The War On...Me??

Critical Brain Candy has a post about the Republicans declaring war on catnip!

I knew they didn't like me but that reaction is a bit harsh, don't you think?

“Drug warriors scored a virtual victory after the 2006 U.S. elections when they hurriedly extended the War on Drugs to a psychoactive substance previously exempt: nepetalactone, the main psychoactive ingredient in catnip.”
[...]
Were there humans who were somehow abusing catnip? The feline receptors that react strongly to catnip lie in an organ exclusive to cats, yet the chemists say catnip may affect humans like a mild herbal sedative akin to valerian root.

Now I know some of my readers have actually passed out in the middle of reading one of my long-winded posts but it's not like they can't grab a coffee (or a librul latte) if they really want to stay awake.

I guess I should add a bullet-proof vest to my Xmas list just in case the catnip-fighting SWAT team shows up at my door. If I suddenly stop posting, you'll know what happened. Think 'Gitmo'.

Wanker of the Day: Jules Crittenden

The Boston Herald's Jules Crittenden offers Canadians an apology after stopping to recall that we actually have soldiers dying in Afghanistan and then decides to insult us again:

Here's his 'dream' for Iraq:

But I would still like to know where the Canadians, the French and the Germans in particular were when we needed them in Iraq ... if only to get out of the way. In fact, we could use a lot more troops in Iraq right now. More to the point, the Iraqis could use a lot more troops. They could also use the knowledge that the world actually gives a damn and is willing to stand with them, rather than always against us.
[...]
Tens of thousands of troops flooding in, under NATO leadership, to engage aggressively as we've seen them do in Afghanistan. Do these nations care about Iraq? They claim to. Do they care about freedom and stability in the Middle East? They pretend to. So let's end the hypocrisy. We all know what is needed in Iraq. It isn't a pullout.

And since his comments are moderated, I am reprinting my response there in case it doesn't make it through the censors on his blog:

You don't win allies by deliberately smacking them in the face and then saying your hand slipped.

You started out with an apology to my country, Canada, and then you insulted us again. As a sovereign country, we choose which wars we'll support and the fact that your war in Iraq has failed can't be fixed by us. We're already taking care of your mess in Afghanistan while the US is pulling troops and funding.

Just where, exactly, do you imagine these 'tens of thousands' of NATO troops would come from? No country in NATO besides yours has those numbers and you certainly shouldn't complain about other countries when the US doesn't have any more soldiers to spare on the battlefield either.

You need to put the responsibility for the failures of your military misadventures right where they belong - in DC in the offices of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney. This isn't about France or Canada. It's about your failed leadership and lack of proper planning.

I am sick and tired of this blame game and whining from people like Crittenden who think we're stashing 'tens of thousands' of troops somewhere that we won't send to do the bidding of the Bush administration because we supposedly don't care about what happens in other countries. If Bush hadn't started the illegal war in Iraq in the first place, which he did by lying to the world, the US wouldn't be in such a quagmire - again. And let me restate this one more time: other NATO countries are not your cleanup crew, Mr Crittenden. If your forces couldn't handle the job, they shouldn't have been committed in the first place. So, if you want to complain, send a letter to your president and leave Canada out of this. We refuse to be your whipping boy.

Gates: US Not Winning Iraq War

Bush's new nominee for Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted the obvious that few Republicans dare speak of during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday and it was not the Rumsfeldian type of Good News™ that warmongering idealogues like to hear:

“We are not winning the war in Iraq, is that correct?” Mr. McCain asked.

“That is my view, yes, senator,” Mr. Gates replied, adding shortly afterward that the that the United States is not losing the war either.

It's like a little league game apparently - even when you lose, you win.

And via WaPo:

Asked by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, whether "you believe we're currently winning in Iraq," Gates answered, "No, sir.

CNN's Pentagon reporter Barbara Star reacted to Gates' admission by wondering aloud how it might affect the troops on the ground to hear that their next boss doesn't think that the US isn't winning. Well, I think many of them already know that and lying to them continually as Bush and Rumsfeld have isn't exactly a morale booster either.

