Now THAT'S what I call "compassionate conservatism."

Pay no mind to the fact that Canadian Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is stunningly ignorant about basic issues like the Geneva Conventions and the protection of detainees. Despite having lied to the House of Commons, it seems like the Blogging Tories are in a forgiving mood ...
... here:

This Is Why They Call Him “Honourable”

It’s great to see a parliamentarian deliver an apology without any reservation at all...

Isn’t it refreshing to hear a real apology instead of the using blame the victim, “If you were offended by misinterpreting what I said then I’m sorry” apology we’ve come to listen to in past years? Should another apology have to be delivered, I hope the Honourable Member follow O’Connor’s example.

... and here:

It’s the way that O’Connor apologized that makes all the difference: a statement of regret plus a claim of responsibility.

Of course the Opposition could now switch gears and clamor for O’Connor’s resignation, but doing so would merely be discounted by attentive voters as a partisan exercise.

I’ll have a link to the full statement up tomorrow, but for now I’ll just say that O’Connor has, at the very least, enhanced the Tory reputation for wanting to be straight — both with Parliamentary tradition, and with the voting public at large.

Yeah, a real, heartfelt apology -- what a great idea, right, Matt? Still waiting ...

Hey, Matt -- an apology would be nice.

I'm not even going to suggest that this is yet another story that the Blogging Tories are going to avert their eyes from. Instead, let's go check out the dumbassitude directly.

Over at "A Step to the Right," Matt was recently stroking himself into high outrage:

A University of Ottawa professor Amir Attaran has accused the Canadian military of abusing detainees. What you may not know is this is not the first time he has taken to the media in attempt to disgrace out military; on the contrary he has a long history of baseless accusations. If you aren’t familiar with this story, this CTV article is what I’m talking about.

Attaran’s accusations are extremely serious, and I would surely hope that he would have done all of his homework before making said allegations.

Let's skip down in that article to see some of Prof. Attaran's irresponsible, moonbat ravings for ourselves, shall we, as Matt lays out the case against Attaran in delicious and excruciating detail:

Going back to May of last year, Attaran accuses Gen. Rick Hillier of making “war criminals” out of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan:

“Hillier is placing rank-and-file Canadian troops, unwittingly, in the position of very likely being accessories to torture and, therefore, war criminals under international and Canadian law,” commented Amir Attaran, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.

A month before that in April 2006, Attan wrote a column for the Ottawa Citizen titled Canada’s role in torture.

Last Dec. 18, Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada’s chief of defence staff, signed a treaty with Afghanistan that dangerously — and illegally — compromises Canadian soldiers and our country’s taboo on torture. Gen. Hillier’s treaty provides that when our troops detain a person, he or she will be handed to the Afghan security forces, without any monitoring by Canada to prevent torture.

By now, it’s pretty obvious that Amir Attaran has it in for Gen. Rick Hillier and other members of our armed forces. His accusations against our military men and women have been something he’s parroted for quite a while now, although the Canadian government sternly maintains that Geneva Convention rules are followed.

Yessir, that shrieking, lunatic leftist Attaran certainly has it in for Hillier, doesn't he? What a nutcase. What a whackjob. What a ... a ... hello, what's this? Liberal Catnip is on the case:

Gordon O'Connor recently got his lying ass handed to him on a plate when it was revealed that he had misled parliament about the role the ICRC supposedly had in overseeing the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan from our troops to Afghan officials - a practice that has resulted in allegations from at least 18 men that they were abused at the hands of those officials.

O'Connor was forced to apologize and did so in the house today.

"I fully and without reservation apologize to the House for providing inaccurate information for members," O'Connor said Monday in Parliament. "I take full responsibility and do so without hesitations."

"The International Red Cross Committee is under no obligation to share information with Canada on the treatment of detainess transferred by Canada to Afghan authorities."

O'Connor also tabled letters to correct information he and other DND officials provided to the House of Commons.

An apology, Matt. Like, right now. And you better fucking mean it.

BONUS DUMBFUCKITUDE: Given how enamored the Blogging Tory echo chamber is with Hillier, is it worth even asking if a single one of them is going to cover this latest embarrassing development?

And while we're at it, I'd like a pony.

Fuck you and your demand for civility.

At this point, none of us over here on the Left have any obligation to be polite anymore.

The Afghan Slide

Here's another poll for the 101st Chairborne to try and spin. From CTV Taliban support is on the rise.

"Canadian troops are facing another challenge in Afghanistan as Taliban support among civilians has rocketed to nearly 27 per cent." So much for hearts and minds. It is clearly time for the coalition to rethink strategies, tactics and goals throughout the region. To steal a page from CC, what are the odds that this survey falls off the Blogging Toadies radar?

