Gunfight at the Rideau Corral (in the kiddies section). Updated!

This, as Scott suggests, is going to get very interesting.

Well, it's the last opposition day before the House breaks for the holidays, and it turns out that all they -- or at least, the Liberals -- want for Christmas is ... the full set of documents requested by the Afghanistan committee, "in their original and uncensored form." That's the gist of the following motion, which will be the object of what is likely to be a lively debate in the Commons today. Spoiler alert: it's the last line that's the kicker:

It's worth reading the whole motion available at the first link above but, since Kady told us where to look for the load of buckshot, let's look!

accordingly the House hereby orders that these documents be produced in their original and uncensored form forthwith.

Zounds! And as Kady points out...

See that bit about 'the House hereby orders'? Matters of parliamentary privilege -- in this case, the "absolute power" to demand the production of documents -- are dealt with entirely within the aegis of Parliament itself; there is no court of appeal or outside authority that makes the final decision on the legitimacy of an order of the House. If the above motion passes -- and there is absolutely no reason to think that it won't, most likely later tonight -- it becomes an order of the House -- which, unlike, for instance, that feel-good Bloc Quebecois motion on what Canada's stance at the Copenhagen conference should be, cannot be simply ignored by a -- or, in this case, the -- government.

That is, for lack of a better description, the nuclear option. And the Liberals feel justified and safe in using it because of two things:

1. The testimony of CDS General Walter Natynczyk before the Commons defence committee has been reversed in a public statement by Natynczyk himself; and,

2. Defence minister, Peter "Airshow" Mackay, apparently has no one covering his "six".

Via James Morton, we get this very interesting observation from Jane Taber.

Stephen Harper defended his top soldier and the Canadian Forces today but never backed Peter MacKay amid opposition demands that he fire the Defence Minister over his handling of the Afghan detainee controversy.

[...]

For each and every call for Mr. MacKay’s firing, the Prime Minister would only say that the military acted correctly and with integrity.

Kind of makes that "deal", way back when the Harper Reformers hijacked the Progressive Conservative party back in December 2003, look pretty weak.

Deal?

Oh yeah. The deal that Peter MacKay, having delivered the membership of his Progressive Conservatives into the hands of the Harper Reformers, would, should the new party ever form government, always hold a high profile cabinet position. This would ensure that, should Harper die of natural causes or be hit by a bus, that MacKay is well positioned for a successful leadership bid.

The Harperite reformers can deny the existence of such a deal all they like. It's obvious, given that MacKay has, on more than one occasion, committed acts, which the the reformers would view as sins, such that he should have been shuffled, at the very best, to the remotest end of the cabinet table.

The Harperites would love to ditch the irritating centrist remnants of the Progressive Conservative Party and get on with being intolerant right-wing maniacs. This current pot, boiling over on MacKay's stovetop as it is, presents an opportunity for them.

This parliamentary gunfight, held out in the open, will probably also end up with a blood-letting in the Harper caucus. If it doesn't, it means that MacKay has some very secure dirt on the Reformers.

Update: At 5:55 pm Fort Fumble time, the motion ordering the government to produce documents requested by the Afghanistan committee in their original and uncensored form, passed.

Someone should tell MacKay that, even if he finds a gun, he no longer needs a full load. A single bullet will serve the only purpose left.

Wear it well, Baird. Someone just knocked over a domino

From the Maclean's:

Rising for his second question, Mr. Ignatieff offered the obvious follow. “Field notes by Canadian soldiers make it clear that a detainee was beaten in Afghan custody after being transferred by Canadian troops, way back in June 2006. Our soldiers saw it firsthand. They took photographs. They did the right thing. They rescued the man. They reported it up the chain of command. However, the government did nothing,” he ventured. “What kind of Canadian government refuses to act on firsthand accounts by its own troops, credible accounts, of detainee abuse in Afghan jails?”

Well... a Harper government styled on their US southern Republican brethren. That's who. But, according to John Baird, who pulled the foreskin off his neck long enough to say... (emphasis mine, even though Baird was screaming)

“Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. Let us talk about the facts,” he boldly declared. “The then-Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, General Walter Natynczyk, a decorated war hero, someone who has served our country in uniform for decades, stated very clearly more than two and a half years ago that the Afghan in question was not detained, was not captured by Canadian Forces, and he repeated that statement yesterday. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, why can he not trust General Walter Natynczyk?”

War hero??! Tout ce qui brille n'est pas or. Perhaps Baird should have simply pointed out that Natynczyk is a pretty good general in his own right and not have gone down that "war hero" path. In any case, Baird, typical of his ilk ranted that which might be fraught with hidden bombs.

With his third try, Mr. Ignatieff attempted to sidestep this entirely. “Mr. Speaker, the issue is much simpler than this,” he reckoned. “It is an issue about what happens when Canadian soldiers report credible accounts of detainee abuse. Those accounts are not in question. They take photographs of the abuse, they report it up the chain of command and, for a year, the government does nothing about it. That is the issue.”