When he was asked if Iraq was in a state of civil war, Gates danced all around the question and after stating that 'most of the bads guys in the Middle East' are in Iraq, he said he doesn't know 'how you describe that'. How about 'hell'?

Ray McGovern has more on Gates' history and why his confirmation should be carefully scrutinized:

The Armed Services Committee's ranking member, Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who voted against Gates' nomination in 1991 to be director of the CIA, said he wanted to give Gates a "fresh look; a lot of time has passed." Well, highly damaging evidence has come to light since 1991, implicating Gates in some of the most serious national-security scandals of the 1980s. Veteran investigative reporter Robert Parry, for one, has been providing chapter and verse on ConsortiumNews.com.

For example, in January 1995, Howard Teicher, who served on President Reagan's National Security Council staff, submitted a sworn affidavit detailing the activities of Gates and his then-boss, CIA Director William Casey, in secretly providing arms to Iraq. This violated the Arms Export Control Act in two ways: ignoring the requirement to notify Congress; and providing arms to a state designated as a sponsor of terrorism.

It gets worse. To grease the skids for a similar adventure involving weapons to Iran, Gates ordered his more malleable subordinates at the CIA to cook up intelligence reports to provide some comfort to Reagan in acquiescing to these activities. A National Intelligence Estimate of May 1985 predicted Soviet inroads in Iran if the United States did not reach out to "moderates" within the Iranian leadership.

In addition, Gates' analysts were pressed to publish several reports beginning in late 1985 – as HAWK anti-aircraft missiles wended their way to Tehran – that Iranian-sponsored terrorism had "dropped off substantially." There was no persuasive evidence to support that judgment.

As part of my official duties at the time, I took steps to make Gates aware of this a month before he wrote in articles in the Washington Post, Foreign Affairs magazine, and our professional journal Studies in Intelligence that, "No CIA publication asserted these things." I then tried in vain to get him to correct the record.

As McGovern wrote, the 'anybody but Rumsfeld' mood plays to Gates' advantage but that doesn't mean his nomination should be rubber-stamped.

It is difficult to believe that senators have become so used to being diddled by administration officials and nominees that they shy away from looking seriously into such matters. After the brutal nomination hearings in 1991, then-Sen. Tom Daschle addressed the $64,000 question – "Whether Gates might continue to trim the truth" – and insisted: "We cannot afford to take that chance."

These hearings could have been delayed until the Democrats are in charge in January. There is an acting Secretary of Defence who certainly can't possibly mess things up any more than they already have been by Rumsfeld but it seems like the Democrats have decided to acquiesce to give Bush the secretary he wants. The least they can do at this point is to ensure that everything about Gates' history is placed on the table for all to see.

If you're interested in watching or listening to Gates' hearing, tune into CSPAN3.

New Poll: Liberals Make Gains

Source: The Strategic Counsel / CTV / The Globe and Mail
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,000 Canadian adults, conducted on Dec. 3, 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent. (link)

It looks like the NDP is set to lose even more support when the special interest 'big ass' constituency finds out that Layton wants to cancel their subsidies.

Religious Bully: Charles McVety

Mr so-called 'family values' Charles McVety is threatening Liberals who vote against the Cons same sex marriage bill.

Via canada.com:

OTTAWA (CP) - Christian activists will make life hell on the next campaign trail for MPs who break their vows to protect traditional marriage, says a staunch opponent of gay weddings.

Charles McVety, head of the independent Defend Marriage movement, will be in Ottawa on Wednesday when Parliament is set to debate a Conservative motion that could reopen Liberal schisms on a touchy subject.

It calls on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage "while respecting existing same-sex marriages." A vote is expected Thursday.
[...]
McVety says he'll be closely watching more than 30 Liberal MPs who voted against gay weddings. Many have publicly said they'll work to restore marriage as the exclusive domain of one man, one woman.

If those MPs vote against the Tory motion "then they are against the traditional definition of marriage," said McVety, also president of Canada Christian College.

