Iffy to Harper: "Your time is up"

Yea yea, whatever dude... we've all heard that one before.

What ya gonna do... force an election over it?

Colvin - The Diplomat who cried wolf?

As some have noticed, I haven't bothered to wade into the whole Afghan torture "allegations" issue all that much because, well, it's a non-issue for me. So expect this to be all you'll hear from me on it.

First of all, as we've been reminded by our Canadian Forces, the only people who were handed over were people who were either "caught in the act", or who tested postive for GSR... gunpowder residue. I'm sorry, but I just have a hard time getting worked up over protecting people who've been caught red-handed with guns, or roadside bombs. (And I thought the lefties were all about gun control... just not in Afghanistan, I guess...)

Second of all, did you ever hear the story of the boy who cried wolf? It's my guess, and this is admittedly total speculation on my part, that the Mr. Colvin's memos on this issue got routienly ignored, perhaps even with a roll of the eyes, and the recipiants probably even said "Oh great, here he goes again" every time they got such an e-mail.

I mean come on, admit it, we all have one or two of those people that we work with. People that have an "issue" that they're always harping on, and when we get a message from that person, we just roll our eyes and think "Oh what are they whining about now."

The one line we've been hearing over and over again from the Government and the Military is that no "substantiated" allegations were brought forward. Meanwhile the Opposition are pointing to the Colvin memos as "proof" that there were such allegations. But if his memos weren't acted upon because he was regarded as a boy crying wolf, well then, how exactly can anyone hold the Government he held accountable for that?

So maybe he got it right ONCE, after all the years of harping on the issue. But unfortunately, the one time he may have been right got drowned out by all his other memos.

Just like that poor little boy... the one time he was right, no one listened to him, and it was his own fault.

U of Guelph students continue to attack Gen. Hiller

These photos just in from my contacts at the U of Guelph... even after their vicious article attacking retired Gen. Rick Hiller was removed from the UofG's website thecannon.ca (the replacement note from the operating committee is rather interesting, posted below), a small group of extremist students at the University are continuing their personal attacks on Mr. Hiller, subjecting the institution to further shame and criticism, such as David Akin's public and scathing one from late last week.

It seems a group of students have just unfurled this banner in the U of Guelph's student commons...


But I'd like to draw your attention to the following photo, because it appears my contacts have identified one of the other masterminds behind this shameful display... former Guelph Communist candidate Drew Garvie.



My contacts have let me know that instead of just letting this issue go, the group responsible for these disgusting attacks on the General are continuing their vicious attacks by reading their pulled article in public over a megaphone. Guess it's a good thing I posted the original article in full.

REPLACEMENT POSTING AT THECANNON.CA

Editorial: Rick Hillier Editorial
by The Cannon Operating Committee

Jan 11, 2009 - The Rick Hillier editorial written by Scott Gilbert and posted on The Cannon Friday, January 9 has been removed while The Cannon operating committee investigates its appropriateness. As with other writing that appears on this website, this editorial does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Central Student Association and the Guelph Campus Co-op who jointly administer The Cannon.

UPDATE: Well I've obviously got the attention of the protesters at the UofG... some interesting Google searches wound their way to my blog this afternoon.

Hey guys... sup.

Gen. Hiller called a "War Monger" by U of G's "thecanon.ca" editor

First, it was the UoG's CSA attempt to ban a pro-life student group... for which they got shredded in the local and national media. Now, they calling retired General Rick Hillier A WAR MONGER.

Yes, you read that correctly... Scott Gilbert, one of the editors of thecanon.ca (the CSA sanctioned and supported online portal of the UofG's undergraduate body) wrote an article yesterday, decrying the University's decision to honour him with the Lincoln Alexander Outstanding Leader Award on January 13th.

One of the University of Guelph's former students, who was at one time the Editor-in-Chief of the student paper there, the Ontarion, has come out and said that the article is "absolutely shameful", is "beyond the pale", is "a hateful and vicious smear", is a "vicious attack on Canada's former chief of defence staff", is "monstrous libel", and that he was "saddened and ashamed" as an alumni to see it published.

