Industry Minister Jim Prentice pulls a duck and cover

What's Industry Minister Jim Prentice got to hide? A lot apparently. CBC Radio's Search Engine offered Prentice the opportunity to explain his hideous copyright legislation to a Canadian audience. Surely, if it's good for consumers he would be excited at the opportunity to demonstrate it to us.

What did Prentice do?

He ran for the bunker.

So, is Prentice owned by the mega-corporations? It certainly looks that way. And they and Prentice are about to put a lock on your ability to use digital information for any purpose. Fair use will go out the window.

Stinking coward. The Conservative Party of Canada - Standing up for Sony/BMG.

So, what's it going to be, George?

Bush is either the dumbest president in US history or he's an incredible liar. The White House press conference this morning contained some interesting stuff. On one hand we have Bush telling everyone that he wasn't aware of the contents of the NIE on Iran until last Tuesday.

At a press briefing this morning, President Bush said he was told by his Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell “in August” that “we have some new information” regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But Bush asserted “he didn’t tell me what the information was”:

BUSH: I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was John — Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn’t tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze.

Later, when a reporter followed-up on this statement, Bush asserted no one ever told him to stop ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran:

REPORTER: Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as World War III was making it into conversation — at no point, nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, Maybe you want to back it down a little bit?

BUSH: No — I’ve never — nobody ever told me that.

This is the Bush defence for the outrageous rhetoric intended to convince the American public and the world that there was a need for a military strike on Iran. At this point though, it makes Bush look like little more than a clueless buffoon. Is he the president or isn't he?

To recap: At the same time Bush was ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran, he was told by his National Intelligence Director that that have “some new information.” Yet Bush wants the public to believe he never learned what the information was, nor was he interested.

That's more than a little hard to believe and Josh Marshall calls immediate bullshit, noting that Bush has been changing the terms of his rhetoric on Iran because he had to be aware that the NIE was going to crush his case for attacking Iran.

[W]hen you look back at his speeches, there's evidence that the president was shifting his terms because he knew that the intelligence on which his push for war was based was likely too collapse.

If you go back to his October 17th press conference, the one where he spoke of 'World War III' he changes his wording. It's no longer the need to prevent the Iranians from getting the bomb. Now it's the necessity of "preventing them from hav[ing] the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

That's the tell.

That change is no accident. He wants claims that will survive the eventual revelation of this new intelligence -- while also continuing to hype the imminence of the Iranian nuclear threat that his spy chiefs are telling him likely does not exist.

So, the rhetoric will probably continue and increase as Bush now tries to sell the idea that Iran needs to be bombed because they possess the knowledge necessary to create a nuclear weapon. He (on Cheney's orders) would bomb them because of what they know.

So, despite what Bush says about when he finally got the information in the NIE, there is already an indication that he was aware of its contents before October 17th.

Back on November 10th Gareth Porter wrote an article which I linked to describing the delay in releasing the NIE. In it he described the fight between Cheney, who wants desperately to attack Iran, and the intelligence community which refused to alter the findings or material. In fact, Porter pointed out that there had already been casualties in Cheney's campaign to attack Iran.

Cheney's desire for a "clean" NIE that could be used to support his aggressive policy toward Iran was apparently a major factor in the replacement of John Negroponte as director of national intelligence in early 2007. Negroponte had angered neo-conservatives in the administration by telling the press in April 2006 that the intelligence community believed that it would still be "a number of years off" before Iran would be "likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or to put into a nuclear weapon, perhaps into the next decade".

If Negroponte knew that, and stated it publicly, Bush also had to know. The pounding of the war drums continued however and the pattern of rhetoric appeared to be a carbon copy of the model employed by Bush and Cheney to attack Iraq. The problem this time, however is that there was a comprehensive intelligence estimate that would expose the Bush/Cheney claims as fraudulent.

The contention in Porter's article, and Negroponte's statement of 19 months ago, is supported today by Scott Horton in Harper's Magazine. Again, there is a stunned disbelief that Bush and Cheney continued to push for an attack on Iran despite being in possession of good intelligence that ran counter to their claims of Iran's nuclear capability and ambitions.

Ken Silverstein and I have been pointing for the better part of the year to the very strange goings-on surrounding the preparation and issuance of a vital intelligence report on the state of Iran’s nuclear project. The White House, and particularly Vice President Cheney, has been feverishly attempting to stop its issuance. The Director of National Intelligence, McConnell, has been at odds to oppose its declassification. In sum, something was there and the war party was intensely upset about it.

[...]

National Security Advisor Steve Hadley appeared this afternoon to answer questions about the NIE and to offer remarks. Hadley has never been a particularly effective figure at press gatherings of this sort, and today was a very weak showing even by Hadley’s standards. But the key question came right off the bat: What should we think about the fact that as recently as October 17, President Bush was giving public remarks in which he pointed to the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran as World War III on the horizon? Indeed, a quick check shows the mushroom cloud analogy, which we all so closely associate with the irrepressibly irresponsible Condoleezza Rice, flowing from the lips of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Rice and Director of National Intelligence McConnell–with increased frequency since the post-Labor Day “roll out.” Hadley responded by saying that the NIE was only completed in the last two weeks and it rests on “new intelligence”–presumably newer than October 17–which pushed the analysts over the line and caused them to close their judgments on the issue.

