Seriously Twisted Bushco Logic

Friday's New York Times reports that the US State Department is investigating Israel's use of cluster bombs during the war.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — The State Department is investigating whether Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.

The investigation by the department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.

This will, of course, be a toothless investigation with no repercussions for Israel.

What is bizarre standard operating procedure for Bushco is this twisted logic, however:

Several current and former officials said that they doubted the investigation would lead to sanctions against Israel but that the decision to proceed with it might be intended to help the Bush administration ease criticism from Arab governments and commentators over its support of Israel’s military operations.

1. Cluster bombs kill and maim people in a very ugly way.
2. The US sold Israel cluster bombs.
3. The IDF used those cluster bombs to help decimate Lebanon during which hundreds of civilians were killed, wounded and displaced.
4. Bushco thinks that as long as it says Israel violated some secret agreement by using the NYT to leak this propaganda, the world - and most especially those opposed to the US military machine - will now let the US off the hook.
5. Bushco is deranged.
6. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results:

A Congressional investigation after Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon found that Israel had used the weapons against civilian areas in violation of the agreements. In response, the Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on further sales of cluster weapons to Israel.

Newflash, Bushco: There are still many people in the Middle East who hate America and it's not because of its so-called "freedoms".

Stockwell Day May Heart Terrorists Too!

In an online CBC story about Liberal reactions to Jason Kenney's tete a tete with the MEK, you'll find this little paragraph at the very end:

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day reportedly sent his best wishes to the Iranian group ahead of a rally they held in Paris.

Let that sink in...the Public Safety Minister...whose own web site lists the MEK as a terrorist organization.

O.M.G.

Let's hope someone has a copy or tape of those "best wishes" he allegedly sent. If this is true, Day ought to be joining Kenney on that plate of toast while hoping that at least dogs will still love him.




Update: It gets better. Day railed against adding the MEK to Canada's list of banned entities:

Thu. 26 May 2005

Conservative Foreign Affairs critic Stockwell Day said the group, also known as MEK, has confined its attacks to military and regime targets and that Public Security Minister Anne McLellan has twisted the meaning of the word "terrorism."

"She's using harsher language against the MEK than the government has used against the rape, torture and murder of Zahra Kazemi. It's bizarre and it looks like appeasement of a repressive regime."

Day says the timing of the announcement, just 48 hours after Iran told Canada to stop interfering in their investigation of the Kazemi case, will be interpreted by Tehran as a capitulation.

He questioned why a group that has existed for 40 years should only become terrorist now nearly two years after it announced it was laying down its arms.

"The timing and the intelligence around this is strange to say the least."

Bush's 'Desperate Soundbites'

Bombshell: Kenney Addressed Banned Terrorist Group

Oh, this is just too deliciously ironic! My member of parliament, uber-Conservative Jason Kenney, who likened Hezbollah to Nazis this week - a view endorsed by Steve - had this to say about consorting with groups identified by the Canadian government as being terrorists:

In Ottawa, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary lashed out at the trio of opposition MPs visiting Lebanon, comparing Hezbollah to the German Nazi party of the 1930s.

"We need to learn the lessons of history. There was another political party in the past which had democratic support, which provided social services, which played an important role in the political life of Germany in the 1930s, which was also dedicated to violence against the Jewish people," Kenney told a news conference.

"The world was wrong to negotiate with that party then, and it would be wrong to negotiate with Hezbollah today."

So, why did Kenney speak to a group on the steps of Parliament Hill this past April that is also designated as a terrorist organization?

A photograph of Kenney, who is Prime Minister Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary, appears on the website of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the political wing of the PMOI, or People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

The PMOI is one of the names used by the MEK, or Mujahedin-e-Khalq, an armed Iranian rebel group formally designated as a terrorist organization by the governments of Canada, the United States and the European Union. The Canadian government put the group on its official terror list in May 2005.

Kenney is shown addressing an April 6 rally on Parliament Hill, and the group says he welcomed participants "on his own behalf as well as the Prime Minister."

The group touts Kenney's support, saying "dozens of Iranians and supporters of the Iranian Resistance joined in a rally in front of the Canadian Parliament to condemn (the) clerical regime's plan to execute political prisoners in Iran, specially those affiliated to the PMOI."