Sidestep. But as Ignatieff points out, there were pictures and reports.

Then, "Airshow" Mackay gets in on the act. Blathering on he gets to this...

Mr. MacKay stood to various off-the-record requests from the Liberal side to support the troops.

“Simply put, Mr. Speaker, we are not,” he said to Foote’s question. “We are applauding them.” In the next breath, he repeated Gen. Natynczyk’s contradiction of said soldiers.

Judy Foote:

“Mr. Speaker, either they believe the eyewitness accounts of our soldiers on the ground or they do not. It is as simple as that,” she ventured. “In 2007-08, two senior Canadian officers further corroborated the accounts of the soldier and the medic under oath in court. Detailed notes show the name of the Canadian platoon that captured the Afghan before he was handed over and beaten. There are even photos. The Conservatives not only refuse to release this information, but they deny it exists. Why will they not come clean? Why will they not believe our soldiers?”

Oy. There's enough there to give a Chief of Defence Staff the willies. Natynczyk wasn't personally present at the alleged event. Best check this out further. But before that happens, Mackay dispenses more of his traditional wisdom...

“Mr. Speaker, last time I checked, the chief of the defence staff is not only a soldier but the top soldier,” the Defence Minister replied. “I will take his word.”

Top serviceman is more accurate. But the awkward thing about this is that Mackay has not done the requisite ministerial inquiry to get his own facts. If he has, then he has ignored the results. I don't think Natynczyk is a liar in any respect. But I also don't believe he had the whole story. That means Mackay was dancing though a minefield, attempting to deflect responsibility.

Then... uh oh.

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, Canada's top military commander, is now saying a suspected Taliban fighter abused by Afghan police in June 2006 had been detained by Canadian troops, contrary to comments he made Tuesday.

[...]

Natynczyk read from a report on the incident by the section commander, who said they had the suspect get down on his stomach before they conducted a detailed search, which included emptying the Afghan's pockets, cataloging all the items and photographing him.

"I did not have this information in May of 2007 nor yesterday when I made my statement," Natynczyk said. "But I am responsible for the information provided by the Canadian Forces and I am accountable for it today."

Section commander. An NCO, on scene, provided a written occurrence report. And, given all the bits of fur that have been flying around on this incident in particular, it just now manages to find its way to the desk of the CDS?

There will be loud and unpleasant noises coming out of 101 Colonel By Drive tonight.

Actually, Petey, the coincidence was your news conference... UPDATED

Something James Curran grabbed onto right away.

Peter MacKay must be feeling left out of the limelight after the Obama visit. So how to capitalize on the afterglow and prove he was "on the job"?

Hold a press conference and spread the word! He was busy fighting off the Red Russian menace. (At least that's what it said on the briefing note.)

On the eve of Barack Obama's visit to Ottawa, a Russian jet approached Canada's Arctic air space and had to be turned away by Canadian warplanes, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Friday at a news conference on Parliament Hill.

With Obama poised to leave American soil for the first time as U.S. president on Feb. 19, the joint Canada-U.S. aerospace command, Norad, detected the Russian plane. Two of Canada's CF-18 fighter jets were scrambled to intercept one Russian aircraft, MacKay confirmed.

Awesome!

But, despite the faulty reporting, it wasn't a "jet". It was Tu-95MS "Bear" - a propeller-driven Soviet-era platform also known to NATO as a Bear-H.

And "the eve" of Obama's visit? Yeah, well in conventional language the "eve" of a given date is the night before. This advance to the polar frontier occured three days prior to Obama's visit.

Peter MacKay said he wasn't accusing Russia of deliberately timing the flight to coincide with the visit — when Canadian security was focused in Ottawa — but he did call it a "strong coincidence."

Why? Because it fits MacKay's agenda? These flights are nothing new. The Russians announced that they were resuming Bear patrols in August 2007. In fact, Canada was heavily involved in responding to the resumption of those flights... as recorded right here.

MacKay then pulls out the "hotshot" line.

"It was a strong coincidence which we met with … CF-18 fighter planes and world-class pilots that know their business," said MacKay.

"[The pilots] sent a strong signal they should back off and stay out of our airspace."

Oh? Like what?! Let's put MacKay's bravado in some perspective here. Not to diminish the risk involved to fighter pilots in making a close approach to a large bomber, the arrival of fighter interceptors was fully expected by the Russian Bear crew. The presence of Canadian aircraft alone was the only message they were looking for. Looking for? Yes. I'll explain further on, but as for "strong messages", there is a long standing protocol that Russian gunners keep their weapons pointed away from any intercepting aircraft and NORAD/NATO interceptors do not illuminate the Bears with fire-control radars. It helps prevent the outbreak of something nasty - like a world war. And keep in mind that the entire event takes place in international airspace. The Bears (they used to travel in pairs) approach North American airspace; they don't enter it.

