve a noble end. They only perpetuate violence and prevent moderate Muslims from being able to move forward on truly noble goals, such as the establishment of a viable, free, and non-threatening Palestinian state, or the building of relations between Muslim states and the West.

To suggest that 9/11 was somehow an internal operation conducted by the United States against its own citizens defies all common sense, as well as some of the more obtuse public perceptions about the administration of George W. Bush. A democratic state would never engineer the cold-blooded murder of almost 3000 of its own citizens, and it would certainly never get away with it. The 9/11 Commission Report is a thorough analysis of the events of that day and the sequence that led up to it. It is one thing to question the response of the American government to 9/11, it is entirely another to suggest that it is responsible for orchestrating it. So many nutbars out there are so insistent that Bush is a moron; wouldn't something as huge in scale as 9/11 therefore be out of his range? Or is that also one of those things that is a Dick Cheney-Donald Rumsfeld-Paul Wolfowitz-Halliburton puppet show?

People like Kevin Potvin have had the red carpet rolled out for them. Shouldn't Dion have done his research into what these people think before so eagerly embracing Elizabeth May? He is subverting his own party in Central Nova in order for there to be a supposed greater chance to knock off the Canadian Foreign Minister. Are the above statements what any of us really want to replace the common-sense, democratically-minded approach of the Conservatives? I should like to think absolutely not.

More Thoughts on the Dion-May Alliance

As you know by reading the blurb to the right, I once served on a Liberal Riding Association as its Policy Chair. Prior to holding that position, I was involved with the Kelowna Liberals' efforts to elect Vern Nielsen in 2004. Though I didn't know much about Mr. Nielsen when it was announced that he would be the candidate, it didn't take very long to get the measure of the man and his strong desire to give Kelowna an active MP that would strive to work hard to represent the interest of the people in the riding. I never thought that much of Werner Schmidt, someone who got the Ottawa position pretty much by default after getting the nomination for the then-Canadian Alliance--a trend that has continued with his successor, Ron Cannan, under the Conservative banner.

Nielsen was a good candidate, and he was chosen by the (admittedly small) Liberal grassroots in Kelowna to be their candidate, to carry the red torch in an area that hadn't elected a Liberal since 1968. It was an uphill battle, but it was one that all of us who worked on the campaign--including some really good friends--believed we could win, the sponsorship scandal and its implications notwithstanding. It wasn't meant to be, as Schmidt won re-election but with a smaller percentage of the vote and by a smaller margin than in 2000.

As disappointing as the sting of electoral defeat was, I cannot even imagine how disappointed the Liberal grassroots of Central Nova are. They will not even have the opportunity to field a candidate in the next election--whenever that may be. I know that if some sort of arrangement had been made by Paul Martin and the Green Party in 2004, there is no way I would have voted for that Green candidate. Truth be told, I don't know what I would have done, but I know one thing that I wouldn't. This is the dilemma that Central Nova's Liberals face today. A lot of people there have been Liberals for life, some are Gritus Inheritus, as Chucker puts it, and they have been put in a very awkward position because of the short-sighted and opportunistic grab of a largely meaningless endorsement from a fringe party by their leader. Unless one is really gung-ho about the environment, there is little that links a mainstream Liberal with Elizabeth May. She is anti-choice, anti-same sex marriage, anti-free trade, and her party has more nutbars than even the nuttiest wings of the Liberal Party. She believes that Canada is suffering a "crisis of democracy," even though Canada's democracy is exceptionally healthy. Her comments on abortion--including this one: "I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose," implying that a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy is something undertaken flippantly or without due consideration in some cases--have led Judy Rebick, author of the book that Anna Lou is presently reading, Ten Thousand Roses, to withdraw her support for May and the Green Party.