"The findings stem from a large-scale survey conducted this month by Brussels-based thinktank Senlis Council. The organization polled 17,000 Afghan men in the Canadian-controlled areas of Kandahar province and in neighbouring British and U.S.-controlled regions of Helmand and Nangarhar."

How long do we maintain a failing strategy? How long do we keep feeding soldiers and money to a situation that shows every sign of getting worse? Unlike Iraq, the west had good cause to eradicate the Taliban and that seems less likely to happen by the day. The diversion of American forces and economic clout to Operation Seething Clusterfuck has scuttled the opportunity to succeed in Afghanistan. A fraction of the resources squandered in Iraq would have made a huge difference in the lives of the Afghan people. They no longer trust us and seem to be swinging toward the devil they know.

"Only 19 per cent of Afghan civilians felt that international troops were helping them personally -- with only 6.5 per cent in regions where U.S. soldiers were in control.
"The widespread perception of locals is that the international community is not helping to improve their lives," says the report.
Meanwhile, about 80 per cent of civilians said they worried about feeding their families."

What a sad mess.

More stories your Blogging Tories won't tell you.

It's almost like I should make this a new, regular feature. Given that some of the BTs are just tickled by the apparent delirious joy of Iraqis these days, one wonders which one of those right-wing mouthpieces will be the first to note this depressing development:

Voices From Iraq 2007: Ebbing Hope in a Landscape of Loss

A new national survey paints a devastating portrait of life in Iraq: widespread violence, torn lives, displaced families, emotional damage, collapsing services, an ever starker sectarian chasm — and a draining away of the underlying optimism that once prevailed.

Violence is the cause, its reach vast. Eighty percent of Iraqis report attacks nearby — car bombs, snipers, kidnappings, armed forces fighting each other or abusing civilians. It's worst by far in the capital of Baghdad, but by no means confined there.

The personal toll is enormous. More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who's been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress.

This is the third poll in Iraq sponsored by ABC News and media partners — in this case USA Today, the BBC and ARD German TV — and the changes are grim. In November 2005, 63 percent of Iraqis felt very safe in their neighborhoods. Today just 26 percent say the same. One in three doesn't feel safe at all. In Baghdad, home to a fifth of the country's population, that skyrockets: Eighty-four percent feel entirely unsafe.

Tune in tomorrow when the few Blogging Tories who make note of this dismiss it as biased, liberal propaganda, while they swear by what they read at The Drudge Report.

Yeah, you only wish I was making that up.

When even the crazies back slowly toward the exits.

It's not cutting edge or current but we might as well blow a couple minutes and highlight one of the more demented citizens of Canada's Wingnut-o-sphere: Judi McLeod, a complete lunatic who thought the mob was behind 9/11, and plagiarized a satirical article from "the Onion" without realizing it was parody.

She is also apparently anti-Semitic, which appears to explain where most of her work ends up:

Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck and The Rant.

I'm not saying she's nuts, but there's something kind of creepy about someone who makes even Kathy Shaidle look sane.

Stories your Blogging Tories never told you.

As I pointed out recently, the Blogging Tories are all a-twitter over the good news out of Iraq that the Iraqis are just dee-lighted with how things are going. In addition to Canada's Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck™, we have BT Jarrett Plonka spreading the gospel of Drudge, then there's Paul over at Celestial Junk, drinking the Kool-Aid:

Somewhere in the debate though, folks forgot to ask Iraqis what they think:

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

But then, what do a bunch of stupid shell-shocked Arabs and Persians know anyway.

And wankery just wouldn't be wankery without Damian Penny quoting exactly the same Times Online piece:

To that end, a new poll suggests that most Iraqis think their life today, despite daily horrors and violence, is still better than life under Saddam Hussein...

Yup, it's definitely party time down at the old bazaar ... except for the niggling inconvenience of this poll, which doesn't seem quite so perky and upbeat:

Pessimism 'growing among Iraqis'

A new survey paints a pessimistic picture of Iraqis' confidence in their own government and in coalition forces.

Only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in US and coalition troops, while opinion is almost evenly split on whether to have confidence in Iraq's government.

About 86% of those questioned expressed concern about someone in their household being a victim of violence...

Asked whether they thought reconstruction efforts in Iraq had been effective, some 67% said they felt they had not...

Well, gosh darn it all -- strikingly different results, all of which means that you won't be reading about any of that over at the BTs 'cuz, well, it's based on reality and, as we all know, the BTs don't really do reality.

But you didn't need me to explain that to you.