The group has been lobbying to persuade governments in the United States and United Kingdom to remove it from their terror blacklists, and promotes itself as the democratic secular alternative to the Islamic clerical rulers of Iran.

But Human Rights Watch says the Iranian rebel group is itself responsible for serious human rights abuses. It interviewed former members of MEK who reported "abuses ranging from detention and persecution of ordinary members wishing to leave the organization, to lengthy solitary confinements, severe beatings and torture of dissident members."

Not only that, the MEK was funded by Saddam Hussein:

Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the group received all of its military assistance, and most of its financial support, from the former Iraqi government.
[...]
In 1986, after then French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac struck a deal with Tehran for the release of French hostages held prisoners by the Hezbollah in Lebanon, PMOI was forced to leave France and relocated in Iraq, where they received all of their military support and most of their financial support from the Iraqi regime until the 2003 American invasion of Iraq [4]

According to some reports, near the end of the 1980-1988 war with Iran, Baghdad armed the MEK with military equipment and sent it into action against Iranian forces. [3] Many believe that MKO's decision to move its headquarters to Iraq in the middle of the war, caused the MKO to lose most of its supporters in Iran, regardless of their views towards the Iranian government. For example the NIAC (National Iranian American Council) claims: "As a result [of their alliance with Saddam during the war], they are viewed as traitors by the overwhelming majority of Iranians and Iranian Americans.". [8].
[...]
According to some official sources (including U.S. Department of State, and Foreign Affairs group of the Australian Parliament) the MEK has been widely accused of assisting Saddam's Iraqi National Guard in supressing the Kurdish and Shiites uprisings of Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War [3] [6]. However the MEK has always denied this accusation.
link

It was placed on Canada's list of banned organizations in May, 2005.

CSIS has more:

On 5 April, 1992, the Iranian Air Force conducted a bombing raid on an MEK base in Iraq. Hours later, forty MEK supporters wielding sticks, crowbars and mallets attacked the Iranian embassy in Ottawa, wounding several people. Near-simultaneous attacks were carried out on Iranian Embassies in thirteen other countries around the world

On 15 February, 1999, PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan was arrested in Kenya. The next day, violent PKK supporters rioted in Montreal, and a day later in Ottawa. Several police officers were wounded, including one who lost an eye, and another who was set on fire with a Molotov cocktail.

These incidents make it clear that MEK and PKK support networks in Canada are directly linked to their parent organizations abroad. Terrorist support here contributes to the groups’ activities internationally, and when those activities trigger retaliation, violence can reverberate in Canada.

Kenney tried to use the 'I don't remember' defense when he was confronted by the fact that his picture was on the group's web site:

In an interview with the Star, Kenney said he did not remember attending the rally, then recalled an invitation from "something called the Committee for Human Rights in Iran."

The invitation came from a man Kenney said he met at the foreign affairs sub-committee on human rights.

Kenney, MP for Calgary Southeast, said he "would be shocked" to hear his picture was posted on the group's political wing website.

Directed to the website, Kenney said he was "completely unaware of the context as it is presented here, even though we had done our due diligence."

He said he did not know the rally was in support of PMOI prisoners. He said it was a small crowd of about 30 people.

"I told them I would pass by if I could. And I was running up to the Hill, I just literally grabbed a megaphone and said that the Canadian people would stand in solidarity with the Iranian people in their wish for respect for human dignity and human rights and democracy, and these were universal aspirations that all people in every country deserve to have respected, and you know, our government will stand for those universal values.

"I honestly don't recall any particular grievance that they had about any particular person in Iran or Iraq or somebody who's pending execution. At least that wasn't brought to my attention."

Kenney said he is well aware that the PMOI is also known as the MEK and is listed as a terrorist group. He then specifically recalled questioning the man who invited him — whose name he said he could not recall — at a meeting in Kenney's office after the parliamentary committee meeting. He asked if the man had any ties to "those radicals in the People's Mojahedin. And he laughed or denied it or something."

"I wanted to be sure there wasn't a connection," said Kenney. "I came away with the impression that there was no connection whatsoever."

Shorter Kenney: I got caught with my pants down. Damnit.

Wanker.

Will Steve now ask Kenney to resign? Here's what he said earlier this week:

"I think those who associate themselves with Hezbollah in this country are operating beyond the pale, and they are frankly operating in defence of an organization that is an illegal criminal organization in this country," Harper said.