Perhaps you've heard his name before... it's David Aiken. Yes, that David Aiken, of CanWest Global, formerly of CTV.

I wonder how the University of Guelph's Chancellor feels about all this... none other than newly minted Senator Pamela Wallin.

I think the CSA has really stepped in it this time.

(and just so no one makes a dumb comment, this kid is indeed a "loony lefty", as he was the Communist candidate in Guelph in the 05/06 election... look it up)

UPDATE: Full text of the disgusting article posted below, just in case, I don't know, it somehow "disappears":

Editorial: U of G to Honour War Monger
by Scott Gilbert

Jan 9, 2009 - "Retired Canadian general and chief of defence staff Rick Hillier will receive the Lincoln Alexander Outstanding Leader Award on Jan. 13 from the University of Guelph's College of Management and Economics (CME)."

When I read this earlier today I nearly pissed myself. The press release was baffling and showed an utter disregard for human rights - a poor reflection on our university. Let me explain.

Hillier is being honoured for "his exceptional abilities as a communicator with soldiers, the public and the media..."

Exceptional abilities as a communicator? Rick Hillier is the source of the infamous linguistic rampage of a nature you wouldn't even expect from George W. Bush. In 2005 he spoke about the role of Canada's Armed Forces in Afghanistan. The CTV News website quotes him as saying: "We're not the public service of Canada," he said. "We're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people." Really? Whatever happened to Canada's role as peacekeeper? Why is it our job to "kill people" in Afghanistan? What about due process, or the right to a fair trial?

As absurd as this already was, he went on to say the role of Canada's JTF-2 soldiers in Afghanistan was to join the fight against "detestable murderers and scumbags". How eloquent of him - just the kind of terminology sure to help our image abroad in these difficult times.

Then in 2007 the Globe and Mail exposed the debacle of prisoner transfers. This is when, under the oversight of Hillier and O'Connor, Canadian soldiers where transferring some of the prisoners they captured over to Afghan forces where they were subsequently tortured. The Globe's Graeme Smith wrote: "Afghans detained by Canadian soldiers and sent to Kandahar's notorious jails say they were beaten, whipped, starved, frozen, choked and subjected to electric shocks during interrogation."

One of these prisoners, Mahmad Gul, 33, said he was interrogated for three days by Afghan police in May of 2006. He said Canadians told him to ‘Give them real information, or they will do more bad things to you,' and said that although it was the Afghan police actually doing the dirty work, the Canadian soldiers who visited him between beatings had surely heard his screams. Reminiscent of Abu Ghraib?

Now this award is going to someone who supposedly demonstrated "exceptional abilities as a communicator with...the public and the media..."

What did the media think of him during the prisoner transfer scandal? Well, at the time there were numerous calls for the resignation of Hillier and O'Connor from both political parties and many public advocacy groups, including the well-respected Council of Canadians. The Toronto Star's usually very conservative columnist Rosie Dimanno wrote an article with the subtitle "[Hillier] defends decision to hand over captured Taliban as 'right thing to do'". At the end of this piece that looks at the gaffes of Canada's Armed Forces over prisoner abuse, she writes:

"Asked if his own leadership should be put into question as a result of this imbroglio, the general responded: 'Well, that wouldn't be a question to ask me, would it? You'd have to ask the men and women that I lead. And you'd have to ask my Prime Minister, of course.'

The answer is self-evident."

Sounds like even the Star approved a call for his resignation. Is he really the effective communicator the university is honouring him for?

And I love the quote Maclean's ran in 2008. "Asked early this year about a gaffe by a Harper staffer on the delicate subject of Afghan prisoner transfers, Hillier, who was on a winter holiday in the Dominican Republic when it happened, remarked, 'I was on my third rum and Coke, and I really didn't give a damn.'" Surely the words of an exceptional leader and someone devoted to advocacy, collaboration, and scholarship.

