U.S. warns Ottawa about fallout from pending WikiLeaks release

The Wikileaks has already shown the wars were promoted with lies. Wikileaks has already confirmed indiscriminate killing. War Crimes. Torture. And nothing shook Harper's solidarity with the Obama/Bush warmongers. But maybe, just maybe, the new Wikileaks will have some juicy quotes from high ranking U.S. military and political leaders. Maybe they think Harper is a twitt. Or an asshole. Maybe they say mean things about Harper behind his back. Maybe they don't respect Canada's contribution. Heck if Harper's feelings get hurt it might change his whole mindset. Too bad Canada has to hang it hopes for withdrawal on such a slender thread. They already probably call him an asshole to his face. Peacenik says bring the troops home now.

OTTAWA— The Canadian Press

The U.S. government has notified Ottawa that the WikiLeaks website is preparing to release sensitive U.S. diplomatic files that could damage American relations with allies around the world.

U.S. officials say the documents may contain accounts of compromising conversations with political dissidents and friendly politicians as well as activities that could result in the expulsion of U.S. diplomats from foreign postings.

U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson phoned Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon to inform him of the matter, a foreign affairs spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Melissa Lantsman said the Canadian embassy in Washington is “currently engaging” with the U.S. State Department on this matter.

Read on...

G20 editorial: Brutal spectacle failed a city and its people

punditman says...

For Harper and Canadian government officials, it was a foregone conclusion that bringing the G20 to Toronto would mean confrontation and mayhem. It has happened at every such gathering for the last dozen years. It is bad for tourism, for the local economy, etc.  But the creation of a crisis in order to come up with the solution is an old political trick.

The predictable property damage that occurred in Toronto over the weekend by a small minority is now being used as proof that this billion-dollar-plus debacle was worth it. Meanwhile, the law and order types then applaud the government for something that never should have happened in the city in the first place. And due to the violence, all the issues that should be discussed are conveniently overshadowed.

By John Cruickshank

The G20 security strategy has been spectacularly successful at cocooning the world’s leading politicians and staggeringly ineffective at protecting the property and peace of mind of Torontonians. And the one, inevitably, led to the other.

By bringing in thousands of heavily armed strangers and throwing up barricades everywhere to regular traffic, frightening off good and decent citizens, Canadian authorities created a ghost town in the heart of our city.

Perfect for the political leaders. Protesters were kept blocks away from where the deliberations were going on. 

And most protesters conducted themselves faultlessly as the global good and great met behind rings of gulag-like fencing and battalions of police beating Plexiglas shields with batons in a primitive show of might.

It was, however, less than perfect for the city, its businesses and its inhabitants. The only force that can prevent vandalism and mayhem in a city is the presence of its population. Surely that was the lesson every urban planner learned from looking south to the hollowed-out urban war zones of the United States in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Keep Reading...

How Harperites are damaging our citizenship

punditman says...

A lot of stupid comments follow this article in the Toronto Star, if you get that far. This woman's freedom was stolen from her for almost three months, and some wingnuts still want to blame the victim. Punditman heard a call-in radio show the other day whereby people recalled their nightmare stories of misfortune when traveling abroad, and the "I don't give a damn" reception they got at Canadian embassies. Scary stuff. We only hear about the high profile ones, but stories abound of traveling Canadians befallen by misfortune abroad (such as being robbed and losing one's passport) and falling into a bureacratic black hole of indifference. Who the hell do these people think they are working for, if not us, the citizenry?

And that's to say nothing of Maher Arar or the horrors of extraodinary rendition. Or several other cases that punditman doesn't have time to list.

Governments are nasty pieces of business in this post 9-11, fear-driven world. Encoraching fascism is real.

This event is yet another example of the kind of brash cruelty we've come to expect from our politicians. Clearly, the Canadian government doesn't give a damn about its citizens anymore—whether they travel to the ends of the earth or to the end of their street. May she sue the Canadian and Kenyan governments and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines big time.

by Haroon Siddiqui

Welcome home, Suaad Hagi Mohamud.

Her case has raised a host of questions. First, who's to blame for her 11-week ordeal? The officials at the Canadian embassy in Nairobi? Or the politicians in Ottawa?

If the former, would some bureaucratic heads roll?

If the latter, as has been the case in several incidents of Canadians stranded abroad, the Stephen Harper government has a lot to answer for: Is it racist? Anti-Muslim? Too ideological? Prone to micromanagement? Or just plain incompetent?

Whatever the reason(s), why have the Tories been so tin-eared to so much public outrage in this regard? Or is there a method to their madness, namely, that they ignore public opinion because they only care about catering to their core constituency of Conservatives?

Finally and more broadly, what responsibility does the federal government, regardless of the party in power, have toward citizens imperilled abroad?

Keep Reading...