So, how about it Steve? Is Kenney toast now or what?

Since Kenney is my MP, he'll definitely be hearing from me. Not only that, I will personally take on the expense of distributing that picture around this riding during the next election. You can count on that.

(h/t to Mike, who certainly made my day!)

Cherniak and His So-called Liberal Party Values

Liberal party member and blogger Jason Cherniak took quite a self-righteous stand after it was announced that the party's deputy foreign affairs critic, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, had resigned over comments he made last week about how to deal with Hezbollah.

Cherniak enthusiastically backed the call by MP Carolyn Bennett for Wrzesnewskyj to bow out. Bennett and Cherniak were particularly offeneded by Wrzesnewskyj's use of the phrase 'state terrorism' to describe Israel's actions against the population of Lebanon during the war.

So, what exactly is 'state terrorism'? Here's one way to look at it:

State terrorism, like terrorism, is controversial and there is no generally accepted definition. Often acts that critics describe as terror, supporters defend as legitimate defense against perceived threats. Generally, the definition of terrorism does not extend to states in direct and open military conflict, if the actions of their armed forces are within the laws of war.
link

The laws of war are very specific:

Some of the central principles underlying laws of war are:

* That wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction
* That wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible
* That people and property that do not contribute to the war effort be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship

To this end, laws of war are intended to mitigate the evils of war by:

* Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
* Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
* Facilitating the restoration of peace.

That, of course, is a very facile summary and documents like the Geneva Conventions provide greater guidance and specifics.

There has been much public debate about whether Israel committed war crimes. Amnesty International has released a report containing violations of those laws of war by Israel (clearly identifiable war crimes) and has called for an independent UN investigation of Israel and Hezbollah's actions during the conflict. The ICRC and Human Rights Watch (whose members have been very forceful in condemning Israel's actions) have also launched their own investigations.

Therefore, the fact that the IDF was accused by Wrzesnewskyj of participating in 'state terrorism' is not something that ought to be given short shrift by anyone - regardless of what they believe about Israel's right to defend itself. It's a serious charge that merits objective inquiry. Anyone concerned about the state of Israel and its future needs to take a serious look at its actions. Simply being offended by the thought that it may have been involved in state terrorism is not good enough. It's incumbent on people who care about the country's future to be as honest as possible about all of its affairs - lawful and unlawful. Denying something out of hand does not make it go away.

Now, as to Cherniak's views about Liberal party 'values', while defending his stance backing the call for Wrzesnewskyj's resignation, he wrote this:

Clearly, it is those who attacked my position that do not represent the values of the Liberal Party. I hope this serves as evidence to Liberal Jews that they do still belong in the Liberal family.

First of all, those "Liberal Jews" who were offended by the Liberal party's correct reaction to Harper's distorted view that Israel's response to the kidnappings of two of its soldiers was 'measured' and 'justified' and left the party as a result made their choice based on their agreement with Harper's beliefs. Perhaps they'll be more comfortable with the Conservatives. No loss there. The Liberal party should not change its opposition to Harper's opinions just to suit them - or anyone. But, for Cherniak to then assert that 'Liberal Jews' can now rest assured that the party is in line with their views simply because it forced Wrzesnewskyj to resign is another thing.

Cherniak believes that his call for Wrzesnewskyj's ouster reflects Liberal party values. If those values include stifling dissent and responding in a knee-jerk fashion because it's politically expedient in order to put an end to a controversy (which it didn't), then he's right and Liberal leaders are just acting out of fear and embarassment - not actually exemplary values there.

If Liberal values mean turfing someone from a position in the party despite the fact that his expression of wanting a dialogue with Hezbollah actually reflects an earlier, obviously party-approved Liberal party statement on the situation, then Cherniak is seriously misguided or uneducated about his party's position:

From the Liberal Party of Canada web site:

Since its creation in 1948, Canadians have been committed to the existence of an Israeli state. We have also recognized that terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which use tactics that the global community must condemn, present a threat to the existence of Israel and to a lasting peace in the Middle East. Israel must have the right to defend itself against an enemy implacably opposed to its existence, but the right of self-defence is always subject to international law. In the end, however, there must be moderators who can make a dialogue possible.

On a 2002 visit to Jerusalem undertaken as part of my duties as Canada’s foreign minister, I had the privilege of meeting with Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and then Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. I will never forget his words, which to me embody the potential that our nation has to improve the situation in the Middle East. He told me “you don’t make peace with your friends, only with your enemies.”