Hillier also faces a legal challenge from Amnesty International and the BC Civil Liberties Union (Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v. Chief of Defence Staff for the Canadian Armed Forces, General Rick J. Hillier, Minister of National Defence and Attorney General of Canada)

In the case, they argue "that transfers of these detainees violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s international human rights obligations not to transfer detainees when there is a high probability of torture or ill treatment." The case is against Rick Hillier himself.

Another Globe and Mail article contains the following quotes from "Human rights experts and university professors Michael Byers and Amir Attaran"

"In the current circumstances, they said, Canadian Forces members are complicit in the alleged torture that is inflicted on prisoners of war in Afghan prisons.

'Under international law, you are prohibited from transferring to torture. You are prohibited from facilitating torture in any way,' said Mr. Byers, who teaches international law and politics at the University of British Columbia.

'We're not simply speaking about the criminal responsibility of individual Canadian soldiers. We're speaking also of command responsibility, of criminal responsibility that continues up the chain of command, to any superior officer who knew of the risk of torture and who ordered or allowed our soldiers to transfer detainees nevertheless,' he said."

It really is a shame that Rick Hillier of all people has been chosen for this award. There are so many people in Canada far more deserving of such a prestigious award and with much better track records. For the U of G to praise this guy shows a lack of critical thinking, poor moral judgment and tells the world how complicit we are in activities that violate countless international laws and multi-national conventions. Not exactly the "moral conscience of society" that U of G president Alastair Summerlee touts this institution as being.

Fun with loony-leftie signs

(UPDATE: Welcome to all the folks from Canadian Cynic... guess I must have said something right to get on his nerves...)

What Conservative convention would be complete without the standard protest from the loony left?

Take this guy as an example. I saw his sign attacking Harper for his position on Afghanistan... once again, the stark hypocrisy of the left is on display...How about changing the name on the sign? I'm willing to bet money that none of the left will be carrying this one at a protest anytime soon...
How quickly they forget that their little darling, President-elect Obama, is a strong advocate of INCREASING the military deployment to Afghanistan. Out of one side of their mouths, they sing the praises of Obama... and out of the other side, they critizie Harper for holding the same position.

That folks, is the very definition of hypocrisy... brought to you once again by the Canadian left.

Actually, for the record, Harper is in fact CLOSER to the left here in Canada on that issue than Obama is... Harper's advocating we pull our troops out by 2011.

But just to ensure that those guys on the left are clear about what their "Messiah" south of the border really thinks, feel free to review the following...


(interesting, they always seem to forget that little bit about how he advocates launching attacks into Pakistan... check the 5:00 mark)

Just for fun, at next anti-Afghanistan protest that shows up near you, try making up one of these signs and showing up... see if even one of them realizes the sheer hypocrisy they preach.

I'm willing to bet money they won't.

Fun with loony-leftie signs

Sorry for the error, the post has been moved to here.

Good on him

Turns out Prince Harry has been on the front lines in Afghanistan since mid-December.


Good show old boy... good show. As a loyal British subject (I was born in Manchester) I think it's a good move for the British Royal family. Both Harry (unfortunately, mostly through his antics) and William have shown that they're real people, and are breaking the stuffy mold (PUN!) that people think of when they think of the Royal Family.

Perhaps there's hope for them yet...

GREAT speech by Glen Pearson, Liberal MP

Hoped over to CPAC.ca to pick up any pre-Budget stuff, and caught Liberal MP for London North Centre Glen Pearson giving a speech on the Afghan mission... and voicing his support for the extension until 2011.

I must say, I honestly thought I was listening to a Conservative MP, until CPAC flashed his name and Party affiliation on the screen.

Regardless of his affiliation, it was a GREAT speech. Talking about his conversations with Canadian soliders, who told him the Taliban will waltz right back in if we leave. He talked about his dicussions with women's groups, who told him that if we leave, the Taliban will round up, and likely kill, many prominent women who have risen up to positions of leadership since we arrived.

