Liberalism works; Government? Not so much...

I don't really give a crap what Tom Axworthy thinks but he seems to be a tad confused:

"Liberalism's dirty secret [and it is not so secret these days] is that government doesn't seem to work well much of the time," he says, citing such examples as the 800,000 potential immigrants waiting for their applications to be processed; massive cost overruns at the gun registry; lengthy procurement delays for military equipment; poor water quality on aboriginal reserves; and the Jean Chretien Pledge to Africa Act, which promised to produce generic drugs to help fight AIDS but has yet to export a single pill.

The fact that government doesn't work is not a matter of liberalism not working. It's a function of poor policy implementation and management, not the philosophy itself. You'd think that Axworthy would know the difference. And the fact that the National Post considers his statement a 'bombshell' meant to make its right-wing audience salivate tells you how much their reporters have their collective heads up their butts as well.

The Ottawa Sun's Mother F*cking Mistake

Yes, there it is...right on that black t-shirt...ummm whoops?

h/t Bourque

Late Nite Video Flashback

Neil Young - The Needle and the Damage Done (Live)

Claim Victory and Go Home

It's time for another Mission Accomplished moment from Bush and, just as that one was a lie the next one will be too, but since the only thing Bush cares about is appearing victorious (especially in his daddy's eyes which are currently glaring at him via the Iraq study group) he and his neocon buddies can still spin their way out of Iraq and make it seem like they actually did the job they set out to do.

They've been doing that all along anyway with their pronouncements that 'freedom is on the march' and that the Iraqis now have a democratically-elected government. They've denied pretty well every other reality about what's happenning daily in Iraq so what's stopping them from claiming military victory too? They've trained Iraqi troops and police and are intent on having the Iraqi government in control (so they say, anyway) so, in tune with their habit of blaming their faults on everyone else, they can just start pulling out the troops and washing the blood from their hands (until they are one day finally held to account for this hell they created).

Bush has said in the past that US troops would not involve themselves in a civil war in Iraq and even though that began a long time ago, he can now use the Thanksgiving day massacre there as proof that it is time to bring everybody home because this is exactly what civil war looks like.

Via The Independent:

The savage sectarian war in Iraq reached new depths of barbaric violence yesterday with worshippers being dragged out of mosques and burnt alive as a wave of killings swept across the country.

The ones set alight as they pleaded for mercy were Sunnis, victims of a pitiless revenge for the suicide bombings at Sadr City 24 hours earlier which had left 215 people dead and 253 injured in the single deadliest attack since the US-led invasion.

Even as the dead from the massacre were being buried, the grim vow made by Shia fighters of exacting blood for blood was under way. Twenty-two people were killed and 26 injured at Tal Afar, north-west of Baghdad. Nine more people were killed in a mortar attack on a Sunni area in the capital, and rocket-propelled grenades were fired at the Abu Hanifa mosque, one of the holiest Sunni shrines in the country, which had already been damaged in retaliatory action following the Sadr City bombings.

Politically, the country is at a serious crossroads as well:

Meanwhile the political process continued to unravel after Sadr supporters in parliament threatened to boycott proceedings if the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki proceeded with his planned meeting with President George Bush in Amman next week. American and Iraqi government forces had carried out a raid in Sadr City just hours before the Sunni attack during which six people were killed. Mr Maliki is heavily dependent on the support of the Sadr bloc, which has 30 MPs and six ministers in its ranks.

Qusai Abdul-Wahib, a senior Sadr supporter, said: "We say occupation forces are fully responsible for these acts, and we call on these forces to set a timetable for their withdrawal."

The US government may staunchly refuse to bow to Sadr's demands but they then risk the collapse of the Iraqi government that will leave the country in an even more immeasurable amount of chaos. It's hard to imagine that it could get any worse than it already is what with death squads, tortured bodies, fleeing residents, indefinite curfews and all of the other horrors going on there every single day but leave it to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (he's not gone yet) to insist on this meeting with al-Maliki next week anyway because that's the way they operate: in an ideologically-based vacuum of a mindset that sees only what it imagines to be true.

The crisis has reached its breaking point. The Democrats do not yet have operational control of congress and may well drag their feet a bit too long while deciding what to do. Meanwhile, the neocons are still in charge and even though everything they touch turns into an absolute disaster, they still believe they can 'win' in Iraq.

There is no 'winning'. It's over. Claim your pompous victory and send the troops home.

Update: Just as I predicted, the White House confirmed on Friday nite that the Bush/al-Maliki meeting is still on for next week.

"Securing Baghdad and gaining control of the violent situation will be a priority agenda item when President Bush meets with Prime Minister Maliki in just a few days," said White House spokesperson Scott Stanzel.