SPEAKING OF STANDARDS, it's amusing to notice what passes for victory and good news in conservative circles these days. Appreciate, if you will, that all this wankerific celebrating is based on the claim that, after four years of American occupation, the best you can get out of Iraqis is that an alleged majority of them think things are better than they were under Saddam.

That's it.

Apparently, we commie, pinko, terrorist-loving Lefties should feel totally smacked down because the "Coalition" troops have finally turned Iraq into something not quite as bad as what it was under a ruthless, homicidal maniac.

Yeah, I know I'd be breaking out the streamers and balloons.

Your White House Press Corpse.

First, let's see if we can figure out this week's White House talking point with respect to the recent attorney purge. Ah, I think I see it now:

"... you serve at the pleasure of the President. At any juncture, there can be a decision to put somebody else in the position ... people serve at the pleasure of the President ... people serve at the pleasure of the President ... the people serve at the pleasure of the President ... we all serve at the pleasure of the President ... the most important principle here is people do serve at the pleasure of the President ... certainly what happened is entirely appropriate in terms of removing people who serve at the pleasure of the President ... people serving at the pleasure of the President ... you serve at the pleasure of the President ..."

Which makes me wonder why the carbon-based life forms masquerading as actual journalists don't have the brain cells to ask what I think is the obvious question of White House Spokesdouchebag Tony Snow. Here, let me make a suggestion:

"Tony, you've said several times that these people serve at the "pleasure of the President" -- that seems to be your fundamental defense. But if that's the case, why don't you just say that and be done with it?

"If all of this is at the 'pleasure of the President,' why is there such controversy? Why did Alberto Gonzales have a conference call with all 93 U.S. attorneys during which he apologized? Why are you working so hard to deny that this was political, and that it's performance-based? Why is there so much finger-pointing and buck-passing going on?"

"If you're going to invariably fall back on this 'at the pleasure of the President' defense, why doesn't the President just come out and say that he can do whatever the hell he wants, and he just felt like firing those eight attorneys, and it's nobody else's business and if you don't like it, you can just bite him?"

"If hiring and firing is so totally at the pleasure of the President, why is this administration working so hard to justify it and defend it? Why not just say that it's your decision and you don't give a damn what anyone thinks?"

Yeah, that's the question I'd be asking.

LOGIC, OR THE LACK THEREOF: It occurs to me to point out the illogic of claiming, on the one hand, that all these attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President" and that he therefore has the right to dismiss them arbitrarily, yet simultaneously claim that the White House had nothing to do with their firings and that it was "a purely managerial move that had originated within the Justice Department."

You can't really have it both ways, you know.

I read it on Drudge, it MUST be true.

Jarrett's so adorable when he's being gullible as hell:

Kate got to it first...

...but I'll repost it here, from Drudge:

Iraqis think life is getting better. Not only that, but

# They say life is better than under Saddam Hussein
# This, in spite of the fact that one in four has lost someone to the violence. Think about that.
# A two-thirds majority disagrees with the notion that Iraq is in a civil war
# Most of the violence is still concentrated in Baghdad and Sunni-held areas, so there's even more progress being made in the south.

Wow. Things are getting better in Iraq -- a poll says so. Yee ha. Hang on, though. What's this that Jarrett is claiming? "They say life is better than under Saddam Hussein."

"They?" Who is this "they?" The Iraqis? All of them? Every single one? Why, no:

But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Ah, so it's not "they," it's just "most." Yeah, Jarrett, there's a wee bit of difference between the claims of that poll and your glib and misleading summary of it. For your sake, I hope you're not taking statistical analysis there at UVic. That's the sort of thing they generally frown on in the halls of academia.

Just a friendly heads up, 'cuz that's the kind of guy I am.

When really, really, REALLY stupid people get ahold of the keyboard.

There's the ubiquitous, badly-educated, pro-Microsoft, anti-Linux screed:

Why Linux will not displace Windows

to which, amidst a buttload of considered and more enlightened opinions, we have the following gem of a response (emphasis added, although I'm not sure I really have to draw your attention to the funny bits):

I dont see how this will happen at all.

Vista is far more powerful than windows XP, and runs twice as fast. It is also much harder to pirate, and this point more than anything else has the Linux crowd in a panic.

It wont be long until Windows XP is no longer supported, and when that happens, what is Linux going to do ?

Linux will have to find a way to work under Vista from here on, since it wont be able to rely on XP being readily available anymore.