I'm looking forward to getting the Hansard on that one. Well said, good sir. In followup, Peter Mackay also rose up to compliment Mr. Pearson for his words, and his work in public, and in private, on the Afghan issue.

Who says there can't be non-partisan co-operation in our Government?

Is Pablo TRYING to precipitate an election?

Sure seems like it to me. So I guess I have only one question... is he reading from the Liberal talking points today, or the ones from the CBC? ;-)

"Liberal MP says big gap remains with Harper on Afghan mission"

OTTAWA - A Liberal MP says Prime Minister Stephen Harper is trying to blur the difference between the Liberal and Conservative positions on the Afghanistan mission.

Pablo Rodriguez insists a large divide still exists and that the Liberals remain committed to ending the military's combat role in Afghanistan a year from now."

Okay Pablo, here's a hint... undermining your own leader, when he's made a pretty sensible choice, is not a good idea. Unless, of course, your still trying to orchestrate his ouster.

"Liberals Retreat on Afghanistan"

I will refrain from commenting too much on this, because I am glad to see that the Liberals have changed their position on this issue... in my opinion, they're doing the right thing, so I won't beat them over the head with it.

I will, however, post a link to this article in the Toronto Star on Dion's decision, because it's significant... because it's from the "Red Star", of all places.

Liberal `compromise' is really a retreat to Harper's position
Feb 13, 2008 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom

On Afghanistan, the Liberals are in full retreat. Party leader Stéphane Dion presents his solution to the Kandahar quandary as a compromise. It is not. In effect, the country's major opposition party has signalled that in all major respects it now supports Prime Minister Stephen Harper's handling of the war.

While designed to finesse the tricky Afghan issue, this remarkable about-face may simply convince voters that Dion and his band of confused MPs aren't yet fit to govern.

Until yesterday, Dion had been demanding that the government end Canada's current combat role in Kandahar by February 2009. Now, like Harper, the Liberals say Canadian troops should remain there until 2011.

What exactly would these soldiers do? Until yesterday, Dion had been demanding that Canadian troops – whether in Kandahar or elsewhere – remove themselves from combat and let someone else do the dying.

"It is the rotation process," he said earlier this week, a reference to the not unreasonable idea that every NATO country should bear its fair share of casualties.

Now, the Liberals say Canadian troops should "continue in a military presence in Kandahar ... in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan." They say that would involve training the Afghan army (which is what Canadian troops are already doing) and "providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar."

Nowhere in the new Liberal motion is there a specific call for an end to the combat mission. Dion says the Liberals want to end the fighting role, but their motion does not.

Indeed, it would be difficult for Canadian troops to do what the Liberals want them to do – in Kandahar at least – and avoid combat. How can Canadian troops train Afghan forces without accompanying them to the battlefield? How would they provide security in the Taliban heartland and avoid combat?

Some Liberals have said their motion means Canadian troops will no longer go on so-called search-and-destroy missions. But is that true? At a press conference yesterday, Dion was asked specifically if he was demanding that the government follow the lead of other NATO allies such as Germany and apply formal conditions, or caveats, that keep Canadian troops out of military offensives. The Liberal leader's answer was a clear no.

"We are not speaking of caveats," he said. "We will not micromanage the military."

Which is the Conservative position.

That the Liberals eventually caved on Kandahar is understandable. A Liberal government put Canadian troops into that province. Until public opinion began to shift, most Liberals – including Dion – were staunch defenders of the combat role. Foreign affairs critic Bob Rae and deputy leader Michael Ignatieff, the two pretenders to the Liberal crown, still are.

By signing on to Harper's policy under the guise of statesmanship, the Liberals are hoping they will so confuse the public that no one will notice that they have capitulated.