"It's not a game," said MacKay.

And that, Junior, is where you are dead wrong. It is a game, albeit a dangerous one, and it becomes more of a game when some self-serving politician starts to try to make political hay out of what is essentially a well-rehearsed, close-quarters stand-off. Those Bear bombers don't enter Canadian airspace; they enter the North American Air Defence Identification Zone, some considerable distance from anything near or over Canadian territory.

The purpose of every Bear flight which approaches the frontiers or over-flies a naval force at sea is to elicit a reaction. The expected response is a like action, normally involving some form of fighter scramble. The threat is taken to the limit of being able to say, "I'm in international airspace. If you take the first shot, you are responsible for starting the next war." If the expected response doesn't happen confusion can easily ensue. A Bear patrol approaching the North American polar frontier fully expects to be intercepted. If such an interception did not occur they would be faced with something of a dilemma. It may be that they have orders not to enter territorial airspace and, in the unlikely event that they do not possess such instructions, they would need permission from their operational command to do so. Of course, once inside some country's territorial airspace without permission, the likelyhood of being shot down rapidly approaches 100 percent.

In 1992, with the collapse of the Soviet Union (and due to a severe financial crunch) the Russian Bear patrols came to a virtual halt. In August 2007, Vladimir Putin announced the resumption of permanent Bear bomber patrols, although random flights were being intercepted, including some by the Canadian Air Force, as early as 2002. That makes the statement by Canadian CDS General Walt Natynczyk a little curious.

Friday morning, Natynczyk told reporters that the incursions started about one and a half to two years ago "when we had not seen anything for decades."

Umm... no. Decades would be wrong. At best, one decade which ended in 2002.

Canada doesn't get to play "angel" in this game either. Lest Peter MacKay forget that his father was a senior cabinet minister when the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney sent the Canadian navy on a risky and totally unnecessary task group mission through the back door of the Aleutians to arrive a few miles off the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula on the morning of a Soviet national holiday. The Soviets were kind enough to respond with regimental-strength air forces and frigates which could have chewed the Canadian task group to ribbons with a minimal effort. But then, that was all a part of the "game".

But, so it goes. Petey gets his news conference and gets to talk tough, despite the fact that no one held a news conference for the 13 May, 2008 incursion into the Canadian ADIZ. Using the formula he used today, the "coincidence" would have been Stevie Wonder's birthday.

A little more from Mattt

UPDATE BELOW

Oh... isn't this special! You may notice in my post above I mentioned that Russian Bears usually fly in pairs.

Four Canadian and U.S. fighter jets were scrambled to meet a pair of Russian bomber planes found flying on the edge of Canada's Arctic airspace hours before President Barack Obama arrived in Ottawa for his first foreign visit, Canada's defence minister said.

Ahh! So the alert interceptors from both Canadian and Alaskan bases responded to this patrol as would usually be the case. Funny how that part took so long to come out. I guess the fact that Elmendorf scrambled their fighters didn't fit the MacKay script. But the interesting part is that there were, as usual, two Tu-95MS bombers.

MacKay initially said there was a single Russian bomber but a NORAD spokesman and the minister's officer later said there were two.

Jeez! No shit?! How is it, asks the reader, that Dave had a better grip on that little piece of detail than Harper's defence minister?

Beats me!!! But, without MacKay's briefing notes, (which he obviously cannot read), I was wondering why a lone Bear-H was patrolling.

If you want to know why the Russians never let their bombers patrol alone I'll be happy to explain in the comments section... once Haloscan is fixed.

In the meantime, MacKay can take his puffed-up macho mentality down to the library and see what happens when someone tries to mix fiction with a known reality.

Mackay tries to slide one two through

Finally!! The long overdue Harper defence document suddenly pops up on the DND website. Surprizingly, it sort of crept up there after more than a month of Harperite Muskox calls announcing all kinds of things with no money to match.

Then, late last night, just before Parliament recesses, it makes an appearance.

Peter MacKay says he was merely providing more details on the government's defence strategy when his department quietly posted the price tag on its website late Thursday night.

The minister of defence, who was at an international conference in Halifax today, says the plan amounts to $490 billion in spending over 20 years.

The funding includes $20 billion for new aircraft, tanks and ships, in addition to $15 billion in transport planes, trucks and helicopters that had been purchased earlier.

The Canada First Defence Strategy was first introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Halifax last month amid claims that the funding was unclear and incorrect.

Let's see... either MacKay is playing loose with the truth or my sources are. I've been told this was ready to be announced some time ago but that any public announcement was a political decision and the CF was ordered not to post it.

