US Networks Afraid to Show 9/11 Documentary

Whatever happened to that 7 second delay feature?

Dozens of CBS affiliate stations in the United States are afraid to air a documentary about the Sept. 11 attacks in case they're hit with massive fines for profanity because of expletives from firefighters.

The two-hour 9/11 focuses on a group of New York firefighters who are in one of the World Trade Center's two towers on Sept. 11, 2001, when they were destroyed by planes hijacked by al-Qaeda militants.

No carnage is shown in the Emmy Award-winning documentary produced by French filmmakers Gedeon and Jules Naudet, but it includes expletives from firefighters as the horror of the devastation starts to rain down around them.

It was the worst terrorist incident in American history that took the lives of thousands yet the networks are afraid of a few swear words uttered by firefighters in the midst of the most horrendous disaster they've ever witnessed?

The article goes on to say that CBS has already shown the documentary twice and has not been fined yet 12 of their affiliates refuse to air it. Why? Because CBS originally broadcast the film in 2002 and since then indecency fines have increased tenfold.

It would seem to me that when it comes to historical accuracy in the showing of such a major event, the last thing television networks should have to be concerned about is how complaining viewers might be offended by the occasional expletive. Anyone who would complain about such a thing in the context of the tragedy of 9/11 obviously can't see the forest for the trees. What was indecent about 9/11 was the lives lost and the massive destruction caused. If someone is so distraught about a few cuss words appearing in the telling of that story, they should just stick to watching cartoons - not Sponge Bob or the Teletubbies though, since those are, apparently, obscene as well.

4 More Canadian Soldiers Die in Afghanistan

A recent lengthy piece in Maclean's magazine about the war in Afghanistan, the country's history and Canada's role in the region ends with this conclusion:

Canadians may find consolation in thinking that the deaths of young soldiers add up to the price of continuing a proud history of helping out in the world. And so it is. But the duration of the NATO and U.S. stays in Afghanistan, and the pressure for Canada to keep sacrificing those lives and spending millions, may depend more on geopolitics than generosity. In the end, Canada might even stick it out in Afghanistan long enough for Canadians back home to gradually learn to understand the place a little -- even if their politicians never do get around to making much effort to explain exactly what's going on.

And, today, we've lost 4 more soldiers while another 9 were injured in a fierce battle with insurgents and NDP leader Jack Layton has once again called for the withdrawal of Canadian troops.

"We need a made-in-Canada foreign policy, not one that's ideologically imported that follows along the pathway that has been set by the Bush administration," Layton said.

Via Macleans:

"Afghanistan is a 20-year venture," Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie declared last summer, arguing that Canada had to help free the country from the grip of "warlords and tribalism."

Leslie's words generated a few news stories, but should have commanded much more attention. His is a highly educated guess. He was decorated for service under fire in Bosnia, the closest experience Canadians have to the sort of tough nation-building Afghanistan needs. He also led Canadian forces based in Kabul in 2003, and was recently named head of our land forces. Hillier has also mused about at least a 10-year stay, although he didn't specify if he meant Canadian troops, perhaps meaning that more generally NATO or other outside forces would have to remain.

Harper was prompted by Hillier's remark to issue a public reminder that elected politicians, not uniformed officers, decide when a Canadian military mission will end. True enough. But the Prime Minister has barely hinted at what signs of progress toward security in Afghanistan would indicate that Canada's army is no longer needed. That seems to violate Department of National Defence policy, which states that before sending troops into any failing country, the government should have a clear "exit strategy" or define the "end-state" conditions that signal mission accomplished. Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate national security and defence committee, has pressed for such clarity, first from the Liberals and now the Conservatives. "The committee is very critical of the government," Kenny says, "for not describing what it expects to achieve."

The lip service given to any form of an exit strategy in the rushed spring debate and vote this past spring in Parliament to extend Canada's committment through NATO another 2 years practically ensured that no matter what happened on the ground in Afghanistan, anyone who opposed the mission would be on the receiving end of American-style charges of 'cutting and running'. That, however, does not reflect the loss of support in the Canadian public who demand answers about the scope and effectiveness of the mission - which many still believe is one of peacekeeping, albeit on steroids.