Which inspires the following rebuttal, undoubtedly from someone who's not quite sure he read that correctly:

Jerry, you seem to be very confused by Linux. It doesn't run on XP, Vista, 98 or anything even remotely related to Windows. A Gnu/Linux distribution is a complete operating system, not some piece of software running under Windows. It has its own device drivers, its own bootloader, its own kernel, and a variety of window environments to go with it. It also has tons of free (yes, FREE) and legal software that can do everything you can do in Windows. I'm not sure why you assume Linux users must be pirates; I haven't pirated anything by installing Linux on my desktop, since it does not use any components of Windows and therefore doesn't need a Windows license

Sadly, Jerry, completely unaware that he is now as hysterically famous as, well, this guy, just keeps digging:

You are kidding arent you ?

Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?

That sounds preposterous to me.

Any further commentary would be, I suspect, unnecessarily cruel.

Sorry ... when did THAT happen?

I must have missed it ... when exactly did the American Dumbass-o-sphere suddenly become obsessed with lying under oath again?

rehydration

I've been feeling a little under the weather lately. You know that, 'I think I'm coming down with something' feeling. Well last night it all came down. Stomach flu. Not a party. Between bouts of shivering and sweating, I was able to do away with all dignity. There's nothing quite like crawling to the bathroom on all fours, as your head leaks snot and tears, to remind one of humility. So far today, I have managed to keep down a glass of water and even half a cup of coffee. Somehow that seems like an achievement. During one of my more difficult transits from bed to bowl, I was quite deliriously convinced that Stephen Harper, in the guise of a hairless cat, was stealing and hiding all of my money. Not that there's much to steal and hide. Anyway, in the midst of retching, I was able to take some solace in panting, "Fuck off Harper" between heaves. After finally managing a few hours of fitful sleep, I have arisen, shaky and aching. First thing I did after a tentative sip of water, was check on my money. I'm happy to report that my few folded bills were intact. Just the same, I'm keeping an eye out for this guy:

Your occasional Joel.

And every so often, when you're tired of scraping the bottom of the barrel, it's worth actually lifting up the barrel to see what Proud to be Canadian's Joel Johannesen is up to.

Here, we find Joel first complaining about (heh heh) Canadian media bias:

In Canada, in case you never read this blog and you didn’t know, the Liberal Party’s colossal adscam sponsorship criminal corruption scandal (and wiener stand!) was committed by...... “the federal government”. Or “Ottawa”. Not Liberals.

I know this because that’s how it’s portrayed in the liberal news media here in Canada. As I’ve said, soon, the population will indicate in a media-sponsored poll about it that they’re “confused” about who was responsible. Then soon after that, they’ll believe that the Conservatives were responsible for it.

I know what Joel means. When I Google on the combination of "liberals" and "sponsorship scandal," the paltry 128,000 hits just aren't enough to help me connect the dots.

But not satisfied with looking only half the goober, Joel continues:

NBC Notes Charges Against Torricelli, But Fails to ID His Party

Lisa Myers delivered an enterprising report, on Friday’s NBC Nightly News, on how a Senate committee is investigating possible UN “oil-for-food” program misdeeds by former Senator Robert Torricelli. But no where in her story did she identify Torricelli’s party.

Once again, Joel is dead on, since the proper course of action would have been, not to omit Torricelli's party affiliation, but to switch it to the opposition. Sort of like this:

And closing with a vengeance, we have Joel:

They report.... half the story. THEN you decide. That’s liberal. That’s progressive.

Says the man who, curiously, has been awfully quiet about the current Alberto (Republican) Gonzales (Republican) attorney (Republican) purge (Republican) scandal. But that's just Joel being Joel.

And now, on to the looming Canadian federal election, where I can't wait to see how Stephen Harper explains how, after 13 years in power, his party still couldn't get anything done about the environment.

I'm assuming that's the royal "we," right?

Shorter Dante: "And when I explain that that's why "we're" there, by "we," I mean other people."

Well, there WAS that other time, Steve.

In which premature ejankulator Steve Janke sets the standard to which we mere mortals can only aspire:

You write enough stuff, eventually you are going to drop the ball in a big way. With almost 3000 postings, it amazes me that it hasn't happened before this.

I dunno, Steve ... this strikes me as a fairly colossal fuck-up on your part. But, hey, that's just me.

FREE AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: I'm sure you can appreciate the dumbassitude in the following exchange from the comments section of Robert's post above. Robert first posts a retraction of a previous claim:

Janke’s accusation is based on the lie that Deborah Frischer [sic] threatened Jeff Goldstein’s child. She did not in fact, utter any threat.

At which point commenter "Anon" wonders why Robert is suddenly changing his story:

If she never threatened anyone, why did you yourself [originally] call her comments towards the tyke “death threats”?