My sources have no reason to lie. MacKay has a poor record with the truth. Not only that, when I first saw this announcement the date on the website was 18 June 2008. It's since changed to 20 June. But all that is irrelevant; we finally have the Defence Policy document that Harper promised to deliver within 6 months of taking office.

Depending on your point of view, $490 billion is either horrendously large or it isn't enough.
Further, the Canada First Defence Strategy reads as much like a political campaign instrument as it does a guide for the future employment, equipping and managing of Canada's armed services.

The 22-page document is sprinkled with all kinds of little rhetorical tidbits which do less to rationally explain the strategy and a lot to demonstrate Conservative penis envy.

From page 2 (Harper's message):

... Canada can return to the international stage as a credible and influential country, ready to do its part.

Typical of Harper, he ignores Canada's influence on the international stage as a trusted honest broker. To him the "international stage" is a military force - period. This blinkered view has reduced our influence as a nation since the only "part" he's willing to do is support Bush administration military fiascoes.

Page 4:

The infusion of long-term stable funding it provides will enable industry to reach for global excellence and to be better positioned to compete for defence contracts at home and abroad...

How does this reconcile with General Dynamics withdrawing its bid from the Frigate Life Extension Project because of lack of funding and the likelihood that GD is probably going to sue the Canadian government? Great start.

This strengthened military will translate into enhanced security for Canadians at home as well as a stronger voice for Canada on the world stage.

There's that "world stage" line again. Damn the Harperites put a lot of stock in that.

Something very strange appears on page 5. After describing natural disasters which occurred in Canada over the past decade in which the Canadian Forces provided an immediate response, the natural inclination of the Harperites floats up.

As Hurricane Katrina has shown in the United States, such disasters will continue to occur, often with devastating consequences, and the citizens affected will expect immediate responses.

Hurricane Katrina?! What would possess any Canadian government to use that as an example. Why refer to it at all? Unless that line was written by an American - an American unfamiliar with the effects of Hurricane Juan on Halifax.

Page 6: (Emphasis mine)

Canada Command was created in 2006 to provide a single operational authority for such domestic operations and will work closely with federal departments such as Public Safety Canada in responding to a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.

In short, that last emphasis was written for the pants-pissers. The said terrorist attack will be over before anyone responds.

On page 8 this line emerges: (Emphasis mine)

... the two nations’ armed forces [Canadian and US] will pursue their effective collaboration on operations in North America and abroad. To remain interoperable, we must ensure that key aspects of our equipment and doctrine are compatible.

Abroad? The Canadian Forces have always maintained a doctrine of being interoperable with NATO. This, however, will provide a convenient point at which a Canadian frigate can remain a part of an American naval strike group even if it's attacking, oh, say, Iran.

Page 9:

Providing international leadership is vital if Canada is to continue to be a credible player on the world stage.

Not to mention sending kids home in metal coffins. Funny how that "world stage" doesn't seem to include anything but expeditionary wars.

This will require the Canadian Forces to have the necessary capabilities to make a meaningful contribution across the full spectrum of international operations, from humanitarian assistance to stabilization operations to combat.

Agreed! All of that is completely accurate and rational. So why then, in the rest of that subject is nothing but combat mentioned? The only example provided is that of Afghanistan. Where are the peace enforcement and peacekeeping probabilities addressed?

They're not.

Perhaps most telling of all though is the numbers provided on page 12. New Major Fleet Replacements roll out at $20 billion for 17 new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, 15 new destroyers and frigates for the navy, 10 - 12 new maritime patrol aircraft, 65 next-generation fighter aircraft for the air force, and a mix of new combat vehicles and systems for the army.

Really?! Are they planning on having them built out of Lego blocks? New ships alone will exceed that entire figure. And the fine print tells an interesting story. The actual number is up to $45 billion higher than what is being shown. That makes the $490 billion bottom line closer to $535 billion. The attempt to state that "new" equipment would have a life beyond the 20-year capital equipment plan says nothing. Yes, if you buy it at the end of the program it will last, (hopefully), beyond the period of the program; and so will the extended costs.

There is another little item which, as a result of another development, becomes even more curious. From page 20:

... the Canada First Defence Strategy represents a significant investment in the country’s industry, knowledge and technology sectors that will yield sizeable dividends for every region of the country. This clear, long-term plan will give these sectors the opportunity to better position themselves to compete for defence contracts in Canada and in the global marketplace.

If that's the case, perhaps Peter MacKay can explain this.

Members of the U.S. Congress have been told the Canadian government plans to spend $114 million on new howitzers to contribute to the war on terror while parliamentarians at home have been kept in the dark over the deal.

[...]

Neither the Defence Department nor Public Works released details on the howitzer deal, but Congress was told Wednesday about the pending sale.

Under American government accountability rules, the U.S. Defense Security Co-operation Agency must tell Congress of upcoming sales of weaponry. That information is also made public.

The estimated cost is $114 million, according to the security co-operation agency.