It is vital for middle-power nations such as Canada to pursue a fair-minded and balanced foreign policy because it preserves our ability to act as an appropriate intermediary, helping to make peace between enemies, rather than simply validating the positions held by any one party. It is only by acting in this way that we can truly help our friends.
[...]
In framing our foreign policy, it is the responsibility of Canada’s leaders to ensure that our policies do not contribute to the import of hatred and violence that plague other regions of the world into Canada’s domestic political context. We have an obligation to all Canadians – particularly those that have come to Canada to seek a more peaceful life – to govern our words and actions to ensure we do not fan the flames of intolerance, here at home, and around the globe.

(That was obviously written by Bill Graham, who was the Foreign Affairs Minister in 2002.)

So, answer this for me Cherniak: which Liberal party values are you standing up for, exactly? And, are you sure they're your party's values or are they just your own?

The point was to put my opinion out there and stand by my beliefs. If Jews do not stand up against outrageous accusations that Israel practices "state terrorism", then who will?

You call them 'outrageous'. Much of the world community begs to differ, including many of your fellow Jews, Cherniak. Read Ha'aretz on a daily basis. I do.

If you want to counter accusations, present facts, not biased hyperbole. Stop deluding yourself by believing you speak for all Jews or the Liberal party. You don't.

Neocon Dreams for a War Against Iran

How's this for a flashback?

The New York Times reports that:

Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.

Some policy makers have accused intelligence agencies of playing down Iran’s role in Hezbollah’s recent attacks against Israel and overestimating the time it would take for Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

Quick! Get Condi on the teevee to talk about not wanting the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud!

The criticisms reflect the views of some officials inside the White House and the Pentagon who advocated going to war with Iraq and now are pressing for confronting Iran directly over its nuclear program and ties to terrorism, say officials with knowledge of the debate.

The dissonance is surfacing just as the intelligence agencies are overhauling their procedures to prevent a repeat of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate — the faulty assessment that in part set the United States on the path to war with Iraq.

Shorter version: the same neocons are at it again. Watch out.

Some policy makers also said they were displeased that American spy agencies were playing down intelligence reports — including some from the Israeli government — of extensive contacts recently between Hezbollah and members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. “The people in the community are unwilling to make judgment calls and don’t know how to link anything together,” one senior United States official said.

“We’re not in a court of law,” he said. “When they say there is ‘no evidence,’ you have to ask them what they mean, what is the meaning of the term ‘evidence’?”

Bushco - rewriting the dictionary every single day.

As for Iran being in direct control of Hezbollah's actions against Israel:

“Does Iran profit from all of this? Yes,” said Gen. Wayne A. Downing Jr., the retired former commander of the Special Operations Command and a White House counterterrorism adviser during President Bush’s first term. “But is Iran pulling the strings? The guys I’m talking to say, ‘no.’ ”

But, but but... okay then, how about this angle?

The consensus of the intelligence agencies is that Iran is still years away from building a nuclear weapon. Such an assessment angers some in Washington, who say that it ignores the prospect that Iran could be aided by current nuclear powers like North Korea.

The prospect? The wish is more like it. They have no evidence so they're now pulling stuff out of their butts...again.

I found this LA Times article to be of interest as well. After the Bush administration received Iran's response to the recent proposal offered by the west regarding incentives to stop its production of enriched uranium, it remained almost eerily silent - quite uncharacteristically so.

Over the last week, senior U.S. diplomats had warned that anything short of a halt of Iran's enrichment program would lead to a quick U.S.-led push for targeted sanctions at the United
Nations.

The U.S. stance appeared even more muted than that taken Wednesday by France, where Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told reporters that any return to the negotiating table would depend on Iran suspending its enrichment program.
[...]
The Bush administration's reaction came in an announcement by the State Department, where a spokesman called the Iranian response "a serious offer" that warranted review.

Hmmm...what's really going on here? Is the Great Bushco actually bending to the will of the Europeans? (gasp!) Have the Europeans finally grown a strong, collective spine and decided that enough is enough? Has China threatened to cause major financial damage to the US economy if the neocons don't get off Iran's back?