Is this true? That will be a subject for further study. But one highly reliable intelligence community source I consulted immediately after Hadley spoke answered my question this way: “This is absolutely absurd. The NIE has been in substantially the form in which it was finally submitted for more than six months. The White House, and particularly Vice President Cheney, used every trick in the book to stop it from being finalized and issued. There was no last minute breakthrough that caused the issuance of the assessment.” So what, I asked, if not an intelligence breakthrough, what caused the last-minute change and the sudden issuance of the summary of the NIE? My source had no idea. He speculated, however, that a hardening of attitudes within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the intelligence community, and in Israel against the plans for an air war in Iran had caused Cheney and his team to fold their cards. “But I’d leave that with a final note of caution,” the source added, “Cheney sometimes appears to give up, but he’s a tenacious son-of-a-bitch. He may very well be back at it tomorrow.”

In case anyone missed the obvious, this has always been a Cheney push and Cheney, between defibrillator sessions, is really the one in charge.

I suspect Cheney will indeed be back pounding the "Iran must be dealt with" drum very soon. And the push to bomb Iran will find itself back on the stage in short order.

But the question is, if there is no active nuclear program in Iran, what precisely are they going to bomb? If knowledge is the threat that would suggest the target might be a university.

Wolfie's Baacckkkk . . . .

This oughta make your day: (Compliments of Newsweek)

An Old Face Resurfaces


The Bush administration has offered the former World Bank president a new public service position.

By Michael Isikoff | NEWSWEEK - Dec 10, 2007 Issue


Don't ever say the Bush administration doesn't take care of its own. Nearly three years after Paul Wolfowitz resigned as deputy Defense secretary and six months after his stormy departure as president of the World Bank—amid allegations that he improperly awarded a raise to his girlfriend—he's in line to return to public service. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel, according to two department sources who declined to be identified discussing personnel matters. The 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, advises Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters. "We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job," said one senior official.

And in case you're wondering:

The sources said Wolfowitz has already accepted Rice's offer to fill the part-time position, though it won't be announced until the completion of a standard check for conflicts of interest. But he won't have to worry about any complaints from pesky Democrats. The position doesn't require Senate confirmation. (Emphasis mine.)

Of course, we all knew he wouldn't just fade away into the night, didn't we? As a matter of fact after his debacle at the World Bank, he found a cushy position at The American Enterprise Institute: the bastion of US conservative policy. The more things change . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

That's the best you could come up with?

Umm, I don't think anyone, anywhere expected the wankosphere to spin the National Intelligence Estimate, that a nuclear program in Iran was halted four years ago, quite this way.

Glenn Reynolds:

This story lets the Bush Administration take credit for pressuring Iran into stopping its weapons program by invading Iraq -- meaning that the invasion really did end a major WMD threat -- and also punt further serious action on the Iran issue to the next administration. Cui bono? I think it's pretty obvious. . . .

Wow! I mean, just, wow! That's one helluva straw your grasping onto there, professor. So now the reason du jour for invading Iraq was to deal with a threat in Iran. Honestly, even the rest of the wankosphere would have trouble with that line of thought. Well, maybe not....

Victor Davis (I love war. Please start one so I can watch.) Hanson.

After all, what critic would wish now to grant that one result of the 2003 war — aside from the real chance that Iraq can stabilize and function under the only consensual government in the region — might have been the elimination, for some time, of two growing and potentially nuclear threats to American security, quite apart from Saddam Hussein?

Jeez! Another one!

So, if we are to understand the talking point correctly from these two, it made perfect sense to lay waste to Iraq to deal with a threat from Iran. I'm just guessing, but somehow I don't see the devastated population of Iraq buying into that line of reasoning.

Applied at a more local level, using the rationale of these two clowns, if I have an urge to get rid of the drug dealer in the crack-house down the street, it makes perfect sense to burn down his neighbour's house.

John Cole has found a much more traditional right-wing Bush cargo culture response. Yeah, I like it. Conspiracy theories are a lot more fun and reaffirming.

Update: Alright, this is becoming more than a coincidence. Now Ed Morrissey weighs in with the same line of reasoning as Reynolds and the highly irrelevant Hanson.

What might have happened in 2003 to convince Teheran to stop its nuclear-weapons pursuit? Could it have been the events on its western border, where the American military removed a dictator that they couldn't beat in eight years of brutal warfare? Libya's Moammar Ghaddafi certainly had the same idea in 2003, and for that very reason.

Which is to suggest that an unjustified beating on Iraq gains some purpose because, gee, look, Iran stopped their nuclear program, obviously because they were afraid they would be next on the Bush hit list.

Have another coffee Ed. You're making about as much sense as the PhDs and professors.

If Iran wanted to send a message that there was no reason to fear them, why did they continue to make noises to the contrary? And why did it take intelligence gathering to finally determine the state Iran's nuclear program when all the Iranians had to do was open the doors and let the world have a look? Iran wanted everyone to believe they had a nuclear program and taunted the US with it.

The NIE itself puts a lie to the Reynolds/Hanson/Morrissey "because of Iraq" talking point with this statement:

Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.

Not the invasion of Iraq.

Update II: Who left the window open?

I was wondering when the Canadian RWA crowd would weigh in. Frankly, I'm disappointed. Maybe that last blast of winter took something out of them. The basic premise of their talking point is the most predictable:

If the intelligence on Iraq was flawed, how credible is this intelligence estimate?

Really. You aren't even on the same field as Reynold/Hanson/Morrissey. For one thing the "intelligence" on Iraq wasn't. It was manufactured, cherry-picked and spun out forty-eight ways to Sunday. The real intelligence on that case was ignored and suppressed. If you need a further explanation, this should help.

