Writing in a blog post at Macleans.ca, Aaron Wherry does his bit to respond to the recent revelation that, while negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement with the government of Afghanistan, the Liberal Party knew about the torture that was prevalent in Afghan prisons.
Wherry seems to think that he has the answer to what seems to him to be a horrible dilemma: simply ignore the revelation at hand, and shift attention back to 2007.
After an ever-so-brief mention of the La Presse revelation, Wherry directs his attention to an April 25, 2007 Globe and Mail article in which it was stated that the government had received warnings about "extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial" of Afghan prisoners.
In skating over the La Presse story, Wherry demonstrates precisely where he thinks the readers' attention should be: after 2006, so long as they only pay attention to developments before April 28, 2007.
Under the stewardship of reporters like Wherry, the pre-2006 portion of the torture chronicles becomes an orphan timeline: disowned by those who are presenting this issue in the public eye. Along with that portion of the timeline, the truth is orphaned as well.
This helps Liberal MPs like John McCallum ignore their party's uncomfortable responsibility for torture and pretend that the Conservative Party didn't approach the issue properly: by investigating and fixing the problem.
But McCallum isn't the only Liberal MP enjoying this orphaning of the truth.
Speaking in a column written for Vancouver's Georgia Straight, Liberal MP Dr Hedy Fry -- who has a history of lying in the House of Commons -- has the temerity to invoke the memory of George W Bush to try to score some cheap points.
"What is it that George Bush used to say?" she asked. "'You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.' It seems to me that Stephen Harper is taking that advice. Or at least one has to wonder."
It seems that this is exactly the the strategy being used by Fry -- whose previous highlight was raising comical allegations of a Conservative Party/HBC conspiracy -- and Wherry. In Dr Fry's case, the hypocrisy of it remains as astounding as it was in McCallum's -- she served in the government that is directly responsible for the torture as Secretary of State for Women and Multiculturalism.
Wherry, Fry and McCallum seem to think they're working it to perfection.
But when truly pressed on the Liberal Party's direct complicity in the torture of detainees handed over by Canadian soldiers, they seem to recognize the key defect in their strategy -- that it will stop working when Canadians realize that the scandal is their fault in the first place.
And while Aaron Wherry, Hedy Fry and John McCallum seem to think they can distract Canadians from that fact by severing the entire pre-2006 period from the torture timeline, they'll find out in time that they can't.
Showing posts with label John McCallum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCallum. Show all posts
Friday, January 15, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
So, Let's Talk About a "Cover Up"
By their own standard, Liberal Party complicit in war crimes
Recently appearing on CBC news, Liberal Finance Critic John McCallum openly accused the Conservative government of war crimes.
"I think proroguing adds to the total character picture of Mr Harper, and the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime," McCallum insisted. "And the fact that they're covering it up, I think many Canadians do care about those things as well as caring about economic issues."
When asked to clarify who he was accusing of war crimes -- the Conservative government or Canadian soldiers, McCallum answered quite clearly. "It's the government."
But as it turns out, there may be even more to this story than McCallum is telling -- one that undermines his party's clear efforts to mine this issue for partisan gain.
An article appearing in the April 28, 2007 issue of La Presse (which can be translated here), it was noted that the Liberal government of Paul Martin was warned on numerous occasions spanning 2003-05 that torture commonly occurred in Afghan prisons.
Prior to 2005, Canadian forces in Afghanistan transferred their detainees to American forces operating in Afghanistan. In response to the abuses taking place at Guantanamo Bay, however, the Liberal government decided to instead transfer prisoners to Afghan authorities.
Despite these reports, then-Minister of National Defense Bill Graham negotiated a prisoner transfer agreement and instructed General Rick Hillier to sign it on Canada's behalf. This prisoner transfer agreement became a notorious point of contention in Canadian politics, as it didn't allow Canadian soldiers with sufficient levels of oversight for the treatment of any prisoners they transferred.
In other words, it's the prisoner transfer agreement that Paul Martin's Liberal government signed with Afghanistan that was responsible for these abuses in the first place -- an error the Conservative government corrected by negotiating a new prison transfer agreement.
