Bob Rae fail. Gordon O'Connor scores one

 #M312 #Cdnpoli -

Who woulda thunk it?

The Harperist government whip stood better ground against Woodworth and his anti-abortion crusade than Liberal leader Bob Rae.

Rae's decision not to whip his party's vote, should it ever come to that, is opening old wounds. And so it should. Spineless sonofabitch.

In contrast, and beyond surprising to me, was government whip Gordon O'Connor.

Woodworth insisted that his motion is only meant to provoke a "respectful dialogue and an open-minded study of the evidence."

But O'Connor disagreed, saying "the ultimate intention of this motion is to restrict abortions at some development stage in Canada." If the legal definition of when a person is considered a human being is changed, and a fetus is then considered a human being then homicide laws would apply, and abortion, as a consequence, would be considered homicide, O'Connor said.

He was the only other Conservative MP to speak during the debate, and he urged everyone to reject his colleague's motion whenever it comes to a vote.

Smack down by your own whip. I believe I just caught a whiff of a closed-door fight that's been going on for a while.

As for Rae, well, here it is spelled out for him in nice clear prose. 

The Government Chief Whip is clearly an ineffective whimp

There is a reason Gordon O'Connor has found himself descending the ladder of the Harper cabinet hierarchy. Simply put, he can be rated anywhere from useless to a complete political liability.

One would have thought that having been moved out of the high profile Defence portfolio and down to National Revenue would have taught him something. Nope. So, down to the crowd of junior ministers he goes and ends up with the job of Government Chief Whip - which he clearly cannot handle.

How do I know? This crap, that's how.

The chief whip is supposed to be a disciplinarian and the person with a finger on the pulse of the back benches. And when the heartbeat of the back benches gets irregular, it is the job of the chief whip to pound on the chest. When a back bencher strays, it is the job of the chief whip to put them back on the path. Sometimes that means being nasty.

While I may be among a handful of Canadians to view Harper as a relatively unsophisticated individual, I do believe he can read a poll. One of those polls would have told him that jumping into the religio-conservative wet dream of controlling the reproductive rights of women would create a national debate which would lead to the rending of his political base. Given the population of religiously-driven freaks in the Harper caucus, it falls to the chief whip to keep them silent.

So, how does a Stephen Woodworth get loose?

Simply put, either the Government Chief Whip isn't up to the job or Harper is dumber than a sack of hammers and is using Woodworth as a stalking horse for something he truly wishes to pursue. Let's assume, for the time being, that it's the former.

Woodworth, despite not having won a position in the Private Members' Bills lottery, managed to squeeze in a private members motion. And you can suggest that the contents of his motion won't pass all you like. You have to ask, how it got out there in the first place? Doesn't the Government Chief Whip have sufficient control of the back benches?

No.

For one thing, O'Connor, as has been pointed earlier, is a notorious ass-kisser. He's also weak in the leadership department. His deputy is Harold Albrecht, a former pastor with this outfit. Maybe not so surprising is that he represents the riding of Kitchener-Conestoga which virtually surrounds the Kitchener Centre riding of Woodworth. And Albrecht, along with being a vocal homophobe, is clearly anti-choice.

It's not a stretch to speculate that Albrecht ran ram shod over a weak O'Connor.

That, or Harper is actually the one allowing Woodworth to proceed, which would suggest that O'Connor lacks the necessary influence to hold the position as Government Chief Whip.

Going to the so-called "science" that Woodworth is suggesting needs to be explored by a parliamentary special committee to satisfy his completely false interpretation of the Criminal Code, some things need to be pointed out: (in the event his motion passes)

So far the Harperites have rejected all science which does not embrace their ideological view. A definition provided by science is definitely not what Woodworth is pursuing.

If such a committee is formed then I will make it a personal mission to highlight other science Stephen Woodworth needs to study. Things like the science of Catholic priests molesting young boys, things like the science of Catholic priests enslaving young girls and things like the science of the Catholic church covering up those activities by their members.

You see, if Woodworth's efforts have anything to do with science, than so will my questions. And I'm not making a threat. It's a straight out promise.