So, go back into the basement, clear away the crumbs, open a new bag, pour in some Mountain Dew® and get to work. Come up with something stunning. Here are just a few more examples of real talking points. As you can see, you have a long way to go to achieve that level of sophistication.

We'll wait.

Update III: Ha! Chet has a complete all-in-one spin that is a do-not-miss. Honestly. It covers everything a wingnut could want, all in one sentence. Personally, I'd slap a copyright on it and make money off the royalties.

Free fertilizer better for crops than free market ideology. Who knew?

New York Times :

"Malawi hovered for years at the brink of famine. After a disastrous corn harvest in 2005, almost five million of its 13 million people needed emergency food aid.
But this year, a nation that has perennially extended a begging bowl to the world is instead feeding its hungry neighbors. It is selling more corn to the World Food Program of the United Nations than any other country in southern Africa and is exporting hundreds of thousands of tons of corn to Zimbabwe."

Additionally three tons of stock-piled powdered milk was sent on to Uganda instead.

So how was this economic miracle achieved?

By doing what the west does, not what it preaches :

Farmers used fertilizer instead of free market ideology on their crops.

"Over the past 20 years, the World bank and some rich nations Malawi depends on for aid have periodically pressed this small, landlocked country to adhere to free market policies and cut back or eliminate fertilizer subsidies, even as the United States and Europe extensively subsidized their own farmers.

Malawi’s leaders have long favored fertilizer subsidies, but they reluctantly acceded to donor prescriptions, often shaped by foreign-aid fashions in Washington, that featured a faith in private markets and an antipathy to government intervention.
In the 1980s and again in the 1990s, the World Bank pushed Malawi to eliminate fertilizer subsidies entirely. Its theory both times was that Malawi’s farmers should shift to growing cash crops for export and use the foreign exchange earnings to import food, according to Jane Harrigan, an
economist at the University of London.

The United States, which has shipped $147 million worth of American food to Malawi as emergency relief since 2002, but only $53 million to help Malawi grow its own food, has not provided any financial support for the subsidy program, except for helping pay for the evaluation of it. Over the years, the United States Agency for International Development has focused on promoting the role of the private sector in delivering fertilizer and seed, and saw subsidies as undermining that effort."

But after the disastrous 2005 harvest, Malawi’s newly elected president implemented a policy of government subsidies for seed and fertilizer.

Last year, half the country’s farming families received coupons to buy two 110-pound bags of fertilizer for around for around $15, or about a third the market price, along with enough seed to plant less than half an acre.

As a consequence, farmers were able to double or triple their food crops, resulting in lower food prices and higher wages for farm workers. The government will also give farmers a direct say in the distribution of this year's subsidies.

Simple really. Crops thrive much better on fertilizer than they do on colonialist free market bullshit.

The US Senate Democrats go into a watchkeeping routine

There is nothing I like better than to witness people who are unused to duty watches go into, well, duty watches. That's exactly what the Democratic senators did this past US holiday season.
Instead of calling the Senate into recess for the Thanksgiving holiday break, the Democrats kept the Senate alive. And it didn't make the self-important little prick in the Oval Office very happy.

President Bush Monday welcomed back Congress by criticizing Democrats for their priorities and blasting the Senate for using a procedural maneuver to prevent him from making recess appointments.

Procedural maneuver?

“In a political maneuver designed to block my ability to make recess appointments, congressional leaders arranged for a senator to come in every three days or so, bang a gavel, wait for about 30 seconds, bang a gavel again, and then leave,” Bush said. “Under the Senate rules, this counts as a full day. If 30 seconds is a full day, no wonder Congress has got a lot of work to do.”

Ahem! Yeah, well, this is coming from a president who now holds the record for more vacation days than any US president, evah! Tell us all about the workload Mr. "War President".

Bush is pissed-off that his ability to make recess appointments was blocked. Hmmm. Libby gathers that one up and lays it out.

Clearly, if he's so unhappy about it, Bush had intended to circumvent the confirmation process again with some sneaky recess appointments. I'd suggest the Democrats use that trick again during the Christmas break. It seems to have worked rather well.

Geez, George. Sucks, doesn't it? Democracy, I mean.

The US National Intelligence Estimate is out...

And it's bad news for the pant-pissing crowd.

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.

This is the NIE that the Bush administration wanted redrafted.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to be major factor in the tense international negotiations aimed at getting Iran to halt its nuclear energy program. Concerns about Iran were raised sharply after President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III,” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

The Bush administration wasted no time in spinning this.

The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quickly issued a statement describing the N.I.E. as containing positive news rather than reflecting intelligence mistakes. “It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. “It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”

“The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the administration has been trying to do,” Mr. Hadley said.

First off, sixteen different US intelligence agencies collaborated to produce this estimate and the final result says Bush and Cheney, pushing as hard as they could to garner support for an attack on Iran, were wrong. William Kristol was wrong; Jonah Goldberg was wrong; Rush Limbaugh was wrong; Victor Davis Hanson was wrong; they were all wrong.

Secondly, what rock has Hadley been living under? There is no diplomatic effort on the part of the Bush administration to deal with Iran. The Bush administration has rejected diplomatic discussions. It has refused to engage Iran with anything but rhetoric and threats.

Next up? You can expect Dick Cheney, between defibrillator therapy sessions, to tell us all that he has exclusive and much different information.

Must. See. What. Is. Happening. At. NRO.

The Ottawa Senators and their Anti-Choice "charity" fiasco

That's right. The hockey team, or more specifically, the charitable foundation which bears the team name. Read the whole entry on that link. In order to even be considered for funds from the Ottawa Senators Foundation a group must be a registered charity with Revenue Canada, must be able to provide a registration number and must be able to provide a tax receipt.