Canadians who did support this country's involvement had done so first believing in the need to participate in America's war on terror and then in the idealistic promise that we would accepted as friends just there to lend a hand as they rebuild their country (flowers and candy, anyone?). The reality since the fighting increased this year, however, has shown that what we are involved in is still a full-fledged war.

Critics of those who want our troops to come home state that Canadians are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to bring peace to Afghanistan and they have completely ignored the extremely troubled history of the region which shows just how difficult of a challenge Afghanistan has been to the largest of military empires in the past. Yet, they believe that modest amounts of foreign aid coupled with Canadian goodwill and a few firefights here and there will change the course of that history. And, with that, we are told to be patient.

Canadians have a right and a duty to ask their elected officials to be accountable for their military policy in Afghanistan. And, if Canadians collectively decide that it's time for our troops to come home knowing that any deficiencies in troop numbers can be made up by other members of the coalition of the willing - especially the United States, which is pulling its troops out now that NATO is taking over - our voices deserve to be heard. We should not be held hostage by the policies of other countries. Nor should we have treaded into an experimental NATO mission in which plans are made on the fly.

What does 'success' in Afghanistan look like?

That's the question PM Harper and Defence Minister O'Connor need to answer so the public can make an informed decision as to whether it will continue to support an open-ended committment without a clear-cut goal or whether it wants Canada's participation to end now.

Sunday Food for Thought

There have been indications since November the 22nd of 1963--and that was not the last indication--that there is excessive power in some parts of our government. It is plain that the people have not received all of the truth about some of the things which have happened, about some of the assassinations which have occurred--and more particularly about the assassination of John Kennedy.
[...]
The government's handling of the investigation of John Kennedy's murder was a fraud. It was the greatest fraud in the history of our country. It probably was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of humankind. That doesn't mean that we have to accept the continued existence of the kind of government which allows this to happen. We can do something about it. We're forced either to leave this country or to accept the authoritarianism that has developed--the authoritarianism which tells us that in the year 2029 we can see the evidence about what happened to John Kennedy.

Government does not consist only of secret police and domestic espionage operations and generals and admirals--government consists of people. It also consists of juries. And cases of murder--whether of the poorest individual or the most distinguished citizen in the land--should be looked at openly in a court of law, where juries can pass on them and not be hidden, not be buried like the body of the victim beneath concrete for countless years.

You men in these recent weeks have heard witnesses that no one else in the world has heard. You've seen the Zapruder film. You've seen what happened to your President. I suggest to you that you know right now that, in that area at least, a fraud has been perpetrated.

That does not mean that our government is entirely bad; and I want to emphasize that. It does mean, however, that in recent years, through the development of excessive power because of the Cold War, forces have developed in our government over which there is no control and these forces have an authoritarian approach to justice--meaning, they will let you know what justice is.

Well, my reply to them is that we already know what justice is. It is the decision of the people passing on the evidence. It is the jury system. In this issue which is posed by the government's conduct in concealing the evidence in this case--in the issue of humanity as opposed to power--I have chosen humanity, and I will do it again without any hesitation. I hope every one of you will do the same. I do this because I love my country and because I want to communicate to the government that we will not accept unexplained assassinations with the casual information that if we live seventy-five years longer, we might be given more evidence.

In this particular case, massive power was brought to bear to prevent justice from ever coming into this courtroom. The power to make authoritive pronouncements, the power to manipulate the news media by the release of false information, the power to interfere with an honest inquiry and the power to provide an endless variety of experts to testify in behalf of power, repeatedly was demonstrated in this case.

The American people have yet to see the Zapruder film. Why? The American people have yet to see and hear from the real witnesses to the assassination. Why? Because, today in America too much emphasis is given to secrecy, with regard to the assassination of our President, and not enough emphasis is given to the question of justice and to the question of humanity.

These dignified deceptions will not suffice. We have had enough of power without truth. We don't have to accept power without truth or else leave the country. I don't accept either of these two alternatives. I don't intend to leave the country and I don't intend to accept power without truth.

I intend to fight for the truth. I suggest that not only is this not un-American, but it is the most American thing we can do--because if the truth does not endure, then our country will not endure.