Harper denies seeing Afghan torture reports

Looking more like Dick all the time, Steve.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper has now joined then Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter MacKay and then Minister of Defence Gordon O'Connor in denying he ever saw any of the 16 reports from the political director at the Canadian-run Afghan reconstruction base in 2006 warning that Afghan authorities were abusing detainees handed over by Canadian forces.

Yesterday Murray Brewster at CP described those reports from Richard Colvin, now deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian embassy in Washington, as "circulated widely throughout the Foreign Affairs and Defence departments and also shared with senior military commanders in Ottawa and Afghanistan."

Yet somehow they escaped the collective notice of MacKay, O'Connor, and Harper :

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday that he did not see reports in 2006 that suggested there was evidence detainees had been tortured after they were handed over to Afghan prisons by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.
Harper said he didn't see the reports "at the time."
"There were allegations of Canadian troops involved in torture. We’ve been very clear that's not the case," the prime minister said."

"At the time"? There were 16 reports from May to December. When exactly was "at the time"?

And "allegations Canadian troops involved"?
No. Not at all. Don't pretend to be protecting the troops. This was never about the troops.
This was about you putting those troops in the appalling position of transferring their prisoners to certain abuse.
The "allegations" now are that you are covering it up .

The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, "at the time": "Torture continues to take place as a routine part of police procedures. The AIHRC has found torture to occur particularly at the investigation stage in order to extort confessions from detainees."

Louise Arbour, the Canadian UN rep who you summarily dismissed, and the U.S. freakin' State Department, "at the time": "Afghan local authorities "routinely" torture detainees".

Peter Van Loan, Con house leader "at the time", called all this "allegations by the Taliban"

Me, "at the time" : "Canada is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. We simply don't have time to go back and re-fight and re-argue all the battles for some semblance of civilization that we have already won. And we certainly don't have time for any government that hasn't figured this out yet."

More : Boris, POGGE, Thwap, Impolitical, A Creative Revolution

Peter MacKay performs the Flypaper Ceremony

Peter MacKay was in Washington yesterday to observe the annual Canadian Defence Minister's homage to Bush's flypaper strategy.

"If the job is not done in Afghanistan, if countries like Canada leave, the Taliban can follow them,'' MacKay told Canadian reporters here.

The tradition began in October 2004 when President Bush, aka Crusader Bunnypants, addressed reporters in Greeley, Colorado:

"We have defeated the Taleban..."

Wait, that's not it...just a sec...scrolling down...ah, here we go :

"We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities." (Applause.)

Canada failed to observe the flypaper strategy ceremony in 2005 for some reason, but here's Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor in April 2006 :

"Fighting terrorists in Afghanistan is better than waiting until they show up in Vancouver, Montreal or Ottawa, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor told the Commons on Monday."

MacKay slipped in a small coda of his own yesterday when he added a reference to the Battle of the Bulge, saying he wanted to "look into the whites of the eyes'' of the members of other NATO countries.

Canadian reporters were puzzled but they wrote it all down anyway.

And did I call this one back in July? Why yes, yes I did.

(Cross-posted at Creekside)

Hillier drops a bomb on Harper and O'Connor

Well, it's about friggin' time! Canadian Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier has dropped a huge bomb on Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's and Steve Harper's plan to create new and unnecessary army units.

The federal Conservatives' campaign promise to create new army units across the country appears to be in doubt after the country's top soldier suggested the proposed units are unnecessary.

The Conservative party's Canada First defence plan included proposals to establish a new airborne regiment and as many as 14 territorial defence battalions stationed in cities across the country.

But in an exclusive interview with CBC News, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier says some of the proposed new units are unnecessary.

Hillier said there are no plans to revive the airborne regiment, which was disbanded in 1995 after Canadian soldiers beat a Somali teenager to death during a peacekeeping deployment to the African country.

"We're meeting all the operational demands that we would possibly have to meet with an airborne capability right now," said Hillier.

Each of Canada's three regular force infantry units fields a company of about 120 paratroopers, he said.

And then, since he trashed one Conservative Party promise, he decided to toss a little lime on the manure pile.

The general also poured cold water on Conservative plans to create up to 14 territorial defence battalions.

"We're not in the business of creating new units. We have sufficient units," he said.

Further on, Hillier stated that the reserves would be altered to meet the "spirit" of the CPoC promise.

That will be interesting, but not near as interesting to see what happens next.