So then, how did this fetus fetishist group get in there? First Place Pregnancy Centre, not a registered charity, is receiving funding via the Ottawa Senators Foundation from the Ottawa Senators wives group, The Better Halves.

This first came to my attention from Fern Hill. At the time I thought it was unfortunate that the Ottawa Senators' wives group could be sucked in to this particular anti-choice, anti-birth-control group. But then something else rose up through the bushes.

Heather Mallick.

Heather is always on my "must read" list, but this time I'm just going to tell you to go and read every word. She picks up where Fern left off. From a lack of due diligence on the part of the Ottawa Senators Foundation to obfuscating language on the part of First Place Pregnancy Centre, Heather leaves a smoking heap of well-deserved wreckage. Here's a sample:

Revenue Canada tells me that First Place is not a registered charity.

Terri Mazik, executive director of First Place, sent out a press release attacking "our colleagues at Planned Parenthood" for their press release. She says First Place makes its position clear by saying it doesn't do "abortion referrals," ignoring the fact that no one does. Referrals aren't necessary; all anyone needs is to be guided to a phone book.

Her website and her press release are full of fact-concealing cotton puffery. But why conceal them? This is Canada. Say what you want, but on your own dime.

I don't know how the Sens Foundation got itself into this mess, which will surely lead to some hard questions from Revenue Canada.

Go read.

CORRECTION: As pointed out by Cheryl and Scotian (in comments) First Place Pregnancy Centre IS a registered charity under a different name, Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Ottawa. In fact, there was an editor's note at the bottom of Heather Mallick's column which I completely missed. My fault. And I apologize if I have mislead readers.

So, why would First Place Pregnancy Centre operate under a different name? Maybe it's because of what they're known to be.

Victoria's dirty little Secret slavery

The annual Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is on tv right now.

M-m-m-m ....soft core pron.

Here's a little Victoria's secret for you - it takes a slave only 3.3 minutes to make each of these bikinis.

Of course the alternative of being beaten or jailed in Jordan is probably a big incentive to keep up.

Each Sri Lankan or Bangladeshi "guest worker" lives and works in a Victoria's Secret sub-contract factory compound in Jordan named D.K. Garments. They work 15 hours a day 7 days a week with mandatory overtime and a day off once every three or four months. They are regularly cheated out of their meager wages. The dorms in which they are housed lack both heat and hot water even though the outside temperature drops to zero in winter. Since their passports have been confiscated, they cannot leave.

According to The National Labor Committee, after a recent company demand for a 43% increase in production with no raise in pay, six very brave workers went on strike.

On Nov 11, they were imprisoned and the next day their co-workers went on strike in protest.

D.K. Garments threatened to cut off food and water to the dorms.

The workers held out for 10 days but are now back under the same conditions.

The original six strikers remain in prison.

Amazingly, these people paid from $1,500 to $3,000 to purchase the three-year work contracts in Jordan.

Now, in debt from borrowing the money to pay the contract fee and with their passports confiscated, they can't leave.

By the way, the workers' wages amount to less than 3/10ths of 1% of the $14 retail price of one of those bikinis pictured above.

Enjoy the show!

You can write to Victoria's Secret via :

Mr Leslie Wexner, CEO

Limited Brands Inc.

3 Limited Pkwy.

Columbus, Ohio 43230 United States

Phone: (614) 415-7000

Fax: (614) 415-7080

E-mail: tkatzenmeyer@limitedbrands.com

to demand the end of this abuse and the release of the six strikers from prison.

Be sure to mention that you won't be buying any of their products because in real life, evil is just not all that sexy.

h/t Marcus at Zavadil Design

Cross-posted at Creekside

The Throne Speech didn't contain THIS little detail

How dedicated to the Afghanistan war is the Canadian Conservative government? Apparently not as much as the picture they're trying to paint. Northman's Fury has the word and as he points out, if the Conservatives were intent on something akin to a "win" in Afghanistan they wouldn't be trying to fight it with an army which is constituted as a contingency force.

From CBC:

OTTAWA - National Defence has been warned it will have to cover the costs of the Afghan war entirely out of its own budget next year, without any top-up from the federal Treasury Board, a political source has told The Canadian Press.

The directive went out recently from the Privy Council Office as planning for the 2008 budget reaches its peak, said an official who asked not to be named.

It's part of an increasingly determined effort by the Harper government to assert more civilian control over the military, which has been perceived as having too much leeway in both the conduct of the war and with the public purse, said the official.

Isn't that special. Up to now DND has been able to go to Treasury Board for a top up based on the need to continue all other peacetime operations.

Now, it's going to have to fund all operations out of what will be a relatively meager increase.

"They've been told they'll have a flat amount allocated to them and that will include in the cost of Afghanistan, and not to come back for more," said Liberal Senator Colin Kenny.

[...]

Total spending at National Defence is expected to go from $18.3 billion in the current budget year to $19.4 billion in 2008-09.

But Kenny's committee has argued that spending should be in the range of $25 billion.

In the past, the cost of the war in Afghanistan has routinely exceeded the Defence Department's estimates, forcing officials to go back to Treasury Board to ask for additional operating in funds.

In the 2006 budget the additional appropriation added up to $202 million, according to the department's 2006-07 performance report.