In our country the worst of all crimes occurs when the government murders truth. If it can murder truth, it can murder freedom. If it can murder freedom, it can murder your own sons--if they should dare to fight for freedom-- and then it can announce that they were killed in an industrial accident, or shot by the "enemy" or God knows what.

That was a portion of NOLA District Attorney Jim Garrison's closing summation in his case against Clay Shaw who was charged with conspiracy in the assassination of John F Kennedy. Mr Shaw was not found guilty as a result of that trial, but the message of Mr Garrison some 40 years ago that the American government was so mired in secrecy and power that it would hide the truth of the most grievous occurances of the time - the assasinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr, while expecting the stupified public to believe that they were killed by a succession of lone gunmen: Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray, is a stark reminder that we simply don't know what we don't know. Too many people, although suspicious, continue to believe that they cannot be manipulated by their government and thrive on the false hope that so-called conspiracy theories are fictitious nonsense.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Sunday's New York Times has an article informing the public that 2 new reports have been released in order to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories: one written by the State Department's Orwellian 'counter misinformation team' and the other by the government's National Institute of Standards and Technology. Anyone who would take these government produced reports as the final word on the truth of what happened on 9/11 must also believe that those lone gunmen assassins acted alone and that Arlen Specter's magic bullet theory about the Kennedy assasination was true.

There are many questions surrounding what happened on 9/11 but the one that most interests me is why 28 pages related to Saudi Arabia were blacked out when the commission released its final report. What are those in power hiding? Along with that, why hasn't Osama bin Laden been formally charged? When asked about the fact that bin Laden's FBI 'Most Wanted' listing didn't include any charges related to 9/11, the response recently given to the Washington Post was this:

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

What kind of 'logic' might that be and why didn't Rex Tomb tell the WaPo reporters what he reportedly admitted to the Muckracker's Ed Haas? That the FBI 'has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'?

It's not my intention through this post to investigate all of the aspects surrounding coverups by corrupt American governments that we are all too familiar with. That's been done by several people with far more access and information throughout the years than I can claim to possess. All anyone needs to do is to connect the dots between the Bushes> Texas oilmen > the Saudis > the CIA > The FBI> Nixon > Johnson >KBR > Bechtel >Halliburton > Lockheed-Martin> the military-industrial complex> underground arms sales > military coups and on and on. That, in itself, can take a lifetime to begin to unravel.

So, I return to my main point: we don't know what we don't know. And, further, we cannot count on those who claim to have our best interests at heart to actually inform us any time soon because they believe the truth is something that citizens must be protected from.

Just as Adam and Eve angered God when Eve ate forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, according to the bible, the new self-selected proponents of the Religion of Terror: the Father (Dick Cheney), the Son (George Bush) and the Holy Ghost (Karl Rove) also propagate the belief that knowledge is dangerous and that if we were to indulge in the forbidden truth, we would also become too keenly aware of our own nakedness (naivete) and would thus become horrified - left to wander through life in toil rather than receiving God's grace of perfection as a gift. The new Trinity must not be disobeyed.

Today's sinners have been relabeled by the new false prophets as traitors, fascists and communists who are committing acts of treason against the ultimate powers that be and, because they are evil, they must be made to suffer for it. This is the subtlety underlying the recent chorus of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld speeches that has so outraged the populous who have been offended by these strong charges and which has comforted the true believers (the right-wingers who choose to obey their masters, no matter what).

George Bush was right: there is a clash of civilizations. But, it's not between the west and radical Islam. It's an internal clash in North America between those who fight for the truth and those who continue to suppress it in the name of power - the true authoritarian fascists.

The real war of this time is the War on Truth. Have we advanced in our fight any more than where we all were when Jim Garrison gave his closing argument almost 40 years ago? More importantly, are we still willing to honour his legacy and those whose lives were taken from us - those who led the battle of our time for peace and civil rights? John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. - victims of a vicious secret machine that still lives and breaths in Washington today. We believe we deserve the truth. Just how much are we willing to risk in order to get it?

US Army Recommends Death Penalty for Accused Soldiers

In quite a dramatic move, AP reports that a US Army investigator has requested the death penalty in the case of four soldiers charged with killing 3 Iraqi men, which he has concluded was a premeditated act.