[...]

U.S. firms in Mississippi and in Michigan will provide the equipment.

There are no offset agreements in place for the sale, which means that the U.S. companies aren't required to provide industrial benefits to Canadian firms.

Oh yes... it's confirmed. Explain MacKay.

And it still looks like an American had a hand in writing Harper's new defence strategy.

A wide variety of "No comments".

by Alison

from the scandal we wish everyone would quit calling "Cadscam" :

On Wednesday Harper's office released a statement : "The then-leader of the Opposition [Harper] looked into the matter with party officials and could find no confirmation."

You will recall that former Con MP John Reynolds, who was also Harper's campaign manager, facilitated the meeting at which Finlay and Flanagan are alleged to have offered the $1M bribe to the late Chuck Cadman.

Asked about the incident, former Conservative MP John Reynolds told Canwest News Service he did not wish to comment.
"I'm not involved in politics anymore,"said Mr. Reynolds. "I have no comment at all."

Later Reynolds remarked to CBC : "the story seems fishy." and "Sounds to me like some kind of fiction story."

OK then, anyone else?

"Ryan Sparrow, a Conservative party spokesman, refused to comment on the allegations."

"Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he's never heard anything about any buyout. "I've never even spoken with Chuck Cadman," he said."

"Jay Hill, now the Conservative government whip and Opposition whip at the time of the vote in question, told NaPo he had never heard of the events," which he also characterized later as a case of "unfortunate miscommunication" and "a so-called make-believe fairy-tale scandal."

Con MP and Treasury Board chairman Vic Toews : "He [Cadman] cared about legislation not money. We've heard this story for years. It's bullshit."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay was deputy Con leader at the time of the alleged offer : "I don't know anything about how this has come about. Certainly it was something that I was not involved with,'' said MacKay, "I think it's sad, quite frankly, that this seems to have come up. It's very unfortunate.''

Ok, so it didn't happen but if it did, it isn't true. Got it.

Gates knows nothing of counter-insurgency. MacKay supports him.

MacKay is attempting to downplay the criticism leveled at NATO troops by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay dealt with a case of diplomatic friendly fire Wednesday and was forced to defend the inadvertent criticism of his U.S. counterpart about the quality of NATO forces fighting in southern Afghanistan.

The reported comments by U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates rankled allies around the world and touched a raw nerve in Canada at a time when the Conservative government is trying to convince a reluctant public that the Kandahar mission should continue in some form.

In a Los Angeles Times article, Mr. Gates complained about NATO troops in southern Afghanistan not knowing how to fight a guerrilla insurgency and referred to allies that have sent significant numbers of combat troops to fight, often in the "face of widespread opposition at home."

Mr. MacKay emphatically denied the criticism was aimed at Canada and that Mr. Gates telephoned to apologize for any unintended slight, claiming the remarks were misinterpreted.

"You'll note there's no reference to Canada in that statement," Mr. MacKay said, answering reporters' questions after announcing a new deal for military cargo planes.

"I take him at his word. If there's further explanation as to who he was referring to — or the specifics of that comment, you'd have to direct them to him."

Ahem! Bullshit.

Gates was throwing a temper tantrum because things in Afghanistan are little better now than they were in 2002. What he won't acknowledge is that the fault lays squarely with the Bush administration for screwing up the job in the first place.

MacKay, instead of demanding that Gates come out and clarify his words, sucked up to him because there's nothing more important to a Conservative than a Republican.

There is something interesting out of this little US-spits-on-allies episode though.

Apparently all the sunshine the Harperites continually attempt to blow up everyone's ass about how so much progress is being made in Afghanistan is pure crap.

If the US SecDef is concerned that NATO forces don't have a grip on counter-insurgency operations it's because the insurgency is alive and growing.

That MacKay is a liar and remarkably stupid isn't worth getting into. But Gates needs to be taken to the woodshed. The reason a counter-insurgency operation is so difficult to mount is because that's not what is being fought. The Bush administration never did secure Afghanistan properly. The distraction with Iraq robbed the Afghanistan occupation of the necessary troops to do the job.

And as for not knowing how to deal with an insurgency, I would suggest Gates and his pet puppy MacKay do a little light reading. I do believe the British wrote the book on counter-insurgency operations.

What a pair of incredible shitheads.

MacKay, "But Clinton Chretien..."

Nice try Petey, but it won't wash with those who were actually there at the time.

Today's Canadian Forces are feeling the effects of former prime minister Jean Chretien's "flippant and callous" 1993 decision to cancel the $4.8-billion contract to replace the military's aging fleet of Sea King helicopters, Defence Minister Peter MacKay charged Friday.

In an exclusive interview with Canwest News Service, MacKay blamed delays in delivering the first in a new fleet of Sikorsky Cyclone ship-borne helicopters squarely at the feet of previous Liberal governments.