Just so everyone understands this, funding the Afghanistan operation from the fixed DND budget will cause huge problems. First, it will cause the actual cost of the operation, and everything done to make it work, to become hidden from view. Second, other Canadian Forces operations will be pillaged to keep the Afghanistan mission on the rails. This almost happened when the air force cut back operations and the navy announced there was no money for a scheduled sovereignty patrol. It was only after announcements that those forces could not maintain the operating tempo expected of them, nor meet peacetime defence commitments that the minister went to Treasury Board and asked for increased funding.

Before 1964 operations such as Afghanistan were funded by cabinet on a separate budget. The defence budget was a different item intended to keep the armed forces alive and functioning in all areas of defence policy. Afghanistan is not considered a contingency operation but an extraordinary government commitment.

The civilian control that the Conservatives say they are attempting to establish has always been there. In fact, they were using the armed forces as a political tool to create the illusion of being a bunch of tough guys.

Kenny said the Conservatives have thus far failed to provide enough money to fulfill their campaign promise to expand the military and fight the war. Recently the Defence Department conceded that its plans to expand to 75,000 regular members and 35,000 reservists had to be trimmed back because there wasn't enough funding.

In addition, a wide range of military spending has come under the microscope at the political level, said Kenny.

"Offloading the costs of the war on the department will have a major impact on just about everything," he said. "These guys want it both ways.

"They want to have a reputation of being strong on national security and strong on defence. Their idea of being strong is to make PR gestures when they're spending less than (former prime minister Pierre) Trudeau did on defence in terms of (gross domestic product)."

That often turns into an argument around here. The occasional Harperette® makes an appearance to make unsubstantiated proclamations that the Harper government is providing funding for the CF at a level done by no previous government before them. That's all BS of course since the Pearson and Trudeau governements, while they were trying to find ways to get costs down, spent more on equipment and retained larger regular forces than Harper.

It's all optics. Much of the criticism of Pearson comes from the "unification" of the armed forces which clouded material procurement and admittedly threw the armed services into a period of turmoil.

During the Trudeau era it was more a case of his outwardly displayed bad attitude. He wasn't enamored of the armed forces but he accepted the need to keep a ready and well-trained force at hand. Most of us didn't like the man, but if you compare capital projects from his regime to the current, he makes Harper look cheap. By way of example, the CF-18 and the Halifax-class frigates which respectively make up the bulk of the country's fighter/interceptor force and blue water fleet were projects which were initiated, approved and commenced under Trudeau's regime.

There is one little point out of the article which really stands out, however.

At one recent meeting, the source said, political staff groused openly that the Conservatives "have spent $20 billion plus" on the military in new equipment and seen little political "sizzle" for the effort.

Political "sizzle"?

Is that why the Conservatives make such a big deal about funding the armed services? They're treating the Canadian Forces as something from which to gain political advantage? Geez, that's nice. That puts "supporting the troops" in a whole new light.

BJ caps that off nicely.

Which I guess explains this latest move. Why bother spending money on something you claim is important when you aren't getting any political "sizzle" out of it?

Exactly. Canadians aren't buying the Conservative mentality. Certainly, fund the armed forces. You want a pat on the back for it? Not likely. It's your job.

Firefighters being trained as domestic spies

This is a little old but somewhat disturbing. The US Department of Homeland Security has deemed it appropriate to train city firefighters to spy on the occupants of buildings. Firefighters and emergency medical personnel are not required to have a warrant to enter a building. In the course of their duties DHS expects them to report material and behaviour that may be deemed suspicious.

The Homeland Security Department is testing a program with the New York City fire department to share intelligence information so firefighters are better prepared when they respond to emergency calls. Homeland Security also trains the New York City fire service in how to identify material or behavior that may indicate terrorist activities. If it’s successful, the government intends to expand the program to other major metropolitan areas.

This program is little different from one Bush tried to have implemented in 2002.

As part of the program, which started last December, Homeland Security gave secret clearances to nine New York fire chiefs, according to reports obtained by The Associated Press.Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now national security policy counsel to the ACLU, said the concept is dangerously close to the Bush administration’s 2002 proposal to have workers with access to private homes — such as postal carriers and telephone repairmen — report suspicious behavior to the FBI.

“Americans universally abhorred that idea,” German said.

And they're not likely to appreciate this one either. In fact, firefighters and emergency medical personnel are viewing this with a great deal of skepticism. By becoming the eyes of the government, they fear the position of trust they hold with the public will be eroded.

Keith Olbermann interviewed Mike German on Countdown last Wednesday. The video is at Raw Story. Watch and wonder.

And while the Bush administration seems to be insisting that everyone, including the dog catcher, be recruited to spy on everyone else, it's going to cut the funding that DHS provides for emergency response and emergency management.

The department wanted to provide $3.2 billion to help states and cities protect against terrorist attacks in 2009, but the White House said it would ask Congress for less than half—$1.4 billion, according to a Nov. 26 document. The plan calls outright elimination of programs for port security, transit security, and local emergency management operations in the next budget year. This is President Bush's last budget, and the new administration would have to live with the funding decisions between Jan. 20 and Sept. 30, 2009.

Really, have these guys ever had anything close to a plan for anything?

Hat tip reader Todd.

Made it!

A short diversion. You can click here to try it.

Hat tip Cap'n Dyke.

The US Supreme Court has reserved a trunk lid seat for you

This has raised all kinds of hackles all over teh tubes.

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

Chet aptly makes two points.

- That it is a part of the deluded mentality of certain segments of America that the reach of American law is limitless.

- That despite this little revelation being a retention of "bounty hunting" days originating in the 1860s, it puts further question to the definition of "civilized nation" when used in referring to the United States.