I suspect they are wrong. Canadians may be split over the war itself. But voters are rightly suspicious of leaders who vacillate and political parties that seem all over the map. Those who don't support the Afghan war will find little solace in Dion's reconversion. Those who do may prefer to vote for the party that has at least been consistent. And those who don't care about Afghanistan may find it unnerving that would-be prime minister Dion is so easy to push around.

"Dion incapable of leading a national government"

I couldn't agree more, Mr. Gunter...

A shocking suggestion from Dion
Pakistan invasion idea shows he is incapable of leading a national government
Lorne Gunter, Freelance
Published: 2:02 am

Following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto outside a campaign rally in Rawalpindi in late December, The Economist magazine declared Pakistan to be "the world's most dangerous place."

I have long thought the same thing. Iran may be its only competition.

The 9/11 plot was likely hatched in Pakistan. The 7/7 bombings on London's subways and buses in 2005 certainly were. Even if the 9/11 attacks were entirely planned and carried out from al-Qaida bases inside Afghanistan, rather than Pakistan, they were nonetheless facilitated with money, men and materiel funnelled through Pakistan.

The Qur'anic schools known as madrassas that dot the Afghan-Pakistani border became magnets for angry Muslim youths from around the world in the 1980s and 1990s while international mujahedeen battled the Soviet invasion.

There, their instructors whipped up their Islamic extremism to even higher levels until some volunteered for terror training across the largely unguarded frontier in Afghanistan's southern and western provinces.

The money for the training camps and the madrassas poured into Pakistan from around the Muslim world (and for a time from the United States). The Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan at the time and provided safe haven for al-Qaida and its murderous schemers, were a creation of the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI.

Even today, the continued existence of the Taliban and its ability to ambush NATO forces in Afghanistan and construct roadside bombs is a direct result of backing from elements within the Pakistani government who want to see the pluralistic, Western-friendly government in Kabul brought down and replaced by an extremist Islamic one, again.

Osama bin Laden is almost certainly hiding out in Pakistan's lawless tribal territories.

NATO generals - including Canadian ones - commanding troops in southern Afghanistan report of huge arms caches maintained for the Taliban by the ISI on both sides of the border with Pakistan. During operations, our troops have observed Pakistan border guards and soldiers jubilantly waving truckloads of well-armed Taliban fighters through their guard posts.

There are secessionist movements that would break the country up along geographic lines, and others that would dissolve it according to faith or tribe.

There are provinces in the lawless border regions where fundamentalists from within the government rule and the moderates from the central government tread lightly when they tread there at all.

There is a reasonably large, educated, modernized professional class in Pakistan that favours the rule of law, democracy and separation between mosque and state, but since the 1980s, when then-president Zia ul Haq embarked on his Nizam-e-Islam - Islamization policy - Islamic religious leaders have been increasingly influential in Pakistan politics.

With a wink from Haq's government, they set up the madrassas, funded mostly by oil money from the Gulf, that preached hatred against non-Muslims and fuelled the recruitment of mujahedeen and later Taliban.

The beheading of hostages began there with Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and the "Islamic bomb" (or at least the precursor for one) was provided to other Muslims nations by Pakistani government scientist A. Q. Khan.

In the quarter century since president ul Haq encouraged the intertwining of Islamic beliefs and public policy, Pakistan has developed a large radical element within its government and is beginning to export its militant brand of Islam.

So Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is right when he says allied efforts to stabilize Afghanistan will not succeed without action being taken in the border regions of Pakistan to control Muslim extremists and reign in rogue elements of the Pakistani government.

But he is losing it if he thinks, as he said Wednesday, that NATO might have to consider invading Pakistan.

For a man who has spent the 13 months since he became opposition leader deriding the Tories for continuing our combat role in Kandahar province, and demanding that our soldiers be transferred to peacekeeping duties in a less dangerous region of Afghanistan, it was a shocking suggestion. And given that Pakistan is a Commonwealth country (albeit one that has been suspended since a state of emergency was declared by the government there in October) and given that it has a population of 170 million mostly Muslims, who would unite - radical and moderate together - in the face of any foreign invasion, Dion's proposal bordered on the unstable. It casts doubts on his suitability to be prime minister.