The soldiers, all from the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 101st Airborne Division's 187th Infantry Regiment, are accused of killing three Iraqi men taken from a house May 9 on a marshy island outside Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett and Spc. Juston R. Graber have claimed they were ordered to "kill all military age males" during the raid on the island. According to statements from some of the soldiers, they were told the target was an al-Qaida training camp.

Hunsaker told investigators that he and Clagett were attacked by the three men, who were being handcuffed, and shot them in self-defense. Clagett said he was hit in the face, and Hunsaker claimed he was stabbed during the attack.

Prosecutors argue the soldiers conspired to kill the men and then altered the scene to fit their story. They contend Girouard stabbed Hunsaker as part of the killing plot.

Clagett, Girouard and Hunsaker also are accused of threatening to kill another soldier who witnessed the slayings. Girouard, the most senior soldier charged, faces several additional charges, including sexual harassment and carrying a personal weapon on duty.

It's very doubtful that the death penalty will be the final outcome in this case since it hasn't been used in the arm since the early 1960s. As one who is opposed to capital punishment, I can only hope that these soldiers face sentences of life in prison for what they have allegedly done. There has been no real justice in cases involving the death and torture of Iraqis as most soldiers found guilty have just been given the proverbial slap on the wrist.

The other aspect of this case that's disturbing is the claim that these soldiers were told to kill all military-aged males. That definitely requires more investigation but the defense of "we were just following orders" cannot be allowed to stand.

New Canadian Poll Numbers

Extra! Extra! read all about it: The Conservatives are stuck in opinion poll hell.

Two new polls from Ipsos-Reid and Decima show that if an election was held tomorrow, the Cons would still find themselves in a minority government situation and the Liberals need to pay attention to the fact that the Conservatives' support of Israel has cost them voters - expecially in Quebec.

The survey of 1,002 Canadian voters showed support for the Conservatives had slipped to 38 percent, from 39 percent in a July poll, while backing for the opposition Liberals rose to 29 percent from 27 percent.

But Conservative support had fallen to just 22 percent in Quebec, from a high of 34 percent soon after Canada's federal election in January.
[...]
A Decima survey of 1,010 voters, published by Canadian Press late on Friday, showed the Conservatives with 31 percent support, compared with 28 percent for the Liberals.

About 41 percent of those polled said the Conservatives had done a good enough job to deserve re-election, while 41 percent said that was not the case.

The CBC has more on the Decima poll results:

When it comes to national voting intentions, the poll suggests the Conservatives continue to lag behind the numbers they picked up in the January election.

The survey found 33 per cent support for the Tories among decided voters across the country compared with the 36.3 per cent they won in January.

The Liberals had 28 per cent, down from the election showing of 30.2 per cent.

The NDP was at 19 per cent, above their election night 17.5 per cent. The Bloc was holding steady at 10 per cent.

I have no idea why the Reuters article says the Cons are at 31% while the CBC has them at 33%. The numbers aren't up on Decima's web site yet. Regardless, the fact that they're sitting at such a low number bodes well for the opposition parties who need to grab onto this momentum and push back hard against a government that has already proven to be arrogant - the very charge the Cons foisted against the Liberals all of those years. In Harper's case, however, it only took a matter of months to attain that reputation and it's doubtful he'll change his strategy any time soon. As long as the Conservatives stay on this course, they're doomed to failure and that is Good Thing™.

Talking to the Taliban

Via the Globe and Mail:

OTTAWA -- Canada should withdraw its troops from the current mission in southern Afghanistan and invite Taliban fighters to peace talks, NDP Leader Jack Layton said yesterday.

"We believe that a comprehensive peace process has to bring all combatants to the table. You don't accomplish peace if those who are fighting are not involved in the peace-based discussion," he said.

Those sentiments, coming from Layton, ought not be a surprise, but they sure didn't merit an attack like this:

Today's important Globe and Mail story "buries the lead". It's not really news that Jack Layton of the NDP wants our troops to cut and run from Afghanistan (just months after a vote in the House of Commons extended our mission there till 2009) or that Layton wants to negotiate with Taliban terrorists (is NDP star candidate, Monia Mazigh -- wife of Maher Arar -- Layton's terrorism advisor?)