The Liberal Party cannot claim it wasn't warned about this state of affairs in Afghan prisons. They were warned by Canadian diplomats, just as the sitting Conservative government was.
The difference, of course, being that the pre-2006 Liberal government signed a shoddy prisoner transfer agreement that put Canadian soldiers at risk of complicity in war crimes -- as so defined by John McCallum.
At this point, the fairest question may be how, precisely, so many media outlets have overlooked this particular story amidst the partisan rush to brand the sitting government as war criminals, even as the Liberal Party knew full well the hand it had played in this affair.
Recently appearing on CBC news, Liberal Finance Critic John McCallum openly accused the Conservative government of war crimes.
"I think proroguing adds to the total character picture of Mr Harper, and the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime," McCallum insisted. "And the fact that they're covering it up, I think many Canadians do care about those things as well as caring about economic issues."
When asked to clarify who he was accusing of war crimes -- the Conservative government or Canadian soldiers, McCallum answered quite clearly. "It's the government."
But as it turns out, there may be even more to this story than McCallum is telling -- one that undermines his party's clear efforts to mine this issue for partisan gain.
An article appearing in the April 28, 2007 issue of La Presse (which can be translated here), it was noted that the Liberal government of Paul Martin was warned on numerous occasions spanning 2003-05 that torture commonly occurred in Afghan prisons.
Prior to 2005, Canadian forces in Afghanistan transferred their detainees to American forces operating in Afghanistan. In response to the abuses taking place at Guantanamo Bay, however, the Liberal government decided to instead transfer prisoners to Afghan authorities.
Despite these reports, then-Minister of National Defense Bill Graham negotiated a prisoner transfer agreement and instructed General Rick Hillier to sign it on Canada's behalf. This prisoner transfer agreement became a notorious point of contention in Canadian politics, as it didn't allow Canadian soldiers with sufficient levels of oversight for the treatment of any prisoners they transferred.
In other words, it's the prisoner transfer agreement that Paul Martin's Liberal government signed with Afghanistan that was responsible for these abuses in the first place -- an error the Conservative government corrected by negotiating a new prison transfer agreement.
The Liberal Party cannot claim it wasn't warned about this state of affairs in Afghan prisons. They were warned by Canadian diplomats, just as the sitting Conservative government was.
The difference, of course, being that the pre-2006 Liberal government signed a shoddy prisoner transfer agreement that put Canadian soldiers at risk of complicity in war crimes -- as so defined by John McCallum.
At this point, the fairest question may be how, precisely, so many media outlets have overlooked this particular story amidst the partisan rush to brand the sitting government as war criminals, even as the Liberal Party knew full well the hand it had played in this affair.
Monday, September 07, 2009
And Only 16 Years Too Late
Liberals admit transfer cuts were a mistake
For those Canadians wondering how, precisely, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff plans to eliminate the deficit without raising taxes, Canadians recently got an idea of how he doesn't plan to do it.
"We will absolutely not reduce transfer payments to the provinces," announced John McCallum, the Liberal party's Finance Critic. "It's true that this is something we have done in the past — but we have learned from our mistakes."
Canadians have been waiting a long time to hear the Liberal party admit that their cuts to provincial transfers were a mistake.
McCallum went on to claim that the Conservative government has blemishes of its own as it pertains to provincial transfers -- that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government cut billions of dollars in transfers meant to finance a day care program, and cultural funding and general funds for aboriginals.
Some of this money, McCallum reportedly noted, would have gone to provincial infrastructure. Apparently, despite the fact that it was intended to be spent on financing a day care program and on aboriginals.
But then again, as an editorial in the Halifax Chronicle Herald notes, the Liberal party has had a long and not-so-proud history of diverting funds toward ends they weren't intended for.
Some of this even casts doubt on Michael Ignatieff's claim that the Liberals conquered the Mulroney-era deficit (which originated in the Trudeau era) without raising taxes.
As the Herald notes, then-Finance Minister Paul Martin raised government revenues by closing taxation loopholes worth $800 million. While that certainly wasn't an explicit tax increase, the additional billion levied against Canadian corporations the following year certainly was.
