I can't even go over to Raphael's blog since it's infested with dishonest Conservative propagandists (and those are the ones who aren't outright wackjobs) like that liar Joanne True Blue:"Maybe I'm being naive here, but I don't see the big deal. Operational matters are under the discretion of the military. If they make a temporary decision to suspend transfers until a problem is rectified, should the Canadian public and by extension the Taliban be apprised of every detail?"There she is, dutifully repeating mind-numblingly ignorant CPC talking points.Since when did stopping/starting detainee transfer and everyone lying about it become "operational detail?" Even if the Taliban had been made aware of this, it doesn't mean Canadian forces had stopped taking prisoners necessarily, which is all the Taliban would care about.
Here ya go, Raphael. I'll help you out. Obviously the whole thing is the fault of the Liberals with Michael Moore, Barak Osama and Bill Clinton at the helm.
I think you're reading it wrong, CC. The phrase "I don't know what to make of this latest addition to the unfolding story of the detainee issue." actually translates to "I don't know how to spin this latest addition to make me look right in the first place."But then, I understand that when Conservative is your second language, translation errors may occur.
Obviously the whole thing is the fault of the Liberals with Michael Moore, Barak Osama and Bill Clinton at the helm.Nah, I'm not too interested in American politics."I don't know how to spin this latest addition to make me look right in the first place."I think you're mischaracterizing the position I took.
I think you're mischaracterizing the position I took.Firm positions and declarative sentences (not to mention supporting documentation) would go a long way to rectifying the problem of "mischaracterisation."Ever since I saw you disrupting the discussion over at The Galloping Beaver with this burning imperative to make the whole detainee issue Dion's problem (ie...spinning), I can only conclude that anyone mischaracterising your position is committing the error of reading and understanding exactly what you write.
I've since stated the Dion involvement is a wholly separate issue to the detainee affair. The government has a lot to answer for, and we've only yet scratched the surface of this issue. That's my position.
With all due respect, Raphael, will you please just grow the fuck up for a change?The evidence that the CPoC flat-out lied about the Afghan detainee issue is overwhelming, yet the best we can get out of you is (and I quote):"Heaven help me, I don't know what to make of this ... That's the part I'm not sure I understand... So I really don't understand what the government is telling us here."Yes, Raphael, we all get it by now -- anything which shows the CPoC to be a pack of brazen liars is, gosh darn it, just a puzzler to you, isn't it? Even high-level CPoC officials have tossed Buckler off the sled, yet there you are with your, "Man, I'm just not sure what to make of this, it sure is a stumper, gollee."Let me explain it in words even you can understand, Raph -- you're a sycophantic, CPoC party hack. You talk a good game about being a "non-partisan, political centrist" but, when the chips are down, there's just no hiding your true colours, is there?You'd do us all a favour if you just removed the above dishonesty from your blog's "About Me" section. Really, if you're going to have such a sopping wet man-crush on Stephen Harper, at least have the grapes to be upfront about it. Because you're just not fooling anybody anymore.
How many grapes do you have to squeeze before you can get a guy to whine?
You'd do us all a favour if you just removed the above dishonesty from your blog's "About Me" section. Really, if you're going to have such a sopping wet man-crush on Stephen Harper, at least have the grapes to be upfront about it. Because you're just not fooling anybody anymore.I don't agree. I have taken this detainee issue at face value, and tried to see what sort of involvement the government has had in all of this. Was it the Defense Ministry, or Foreign Affairs, or the PMO? Was it high levels of the government, or rogue levels? We don't know yet, but I would do a disservice to the Conservatives to condemn them all for what may turn out to be the actions of the few.We have yet to understand all that has gone on behind the scenes here. There appears to be a rift growing between the government and the military over the accusations, and we'll see whose heads roll.When the AdScam scandal hit, I didn't jump all over Paul Martin, and I reserved judgment until I saw who was responsible and all the facts came out. Lumping all Liberals into AdScam is wrong, just as lumping all Conservatives, many of whom are merely faithfully serving their constituency, is equally wrong.
just as lumping all Conservatives, many of whom are merely faithfully serving their constituency, is equally wrong.I wonder just how many of them are writing their Conservative MP's and their beloved Harper insisting on clarity?With all the devoted water-carrying, spinning and anxious incomprehension, I suppose there's little time for that. Even then, I get the impression when Conservatives complain about the Conservative government, they spend about half of the communication summarising Adscam and 13 years of Liberal perfidy....going on 15 now, since the Liberals are still to blame for everything.
Was it the Defense Ministry, or Foreign Affairs, or the PMO? Was it high levels of the government, or rogue levels? We don't know yet, but I would do a disservice to the Conservatives to condemn them all for what may turn out to be the actions of the few.I’m sorry but do you honestly think for one second that the Ministry of Defence and the PMO would be unaware of a complete shift in the policy as it relates to the detainees? We are talking about one of the most micromanaged governments in the history of Canada. It's completely disingenuous to think that this kind of decision would take place without the PMO's knowledge and tacit approval.You want to give Harper and his merry men the benefit of the doubt then knock yourself out, Raphael. But I'm going to stay over here in the reality-based community where I think we've had just about enough of the government’s ever changing stories and the BTs promptly falling perfectly in line.
There is one simple answer to this the rest of you aren't getting. When you read "NATO," I read "US". Please do not construe this as defending either Sandra or Stephen, but do you suppose they sat on this business of protecting POW's from torture because (a) "NATO" is cool with torture and (b) neither George nor Stephen needs to have the whole world know that Canadian troops cannot be pressured to violate their standards of morality no matter how strongly George and Dick feel about it and that while Canadian troops may have the cojones to stand up to Dick & George, Stephen & Sandra really don't? And Stephen & Sandra really don't really need to tell the hole world they don't have the cojones of a Canadian Forces sergeant? I'm just asking.
Post a Comment