[...]

"It's a tremendous, tremendous disappointment to see once again this vital piece of equipment may be delayed. And it can all go back to a single, solitary decision and a flippant and callous stroke of the pen," MacKay said by telephone from Victoria. He was referring to Chretien's cancellation of the Cormorant contract shortly after he was sworn in as prime minister.

"It was done to great political attention at the time, by former prime minister Chretien, and as a direct result of that decision here we are again pulling ourselves out of a hole, playing catch-up."

MacKay might want to review the minutes of several meetings which took place under the Mulroney regime about the EH101 Petrel. It was too expensive and it was a Cadillac. The Mulroney government requirement that the aircraft was to be built in Canada had caused the price to rise well beyond what other countries were paying for a similar EH101 anti-submarine warfare variant.

Worse though, is that the ships from which the EH101 would have been expected to operate would have required extensive refitting and reconfiguration, because the EH101, even folded up, would not have fit in the hangars of the newly-launched patrol frigates. That would have added significantly to a $6 billion price tag.

Chretien explained his decision in his memoirs. You can read the excerpts at Take off, eh?.

There are other issues which MacKay neatly avoids.

The Mulroney government ordered the Ch-148/149 Petrel/Chimo with certain knowledge they were over-buying. The federal deficit was massive and the order would clearly have laid a bill, which would have taken years to pay, at the feet of Canadian taxpayers. Public opinion was decidedly against the purchase and then-defence minister Kim Campbell cut the order back to try and get the price down. The price was now $4.3 billion in 1995 dollars and public opinion was still markedly slanted against the purchase. Then she did something really stupid.

After being attacked in the House of Commons for not seeking other possible ASW helicopter replacements at a much lower cost, Campbell stood up and told parliament that the new helicopters were necessary to prevent the possibility of submarines running the UN naval blockade of Haiti. The suggestion was beyond absurd. The only submarines operating in the area were American, we knew where they were and in any case, the chance of that particular UN enforcement mission still being in operation by the time a new shipborne helicopter was delivered, trialled and cleared for deck landings would have been near impossible.

The Canadian public reacted very, very angrily to Campbell's ridiculous suggestions.

Chretien prior to being elected in 1993 did not hide his intention, should he form a government, to cancel the Ch-148/149 order. In fact, it was a campaign promise. Whether any of us liked it or not at the time, anyone involved in naval operations and naval air knew that, at the very least, the Petrel was not going to go into production.

It would complete the picture of Conservative promises to re-equip the armed forces. They promised a lot and delivered nothing.

When the navy and air force started making noises, after the Conservative legacy of a federal deficit was brought under control, the Chretien government gave the Canadian Forces approval to go shopping for an interim replacement shipborne aircraft on either a leased or used-but-serviceable basis. Several problems arose.

A revisit of the EH101 revealed that from delivery to actual employment took the Royal Navy five years. Not only that, there was nothing on the production line which Canada could buy off the shelf.

The only available USN helicopters were either far below the capability of the existing Canadian Sea Kings or were, in fact, Sea Kings - in worse condition than the Canadian air fleet.

British and European aircraft were either not being retired or were beyond useful service. The serviceable Royal Navy Sea Kings were being redirected to other uses and were not available.

I don't let the Liberals off the hook completely for this one. There was a point in the late 1990s when a rational assessment of the air fleet should have produced a competition to deliver a new shipborne helicopter by 2004. The contract wasn't even let until then when the Sea Kings had long since passed their useful lives as ASW helicopters.

However, MacKay is conveniently sidestepping one other point. The review of defence purchases, which the Harper government undertook after assuming power in 2006, set back every contract for new equipment by several months.

The Sikorsky H-92 Superhawk, designated the CH-148 Cyclone in Canada, was ordered in 2004 by the Liberal government of Paul Martin. When Harper's Conservatives took over, the CH-148 contract was not exempted from the delay incurred by the review.

The report by CanWest News Service says:

The first new Sikorsky aircraft was due in November, but that deadline has come and gone, sparking reports that the delivery is now three years behind schedule.

Bullshit.

The delivery of the first aircraft is scheduled for November 2008 - not 2007.

As far as MacKay is concerned, the delay in acquiring a new shipborne helicopter goes to a pair of Conservative governments. The Mulroney regime for ordering something well out of the price tolerance of Canadian in the first place, and the Harper regime for contributing to a delay with an unnecessary review.

Not that we'd expect anything close to honesty out of MacKay.

Look, look, Peter!! Chinese weapons! Let's bomb Beijing!

Canadian defence minister Peter MacKay's accusation that Iran is engaged in supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan should not be viewed as anything short of the Harper government's approval of the Cheney effort to commence an attack on Iran.

First, as pointed out previously, MacKay provided no evidence whatsoever to support his claim. Not one bit. If he has it, get it out for everyone to see, because what he has now perpetrated is to put Canadian troops at higher risk by leveling unfounded accusations.