Hillier has just plainly spoken common sense in opposition to a plan which was one of O'Connor's hobby horses.

One of them will have to go.

The O'Connor deathwatch continues.

H/T James Curran

Let's hold Harper to his own standard

O'Connor Death Watch - 291645Z Jun 07

When it comes to selecting a new Minister of National Defence, (since the current one is presently on a Death Watch), we have to remember that Steve Harper, man of action, said this on 31 May 2007:

“When the leader of the Opposition is able to stand in uniform and serve his country, then I will care about his opinion of the performance of the minister of National Defence.”

Which sort of, you know, provides the type of experience and qualifications Steve expects from his Minister of National Defence.

From comments on this post:

People are talking a lot about who will replace O'Connor. But what about Harper saying that unless you've served in the military you are incompetent to comment, advise or critique the military? That statement certainly limits the pool Harper has to work with. Prentice, Day, Strahl, Bernier, and the rest are out based on Harper's qualifications.

In fact, that eliminates Harper himself, but that's pretty much beside the point.

Given Harper's standard the only people who would actually meet that requirements are:

John Cummins - Served 3 years in the Lorne Scots of the Reserve Militia;

Peter Goldring - Served 3 years in the Royal Canadian Air Force;

Laurie Hawn - Served 30 years in the RCAF and CF as a pilot;

Pierre Lemieux - Served 20 years in the Canadian Forces;

Myron Thompson - Served 2 years in the US Army.*

O'Connor, of course, is excluded from the list since he presently holds the position and is hanging on by his fingernails.

Of the others, only Laurie Hawn and Pierre Lemieux have any extensive experience. The others were "short-termers" and did not advance into senior non-commissioned or commissioned ranks. *Myron Thompson really doesn't qualify at all since his service was with the US Army, as a US citizen and was presumably as a result of being drafted.

This all depends on Harper actually living by his own words. And we all know that Harper good at words; not so good at sticking by them.

The O'Connor death watch has begun

Via Jeff, this report from the Globe and Mail details Gordon O'Connor's defiant response to questions as to whether he is resigning his post as Minister of National Defence.

A defiant Gordon O'Connor said yesterday he has no intention of quitting as Defence Minister, and warned his critics not to assume he is about to turfed from the portfolio in a widely expected cabinet shuffle.

"I can assure you of one thing: I'm not retiring and I'm not resigning," Mr. O'Connor told reporters at a military conference in Kingston. "And if you want to run a pool, go ahead. You're going to lose."

I'll take July 20th.

The minister told the conference he expects to deliver the government's long-awaited policy paper, which will include elements of the government's current policy in support of the Afghanistan mission, by the end of the summer.

"Long awaited". As in, way overdue. What's the rush, Gordo? You've only been promising it since the summer of 2006.

The G&M, undeterred by O'Connor's statement, went on to speculate on the possible choices to fill the MND role when O'Connor is turfed this summer. Oh... how do we know that? Well this is pretty telling:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper refused to respond last week when he was asked about a potential realignment of the cabinet and whether it would involve Mr. O'Connor. But neither did Mr. Harper jump to express continued confidence in his Defence Minister, who has been criticized for his handling of several files, including the treatment of detainees and the payment of funeral costs for soldiers killed in the line of duty.

And why don't we pour a little gasoline on that fire.

Mr. O'Connor came to the defence of the Afghan mission in his speech yesterday to the conference on "stability operations," insisting the Afghan army was making such great strides that he could foresee the day when it could take over much of the combat mission now being handled by Canada's 2,500 troops based in Kandahar.

Yet at the same time, Mr. O'Connor was blunt in his assessment of the long-term prospects for Afghanistan, using the kind of unsubtle language that has got him into political hot water before. "Afghanistan has always been a land of instability," he said in response to a conference questioner, adding later, that "I think the area is always going to be unstable."

He said the security situation along the border with Pakistan remains difficult to police, in part because there are millions of ethnic Pashtuns in both countries. "There is a steady stream of insurgents coming across the border," he said.

Later, he tried to temper those comments when asked about them by reporters. "What I'm saying is that Afghanistan is in an unstable region and there will always be challenges to Afghanistan. Our job and NATO's job is to try and create a state that is stable enough to handle its own affairs so it can govern efficiently."