China may reduce the amount of US bonds it holds as part of its foreign exchange reserves, an influential official has reportedly said.
The remarks, made by Parliamentary vice-chairman Cheng Siwei, triggered a fall in the US dollar against leading currencies in European trading.

China is a major funder of US debt, holding about $260bn (£149bn) in US Treasury bonds - second only to Japan.

Any reduction in China's dollar assets could hit the US economy.

Should China cut its US dollar holdings, this could drive up long-term yields on US bonds, which could in turn put pressure on interest rates.

It looks like Bushco may not get its way when it comes to fixing intelligence on Iran, which it has admitted it doesn't have much of anyway, in order to start the next ME war with that country.

Meanwhile, neocon Max Boot - who wondered aloud back in 2003 about what the heck a neocon was and then went on to say he wasn't one but defended the imaginary neocons, including himself, and then went on to proclaim he was happy to be one - provided his warmongering buddies with a plan B in Tuesday's LA Times: Max Boot: Israel Should Hit Syria First - A preemptive-war policy keeps the enemy from fighting on its own terms

Yeah. We've all seen that movie before. And we want our money back.

Talking to Hezbollah

While the Canadian Liberal party was busy having a public meltdown about their deputy foreign affairs critic's comments about possibly dialoguing with Hezbollah, providing the Conservatives with a victory by toeing their line that 'Thou shalt only support Israeli government policies - no matter what', one Conservative British MP is actually echoing Wrzesnewskyj's sensibilities across the pond.

The world indeed has turned upside down when Liberals force one of their own to resign for not agreeing with Canadian Conservative policies.

Here's what Brit Michael Ancram, a man with experience in such delicate areas, has to say in a column in The Independent:

Michael Ancram: It is time to start dancing with the wolves

The war in Lebanon, with an uneasy and fragile ceasefire in place, is, for the moment, over. The guns of Israel have almost fallen silent, and the wolves of Hamas and Hizbollah have almost stopped howling. It could, however, at any moment reignite. It is therefore astonishing that our government remains so supinely US-obsessed in the face of what could re-emerge as a genuine threat to international peace and is in effect doing nothing. It is time to start dancing with wolves, to start talking to terrorists.

As we learned in Northern Ireland, terrorism can be contained by military action, but it cannot be defeated by it. In the end, you have to start talking, not necessarily with fanatical leaders who are beyond dialogue, but with those who support them and the communities that give them shelter.

It is not easy. For a short time in 1995 I was ostracised by the Ulster Unionists as "contaminated" when I opened discussions with Sinn Fein/IRA. Such dialogue can never be even remotely seen to condone terrorism, but it can begin to explore ways out of it. We talked and so did the IRA, because after 30 years of "troubles" there could be no military winners.

Ancram, unlike too many western politicians who believe 'terrorists hate us for our freedoms' and think that makes for some sort of actual strategy, addresses the roots and realities of the situation in the Middle East. It's not just about who started what when or whether Israel has a right to defend itself. It's about reaching out to the communities in the region that provide support to groups like Hezbollah because they are actually gaining needed services from them in return - like healthcare, reconstruction and security. As Israel learned, you simply cannot bomb a population into seeing things your way unless you want to go totally nuclear on a country.

How can there possibly be peace in the Middle East unless all involved parties are talking to each other?

It may not be possible yet for Israel to speak directly to Hamas, let alone Hizbollah, but there can be no "two state solution" without the eventual involvement of Hamas, and there can be no secure Israel without a permanent cessation of violence by Hizbollah. If they cannot talk yet, then others must pave the way.

And if at the moment these two terrorist groups are unapproachable, then we should be talking to their sponsors in Syria and Iran, whose governments the British know well. The hearts and minds that must be won are those of our enemies as much as of our friends. Their initial intransigence may appear unbreachable, but I learned in Northern Ireland that there are ways of squaring such circles. Talking is not a sign of weakness. You can talk to insurgents and their supporters even when taking military sanction against them.

Last week, a group of 21 former US diplomats and retired generals urged Bush to talk to Syria and Iran but, as we've seen with how his administration has handled the crisis with North Korea, he refuses. So, the situations keep going sideways and tensions continue to escalate around the world.

Richard Haas, a former State Department official, found irony in the government use of the word "opportunity" to describe the crisis in the Middle East, and Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, said Washington's irrational fear of talks was a sign of weakness.