Fortunately for Martin and Ignatieff, few people shed crocodile tears for corporations when they're taxed.
Martin also repeatedly raided Employment Insurance funds to general revenue. The Liberals would later perform this act unlawfully. In effect, Paul Martin transformed EI premiums into a proxy tax.
John McCallum's pledge not to slash federal transfers again may have come in the wake of realizations that doing so would effectively be political suicide in the province of Quebec.
"It's clear that there's one thing the government of Canada cannot do: that's to touch federal transfers," said Quebec's Finance Minister, Raymond Bachand. "We recently heard [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper say he wouldn't touch federal transfers to rebalance the budget in Canada. ...I'm certainly expecting the Liberal Party of Canada to make the same guarantee."
Of course, if the Liberal party did break their pledge not to cut provincial transfers, it wouldn't be the first time they broke such a promise. In 1993 the Liberal party promised to abolish the GST, then promptly went back on their promise.
But that's beside the point. Apparently, Canadians can rest assured that the Liberal party learns from its mistakes -- it just takes 16 years for them to admit to them.
For those Canadians wondering how, precisely, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff plans to eliminate the deficit without raising taxes, Canadians recently got an idea of how he doesn't plan to do it.
"We will absolutely not reduce transfer payments to the provinces," announced John McCallum, the Liberal party's Finance Critic. "It's true that this is something we have done in the past — but we have learned from our mistakes."Canadians have been waiting a long time to hear the Liberal party admit that their cuts to provincial transfers were a mistake.
McCallum went on to claim that the Conservative government has blemishes of its own as it pertains to provincial transfers -- that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government cut billions of dollars in transfers meant to finance a day care program, and cultural funding and general funds for aboriginals.
Some of this money, McCallum reportedly noted, would have gone to provincial infrastructure. Apparently, despite the fact that it was intended to be spent on financing a day care program and on aboriginals.
But then again, as an editorial in the Halifax Chronicle Herald notes, the Liberal party has had a long and not-so-proud history of diverting funds toward ends they weren't intended for.
Some of this even casts doubt on Michael Ignatieff's claim that the Liberals conquered the Mulroney-era deficit (which originated in the Trudeau era) without raising taxes.
As the Herald notes, then-Finance Minister Paul Martin raised government revenues by closing taxation loopholes worth $800 million. While that certainly wasn't an explicit tax increase, the additional billion levied against Canadian corporations the following year certainly was.
Fortunately for Martin and Ignatieff, few people shed crocodile tears for corporations when they're taxed.
Martin also repeatedly raided Employment Insurance funds to general revenue. The Liberals would later perform this act unlawfully. In effect, Paul Martin transformed EI premiums into a proxy tax.
John McCallum's pledge not to slash federal transfers again may have come in the wake of realizations that doing so would effectively be political suicide in the province of Quebec.
"It's clear that there's one thing the government of Canada cannot do: that's to touch federal transfers," said Quebec's Finance Minister, Raymond Bachand. "We recently heard [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper say he wouldn't touch federal transfers to rebalance the budget in Canada. ...I'm certainly expecting the Liberal Party of Canada to make the same guarantee."
Of course, if the Liberal party did break their pledge not to cut provincial transfers, it wouldn't be the first time they broke such a promise. In 1993 the Liberal party promised to abolish the GST, then promptly went back on their promise.
But that's beside the point. Apparently, Canadians can rest assured that the Liberal party learns from its mistakes -- it just takes 16 years for them to admit to them.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Did You Double Check That With Michael, John? Or Even With Reality?
Liberal double-talk on the budget palpable
For the past 20 years in Canada, the Liberal party has made an art form of trying to have it both ways.
Accuse the opposition Reform party of plotting to devestate health care with deep cuts while slashing billions of dollars from health care.
Accuse the governing Conservative party of campaigning based on fear while airing some of the most vile fear-based campaign ads in the history of fear-based campaigning.
