Sunday, May 06, 2007

If it's Sunday, there must be new spin.

Apparently, Canada's Tap Dancing Government™ is still trying to figure out the storyline on the Afghan detainees, but here's something I think LC missed.

On the one hand, the abuse was, well, no big deal (emphasis added):

But Government House leader Peter Van Loan said the case cited by Col. Noonan is actually a good story for the Canadian military.

“It is a case where they saw some treatment, some roughhousing of an individual and they stepped in immediately to put an end to it. That is how things should work. That shows that things were working well in the field.”

So it was just some boisterous "roughhousing." You know -- I only hit you because I love you, that sort of thing. Nothing to get your Stanfields all bunched up over.

On the other hand:

Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk said the Afghan man was later picked up by police, and Canadian soldiers, who later came across him, noticed he had been injured.

So, according to Natynczyk, the Canadian soldiers weren't culpable as they only came across the man later, but notice that Natynczyk also clearly describes the man as "injured."

Well, boys, what version of this story do you want to go with? Was it just some harmless "roughhousing", or was the man legitimately "injured?" You really can't have it both ways, you know.

Oh, wait ... these are Conservatives. They make an entire career out of having it both ways.

What was I thinking?

AFTERTHOUGHT: It's probably worth pointing out how Van Loan and Natynczyk contradict one another on two fundamental issues:

  • As above, Van Loan calls it merely "roughhousing" while Natynczyk clearly admits that the man was "injured," and

  • Van Loan is clearly suggesting that the Canadians were witnesses to the abuse, while Natynczyk just as clearly suggests that the Canadians only came across the man later.

These are not trivial discrepancies -- they're glaring contradictions, which suggests that Canada's New Government™ had better go back to the drawing board and earn its nickname with a "new" explanation. Maybe one that doesn't reek of desperate improvisation.

That would be kinda nice.


Ti-Guy said...

I suggest someone re-enact the event and kick Peter Van Loan's fat ass and see what he thinks of the brutality.

Dave said...

I know what's going on now.

If the stories are SO different and the same subject is given 20 different treatments, we will all be so confused that we have no idea what to believe.

It's sort of a conservative bouquet. Everything is a lie. Pick one.

Anonymous said...

One more example on a by-now very long list demonstrating how this Conservative party is so often caught napping and finds itself trying to either make policy or handle crises (of their own making) completely on the fly.

I've said it before, These Kids Don't Do Their Homework.

I thought this viewpoint was rare, except in the left blogosphere, but in today's Vancouver Sun they quoted Dalton McGuinty, in reference to the Conservative decision that the Oil Sands will be allowed to increase their emissions over ten years while four other industry sectors will not:

Liberal environment critic David McGuinty said the lack of details suggests the government didn't do its homework before unveiling its plan.

"I think they were in such a hurry to shovel something out the door, in panic mode, having gotten rid of their first minister of the environment, tanking in the polls, underestimating the entire file, that they had to do something on an urgent basis."