Just how Rightwing is Stephen Harper?

punditman says...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to have finally 'got religion' when it comes to the economy:

"The truth is, I've never seen such uncertainty in terms of looking forward to the future," the Prime Minister told CTV News in Halifax. "I'm very worried about the Canadian economy."

Perhaps he is. Of course he's finally figured out what to do, not because he wants to do it, but because his political survival is at stake. A substantive economic stimulus package goes against every bone in his rigid ideological frame, so it is no wonder he has been dragged kicking and whining in the direction of John Maynard Keynes.

What Punditman finds interesting is that even some of the Prime Minister's allies and supporters have been very critical of him and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty when it comes to the economy.

The ill-fated fiscal update of Nov. 27— which has caused so much hubbub in the country— has led many to call for Mr. Flaherty's resignation. Let us recall exactly what was in the original package: plans to cut government spending; suspension of the right to strike for civil servants until 2011 and of the right for women to seek legal recourse for pay equity issues; the selling off of some Crown assets to raise capital; elimination of the existing political party subsidies of $1.95 for each vote a party receives; and, no stimulus package (the government claimed they had already done that).

That's about as far-right as you can go without becoming Genghis Kahn.

The two political volcanoes, namely the move to discard per-vote subsidies for political parties and to ban public-sector workers from striking, struck a sour note with University of Western Ontario economics professor emeritus David Laidler, quoted thusly in today's Globe and Mail, "It was just outrageous and absolutely improper," said the member of the righwing C.D. Howe Institute's monetary policy council.

"I was frankly very surprised because I thought Flaherty was a pretty competent guy."

Sensing that Harper had gone too far in his partisanship and in his failure to act on the economy before the planned budget in January, it's no wonder the opposition perceived a chink in the Tory armour and formed a coalition. They were hoping public opinion would follow. Thus far, they have won no popularity contests, the country remains in a divisive condition and it is anyone's guess how this "prorogued parliament" will play out now that the Liberals have dumped Stephan Dion and coronated Michael Ignatieff.

But one thing is clear: it seems that even Harper's fellow travelers can only stomach so much of his nasty partisanship and far-right fetishism, which should give big pause to those who voted for him.

Hey! That is a point worth repeating when you are forced to discuss Canadian politics over turkey with some of your Harper-ite relatives.

So just how rightwing is Stephen Harper? Recent events tell the tale.

Bulking up Pentagon North

October 07, 2008
Linda McQuaig

With the prospect of a Harper majority hanging menacingly over the country, the mind inevitably turns to the question: Just what is the "secret agenda" lurking behind the friendly sweater?

Actually, I don't believe there is one. The truth is that Stephen Harper has already laid out an agenda that would fundamentally change this country – in ways most Canadians would oppose.

While this agenda is not "secret," my guess is few Canadians know about it. That's because Harper, realizing it would be unpopular, unveiled it when Canadians weren't paying attention – in fact, we were sleeping. Sometime in the dark of night last June 20, the Harper government posted a plan on the Department of National Defence's website – called Canada First Defence Strategy – to spend an eye-popping $490 billion over the next 20 years on the military.

Given all the recent buzz about the size of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout in the United States, it's striking to note that Ottawa quietly announced a plan to spend nearly half a trillion dollars on the military, almost in passing.

Steven Staples, a defence analyst with the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute, says that Canada's military spending is already 27 per cent higher than in 2001.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...490 billion over 20 years? You caught that didn't you, folks? Damn, that's a tad bigger than the average, bloated NHL salary that Canadians complain about endlessly.

It is amazing how the opposition parties have all but ignored this boondoggle. Seems they've become so afraid to offend the military. That alone is a scary thought...which reminds me of a certain country and a certain article below....

Media cheerleaders miss story

by Linda McQuaig

To listen to the media tell it, Canada scored a victory last week at the NATO summit. We got the extra 1,000 troops that the Harper government said were needed to continue our involvement in the Afghan war.

So the fact that we're going to continue to fight in Afghanistan — which most Canadians oppose, according to the polls — has been transformed into a victory. We did it! We got the extra troops for a war Canadians don't want! Bravo!

Actually, the media have confused the Harper government achieving its own objectives with the national interest being advanced.

Yes, the staunchly pro-Washington Harper government cleverly manipulated the weak Liberal opposition into supporting the Afghan military venture, largely by presenting it as an international duty mandated by NATO.

In fact, the countries that make up NATO have no more interest in fighting in Afghanistan than the Canadian public does, which is why the 1,000 extra troops are coming from the United States — the one country that is keen to fight over there. But our media turned the situation into a mini-drama: Would Harper succeed at NATO or wouldn't he? It was easy to lose sight of the real story: The U.S. has succeeded in getting Canada to be its lead partner fighting an unpopular counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan.

In fact, the Harper government has recently made two agreements that have quietly moved us into deeper co-operation with the U.S. military and U.S. foreign policy.

Full Article...