I know his staff now insist Dion meant diplomatic interventions, but that is not what he said. He said plainly that if the Pakistan government could or would not take action forcefully to track terrorists who slip into Afghanistan, "We could consider that option with the NATO forces in order to help Pakistan help us pacify Afghanistan."

Unless NATO's small diplomatic corps has recently taken to calling itself "NATO forces," Dion clearly meant a military invasion.

He is either completely reversing his earlier position on our mission, or is incapable of leading a national government.

© The Edmonton Journal 2008

Harper pulls another coup

Wow, is this one ever going to broadside the Liberals... former heavyweight Liberal MP John Manley will be appointed by Mr. Harper in 40 minutes to a new five member panel, who's sole purpose will be to examine the current Afghan mission, and seek a consensus on the makeup of Canada's future contributions post 2009... including determining what mix of humanitarian, diplomatic, and military involvement, should be employed.

I'd call that a coup... and further evidence of why Mr. Harper is the best guy to lead this nation!

Mike Duffy takes NDP to task on Afghanistan

Mike Duffy took the NDP strategist Brad Lavigne to task on his show yesterday regarding the Afghan mission. You gotta check this out... (Go to the 4:05 mark on the video)

"Just five minutes ago we heard from the Afghan education minister how aid workers are being murdered, how a carpenter who built a school was machine gunned down. [by the Taliban] Young girls are finally going to school, being able to learn, being able to learn to read... how can the Dippers, who stand so much for human rights, be so opposed to this? [the Afghan mission]

We're not running a conscription, there's no draft to get people to go, Canadians are lined up by the hundreds to sign up, to volunteer to make the world a better place."

It's official... Duffy gets it, while the NDP still doesn't.

"France Antes Up"

This is good news in today's National Post, and seems to be under reported by the MSM... for some strange reason.

France will be moving six of their fighter jets from Tajikistan to Kandahar, along with appx. 300 support personnel, in order to support the Canadian Forces stationed there... three of them are being modified for surveillience purposes, and three will be used for direct troop support.

France antes up
National Post
Published: Friday, September 14, 2007

For the last year, Canadian politicians have been trying to spread the pain in Afghanistan. While more than two dozen NATO countries have troops in the country, most of these national forces operate under restrictive mandates that preclude them from engaging in offensive combat operations. These include detachments from France, Germany, Italy and Spain, which are concentrated in the north of Afghanistan where the Taliban is weak and security is more assured. And so the Dutch, British, Canadians and Americans -- which aren't limited to passive patrol duty -- largely have been left to clear out Taliban strongholds such as the Helmand and Kandahar provinces on their own.

Fortunately, France's new President, Nikolas Sarkozy, appears to be listening to Canadian concerns. On Friday, France announced that it is relocating six Mirage fighter jets from Tajikistan to Kandahar, where our soldiers are based. Three of the fighter jets will be used to support ground troops, including Canadians, and the other three are geared for surveillance work, which will give Canadian ground commanders more eyes in the air. This may help reduce the number of incidents whereby Canadian soldiers are exposed to roadside bombs planted by the Taliban.

This is a small but important step by France that will help save the lives of NATO soldiers. It entails the commitment of millions of dollars and roughly 300 French personnel, who will be based alongside Canadians in Kandahar.

Certainly more needs to be done, but France deserves credit for this gesture of support. It also serves to apply more pressure on NATO allies that are now effectively sitting out the war. When are the likes of Germany, Spain and Italy going to remove restrictions that forbid their troops from taking on duties in the south?

The benefits that flow from ridding Central Asia of the Taliban menace will be shared in equal measure by all civilized nations. It would be appreciated if those nations were also willing to share the associated burdens as well.

© National Post 2007

NDP and the Taliban

Well, my agreement with the NDP on issues only goes so far.

It looks like I was right... "Hostage deal fuels Taliban legitimacy".