The US has already proved a willingness to violate the rule of law and ignore extradition treaties to expedite its own interests.

Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged [Alun] Jones to be “honest about [his] position”.

Jones replied: “That is United States law.”

He cited the case of Humberto Alvarez Machain, a suspect who was abducted by the US government at his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1990. He was flown by Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Texas for criminal prosecution.

Although there was an extradition treaty in place between America and Mexico at the time — as there currently is between the United States and Britain — the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the Mexican had no legal remedy because of his abduction.

Yes indeed. The US Supreme Court did decide just that. In fact, they have made clear that the actual existence of an extradition treaty with a country makes transnational abductions legitimate.

In the Alvarez Machain case, the Supreme Court rendered a decision which flipped the extradition treaty with Mexico on its ear. Instead of upholding the ruling of the 9th District Court, which vacated the case on the grounds that the abduction violated the terms of the US-Mexico extradition treaty, the Supremes decided that the abduction of Alvarez Machain was no reason not to prosecute him. In fact, they went one further by using the treaty as the reason the abduction was legitimate.

The US Supreme Court majority decision declared that transnational abduction was actually a form of extradition authorized by the treaty because, (hold onto your chair, this is gonna rock you), the treaty does not include an "express promise by either party to refrain from forcible abductions in the territory of the other Nation."

Well there you go then. If you don't expressly forbid kidnapping in an extradition treaty, it must be OK.

With legal opinions like that, there is little hope of ever writing a treaty of any kind with which the United States will adhere. Regardless of any mutual undertakings with another country, if something obscure and outside the context in which a treaty is negotiated is not contained as a specific within that treaty, the US will use it as an excuse to violate the sovereignty of any nation they choose, including those they would count among friends. (A group which Bush has trimmed to a manageable one-digit figure.)

I'll toss this in. Nation-states who hold extradition treaties with the US would be within their rights, if they intercept abductors, to deny such captors the benefits of any prisoner repatriation treaty with the US.

I wonder how long it will take for this crowd to write or interpret "law" which makes Executive Branch sanctioned hostage taking legal?

Shafted in Seattle

The ill treatment of veterans in the US continues, only this time the administration reached waaay back and poured salt in the wounds of a 2nd World War veteran.

A month after the Army said it made a mistake when it court-martialed Samuel Snow and 27 other black soldiers in World War II, the Pentagon has cut Mr. Snow a check for back pay, money withheld while he served a year in prison on a rioting conviction.

That should be a pretty hefty back pay cheque. It has, after all, been almost 62 years since the event which caused the problem in the first place.

Brace yourselves.

The check was for $725. No interest. No adjustment for inflation.

The army explained themselves thusly:

Col. Daniel L. Baggio, chief of media relations for the Army, said in an interview and in e-mail messages that he could not discuss Mr. Snow’s specific payment because of privacy laws. Colonel Baggio said a private of Mr. Snow’s grade was paid $50 a month in 1945.

He said Mr. Snow’s $725 appeared to reflect money withheld from his conviction on Dec. 18, 1944, to what would have been his likely discharge date, March 2, 1946. In an e-mail message, Colonel Baggio said the law controlling the board “does not authorize payment of interest, pain and suffering or damages.” If the back pay had been calculated at 8 percent for 61 1/2 years, compounded annually, Mr. Snow could have received more than $80,000. If the $725 was simply adjusted for inflation, it would amount to more than $7,700, a calculator on the Labor Department Web site shows.

What happened to cause this unbelievable generosity and the return of Mr. Snow's 1945 army pay at the 1945 rate?

In October, an Army board effectively overturned the convictions of Mr. Snow and the other former soldiers on rioting and other charges. The men, two of whom are known to survive, were imprisoned in many cases and dishonorably discharged after a riot at Fort Lawton here in August 1944 that led to the hanging death of an Italian prisoner of war held at the post.

The Army Board for Correction of Military Records specifically set aside the convictions of Mr. Snow and three others whose families requested reviews of the cases. The board found that the convictions were flawed because two lawyers defended 43 soldiers, the lawyers had 13 days to prepare for trial and, most critically, the prosecution withheld important evidence that could have potentially helped the defendants.

“All rights, privileges and property lost as a result of the conviction should be restored to him,” the board said of Mr. Snow. Rulings in the other cases were similar.

In 1975 Mr. Snow's records were adjusted to reflect a "General discharge under honorable conditions".

The case involving Samuel Snow and 42 other black soldiers has its own twists. Former NewsHour Seattle bureau chief Jack Hamann discovered a headstone which led him on a lengthy investigation. He overturned a story of racial discrimination and questionable behaviour on the part of army prosecutor, Lt. Col. Leon Jaworski, who would go on to become the special prosecutor who faced-down Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal.

Hamann discovered that at Fort Lawton, now Discovery Park near Seattle, Guglielmo Olivotto, an Italian prisoner of war, had allegedly been lynched during a riot by black troops.

The base itself was crammed with up to 10,000 troops returning from or embarking for wartime theatres in the Pacific. The black troops were employed as stevedores loading and unloading ships. Worse however, was the fact that there was a large contingent of Italian prisoners of war who enjoyed a great deal of freedom and liberty as a condition of parole. The black American troops were treated somewhat differently. From Publishers Weekly:

The Italians had freedom of movement and received hospitality in Seattle homes; the African-Americans were subject to massive discrimination and restrictions. The resulting tension led to escalating scuffles, which in turn led to a riotous assault by the GIs on the Italians' quarters and to the death of one Italian.

