Colvin Testimony Part II

That's going to leave a mark. Essentially, Colvin takes every single talking point that the HarperCon$ have played and turns it inside out with facts.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon has suggested that I “availed myself of the prerogatives of a whistleblower,” and that the government accordingly granted me whistleblower protections.

I am not a whistleblower. Rather, I am a loyal servant of the Crown who did his job in Afghanistan to the best of his abilities, working through internal and authorized channels.
...
Contrary to Minister Cannon’s suggestion, I testified in Parliament because I was summoned by the Committee and legally compelled to speak the truth. I feel it is my duty as a public servant, when commanded to appear before the Parliamentary Committee, to give evidence that is full, frank and fair. I feel duty bound to be frank and thorough in responding to the Committee’s inquiries.

It's not as if this is any real surprise, but it is refreshing to see a member of the civil service not being cowed by Harper's thuggery.

Colvin's Letter ... all of it.

Replacing Lie #1 With Lie #2

Having been soundly beaten about for lying about prisoner transfers, we now find Harper spewing more BS:

The Prime Minister said the facts have been clear for several years. He said in 2006 the military suspected abuse of an Afghan prisoner and steps were taken to correct it.

This bunch changes their stories more often than their underwear. A few days ago, they were swearing up and down that there was "no credible" evidence to Mr. Colvin's allegations. Yesterday, they had the good General spouting the party line - even when there was evidence to the contrary in the public sphere. Today, Harper's trying to claim that they did the right thing?

I don't know how anybody can possibly believe the lies coming out of this government - lies that are being told at the expense not just of Canadian soldiers, but at the price of Canada's reputation abroad.

Credibility Test

Who are you going to believe? The soldiers that were on the ground and recorded the events at the time they happened, or a General who wasn't anywhere near the scene?

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, Canada's chief of defence staff, told a parliamentary committee on Tuesday that Canadian troops questioned the man who was picked up during operations in Zangabad. But it was the Afghans who took him into custody, Natynczyk said.

"We didn't take this person under custody," he said.

Funny, that's not what the soldiers who were present claim happened:

In one well-documented case in the summer of 2006, Canadian soldiers captured and handed over a detainee who was so severely beaten by Afghan police that the Canadians intervened and took the detainee back. Canadian medics then treated the man's injuries. The incident is documented in the field notes of Canadian troops, recounted in a sworn affidavit by a senior officer and confirmed in cross-examination by a general.

I'll take the troopers on the ground for credible evidence, thank you. Natynczyk wasn't there, so he's working from a politicized, sanitized version of the situation, and was no doubt ordered to make his statements to lend credibility to the crumbling façade of Peter Mackay's lies on this subject.

So, not only is the government lying to Canadians about this situation, they are failing to explain the lack of action when it was clear that there was evidence of Afghan officials mistreating prisoners - regardless of who captured them.

Last Week's Lies Are Inoperative

Remember Harper & Co. swearing up and down that there was absolutely no evidence to support allegations of prisoner abuse?

Not so much.

So ... I wonder what this week's lie will be to cover up last week's that has been disproven?

The Question, Mr. Harper, Is When Did You Decide To Lie To Canadians About Afghanistan?

As usual, when confronted with a real political problem, Stephen Harper turns to the usual "when did you stop beating your wife" tactics:

Harper said that living in a time "when some in the political arena do not hesitate before throwing the most serious of allegations at our men and women in uniform, based on the most flimsy of evidence, remember that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are proud of you and stand behind you, and I am proud of you, and I stand beside you."

Canadians who have their brains switched on have long since realized that Canada's armed forces in Afghanistan are carrying out the orders they receive from their political masters in Ottawa.

The real issue is no longer about who knew what about prisoner mistreatment in Afghanistan, but it is now about the litany of blatant lies and distortions that have been spewed forth by Harper, Mackay and other members of the Conservative government.

Mr. Mackay has changed his story so many times in the last week or two that I'm not sure he even knows what the reality is himself. Mr. Harper's defense is what? To accuse critics of "not supporting the troops".

This isn't about the troops - it's about a government which lies blatantly to Canadians, and changes its story more quickly than it does its underwear.

If Colvin's Testimony is so "unbelievable" ...

Then we should be asking some really tough questions of Defense Minister Mackay in light of his top General's recent comments.

"We indeed did stop the transfer more than one time," he said. "At the same time, I don't want to throw out more information. There's a process that's undergoing and I know that the witnesses will be called forward for that process and give their testimony."

So ... Mr. Mackay, would you care to square last week's knee-jerk attempt to dismiss Mr. Colvin's testimony with the actions of the very department you are the minister for? Clearly the Canadian Armed Forces believed that something wasn't entirely right in the first place, so that tells me that Mr. Colvin's concerns had their share of validity - even in the absence of "absolute proof".

Just one more example of the Harper gov't lying to Canadians for political gain.

Under All The Bluster ...

Is a reality.

The HarperCon$ have struggled mightily to silence Richard Colvin, failing that they then attempt to discredit not just what he says but the man himself.

Peter Mackay's attempt to discredit Colvin's sources and interviews is an interesting exercise in missing the point:

"There has not been a single, solitary proven allegation of abuse involving a transferred Taliban prisoner by Canadian forces,” he said.

However, there is considerable evidence out there of prisoners being turned over to the Afghan government, and being tortured.

We also know that we suspended prisoner transfers at one point, and the HarperCon$ tried to cover up the reasons for that.

So ... what precautions, if any, did the HarperCon$ order Canada's Armed Forces to undertake regarding the handover of prisoners? I'm putting better than even odds that the sum total of those precautions was nothing. In short, they continued to do exactly as Bush II did, and turn a blind eye to the abuse that prisoners were (and likely as not, are) being subjected to when turned over to the Afghan authorities.