The author of that libelous attack: Ezra Levant of the Western Standard. Maher Arar is the Canadian man intercepted by US authorities in 2002 in New York who was 'extraordinarily rendered' to Syria where he was tortured for months before finally being set free. His wife, Monia, ran in the last election in Ottawa South but lost to Liberal David McGuinty. She fought tirelessly to win her husband's release and for Levant to use his grandstanding, attention-whoring platform to attack her by associating her with terrorists is beyond the pale.

Please write to the Western Standard at this address and demand a retraction: info@westernstandard.ca

Now, moving on to the fact that the Liberal's defence critic Ujjal Donsajh told the G&M that he also supports the idea of negotiations with the Taliban:

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh also rejected the NDP call to withdraw troops, but agreed that talks with the Taliban could be helpful.
[...]
Mr. Dosanjh did not criticize Mr. Layton for wanting talks with the Taliban. He said Afghan President Hamid Karzai has recently urged foreign troops to treat insurgents as Afghan citizens and diminish the focus on killing.

"Whether or not it involves the Taliban fighters, I think we need to recognize that Mr. Karzai has said that whenever we're killing Taliban, they are Afghani, many of them," he said.

Will Dosanjh get a free pass for making such a suggestion or will he also be forced to resign like Borys Wrzesnewskyj? Anything less would reek of hypocrisy on the part of the Liberal party, wouldn't it?

While the idea of including the Taliban in peace talks might be extremely offensive to those who believe that you should never negotiate with terrorists, the fact is that NATO has secretly been doing exactly that:

Thursday, August 17, 2006

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- High-stakes talks involving Canadian and other NATO officials were underway Thursday that could see insurgents put down their weapons in a key Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan.

The clandestine negotiations, led by Afghan authorities but involving NATO intermediaries, were being held as hundreds of Taliban fighters amassed within two kilometres of a Canadian outpost west of Kandahar, preparing for battle.

The unprecedented talks are so sensitive that, officially, NATO insisted it was not in direct contact with Taliban leaders.

“ISAF hasn’t been approached by any faction of the Taliban,” said Canadian Forces Maj. Scott Lundy, a NATO spokesman. “At this point, no official involvement.”

However, intermediaries quietly got involved after Taliban leaders insisted on talks with NATO’s International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, or other international facilitators, rather than with the Afghan government, The Canadian Press has learned.

“In fact, they are scared of the government,” an Afghan official said of the Taliban leadership, on condition of anonymity.

“Their requirements are to talk with (ISAF) or with the (UN). ... They trust these two organizations more than anyone else.”

Lundy acknowledged NATO was at least aware that talks were going on. “There is a dialogue underway already with some Taliban in Kandahar province,” he said.

So, while Layton and Dosanjh have already been roundly criticized for for their statements about talking to the Taliban, what those critics won't admit is that it's already being done.

When military missions like those in Afghnistan, Iraq and Lebanon fail because the nature of the counter-insugency strikes are not effective in winning the peace, there must be alternatives. The black and white thinking that holds fast to the idea that these wars can come to a successful conclusion if only more bombs are dropped, more insurgents are killed and more civilians are placed in peril to the detriment of the supposed aims of those who brought the battle to those countries in the first place is and has been a recipe for disaster. That is why, sooner or later, you must talk to your enemy.

Afghan president Karzai cannot put up with the situation in his country indefinitely and the ongoing instability is weakening the democratically-elected government - the same effect that Israel's attacks on Lebanon produced:

According to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, most Afghans have long favored a process of amnesty and reconciliation; and President Hamid Karzai recently called on the Bush administration to change course and stop killing Afghans. But US administration policy, recently reaffirmed in Kabul by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, calls for a fight to the last Talib.

Predictably, Afghan public opinion has been turning steadily against the largely powerless central government, guarded in the capital by foreign forces. The insecurity endured by most Afghans - the absence of peace - is enough to make them give up hope in President Karzai, often jeeringly referred to as the "mayor of Kabul" or "assistant to the American ambassador".

The American nation building experiments in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed.

Critics of US Afghan policy agree that the Bush administration, in its haste to take out Saddam Hussein's Iraq, did things backward. After bombing the Taliban into the boondocks in 2001, it set up a government without first making peace - a scenario later to be repeated in Iraq.