Hamann produced the results of his research in his book On American Soil. It was only as a result of Hamann's research that the US Army reviewed the case and, this October, set aside the convictions of all those tried and granted them full honorable discharges.

Samuel Snow, now 83, is the only survivor of that event to have received the whopping $725 that constituted his back pay at 1945 rates.

Injustice heaped upon injustice.

Why does Stockwell Day hate the police?

It seems our man at the Ministry of Public Safety has decided that tracking lethal firearms into this country just isn't all that important.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day is facing criticism for failing to endorse regulations to track illegal guns imported from other countries.

Several of Canada's major law enforcement agencies, including the Canadian Police Association, allege that Day has quietly shelved plans that require gun importers to put identifying marks on all firearms coming into the country.

Hang on! That little event was decided on several years ago. While I was not aware that it was a 1 Dec 2007 effective date, I do remember this was something that became legislation quite a while ago.

"It's unfortunate that Canada in a quiet and almost hidden fashion has decided to abandon those commitments," [Dave] Griffin [Canadian Police Association executive officer] told CBC News on Friday.

The regulations were created three years ago and are part of several international agreements Canada has signed, Griffin said.

There we are. So, did Stockwell, the minister of Public Safety sit down with the police to discuss this?

He said he found the decision buried in an obscure part of the Privy Council Office website.

Makes no sense, does it? This is the Public Safety minister tossing off a method of tracking firearms that the police could only find a useful tool. And then to just shelve the idea without consulting or advising police forces? Maybe it's not so mind boggling.

It. Was. A. Liberal. Program. And the gun lobby despised everything to do with controlling their weapons, especially if it came from a Liberal government.

"The fact is this government has been captured by the gun lobby interests and aren't interested in gun control," [Ujjal] Dosanjh told CBC on Friday.

Yup. Day took his advice from his "Firearms advisory council" and totally ignored the police, as Dave Griffin has only too clearly discovered.

Strange, wot? Not really.

Tony Bernardo, a member of Day's firearms advisory council, said there's no evidence to suggest that import marks on firearms will help trace illegal guns.

Tony Bernardo. That would be the executive director of the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action. The name may be a little misleading but the purpose of the group is described as: a Canada wide coalition of pro-firearms and shooting organizations devoted to preserving, promoting and protecting firearms and related activities. CILA has a full time representative in Ottawa and maintains offices in Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.

Now, if you drop the "Canadian" from the name and just go hunting for institute for legislative action you wind up on, voila! the National Rifle Association site. The most powerful gun lobby in. the. world.

Coincidence? Let's just say that no cop would believe in that coincidence.

Let me explain to Dave Griffin. Stockwell Day has done a little arithmetic. Campaign support comes in dollars. From which of two sources do the Conservatives get more political donations: the gopher gun crowd or police associations?

H/T CC

Giuliani's world is shrinking

Maybe he was suffering from shock. Republican US presidential contender Rudy Giuliani, the self-styled hero of 9/11 seemed to think that, even in the wake of attacks on his city, that he could abuse the money of New York City taxpayers.

In the fall of 2001, city cops chauffeured Rudy Giuliani's then-mistress, Judith Nathan, to her parents' Pennsylvania home 130 miles away on the taxpayers' dime.

Records show that city cops refueled at an ExxonMobil station down the road from Nathan's childhood home in Hazleton on Oct. 20, 2001, while Giuliani stayed behind in New York attending 9/11 funerals.

A similar receipt pops up at a different Hazleton gas station two months later, when Nathan apparently went home for a pre-Christmas visit with her parents.

The records show that - in addition to using City Hall funds to take Giuliani and Nathan to 11 secret trysts in the Hamptons, as has been previously reported - taxpayers were paying to ferry Nathan on long-distance trips without Giuliani, now a Republican contender for President.

Keep in mind, it was his mistress; not his wife. Despite attempts by some to obfuscate this point, Nathan possessed no status in New York's official life and was entitled to no more than any other New Yorker.

So, you're not surprized. OK. But this is bursting all over the place. The traditional media is jumping all over this, and quite rightly so. But, as John Cole points out, the super-sleuths of the citizen media seem to be a little quiet right now.

Malkin? Total silence. Ace of Spades? Nada. Kathryn Jean Lopez? Too busy trying to get Dana Perino a raise. Mark Steyn? Nope, too involved making things up for a future column. Jonah Goldberg? Hard at work on a book about.... well, never mind.

– When a 12 year old kid had the nerve to state that he benefited from a government program and thinks other kids should too, a massive orgy of ‘Truth detecting’ took place. Counters were examined. Houses were visited. Property records were scrutinized. Statements were parsed.

– When a private in the army wrote some tales with a few anecdotes about what he had experienced in the war in Iraq, and a few disagreed, no grain of sand was left unturned. Scale models of armored vehicles were built. Experts were called, emailed, and interrogated. Myspace accounts were looked up. Entire fields of Cray Supercomputers had to be brought online just to handle all the “debunking” and commentary from the wingnuts.

But now, a Republican front-runner FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT has clearly played fast and loose with the public’s money to hide/finance his extramarital dalliances, and the truth detectors on the right are silent. When an NRO columnist admits straight-up to making shit up to radically overstate a military threat to a key ally, perhaps to agitate for American military involvement, our fact-checkers snooze. The sum total of the response can be summed up as a giant yawn.