To which Robert reasonably replies:

Goldstein’s site was down when I wrote the comment and I’d only read a partial accounting of what Deborah had said. I erroneously gave her accusers the benefit of the doubt at the time. When Jeff’s site came back up I was able to read all her comments and determine no actual threat was made.

At which point "Anon" descends into utter wankery gibberish:

See, now, there’s a problem with that on 2 seperate levels;

1. You just admitted that you comment on issues without having all the facts.

Did you catch the dumbassitude there? See, unable to verify the claim of "death threats" firsthand, Robert, obviously for the sake of argument, accepts the claim. And when it turns out that he was being overly generous and he retracts that generosity based on the evidence, he is now accused of posting irresponsibly without having done the necessary research.

In short, Robert gives the residents of Dumbassville the benefit of the doubt, at which point he is criticized for having gullibly swallowed their lies. In other words, you don't criticize the Retard-o-sphere for lying, you criticize the poor saps for falling for those lies.

Is this a great scam or what?

I swear, I'm getting dumber by osmosis.

I'm beginning to believe that, the more I read the right-wing Retard-o-sphere, the stupider I get. It's just sucking the smart out of me.

Consider, if you will, this recent gem from Small Dead Brain Cells:

Well, of course. Ignore the massive coverup orchestrated by the White House for the last many months. It was her husband who blew her cover. (Keep in mind, of course, that these are the same people who were absolutely adamant that Saddam was behind 9/11, Saddam was in league with Al-Qaeda, Saddam had WMDs, Saddam was trying to get yellowcake from Niger, the invasion would be a piece of cake, American troops would be greeted as liberators, the reconstruction of Iraq would be self-financing, democracy would flower throughout the Middle East ... yeah, no credibility problem there.)

But it's the comments section of that post that provides such pants-pissing hilarity:

And ... let's go to the videotape.

The mote in one's eye.

You know, given how the Blogging Tories worked themselves into sanctimonious ecstasy over Robert McClelland's recent comment about Jews, one would think that those folks who are so terribly concerned with civility in discourse might want to clean their own house first.

It's just a thought.

Hey, Doc, that's what ellipses are for.

And taking a few minutes to visit the intellectually lowest of the low-hanging fruit over at the Blogging Tories, we find the tail end of the bell curve, Dr. Roy, all excited by more scientific corroboration, as he quotes (quote reproduced verbatim):

Two leading UK climate researchers have criticised those among their peers who they say are "overplaying" the global warming message.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, are voicing their concern at a conference in Oxford.

They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science.

The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.

They think catastrophism and the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only work to create confusion in the public mind.
They argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth's climate.

Hey, I know -- let's go to the actual BBC article and reproduce what's there, with emphasis on the juicy bits that the ethically-challenged Dr. Roy conveniently skipped over:

Both scientists believe that man's activities are causing global warming

Two leading UK climate researchers say some of their peers are "overplaying" the global warming message and risk confusing the public about the threat.

Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, are voicing their concern at a conference in Oxford.

They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science.

The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.

Both men are highly respected across the world and hold the mainstream view on climate change - that human activity is the cause.

But they think catastrophism and the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only work to create confusion in the public mind.

They argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth's climate.

Why, yes ... Dr. Roy is a dishonest hack. I'm sure you're shocked and appalled.

OK, maybe just appalled.

Alberto Gonzales Death Watch.

Place your bets, kids:

The fallout from the firings continues to grow in Washington, and sources tell CBS News that it looks like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will take the fall.

Republicans close to the White House tell CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod that President Bush is in "his usual posture: pugnacious, that no one is going to tell him who to fire." But sources also said Gonzales' firing is just a matter of time.

For bonus points, predict the actual wording he'll use, from this list of sure-fire, popular Republican spin phrases:

• "partisan witch hunt"


• "Democratic witch hunt"


• "politics of personal destruction"


• "I take full responsibility"


• "mistakes were made" (ah, the delightful passive voice)


• "becoming a distraction to the administration"


• "spend more time ..."
  
  
  
  • "... with my family"
  
  
  • "... with my colleagues"
  
  
  • "... shredding the Constitution"
  
  
  • "... violating everyone's civil rights"
  
  
  • "... torturing foreigners"
  
  
• "I'm sorry, I don't really remember."


• "Go fuck yourselves."

Enter early, enter often. Lines are open, and operators are standing by to ignore your calls.

Garth and Stephane's Excellent Adventure.

In which both Zorpheous and Jennifer cover the recent Halton EcoSummit, but Zorph gets called upon and is exposed for not having done his homework in front of the whole class.

Dontcha just hate it when that happens?