Waiting for the press release from Jack... "See! We can negotiate with the cold-blooded-killers!"

"Replacements" for Afghanistan

Just heard on the radio that the same debate we're having about pulling out in 2009 is occuring in Holland... with a pullout date of August 2008.

How is that going to affect the debate here? Mr. Dion has said that we need to be talking to our NATO partners now to find replacements. How is that going to occur when other nations are also considering a pullout?

How can we consider pulling out when we know that the repressive forces of the Taliban will just move back in to occupy the vaccum? How can we conduct other humanitarian works there when the Taliban has free reign to plant all the roadside bombs, and kill all the schoolteachers, doctors, well diggers, etc. they want?

I just don't get how the left expects to continue their other non-military roles without the security required... ie., boots on the ground. Can anyone help me out here?

My bet on "negotiations"

Here's what I'm betting... representitives from the South Korean government will sit down with the Taliban, and the Taliban will jump at whatever offer will be made and release the hostages.

Why? It's simple, really... by releasing the hostages, the Taliban will play the left in the West like a fiddle, as cries will be heard from far and wide, including from the NDP here in Canada, "See? Negotitating with the Taliban works!"

This will serve to further errode Western support for the mission, assisting in speeding up the withdrawl of Western forces, including Canada. Once removed, the Taliban will turn their counter-insergency against the fledgeling Afghan government, and may end up successfully restoring their repressive and authoritarian rule over the nation.

Call me a pessimist...

I hope for the sakes of the Korean hostages that I'm right, and they'll be free shortly... and I hope I'm wrong about the errosion of Western support due to the Taliban's schemes.

Afghan Detainees Fiasco not our fault?

The headline of this CTV article seems to imply otherwise, ("Tories accused of incompetence in detainee dust-up") but the last couple of paragraphs seem to help clear things up... it appears that communications breakdowns and "over-the-top" reports between the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and other agencies within Afghanistan may have been the direct cause of the conflicting information provided by the Conservative government over the last few days.

How on earth can you be expected to give a straight answer when the people giving you the information can't even give you a straight answer? The Liberals were going off of one set of reports, the Tories from another, both with various elements of truth to them... but the Liberal sourced documents are now in question, as they seem to have been derived more from a communications breakdown within Afghanistan than anything else.

From CTV:

There have been reports this week that the commission has been denied total access to detainees -- a claim that it clarified recently, saying the reports were excessive.

The assistant investigator with the human rights commission, Reza Jan Ibrahimi, 25, said they are not allowed to meet with prisoners while they are in the custody of intelligence officers. However, they have met detainees after they were moved to the regular prison system.

A spokesperson from the AIHRC, who spoke to CTV News on condition of anonymity, agreed unrestricted access to Afghan detainees is now available.

"We couldn't go there but now our people can go anywhere they want, NDS, jail and other offices," said the commissioner.

The group also claims it has been denied access to detainees held by the feared NDS -- Afghanistan's intelligence police. They have been accused of beating, choking, starving, freezing and whipping suspected Taliban insurgents.

Officials inside NDS now say corrections officers and RCMP in Afghanistan will have access to NDS and other prisons as well. NDS authorities say the lack of access to prisoners was a communications breakdown rather than a deliberate attempt at concealing instances of abuse.

"That technical problem has been solved in a few days so there is no problem," one NDS official told CTV News.

Like I said last night... people need to cut Mr. O'Conner some slack. (but of course, the Liberals won't...)


UPDATE: Mike Duffy raised a couple good points with Mr. Ignatieff today. It seems that Taliban fighters are advised on how to lie about being abused if and when they are captured. Mike also raised the point I raised yesterday, that the Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed and/or recognized soldiers. I don't know what you think, but I don't think the Afghan government recognizes them as legitimate Afghan soldiers.

Liberal Hypocrisy at its Worst

Alberta Ardvark has pointed out yet another example of Liberal hypocrisy... remember "the good old days" back in 2002, when the Liberals were running the show, and PM JC refused to even acknowledge that there were Canadian soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan?