Yeah. Right. Good luck with that. You've only had 3 bloody years to do it already.

Video: Saddam's Real Weapons of Mass Destruction

The New York Times has a video showing Saddam and his generals examining very scary weapons systems before the Iraq war. No hints. You'll have to view them yourself.

Ex-senator Rick Santorum who previously declared that WMDs had been found in Iraq simply commented, 'I told you so!'

So, Quebecers are a nation...

So, what exactly was the point of this entire exercise? The Liberals brought it up at their convention. Ignatieff championed it and was skewered by his critics (the more skewering he gets, the better) for wading into possible constitutional matters leading to a public Liberal brawl about nationhood. Then Gilles Duceppe presents his nation motion and amends it. Steve launches back with his own strike and offers his motion which everybody, including Gilles, supports. And now Quebecers are a 'nation' (which means nothing, legally) and everybody's happy (except for some very disgruntled 'firewall' westerners).

Did I miss something?

Conservatives Behaving Badly

Via Canoe:

Conservative MP Daniel Petit from Quebec was caught on camera Wednesday giving the finger to somebody in the House of Commons during question period.

The move came after the MP for Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles asked Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day for details on the Montreal Mafia bust that day -- the arrests of 90 suspects with links to organized crime.

Petit asked the question in French, sat down, looked up and with his right arm flipped his middle finger towards the Opposition benches.

It's unclear who Petit was giving the finger to. But it was caught on tape and shown right across Canada on CPAC -- the Cable Public Affairs Channel.

Is this what passes as parliamentary decorum in our House of Commons these days? Has Parliament turned into a men's locker room?

Do you even have to ask?

Conservatives in general are such good role models, aren't they?

Friday Fun

Thoroughly nauseating web design:

Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C

Friends don't let friends design drunk.

NATO's Mandate is Changing

Does this make any sense?

The Nato alliance, stretched by operations in Afghanistan, should further expand its role to include counter-terrorism, cyber-security and the security of natural resources, according to a classified document to be endorsed by presidents and prime ministers next week.

The Financial Times has obtained documents outlining the proposed changes to NATO's mandate which its members leaders, including Harper and his Defence minister O'Connor, have been discussing and have already given the green light to.

First of all, don't we have a right to debate these changes in an open fashion since they affect the future of Canada's role in the alliance? And secondly, the glaring observation that NATO is already stretched would seem to indicate to any reasonable person that increasing its responsibilities at this time would be foolish. If NATO is unable to handle the war in Afghanistan, how can it possibly deal with expanded duties?

The document has previously been endorsed by defence ministers but has remained classified until now. Described by diplomats as building on Nato’s strategy goals, last elaborated in 1999, the document says that Nato should be ready to fight more than one big operation at a time, as well as an increasing number of smaller engagements.

It says “this requires forces that are fully deployable, sustainable and interoperable and the means to deploy them”.

Is that why O'Connor pledged to pump so much money into the Canadian military earlier this year? And why would such a document be classified anyway?

The classified document – officially called the “comprehensive political guidance” – says Nato should put a premium on “the ability to deter, disrupt, defend and protect against terrorism, and more particularly to contribute to the protection of the alliance’s populations, territory, critical infrastructure and forces”. Some US officials are keen to open the door to a greater Nato role in helping with “homeland security”, although this remains controversial within the alliance.

Of course the US government is 'keen' about this. We're already cleaning up its mess in Afghanistan while they pull funding and troops from the country. And it seems to me that those domestic duties are already assigned to other agencies, like CSIS, the RCMP and the so-called Department of Public Safety in Canada. Why is this being brought under NATO's umbrella and what exactly is the plan to do so? How will that affect our sovereignty?

The Financial Times also reports that next week's scheduled conference in Latvia has been scaled back to only 2 sessions within 24 hours:

Nato’s difficulties in Afghanistan have forced the alliance to scale down its ambitions for a showpiece summit next week and raised questions about its ability to get to grips with the insurgency in the country.

Some showpiece that Afghanistan war is. Most member countries militaries are either stretched too thin or have restricted their mandates for fighting the insurgency in the region. Canada is 'rerolling' its military and hiring civilian contractors now because it can't handle the job. Not much there when it comes to the Show and Tell session. No wonder they want to wrap it all up quickly and just go back home. It's a disaster which can only leave people wondering why NATO would actually even think of taking on more at this time. I know I'd sure like to know what the heck our government is thinking by endorsing that plan and where they're going to get the manpower and money to implement it.

Write Your Own Caption

Bush Makes Thanksgiving Day Calls to Members of the Armed Forces...