But that's just the start. Clearly the Bush administration, having failed to salt the media with stories suggesting that the government of Iran was involved with providing both the Taliban and al-Qaeda with weapons, have decided engage in a different play: employing "Canada the Good" as an organ supporting Cheney's unfounded claims.

If MacKay repeats his assertions, how long do you think it will be before we hear Cheney uttering something along the line of, "Canada has evidence that Iran is deliberately supplying arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan."? A la the Bush administration's reliance on the September Dossier from which this claim was made: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

MacKay, however, has a problem. The claim he is making has already been neatly set aside.

A media campaign portraying Iran as supplying arms to the Taliban fighting US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan, orchestrated by advocates in the US administration of a more confrontational stance toward Iran, appears to have backfired. Last week, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Dan McNeil, issued unusually strong denials.

[...]

Both Gates and McNeil denied flatly last week that there was any evidence linking Iranian authorities to those arms. Gates told a press conference on June 4, "We do not have any information about whether the government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it's smuggling, or exactly what is behind it." Gates said "some" of the arms in question might be going to Afghan drug smugglers.

McNeil implied that the arms trafficking from Iran is being carried out by private interests. "When you say weapons being provided by Iran, that would suggest there is some more formal entity involved in getting these weapons here," he told Jim Loney of Reuters on June 5. "That's not my view at all."

That was the commander of NATO speaking, supported by the US Secretary of Defense in June of this year. In short, their intelligence doesn't support the assertions made by Cheney... at all. And they put a lie to MacKay's echoing of the Cheney effort.

There may indeed be Iranian-manufactured arms crossing the border into Afghanistan. That, however, is not evidence of Iranian government involvement. In fact, as the commander of NATO and US SecDef stated, it is likely the result of private interests doing business, probably with the drug lords of Afghanistan.

If MacKay's claim is based on the origin of manufacture he now has a serious problem. Afghanistan is littered with unexploded ordnance, from landmines to mortars to artillery rounds, most of it left over from the days of the Soviet occupation. That means that Russia has provided a legacy of plentiful and easily accessible explosives, very little of which has been cleaned up. (Scroll down)

The Russians, who waged a bitter war for control of the country in 1980s, knew the strategic importance of the hill. So did subsequent warring factions in the 1990s. That's why they littered the mountain slopes with thousands of mines and other explosive devices.

The international community has spent considerable time trying to clean the area, and by late this month, TV Hill -- aptly named after the cluster of antennas on top -- should finally be free of mines.

That report was submitted less than three months ago, from an area of Afghanistan which is relatively peaceful. There are other areas which are considered so dangerous that de-mining has not even started and provide a ready supply of land mines. The fact remains that Afghanistan is one the most heavily mined countries in the world.

Then there is the stuff coming in from other manufacturers and other countries. MacKay, in leveling an unfounded accusation against Iran actually has more evidence to make the same accusation against China. Most explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams are encountering not Iranian, but Chinese ordnance - some of it new. An example of a successful EOD intervention in November discovered Chinese-made 82mm mortars wired up with an unexploded US recoilless rifle round .

Upon arrival, Tech. Sgt. Michael Laskowski, 31, initially found a bomb placed underneath a footbridge in front of the school.

Its was made up of two Chinese-made 82 mm mortars, a two-foot-long recoilless rifle round and a pound of explosives material placed in a bag — all of it wired up to batteries.

(We'll get to the batteries shortly. There is a "shortage" in Afghanistan yet the Taliban has no problem finding enough to make IEDs.)

Further evidence of Chinese munitions being used comes from as far back as 2005 when John Martinkus and Stephen Dupont accompanied US forces.

SOLDIER: We're gonna head up the road. We're gonna find out... We put a patrol out here.

This is the place where the insurgents had been spotted and where local police have arrested a man who had unusual homemade bomb orIED.

REPORTER: So he was caught with an IED, yeah?

SOLDIER: Oh, yes, he was caught with an IED. We're gonna bring some EOD guys down and see what it's made out of and see if it was used in other further attacks or past attacks and see what kind of stuff we are working with because it was supposedly brought over from Pakistan.

CHRISTOPHER HAGAN: So it's the first... I've seen 0.82 mortar rounds, they're everywhere around here but I've never seen one used like an IED . And this one, it looks like it's a brand-new mortar round, probably from China so it's showing they are using fresh explosives that they probably carried over from somewhere.

Did MacKay utter one word about China?

No. Not one word. Yet China is obviously selling weapons and ordnance to somebody and it's ending up in the hands of the Taliban. I guess it's OK with MacKay if somebody falsifies a Chinese End-User Certificate.