Were I still a Liberal that followed the party line on these major issues, I would have serious concerns about my leader conceding the ground of Central Nova to Elizabeth May and her lunatic fringe party. It was only four months ago that Howard Dean urged Liberals, to thunderous applause, to not cede ground, not one vote, anywhere in the country. They've flip-flopped on that for no good reason, unless you count the quid pro quo of the Greens agreeing not to run a candidate in Stephane Dion's riding as a compelling reason to undermine the party's stature of being a truly national party committed to advancing Liberal values in every riding of the country. The criticism that Dion is facing today as a direct consequence of this strategy, not only from the peanut gallery, the blogosphere, the media, and his opponents, but also some very high-placed people in his own party. Domestically, this will do far more damage to the Liberal brand than virtually any other misguided tactic or policy announcement in recent years, and there have been no shortage of those.

Dion Gives Party of 9/11 Fan a Free Pass

It seems like there is no end to escalation of vile things coming out of members of Canada's opposition parties this week. The forthcoming story actually manages to trump the last two head-slappers.

Yesterday it was made public knowledge that a member of the Green Party actually cheered when he saw the World Trade Centre towers collapse and did a fist-pump when he saw the gaping hole in the Pentagon. There's a story in today's Post about this clown and his unwillingness to apologize for those words, yet the more Liberal-friendly media sources are strangely silent on the matter.

Today, Stephane Dion is giving the leader of that party a free pass in her ill-conceived bid to try to unseat Peter Mackay in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova.

As the saying goes, timing is everything in politics. Dion's timing on this one could not possibly be worse, the optics are absolutely mortifying. There has been no call by Dion for the revolting Green Party member to apologize to the families of 9/11 victims, no call for the Greens to disassociate themselves from this member. Silence can be deafening, and in this case, it speaks volumes. Dion is so desperate to have somebody, anybody, backing him as the best choice for prime minister that he is not going to run a candidate in Central Nova in order to allow Elizabeth May a better chance to beat Mackay. She's hoping to fare better than the 2006 candidate, who managed to achieve a whopping 2% of the total vote. And he'll overlook the commentaries of the Greens' other candidates in order to secure that support, in addition to May's own views that are in stark, stark contrast to the Liberals' own positions. But hey, they're both "committed" to a greener Canada, so they're practically bosom buddies!

The Green Party is well-known for having more nutbars than a Snickers factory. At the Defence Policy forum that Dalhousie put on during the 2006 election, one of their members got hold of a live microphone and proceeded to go on an incoherent rant about a forthcoming nuclear first-strike against Iran and that Canada should not participate in such a thing. The party's grassroots are replete with people such as this, who hold views--which is certainly well within their constitutional rights, but why on earth would you want to exercise it?--that point the finger at the Bush Administration for orchestrating 9/11 and a myriad of other views that most well-thinking people would not consider to be "normal."

The bottom line: Dion is undermining the credibility of the Liberals as a national party and a rational party in order to get the endorsement of a party that has never elected a candidate to Parliament and won't be doing so in the next election. It is a foolish ploy that only heightens the negative sentiment that many Canadians have of his leadership, and gives credence--in a zero-sum fashion--to a party that believes "9/11 Was an Inside Job" and roots on terrorists more proudly than even Denis Coderre.

**Update** Fixed a sentence that was left completely hanging. I blame the gremlins.

Oh, M. Coderre....and Ms. Black

Amazingly, Denis Coderre has been allowed on national television two days in a row. He referred to Canada's Minister of Defence as a "farce" who is a "former arms dealer" with "no credibility" to discuss matters of Canadian national security. He's denouncing the supposed "escalation" of Canada's role in Afghanistan, suggesting that Canada will be there long after our commitment until 2009 simply because we're purchasing new tanks and aircraft to haul them around in.

But even Hezbollah props aren't the most asinine thing on television today. The NDP's "Defence Critic," Dawn Black, has just likened, twice, Canadian tanks used to defeat terrorists as being on the same moral plane as the Red Army that invaded Afghanistan in 1979-80. She says that the people of Afghanistan will not be able to make the distinction between what we're doing and what they did. She also said that Canadian tanks would serve no purpose in homeland defence or in Darfur. All this emanating from a question about Josee Vernier's forthcoming appearance in Afghanistan to oversee some of the great advances made by CIDA in building Afghanistan's infrastructure.

I am thoroughly shocked and awed, folks. How do clowns like Coderre and Black get on TV to spew this drivel?