Crickets. Not even a “heh, indeed” can be found on these topics from our brave and intrepid citizen journalists. Hell, they are lagging FAR behind all the traditional media, who are cranking out tons of stories about Giuliani. Greater Wingnuttia should change their motto from “We’ll fact check your ass” to “We’ll fact check your ass, if you aren’t a Republican.” At least that would be honest.

OK. So someone else can do the fact checking. Oh! What's this? Why, look at what Josh Marshall found.

Giuliani's administration sent a check for $400,000 to American Express. Though it was billed to the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, an office that provides lawyers for indigent defendants, the money served as an advance against future travel and other expenses later incurred by the mayor's office and his security detail.

The unusually large prepayment, as yet unreported, adds weight to the theory that the Giuliani administration was using accounting gimmicks to obscure his office's travel expenditures.

With $400,000 prepaid on the Amex account, the mayor and his staff drew down on the credit card for a number of trips, including a handful out to the Hamptons, where Judith Nathan had her condo. Giuliani's administration ultimately spent approximately $100,000 of the $400,000 before leaving office in January, 2001.

Stu Loeser, a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg, confirmed to us that his administration put a stop to the practice of putting funds for future travel in bulk on a credit card. Shortly after Bloomberg took office, American Express refunded $298,000, the remaining unused balance on the account. The move came shortly after the city comptroller sent the mayor a letter critical of the Giuliani adminsitration's practice of billing obscure city agencies for mayoral travel expenses.

And you can find more here.

But you won't find anything at National Review Online.

Your moment of music history

On December 1st, 1971, thirty-six years ago today, John Lennon's Happy Xmas (War is Over) was released.



Haven't we done well since then?

May the peroxide force be with you

Blue Gal was wading through the swamp and found a little nugget. Actually, she found more than one, but you'll have to go there to see what I mean.

In any case, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino found herself on the pointy end of some tough questions put to her by White House press gallery member and grande dame Helen Thomas.

Enter Katherine Jean Lopez who thinks, after the exchange, that Dana Perino should get a raise for having to endure Helen Thomas.

Except that K.Lo, in posting her excerpt of the White House briefing was a tad dishonest. She didn't present the entire exchange - just the part which made it look as though Perino had put down Thomas and shut her up.

Blue Gal clears up that little bit of confusion by presenting the parts which our darling Republican hack thought weren't pertinent and during which Perino makes herself look like a total ass.

The Kellie Pickler YouTube will explain BG's conclusion.

Leave your comments at Blue Gal's.

Luc Lavoie resigns as Mulroney's spokesman... and leaves a little hint on the way out.

Ah yes, Impolitical pulls together another great summary. A part of that was the fact that Luc Lavoie, the voice of Brian Mulroney since Mulroney left parliament, (it would be erronious to suggest he left politics), has resigned his position as Mulroney's spokesman. It is interesting to note what he said, how he said it and what he didn't say.

The long-time spokesman who has resolutely defended Brian Mulroney throughout the controversy involving Karlheinz Schreiber says he can no longer speak for the former prime minister because he cannot devote the required time.

Luc Lavoie, the baritone-voiced former Mulroney communications director who has spoken on behalf of Mr. Mulroney since the latter retired from politics, said yesterday he gave up the duties about a week ago in full agreement with Mr. Mulroney.

“As this affair kept developing, it became very clear that I just could not dedicate the time to serve him well as I did in the 1990s,” Mr. Lavoie said in an interview. “As this became more and more demanding, I don't think he was well served.”

Alright. That's an honest enough statement. We have no idea what the arrangement is between Mulroney and Lavoie and Lavoie may be assessing what future demands will be put on him to deal with the media storm surrounding Mulroney. No matter who holds such a position, he/she would be in great demand to answer media questions.

Another matter, however, is that Lavoie was losing patience and last week erupted after being asked when Mulroney paid taxes on the cash that Karlheinz Schreiber gave him. It's possible that Lavoie saw himself being caught up in something from which there is no escape for Mulroney. In short, bail now before the real crap starts to get spread around.

“Mr. Mulroney is fighting for his integrity and the integrity of his family, and I'm fully sympathetic to what he's going through and I wish him the best, believe me, and I still consider him a dear friend and always will.”

Communications directors are smart enough to know how to craft phrases and that one says a lot. At no point does he defend Mulroney. He simply wishes him "the best". If Lavoie was possessed of the belief that Mulroney is innocent of allegations against him, why didn't he depart saying so?

Asked if he had ever felt personally uneasy about speaking on the Schreiber matter, Mr. Lavoie said he hadn't.

At one point in 1999, Mr. Lavoie said no money had ever changed hands between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney. It was later revealed that Mr. Mulroney had received $300,000 from Mr. Schreiber.

Mr. Lavoie said his remarks at the time were with respect to the sale of Airbus planes to Air Canada.

“I was talking about Airbus,” he said. “No money changed hands. No money went to Brian Mulroney when it has to do with Airbus. I said that in 1999 and if I was still a spokesperson I would say the same thing. Now what happened after he left office is something else.”

KABOOM!! You can't put the pin back in that one.

It would have been more than entertaining to listen to conversations between Mulroney and Lavoie as the week developed. Lavoie was willing to speak for and in defense of Brian Mulroney as long as it was about Airbus, but anything else is too much of a minefield. In short, put the way Lavoie put it, he would feel uncomfortable speaking to Mulroney's activities beyond the Airbus deal.

Protection . . . .

On a lighter note, this was sent to me from a Vancouver friend:

The government today announced that it is changing its emblem from an Eagle to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance.
A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed.

Damn, it just doesn't get more accurate than that.

Enjoy your weekend . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)