Yeah?

That's not the same mission we were all told about. We were told that the mission was to transform Afghanistan, and now O'Connor is telling us that isn't possible. We've been saying that all along.

Gordon. Pack your kit. Steve is going to fire you.

Two senior cabinet members, Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, have been touted as the most likely successors to Mr. O'Connor at Defence.

And why Maxime "deregulate everything" Bernier?

Mr. Bernier's name has been cited by Conservatives who believe a Quebec minister would make the best spokesman for the mission when the Quebec-based Royal 22nd Regiment deploys to Kandahar.

Wow. What a reason! OK, so why does Stockwell Day get consideration?

Mr. Day, meanwhile, is seen by many Tories as a surprise success because he has avoided major public pitfalls in a portfolio plagued with tricky issues and bad news, including a spate of RCMP controversies.

That's because Day is off in la-la-land pursuing his superstitious beliefs, making things up about people and failing to provide accurate answers on anything and everything. He has only avoided the public pitfalls because he runs and hides when things get tough and the news media has been giving him a free ride. If his feet had been held to the fire when he screwed up, or if others within his portfolio screwed up, he'd be in the same boat as O'Connor right now.

It doesn't really matter. They're all a bunch of boobs. O'Connor is a liability in his present seat, so it doesn't really matter who they put in the seat.

In any case, watch the calendar and watch O'Connor. And watch the defence policy paper take even longer.

The Three Stooges and Prisoner Abuse.

The idea of governments waiting until after 6 p.m. on a Friday to release information is that the news cycle is effectively dead. Unless something truly titillating is transpiring, most reporters have left the field and headed for cover. Some go to the bars and hob-nob with the very people they're writing about. (If you don't believe that, do I have some interesting pictures for you!)

In any case, if a government official wants to release information that is least likely to gather attention, after 6 p.m. local on a Friday is the best time to do it.

That's what Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay's office did yesterday.

Six prisoners have complained to Canadian officials of abuse in Afghan prisons – not four, as Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said earlier this week.

Not the two admitted to by Stockwell Day in April; Not the four admitted to by Peter MacKay before a parliamentary committee this past week.

Six.

But it's not the number so much as the attempts to either mislead parliament or the glaring incompetence of O'Connor, Day and MacKay in dealing with the problem.

At any given time they have a different answer to the same question. They have misled parliament and parliamentary committees. They have lied about the levels of access Corrections Canada officials had to transfered prisoners. They were unable to describe the prisoner transfer agreement until yet another new one was implemented on 3 May.

And now, they keep changing the numbers. Why? The most obvious answer is that someone else knew the truth and was about to deliver it to a news outlet.

Before anyone goes off half-cocked with inappropriate suggestions, I have no problem with detaining captured prisoners, or transferring them. As long as it's done within the scope of the standards set for the Canadian Forces. That means that whether a combatant meets the test of identity laid out in the 1949 Geneva Convention Article 4 or not, the Canadian Armed Forces are required to treat all captured combatants as Prisoners of War by way of regulation and orders.

It's the fact that, until 3 May, there seemed to be little concern for the way transferred PWs were treated. It is likely that there was no complete record of those transfered to Afghan custody. Prior to that date, the conditions of the prisoner transfer agreement were literally unknown, the Minister of National Defence being unable to explain its contents.

For those who would argue that we shouldn't be concerned about how Afghan insurgency fighters are treated once captured because they are murderous scum-bags, I can state, without compunction, we don't get to be like them - ever. Neither do our agents.

The particularly warped belief that we can behave in the same manner as those we refer to as the Taliban would suggest that we would have been completely justified, between 1939 and 1945, in rounding up every citizen and resident of German descent, however far removed they were from that heritage, concentrate them in camps and methodically murder them. The fact that, in 1942, we did incarcerate Japanese-Canadians for no other reason than their race and appearance remains a shameful stain on the Canadian historical record.

This is about O'Connor, Day and MacKay and the fact that they cannot seem to get any of this right. They are either trying to hide something or they are all unbelievably incompetent.

Either way, they appear less organized than the Three Stooges and it's time we were rid of them. They are exposing our troops to charges of war crimes and I can't think of any serving CF member who deserves such a lack of support.