Now, the Liberals are adding another chapter to this sorry tale: insisting that they oppose middle class tax cuts, despite the fact that their leader previously endorsed them.
Speaking in advance of tomorrow's federal budget, Liberal finance critic John McCallum had some interesting things to say.
"If the permanent tax cuts were very large, we would be very concerned, partly because it would saddle future generations with a big debt and a permanent deficit," McCallum mused.
Despite Ignatieff's previous support for permanent middle class tax cuts -- as brilliantly explosed by National Post Full Comment's Kelly McParland -- McCallum insists that they are ill-advised.
McCallum insisted that the cuts would be ineffective to stimulate the economy because people will be more likely to save the tax cut than spend it.
But here's the problem: Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff himself recently pledged his support for middle class tax cuts. As far as stimulating the economy with tax cuts goes, the bigger the cuts are, the better. A large tax cut is much more likely to be spent than a small tax cut.
Sadly, the logic of this seems to be all but lost on an opposition that, despite the reported inclusion of some things they would otherwise support in this budget -- $2 billion for social housing, $1 billion for workers and $1.5 billion for job retraining -- has committed themselves to rejecting the budget sight unseen.
"If [the budget] doesn't cut it, our leader has made it perfectly clear that we vote against it -- and he is prepared to lead," McCallum crowed.
And all Michael Ignatieff needs to do is double-back on his own position and lie to the Canadian people in order to do it.
It's hard to excuse the base dishonesty of the Liberal position on matters economic these days. The Liberal party knows full well that Canada would be budgeting a deficit in the coming year regardless of who was in power. Despite this they accuse the Conservative party of blowing a surplus that they themselves planned to blow anyway -- again, a fact masterfully exposed by McParland.
Michael Ignatieff has previously insisted that he isn't trying to take a shortcut back to power.
Unfortunately, the truth is very different. He and his finance critic are trying to follow a road back to power that is all but paved with little white lies.
For the past 20 years in Canada, the Liberal party has made an art form of trying to have it both ways.
Accuse the opposition Reform party of plotting to devestate health care with deep cuts while slashing billions of dollars from health care.
Accuse the governing Conservative party of campaigning based on fear while airing some of the most vile fear-based campaign ads in the history of fear-based campaigning.
Now, the Liberals are adding another chapter to this sorry tale: insisting that they oppose middle class tax cuts, despite the fact that their leader previously endorsed them.
Speaking in advance of tomorrow's federal budget, Liberal finance critic John McCallum had some interesting things to say.
"If the permanent tax cuts were very large, we would be very concerned, partly because it would saddle future generations with a big debt and a permanent deficit," McCallum mused.Despite Ignatieff's previous support for permanent middle class tax cuts -- as brilliantly explosed by National Post Full Comment's Kelly McParland -- McCallum insists that they are ill-advised.
McCallum insisted that the cuts would be ineffective to stimulate the economy because people will be more likely to save the tax cut than spend it.
But here's the problem: Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff himself recently pledged his support for middle class tax cuts. As far as stimulating the economy with tax cuts goes, the bigger the cuts are, the better. A large tax cut is much more likely to be spent than a small tax cut.
Sadly, the logic of this seems to be all but lost on an opposition that, despite the reported inclusion of some things they would otherwise support in this budget -- $2 billion for social housing, $1 billion for workers and $1.5 billion for job retraining -- has committed themselves to rejecting the budget sight unseen.
"If [the budget] doesn't cut it, our leader has made it perfectly clear that we vote against it -- and he is prepared to lead," McCallum crowed.
And all Michael Ignatieff needs to do is double-back on his own position and lie to the Canadian people in order to do it.
It's hard to excuse the base dishonesty of the Liberal position on matters economic these days. The Liberal party knows full well that Canada would be budgeting a deficit in the coming year regardless of who was in power. Despite this they accuse the Conservative party of blowing a surplus that they themselves planned to blow anyway -- again, a fact masterfully exposed by McParland.Michael Ignatieff has previously insisted that he isn't trying to take a shortcut back to power.
Unfortunately, the truth is very different. He and his finance critic are trying to follow a road back to power that is all but paved with little white lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)