The message ought to be clear. It's being echoed on both sides of the pond. You cannot solve these problems without talking. It's not going to happen.

And that brings us back to the Canadian Liberal party and its decision to force its deputy foreign affairs critic to resign for suggesting that dialogue may actually advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. It appears they've aligned themselves with the Bush/Harper style of non-diplomacy diplomacy and have embraced the idea that talking is a sign of weakness as well.

Meanwhile, people in the Middle East continue to suffer tremendously while some western politicans are only concerned about how much they'll receive in campaign contributions from their constituents who back Israel - no matter what it does - not realizing that they are only contributing to its doom by making its enemies stronger when they oppose criticism of that country's policies.

And so, the stalemate will go on indefinitely, leaving many victims of various types all over the world in its wake.

War, after all, is good for business people and those are the most important constituents to some politicans - on the so-called left and the right.

Canadian Military Blogger Censored, Almost

A blogger named "Matt in Afghanistan" has been ordered by the Canadian military to stop posting and to delete all of his blog entries, although the Defence department won't officially confirm that.

In general, the military has the right to remove any content that puts the safety of personnel or the mission at risk, said Capt. Doug MacNair of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command Headquarters.

Austin, a University of Waterloo student, shipped off last week to Afghanistan, where he continued the blog he started during training in Petawawa. He called the blog Matt in Afghanistan: An undergrad's life in a very big desert.

The military misunderestimated the power of the internets, however, by not realizing that Google keeps cached versions of web pages online.

Here's Matt's blog. You decide if what he wrote was a security risk.

My guess is the the military brass weren't very pleased when they read things like this:

The G-Wagon, built by Mercedes-Benz, is nothing more than it's civilian counterpart except with gun racks, radio mounts and in some circumstances, a turret on the top. As great as they may seem, and as expensive as they were pushed into service after we lost two of our troops with a mine-strike on the Iltis, the facts cannot be hidden. The G-Wagon affords troops NO protection from the common anti-coalition weapons. Any caliber over 5.56mm will penetrate the vehicle and little is left after either an RPG or roadside bomb (IED).

So now you can understand my anger in seeing that I may be called out over the wire in this pathetic vehicle which CLEARLY is not made for the offensive tasks usually involving combat engineers.

The Israel/Lebanon War: Canadian Political Fallout

There's nothing like a war or two to bring out how some people really think and feel about major political issues that they might otherwise have chosen not to even talk about.

Today, I received an unsolicited e-mail from Scott Brison's Liberal leadership campaign staff directing me to read a Maclean's magazine article in which Brison's comments about the Wrzesnewskyj controversy were printed. I replied that I don't care what Brison thinks and asked to be removed from his campaign's mailing list. I am not a Liberal party member and Brison is one of the last people I would choose to lead the party if I had a vote in the matter.

What I found interesting about this e-mail wasn't that Brison thinks Wrzesnewskyj should resign as the Liberal party's foreign affairs critic, but the fact that Brison's comments were found in an article titled, 'Harper spokesman likens Hezbollah to German Nazi party of the 1930s'. That Brison's campaign would consider the fact that his opinion, which is now affiliated with Jason Kenney's extremist rhetoric about Nazis, was a good opportunity to convince liberals like me that Brison is standing on some moral high ground in this matter is laughable. What would have been more appropriate and perhaps effective would have been to provide a link to a statement by Brison on his campaign site - removing himself from any attachment to Kenney's typical reactionary screeching. Kenney's my MP. He's an uber-Conservative and an extremist, attention-whoring, fearmongering wanker who would likely enjoy the affections of the American neocons if they'd let him join their little club.

As for Wrzesnewskyj's comments about how to deal with Hezbollah and the whole idea that he has violated Liberal party discipline rules at a time when the party's about as tame as a feral cat, the one person who has suffered direct blowback because Wrzesnewskyj is associated with his Liberal leadership campaign, Gerard Kennedy, had this to say:

Kennedy did not go so far as to call for Wrzesnewskyj's resignation as critic, saying he wants to talk to the Toronto MP first. But he said his own opinions on Hezbollah are different than Wrzesnewskyj's.
[...]
"I think that you can't sanction violence. We have to operate according to principles and one of the principles is not to acknowledge bodies that will not abide by basic human rights and international law," Kennedy said.

Does that include the American and Israeli governments, Mr Kennedy, which both believe they are above the law when it comes to committing war crimes?

