Tuesday, May 16, 2006

The hilarity of low expectations.

Lately, if you've had the unbridled temerity to complain about the difficulty of life for native Iraqis under U.S. occupation ... whoops, sorry, liberation forces, what you typically get back is, "Oh, yeah? Maybe you think those Iraqis were better off under Saddam! Is that what you think, huh? Huh?"

Yes, apparently, the neo-con defense of the invasion of Iraq has sunk to the point where the best they can do these days is to claim that, hey, George Bush isn't as bad as that murderous thug and dictator Saddam Hussein. That's pretty much the textbook definition of "damning with faint praise," isn't it?

Which brings us to this amusing recent development:

A House of Commons committee has rejected Prime Minister Stephen Harper's star recruit to head the new public appointments commission.

Harper can still appoint Gwyn Morgan, but his minority Conservative government would be doing so against the will of the opposition parties...

where you can read, in the first comment:

Out here in Calgary this douchebag is a hero (Morgan, not Harper)(even though I think Harper is a douche too). You should have read the Sun today extolling Morgan's virtues. Clearly Albertans value raping the land, doing business with Third World dictators, and berating anyone who isn't white and rich. But then again, look at our premier.

which apparently inspired the knee-jerk reaction:

kinda like how hard it is to find an honest Liberal

Liberals hid costs of gun registry, Fraser says

The former Liberal government went to great lengths to hide the true costs of the controversial gun registry, Auditor General Sheila Fraser said in a scathing report released Tuesday.

Well, there you have it. Conservatives across this great country who railed against unspeakable and appalling Liberal corruption for years can take pride in the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada ... isn't quite as bad.

I feel so ... so ... chastised.


Anonymous said...

so, the opposition parties are utilizing their ability to democratically dissent, but instead of finding a candidate they can all live with, Harper takes his committee and goes home.

Did he appoint the guy so he could get this result? It's awfully convenient he ends up ranting he can't do a thing with his hair until he gets a majority government.

Is he going to do the same with all other committees where the members find his appointed chairs unacceptable on the basis of their proven/quoted past behaviour?

Was Vellacott asked to resign on the Aboriginal affairs committe before it got to a vote so Harper could pull this here? After all, this is the alleged 'accountability transparency' committee and he's now crying the Liberal reds don't want him reforming things.

Is this following Luntz's advice of bringing up the Liberal history of corruption as often as possible?

Simon said...

I agree that it's pathetic when anyone has to resort to the "but it isn't as bad as before!" defense.

It's REALLY pathetic when that argument is used but also happens to be wrong.

kootcoot said...

As simon said it's really pathetic when that is all they can say and it is wrong to boot. It will be a long time, if ever, until any government can achieve the staggering level of corruption that was everyday business with the Conservatives under Lyin' Brian Mulroney.

And I read media from the middle east and Asia that suggests that many Iraqi's perhaps even a majority
would prefer to return to life under Saddam if they could. At least they had jobs, potable water, electricity and could leave their house after dark without worrying about getting shot, kidnapped or blown up. Even the difficult times under sanctions post Gulf War 1 look good in retrospect compared to US occupation and what amounts to civil war and sectarian violence.

Anonymous said...

I dunno, Kootcoot, life in Iraq under sanctions was pretty rotten. It was stable, but it sure wasn't pretty. I'd want some really good analysis at the ready before asserting that things were better off pre-invasion than they are now.

CC said...

Um ... folks? You do realize that just having a debate over whether the U.S. occupation of Iraq represents an improvement over a Saddam-run, sanctions-crippled country should tell you everything you need to know, right?

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.