Linda McQuaig is a journalist and author. Her most recent book is Holding the Bully's Coat: Canada and the U.S. Empire. Linda McQuaig's column is originally published by The Toronto Star.

punditman says...In the Full Article link above, Linda McQuaig notes how the media missed out on three very important stories, all directly affecting Canadian policy and sovereignty.

Harper snubs Earth Hour

by Allan Woods
www.thestar.com

Thanks to its place of prominence in the capital, 24 Sussex Dr., the Prime Minister's residence, is always easy to spot. As Ottawa went dark last night for Earth Hour, it was even easier.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's lights stayed on.

punditman says...
Surprise, surprise, folks. Read the rest here and think about how stupid he is politically--even if doesn't believe in anthropomorphic climate change.

Target Iran: where's Harper?

As we go through the numbing process of listening to what passes for news these days — Britney Spears losing custody of her kids, O.J. arrested for kidnapping and Pamela Andersen getting married — Canadians seem blissfully unaware of the increasing signs of a global catastrophe. There are extremely worrying indications that the U.S. is planning — and soon — to attack Iran.

According to the Guardian, the hawkish French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, recently stated “we must expect the worst, and the worst is war.” John Bolton, Bush's former UN ambassador, used a Tory conference in Britain to call for a strike against Iran. Rumours persist a strike could involve tactical, “bunker busting” nuclear weapons.

Keep Reading...

punditman says: Harper is busy getting his marching orders from his master, George. And if George says shut up about our plans to attack Iran, then Stephen knows exactly what to do and say: nothing.

Six Canadian soldiers killed in southern Afghanistan

Six Canadian soldiers killed in southern Afghanistan

punditman says:
Six more dead. We are told by the Harper government and all the pro-war supporters with their yellow ribbons on their Hummers, that Canadian troops support the Afghan mission 100%, and that anyone who criticizes Canadian policy is adversely affecting the morale of our professionally trained military. Oh, and they are helping the Taliban too.

These claims fly in the face of elementary logic. First, it makes no sense that all troops support a dubious mission that has no end-game strategy. Has anyone done a poll? An unbiased scrutiny of Canadian soldiers' opinions is hardly likely but here is what one mother of a soldier who served in Afghanistan, was wounded, and is now home, has to say.

Assuming she is a real person and not some devious insurgent disguised as the mother of a returning soldier (I hear the ludicrous claims already), then perhaps she is on to something? No doubt they will weather it through, as soldiers do, but that doesn't mean that each and every grunt in the field agrees with the mission, or thinks that it is working. We may never know.

Nor does it follow that criticism back home affects the fighting ability of a force of professionals who joined the army of their own free volition, and who by now, certainly know what they are getting themselves into by the time they are shipped out, or they should.

Finally, the accusation that criticizing the mission amounts to helping the Taliban--the favoured bookmark in the Harper-Bush play book--barely warrants the time and space it has taken to record this disgusting, political cheap shot.

Harper Finally Able to Read the Writing on the Wall

Canada's Kandahar adventure is effectively finished. Canadian soldiers will continue to die in Afghanistan's south until the mission reaches its official end, 19 months from now. But even Prime Minister Stephen Harper has acknowledged that our efforts there can't be sustained.

The reasons are twofold and intertwined. First, NATO's war against Afghan insurgents is not succeeding. Second, there is not enough political support for that war here at home.

More...

punditman says: Not unlike Iraq, we have a situation in Afghanistan where occupation forces simply can not sustain a losing strategy. It is not working. The politicians know this. Otherwise, they would not be talking about ending Canada's current combat mission and reverting back to a mainly defensive, reconstructive role. The Harper government is asking young men and women to continue to die for a cause that has no actual end-game strategy.
For the next 19 months, they want Canadian troops to continue to search and destroy and possibly be killed, even though they know that this is probably making matters worse. But hey, it pleases their neo-con buddies in Washington, and they will use this falsified patriotism to try to win the next election! And that's all that really matters.

Afghanistan: The U.S. Is Losing The Wider War

While the Harper government prefers that Canadians not think about Iraq and Afghanistan in the same breath, the reality is that even though the Afghan mission operates under NATO command and UN auspices, the American invasion was its starting point. Should the Americans decide to leave, the rest of the West will not stay long.

punditman says:
Could it be that we are wasting our lives and treasure on a fool's errand?

Harper and O'Connor Can't Escape Torture Scandal

"It is important to note that the torture scandal that has exploded in recent days is something that the anti-war movement and human rights activists have been trying to expose for years. Lawyers Against War, Amnesty International and academics like University of British Columbia professor Dr. Michael Byers have long been sounding the alarm that Canada was in violation of the Geneva Convention by handing over detainees to almost certain torture and abuse."

punditman says:
Step by step, Canada has gotten into a quagmire in Afghanistan that now includes complicity in both torture and extra judicial executions. Yet still, the defenders of the policy will try to justify it by saying that if you criticize the mission, then you are against the troops. Sound familiar?