Instead of pressing for peace negotiations among rival Afghan parties, the victorious Americans handed power to Islamists and militia commanders who had served as America's stand-in soldiers in its Afghan proxy war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Then the Bush administration staged elections for these candidates and touted the result as democracy.

So, what options are left at this point? If the NATO-led coalition just plans to 'stay the course' in Afghanistan, as the Americans have in Iraq, the future is predictable: endless fighting with no hope in site. And, while politicians squabble about whether or not it's appropriate to speak to the enemy in order to foster peace, innocent civilians are dying every single day - as are coalition soldiers. 14 Brits lost their lives in what is believed to be an accidental helicopter crash on Saturday while Canadian casualties have also multiplied this summer. Just how long do those politicians expect the public to support a mission that's not bringing the desired results? And, how much more will it cost in lives and lost hearts and minds before they change course? We, as citizens with soldiers in those war zones, deserve to know the answers to those questions and should not be expected to support such a mission silently, without dissent and a call for action.

Layton is right. Dosanjh is right. And, Wrzesnewskyj was right. And those who refuse to acknowledge the fact that only negotiations can bring peace when all else has failed hold the lives of all of our soldiers and those innocent civilians on their conscience.

There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy.
- George Washington

Listen to your enemy, for God is talking.
- Jewish Proverb

If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.
- Moshe Dyan

In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us.
- Thich Nhat Hanh

“From a certain point of view our real enemy, the true troublemaker, is inside.”
- The Dalai Lama

See also: Talking to Hezbollah

Conservatives Give the Boot to Alan Riddell

According to one Conservative party official, Riddell was 'an embarassment'. Why? Because he had the audacity to make public the fact that he was promised $50,000 to step aside from running in his riding of Ottawa South to make room for Allan Cutler (who lost anyway). And, when Riddell didn't get his money, he sued.

Yes, I'd say that is embarassing for the Conservative party, but does a man attempting to pursue due process through the courts deserve to be kicked out of his party?

The campaign to remove him from the party began back in May. National council member Sam Magnus made the formal request, saying Riddell's lawsuit was "an embarrassment to the party, including a virtual harassment" of party brass.

Riddell's riding association wrote to officials, urging them not to eject the man and underlining his good standing with the Conservatives.

Over the last two weeks, Conservative officials have rejected applications from at least three party members to run for the nominations in their ridings.

The would-be candidates complain that the reasons they were blocked were not revealed, and they were asked to sign confidentiality agreements that barred them from discussing their situations later.

Maybe they dressed up as Sgt Schultz when they were 17 too? (Is that tidbit even true? Apparently, Susan Riley thought it was, but I haven't found any other references to it.)

Friday Fun: When Good Cats Go Bad

Ouch!!

'Klein Admits Tories Didn't Plan For Boom'

The huge, front page headline in the paper edition of Friday's Calgary Herald is this: Klein Admits Tories Didn't Plan For Boom. The online version is much kinder to Ralph and the Conservative government: 'Klein admits Tories goofed on growth'. 'Goofed'? How can such a serious admission about such a blatant mishandling of Alberta's future growth be seen as anything resembling a mere goof up? How insulting to Albertans.

EDMONTON - Premier Ralph Klein bid adieu to the legislature Thursday, but not before conceding his government has no plan for Alberta's scorching economy and that he only foresaw the unsustainable growth emerging as little as six months ago.

In doing so, Klein admitted his political opponents' charges that he didn't have a growth strategy were right all along.

He said only now, with the economy unsustainable, is his government developing a plan with surplus cash to meet the mounting pressures of the energy-fuelled economy.

"They were right about not having a plan," Klein told a packed news conference. "There wasn't a plan. . . . The plan is being developed, but no one could anticipate the phenomenal growth that was taking place."

Right and no one could have anticipated the breach of the levees in NOLA either.

Klein said Alberta's economic boom -- which is spurring a labour crisis, soaring housing prices and worrisome inflation levels -- came on "quite suddenly" and was driven by soaring oil prices over the past several months.

So dramatic was the energy bonanza, Klein said, that it could be compared with the bust of the oil markets in the 1980s.

Exactly. And who was in power during the 80s? The Conservatives? And who was the mayor of Calgary at the time when the same growth scenario was happening? Ralph Klein. And who completely mismanaged this oil boom? Ralph Klein and the Conservatives.