Now, they're calling us on the carpet for handing over Afghan prisoners to the Afghan authorities... prisoners to whom the Geneva Convention does not apply. (they are not uniformed soldiers of any nation under any declaration of war) The irony of this whole issue? They're being handed over in accordance with the prisoner transfer agreement established during the tenure of the previous Liberal government. Yes, some reports of questionable practices have come up... so the Government has an obligation to investigate. There are still many details that need to be cleared up, but once things are clear, action should indeed be taken. But seeing the Liberals and other Opposition parties harping on The Honourable Mr. O'Conner is just sad.

Poor old Gordon. I'll admit, he's gone and stuck his foot in his mouth this week about the non-agreed to agreement to monitor prisoners. Looks like he jumped the gun a bit, and got some as-yet-to-be-determined details wrong... details, which by the way, are still in the works. But hardly the kind of thing that he should be forced to resign over. He's got one tough job, and can't seem to get a break.

During the CPC Training back in March, when he came up to the microphone to speak, the audience stopped him before he could open his mouth... by giving him a standing ovation for all the hard and thankless work he's done since taking office. He more than deserved it. (and he responded, after almost two minutes of sustained applause, "My mother put you up to that, didn't she." LOL) He has done more to rebuild this nation's military than any other Defence Minister for the last 15 or so years. It was indeed a "Decade of Darkness"... brought on by the Liberal Party of Canada's utter lack of understanding of the role of the Canadian military, and by its total lack of respect for the men and women who serve in uniform. That's why the men and women in Canada's military by and large support our Party, if any... because we're the only one who's shown them any kind of respect for generations.

They're greatful for what we've done for them... just as we are greatful for what they have done, and are willing to do, for each and every one of us.

Mr. O'Conner, while admittedly not the best performer in the House of Commons, or even on the media front, is just not a politician... he is a man of action. He took over a department that was in tatters, and has begun the task of rebuilding a proud Canadian institution... the Canadian Armed Forces. Some, even here amongst the Blogging Tories, are saying it's time for him to go. I disagree. He's made some real progress on a huge number of issues and files... and though admittedly he's made a couple of minor blunders on the Afghan detainees file, I hardly think it's something he should be tossed out in the cold for.

If it's a problem, give that portion of his file to Peter MacKay in Foreign Affairs, or to his Parliamentary Secretary... and let him keep doing the rest of his job that he has been doing so well.

I'll put it to you this way... I trust a blundering Mr. O'Conner running the Defence Department way more than I trust his predecessors.

Good thoughts from Fuddle-Duddle

Yes, I know, you can't believe I just said that... but before you judge, read what he has to say. I'm not posting this because he's critizing a Liberal MP... I'm posting it because I agree with the overall sentiments... we need to be in Afghanistan for the PEOPLE of Afghanistan... this is not about us.

Unforgivable

"What exactly have we as Canadians brought to the Afghan people? As far as I can see it is instability,"

"Under the previous U.S. backed Taliban there may have been oppression, but there was not fear for people's lives every single day because of suicide bombers."

This is disgusting.

Who could possibly say that Afghans, especially Afghan women, were better off under the Taliban?

Is this some crazy Dipper? or a Radical activist?

No...It is Liberal MP Colleen Beaumier.

The party that stands up for women says ending the Taliban wasn’t worth it.

Executing women for going out in public. That is WAY better than instability...

In 1997, the Taliban dragged women into their houses by their hair, forced them into house arrest, stopped educating them, and 10 years later, instead of being proud to have helped end this horror, we have an MP saying we should have never intervened.

Mrs. Beaumier needs to be seriously reprimanded.

What the F@#$ is happening to the Liberal Party?

I have my own reservations about the Liberal Afghan position, but if we want to maintain any shred of our credibility in terms of foreign policy, we cannot stand by and listen to our own MPs say that we should not defend the rights and values we preach in our own country.

Unforgivable.