While MacKay expressed concern about Pakistan being a source for ordnance, he sloughed it off when he emphasized Iran. Unfortunately, Pakistan is perhaps the clearest and best known perpetrator and little, if anything, is being done to control the flow of weapons. It is Pakistan which features most prominently in destabilizing Afghanistan.

Reports have been received that the Taliban have received fresh battery packs for the Stinger missiles they possess, dating from the times when the US armed the mujahideen against the Soviets. Pakistani security forces are alleged to have supplied the batteries.

Oh, those batteries again. They are, whether the casual observer recognizes it or not, key to a good number of the IEDs deployed by the Taliban. Short of a contact explosive, batteries are needed to activate the detonator on most bombs. The shortage is being made up by supplies coming from Pakistan; not Iran. And there is another source of supply.

Most people have probably never heard of the BA 5590. It's the most common military battery used by US and allied forces. When it's being used in the field and runs low the operator of whatever device is being used changes the battery for a fresh one and simply discards the old one. They're not rechargeable, so they're simply dumped. The operator's load is lightened and the the dead battery is simply left in the dirt.

The "5590" may appear dead to a radio operator but it has enough power left in it to detonate an IED. Want to guess which battery EOD teams are finding hooked up to IEDs?

Right. Apparently dead BA 5590s.

I didn't hear MacKay criticizing the US military for failure to police their battery changes and secure their garbage dumps in Afghanistan. Is it possible he doesn't know about that little problem? Perhaps he should speak to a few members of EOD teams returned from Afghanistan. I have.

So, MacKay, you still haven't provided any evidence for your claim. You haven't accused China, but there is Chinese ordnance in Afghanistan. Pakistan has been a virtual cornucopia of weapons for the Taliban but you went light on them.

And while were here, you might want to check with the government you so adamantly tell us you support before shooting from the lip. Apparently, Afghanistan doesn't agree with you.

Omar Samad, the top Afghan diplomat in Canada, told CTV Newsnet on Wednesday that there is no evidence about where the IEDs actually originated and who brought them to Afghanistan.

"Iran is a neighbor and we have good relations," he said. "The point is -- and the questions that have to be answered (and) are being looked at as far as who is involved in this. Is this a smuggling issue? Is this a policy issue by some government? Is this maybe an attempt by arms dealers to bring arms from a certain source?"

Gee. Isn't that special. It seems the US ambassador got the Cheney message out through MacKay, but Afghanistan wasn't permitted to know what it was... in their own country.

Cheney's puppy.

Evidence, Mackay. Without evidence, you're a liar.

What Pretty Shaved Ape said. Every word of it.

So, here's the set-up. Defence Minister Peter MacKay makes a surprize visit to Kandahar to spend Christmas with the troops.

A six-year old playing with Thomas the Train could have predicted that visit. So let's not play "Surprize". It was a scheduled trip and even Murray Oliver knew about it.

MacKay was, of course, accompanied by the Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier. No big deal. But it was the third member of the entourage that was the greatest curiosity: David Wilkins, US ambassador to Canada.

It didn't take long to have that explained because MacKay simply started playing a line put forth by the Bush administration. Iran is a bad guy and the US wants to bomb it. Thus, MacKay, ever the good doggy, used what should have been a good effort to visit the troops he has committed to the mission to Afghanistan, to pick on the same banjo as the Bush administration... and the Bush administration political overseer was there to make sure Petey stayed right on message. A message that had nothing at all to do with Christmas.

Afghanistan has "very negative influences coming in from other countries -- Pakistan, certainly Iran in particular," he said.

"We're very concerned that weapons are coming in from Iran, we're very concerned these weapons are going to the insurgents and keeping this issue alive."

Since. Fucking. When. MacKay?

I'm calling this what it is. Pure, unadulterated bullshit!

MacKay is lying through his teeth and he used the backdrop of Canadian troops to do it. Wearing a CADPAT combat uniform he is not entitled to wear, he spewed forth with a blatant accusation he simply cannot support.

If MacKay knew anything at all about the region beyond what the Bushies have fed him he would know that the Iranians despise the Taliban. They were happy to see the Taliban fall. The very last thing they want to see is the Taliban back in power.

MacKay, can spout on all he wants. The one thing he hasn't done is to provide one shred of evidence.

Not one.

And then, right on cue comes CTV's Murray Oliver.

"Of course, as the saying goes, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend,'" Oliver said.

Really?

Well, Mr. Oliver, a real reporter might have asked MacKay what proof he had to support the claim rather than recite an ancient Chinese proverb. A proverb which, I might add, has been the basis for more US foreign policy in the past 50 years than that of any other country.

So, MacKay, produce the evidence; irrefutable evidence.

Fail to do that and you remain one thing: a fucking liar. And a mouthpiece for the Cheney "bomb Iran" initiative.

And, just in case anybody missed it, should Cheney get his way and initiate an attack on Iran, Canada's defence minister just informed all of us that Canada will be right in the thick of it.