This growth didn't come about just within the past few months. It's been happening for a long time. The oilsands project and the energy crisis that has been brewing for years are not new phenomenons.

The lack of planning and foresight by the Klein government is extreme negligence of the worst kind and the admission at this late date of that fact is absolutely stunning considering the boom/bust history of this province.

It completely caught him off guard, Klein added, acknowledging he only realized six or eight months ago the "phenomenal growth" taking place in the province, particularly in the oilsands.

"No one knew that there was going to be this worldwide demand for oil and gas, this insatiable demand," Klein said.

He also admitted Alberta's growth isn't proceeding at the government's desired pace, saying a "proper" economy should be sustainable.

"We were prepared for sustainable growth, but not the kind of growth that occurred," he said. "It's not the kind of economy that I would like."

It's exactly the kind of economy that he likes. Oil royalties collected by the government make it so simple to keep this province debt free that a monkey with a calculator could run Alberta's economy. And, most likely, that monkey would have the sense to pay for the desperate infrastructure and housing needs that have come along with all of this growth.

While the Klein government consistently lowballed surpluses during the 90s, the population suffered through severely damaging health care cuts, crumbling roads, a shortage of schools, pay cuts for health care workers and teachers and a disdain for the environment. In fact, it seemed the only thing the Klein government would invest in was business interests that would increase budget surpluses and when that is the focus, social programs and the peoples' needs come last. It was corporate cronyism at its worst. And now that the government has more money than it knows what to do with, since all of its business buddies are swimming in it, it finally admits that the needs of the commoners weren't even on its mind after all - so much so that we have now arrived at a point where the Klein government has so much catching up to do that it never even considered planning for such a day - despite all of the economic indicators that this day would come.

Being debt free and having major surpluses isn't enough, especially when the province has been falling apart for so long. There is no acceptable excuse for this lack of vision. Albertans have been left behind far too long while Ralph Klein was busy working on his personal legacy, to the detriment of the majority of the people. It may be udnerstandable that a leader would focus on what the history books might say about him, but what about the rest of his caucus? Was there not even one person in that entire apparatus who spoke out to indicate there might be a problem with the government's handling of Alberta affairs? Not one who could have predicted this boom? Not one who even cared enough to push for a plan for growth? Not one who wasn't opposed to Klein's lack of ability to foresee the future?

Apparently not. And for that reason, it's time for a government that can actually deal with the realities on the ground. The Conservatives have failed to such an extent that they deserve to be punted for a very long time. While they're gone, maybe they can do some research about what planning for the future is really all about, because it's obvious they have absolutely no clue what's involved in governing beyond slashing and burning while cozying up to their corporate masters.

Also posted at The Next Agenda

WaPo Attacks Joe Wilson

A Washington Post editorial, most likley written by Bob Woodward, not only attempts to exonerate the Bush cabal from outing Valerie Plame for political purposes - it attacks her husband, Joe Wilson, as well.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

That is one huge leap to make considering this litany of evidence compiled by Media Matters to debunk that claim since news of Armitage's role was exposed. As for the idea that all of this might have been avoided...apparently Fitzgerald did know about Armitage's role and had to continue with his investigation regardless - and rightly so.

The fact that Libby lied, resulting in charges of obstruction of justice for which he has yet to be tried, apparently means nothing to the author of that editorial. Why did Libby lie if the outing of Plame was simply a little mistake that should have blown over a long time ago? What WaPo doesn't seem to get is that the outing of an undercover CIA agent is one of the most serious offenses a government can face. If it had been done innocently and inadvertently, that should have come to the fore long ago. But, it didn't. And that suggests there is far more to this complete story than WaPo wants its readers to realize.

And then, WaPo/Woodward has the audacity to blame all of this on Joe Wilson himself:

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

No. What's unfortunate is that too many people will actually take this bullshit seriously. I won't even begin to debunk it. Anyone who's followed the case or has any common sense for that matter can see this for what it is: blaming the victim. A shameful display of revisionist history and a defense for an administration that uses the lowest form of dirty tricks to attack its opponents. That WaPo would join in on that type of smear is absolutely disgusting.