"That message will be taken to their constituents during the next election. We will rally armies of volunteers to work against them - to work for their opponent [sic]."

At stake is the religious freedom of clergy and educators, along with the interests of children who are best raised by a mother and father, says McVety.

You and your armies can mount whatever kind of crusades you want to McVety, but the days of radical evangelicals influencing politics in North America are over. See: States, United; Administration: Bush; and Results: US Election 2006.

Did RCMP Chief Zaccardelli Commit Perjury?

Via The Toronto Star:

RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli made a stunning about-face today, saying he and other senior RCMP officials did not know the RCMP conveyed wrong information to American authorities about Maher Arar.

That information, concluded an inquiry judge, "very likely" led to his deportation to torture in Syria.

In a complete contradiction of earlier testimony before a parliamentary committee, Zaccardelli now claims he was unaware throughout Arar's detention by the U.S., and later Syria, of the RCMP missteps.

"When ministers were briefed about the circumstances of the Arar case, their briefings did not include the fact that some inaccurate information had been provided to the Americans by the RCMP," Zaccardelli told a business audience.

"This was not recognized by the RCMP at the time, and senior officials including myself were not informed until the commission of inquiry had completed its work."

The country's top national law enforcement officer was speaking to the Canadian Club of Ottawa.

Later, he denied any discrepancy in his versions, and said he would "clear up any misinterpretation" of his earlier statements tomorrow.
[...]
In September, Zaccardelli claimed the Mounties owned up to errors made in informing the United States that Arar was an "Islamic extremist" tied to Al Qaeda and that he personally had informed himself of the details in the case "shortly after" Arar's jailing in Syria was confirmed to Ottawa in late October 2002.

But three former Liberal solicitors general, who were the political bosses responsible for the RCMP, told the committee they were never informed of that mistaken labelling of Arar.

Did Zaccardelli lie to the committee? Is he lying now? Or has he left himself enough wiggle room with today's statement to avoid a perjury charge? More importantly, when will he resign?

Richard Dawkins Answers Reader Questions

Fans of Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) will enjoy this piece in The Independent where he answers readers' questions. Dawkins has the kind of sarcastic wit that I enjoy.

CBC's Avi Lewis recently hosted a Big Picture episode in which he featured clips from the documentary 'The Root of all Evil'. You can watch clips from that show and the resulting discussion here.

Write Your Own Caption

Bush met with Shi'ite leader and Sadr rival Abdul Aziz al-Hakim on Monday. Wiki has an interesting pic of Rummy meeting with al-Hakim some time ago:

al-Hakim: 'Are you doing the reconstruction work yourself, Mr Secretary?'
That's almost as bad as Cheney's Auschwitz fashion faux pas:

'Bull Leaving the China Shop'

Via Reuters:

"The bull is leaving the china shop of multilateral politics. This is good news for the world -- and the U.S.A.," said Juergen Trittin, former environment minister and deputy head of the opposition Greens in the German parliament.

You got that right!

Layton's 'big ass' Gaffe

When NDP leader Jack Layton took his opportunity to question the Harper government during Monday's question period, working his way up to a frenzy over government inaction on the environment, he reached this totally hilarious and unintended climax:

Mr Speaker, the question is after all these years of inaction, will the prime minister finally get something done and do something the former government wouldn't and cancel the sad subisidies to big oil and big ass...

To which Harper replied:

Well Mr Speaker, I promise to get to the bottom of it.

You should have seen the looks on the faces of the NDP MPs who surrounded Layton at the moment he screwed up. Absolutey priceless. And the resulting laughter from all members in the house of commons drowned Layton out before he could even finish his question (thankfully...who knows what other subsidies Jack might have gone after if he had more time? I shudder to even think about it...)

Watch for this clip to show up on 22 Minutes and the Rick Mercer Show.

Update: When faced with a clip of his gaffe during CTV's Question Period today, Layton tried (unsuccessfully) to make it sound like it was a planned stunt. Right. And I'm the Queen of England.