Oh, M. Coderre

It certainly is something watching Hezbollah prop Denis Coderre unable to string a coherent sentence together on Don Newman's Politics this evening. In one phrase alone, he managed to include Liberal talking points on Khan, O'Connor, and the government's heavy-handed intervention into the Montreal Canadiens' failure to make the playoffs (OK, that last one isn't true, but the other two are) as part of his spiel as to why it is that the government's appointment of former PQ minister Daniel Paille to head up an investigation of potential problems with Liberal contracting (something which WK seems to be looking forward to) is the latest in a string of bad government by the Harper-led Conservatives.

Now, I'll agree that the optics of an unelected minister (Michael Fortier) appointing--without a vetting process--a separatist to dig into the relationship of the previous Liberal government and Earnscliffe isn't exactly looking at the Mona Lisa. But hearing words like "witch hunt" being tossed around is more than a little silly. Obviously there's a good reason that Paille was chosen; I don't know what it is, but I can't imagine that Harper would give the thumbs-up to something like this unless there was a good reason. At this point, the Liberals are mustering up a lot of outrage over the process, which makes me wonder what they'll do in six months when we see the result?

Also, two more Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan today. Take a moment to hold them in your thoughts. This has been a very difficult week for the Canadian Forces and their family members, and they will need the strength of the entire nation.

Where is M. Dion?

Last Thursday I put out a plea for information regarding the whereabouts of Stephane Dion's appearance in Halifax. It went unanswered. Now it's likely that nobody really cared enough to fill me in (after all, I apparently sold my Liberal soul to become a Tory....thanks JBG!), but there's also the possibility that nobody else actually knew.

I've seen in a couple places, no less than the top headline at Bourque, that all of Dion's appearances on this cross-country tour (the ones that aren't sabotaged by the heavy hand of Stephen Harper) are being kept on the down-low. The story that Bourque links to in the Post begins with this simple introduction: "Stephane Dion was in Toronto yesterday. Somewhere."

Needless to say, this is highly problematic for a leader that is having excessive difficulties establishing himself and diffusing Tory attacks that proclaim Dion is "not a leader." If the people can't access Dion and hear what he has to say, the only message they will have about him is the caricature created by his opponents. The mildly-Liberal-friendly media can only do so much to highlight his positives (he was the Liberal architect of the Clarity Act, an important piece of legislation, absolutely, but one that came out almost a decade ago and probably something that nobody who doesn't take constitutional law classes has ever read), and sometimes even that gets boring. The Globe today, for example, has a story about Dion's former Cabinet colleague and Environment Minister at the time Chretien signed on to Kyoto pointing out that M. Dion wasn't exactly the best champion for selling Kyoto to the provinces when he was Intergovernmental Affairs Minister. Christine Stewart says, "I think what I am saying is he wasn't against [Kyoto], but he was not a champion. But then he wasn't unique. If you can find a champion [in that Liberal cabinet], let me know." Ouch.

So in the few glimpses that the public gets of Dion, it's leaning strongly towards the negative. The Tory message is clearly working to this point, and that is reflected in the sharp drop in Liberal popularity since December 2006 when Dion took the helm. If he wants to meet with small groups of grassroots members, fine, but shutting out the broader public and keeping everybody, the media included, in the dark as to his whereabouts will do nothing to expand party membership or support.

As I said on Thursday, I would not have gone to Dion's event in Halifax (turns out it was in Dartmouth) to do the cheering thing or grab myself a membership form at the end of the speech. But I would have listened and made a report here so that people could hear about it from a source that is neither pretending to be neutral (i.e. the media) or a partisan supporter. I would have given props where due and been critical where appropriate. As it is, all we got in the local press was a couple of really uninspired recaps and the establishment of a secret tour that everybody knows about. He was here. Somewhere. That is not good enough. I'm not a Tory member but I learn, usually a day in advance, where the Prime Minister will be on any given day. That is the upshot of signing up for the PM's mailing list, I guess. You can do that too by following the link on the right. Availability is key. Access is crucial. When Stephen Harper goes out and about to meet Canadians, they have a reasonable idea of where he will be and when he will be there. The same does not appear to apply for the Leader of the Opposition, and that will ultimately cost him face-time with potential voters.