In short, through a series of acts of omission, the Canada has become complicit in what are internationally recognized as war crimes - and Harper will do just about anything to cover it up.

I'm not saying that everything that Mr. Colvin has said is true - but the viciousness of the government's response, along with the desperation that has been quite apparent in their actions to suppress the current (and very limited) inquiry, leaves something lying about that does not pass the "smell test".

If it takes a judicial inquiry - and one that is unfettered by desperate politicians trying to save their electoral hides in particular - then we should undertake one on Afghanistan immediately. Canada cannot, and should not, ever be party to war crimes - or even have the appearance of being party to them.

You Might Want Some ... Actual Experience

for someone heading up NATO. Somehow, I don't think Mackay's photo-op flights to Afghanistan count as the kind of military or foreign affairs experience required to head up NATO.

Come to that, do we need another war-mongering neoCon anywhere near the helm of anything even vaguely military? (especially reflecting upon the awe inspiring successes of recent ideology inspired forays into war in recent years)

The Isolation Of Hostile Partisan Politics

Perhaps the current lot who wear the cloak of "Conservative" never learned the lesson about playing politely with others as children. Most of us learned that before grade school.

When I read this post over on Buckdog, and this article from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, I had to wonder just how many liberal voters in Central Nova would even consider voting for Mackay.

Okay, Mackay's campaign is obviously worried about something - fair enough. Let's put aside the ins and outs of campaign strategy and polls for a moment, and consider the Conservative lot in Canada.

From day one, Harper has made it painfully clear that it is the Conservative "way" or the highway. His party versus the world, for all intents and purposes. You either buy into it, or get run over by it. It has been that way since the Harper-led Alliance merged with Mackay's Progressive Conservative party.

Since 2006, and in particular since Stephane Dion was selected to lead the Liberal party, the Conservatives have taken this to a new extreme - essentially leading a constant campaign of attacks on their adversaries. Attacking and bashing at every possible opportunity.

Now, we find them in Central Nova trying to shore up their support against a rival they didn't anticipate by attempting to recruit the very people that they have spent the last several years bashing remorselessly. Every party has its 'fringe supporters' - people who mostly vote for that party, but can be persuaded to vote elsewhere. (Sadly for the Con$, it is this vote that is also the most likely to be paying attention to what's going on - not something that works in the Con$' favour in Mackay's situation)

Even if you are among that 'fringe' support, how likely are you to be willing to vote for the Conservatives? You already know how well the Con$ are going to listen to you or reward your vote. (most likely with another round of bashing attack ads, I'm sure) Why would you make alliance with someone that is just going to wallop you later?

In short, the HarperCon$ have made their own bed here, and across Canada. Their constant bashing of everybody else, and intransigent hostility towards anything and everything that they didn't invent leaves them subject to isolation. Just like the child who never learned to share toys with the rest of the kids, sooner or later, the Conservatives will run out of allies.

Harper has been successful to this point not because of his strengths, but because of the weakness of his rivals - he is fundamentally the Nelson Muntz of Canadian politics - successful only because he is a bully, but ultimately isolated.

Straight From the PMO?

Defence Dept. restricts interviews during election

Bureaucrats said the department's assistant deputy minister for public affairs issued a directive stating that they cannot grant interviews for the duration of the five-week campaign.

"During an election period it is of utmost importance that National Defence employees and Canadian Forces members do not act in any way that could influence – or be perceived as influencing – the outcome of the electoral process," reads the directive, sent to The Canadian Press following a request for an interview on a health matter affecting Canadian Forces personnel.

The Assistant Deputy Minister gave the order you say? Oh...so that probably means it came from the political leadership - that would be Peter Mackay, wouldn't it? Peter, who marches along so smartly in lock step with Stephen Harper.

In fact, this would be the same Peter Mackay who reneged on his pledges and sold out the Progressive Conservative party and handed the keys over to the Harper-led ReformaTories.

Anyone want to place odds that a few conveniently unrecorded phone calls between PMSH and Mackay got this ball rolling? After all, we wouldn't want the public thinking too hard about things that go "boom" and result in dead bodies during an election, would we?

About That "Progress" You Keep Talking About...

If NATO is making so much progress in Afghanistan, then why have 3 Canadian and 10 French soliders died in the last week and a bit?

It seems to me that what is being passed off as "progress" ignores the fact that the adversary in Afghanistan is part of the local culture. Mackay can flap his gums all he likes, but it makes no difference - because military occupation is not going to win the hearts and minds of Afghanistan's people.

I'm sure that in the coming days, we'll once again be serenaded by more stories about all the wonderful progress being made over there ... in between the suicide bombings, IEDs being planted and random firefights with the various armed parties.

Obeying Their Rethuglican Masters

According to Peter Mackay, his American counterpart was "quoted out of context" when he said:

An L.A. Times article quotes U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates expressing doubts about NATO countries that have sent large numbers of combat troops to fight in the south.

"I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations,'' the article quoted Gates as saying. "Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency."

Uh-huh - like the US Army has some kind of amazing track record dealing with insurgencies in countries they occupy. (anybody else noting the irony of the US bitching about how others deal with an insurgency when Iraq keeps going from bad to worse?)

Of course, instead of standing up for Canada's troops as they keep telling us to do, Mackay rolls over for his masters in Washington:

"His comments were certainly not directed at Canada,'" MacKay told reporters in Ottawa, recounting the conversation he'd had with Gates five minutes earlier.

"He said, 'I specifically made no reference to any country and Canada is the last country I'd make those comments about.'"

Yeah, right. Let me give you a little hint, Peter - snuggling up with BushCo is not something most Canadians are overly thrilled with. Taking your orders so blatantly from the Whitehouse doesn't help much either.