Steve, jumping on the Hezbollah/Nazis bandwagon supports Kenney's comments:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday it's not unfair to liken Hezbollah to the German Nazis of the 1930s because both stand for the destruction of the "Jewish nation."

In an interview with CanWest News Service, Harper was asked if the comparison made earlier in the day by his parliamentary secretary, Conservative MP Jason Kenney, was appropriate.

"Like all comparisons, it's true in some ways and not in others," the PM said, "but as near as I can tell, both Hezbollah and the Nazi Party stand for the elimination of the Jewish nation. So I think that's pretty fundamental, and in that sense I don't think it's unfair.

Steve and Jason obviously need to brush up on their history since, when the Nazis were in power, there was no such thing as a 'Jewish nation".

While we're using Nazi comparisons, why haven't Steve and Jason called wingnuts like Dr Laura, Fred Phelps and the conservative group Real Women of Canada Nazis too since they all subscribe to the ideology that gays - who were also persecuted by the Nazi party - are nothing short of aberrations to the human species?

Oh, but criticizing those people isn't appropriate since they're right-wingers and that might actually hurt the Canadian Conservative cause.

Hypocrites.

One thing that I, as a liberal, am grateful for is that the elephant in the living room - Israel and its actions - is now a matter of worldwide discussion. The more we're able to learn about which governments, parties, politicians, media groups and individuals support Israel's history of war crimes without question, the better. Because, when it all comes down to it, those who support such inhumanity from any group need to be exposed.

If Canadians agree with Gerard Kennedy's opinion that our country's government ought not 'acknowledge bodies that will not abide by basic human rights and international law', then we had better think long and hard about our relationship not only with Hezbollah (which has violated those laws as well) but with the two countries that should be judged by the same standard: the United States and Israel. What's more important? Staying true to liberal philosophy and principles or scoring political points?

Update: Wrzesnewskyj has resigned. It's obvious the Liberal party machine is more concerned with acting as a bloc than allowing dissenting opinions from its members. Congratulations. You've now handed the Conservative party a victory - once again. How's that Afghanistan war going?

But Graham also took a shot at the Conservatives, saying that at least, unlike the government, Liberals are allowed to speak freely.

"You'll be able to go out and interview them... nobody's got them locked up in a bus and thrown away the key, the way (it was done) at a recent caucus of the Conservatives," Graham told reporters Tuesday.

Shorter Graham: Go dig him out of the swamp we threw his body into.

Update: I wonder why Brison's campaign didn't send me these comments that appeared in the Toronto Star:

"The Liberal party is the only party with a proven capacity to form a government. Our standard is higher and that requires a discipline, both in opposition and in government," said Brison. "Clearly, Borys has failed that test."

Added Brison: "The last thing we need on this issue are misguided, uniformed[sic] and increasingly dangerous comments."

Dangerous?? To whom? Let's get real here.

Plame May Sue Armitage

Valerie Plame, the CIA undercover agent outed by Robert Novak in 2003...well, you know the story...if not, read a condensed version here...anyway, she's thinking about suing Richard Armitage - who some people following the case on the internets have long suspected was the mysterious Mr X. Well, now the AP has uncovered some evidence that may move that suspicion a bit further:

Official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage held a one-hour meeting marked "private appointment" with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward on June 13, 2003.

That was the same day Woodward met with a confidential source who spoke to him about Plame, according to a person familiar with information gathered by prosecutors. The person spoke only on condition of anonymity because the material remains sealed.
[...]
The calendar released to the AP is the first confirmation that Woodward and Armitage met during the key time in the CIA leak case.

Plame attorney Melanie Sloan said she was considering adding Armitage's name to the suit. Based on the calendar entry, Sloan said, "it sure sounds like" he was Woodward's source.

The real question, Sloan said, is whether Armitage revealed Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak, who was the first to get the information into print. If so, she said that doesn't get Libby or others off the hook in the civil case, but it widens the conspiracy.

"Then I think maybe Armitage was in on it," Sloan said. "The question is just what was Armitage's role?"

Neither Woodward nor Armitage would discuss the meeting.

Woodward has always maintained that Plame's name just came up in casual conversation and was not provided to him as a leak on the administration's behalf. If Plame sues Armitage, I guess we'll find out.

h/t Raw Story