harper is a liar

Really.  He didn’t miss-speak, he didn’t make a mistake.  He lied.  (emphasis mine)

November 11, 2010: "I think if we can continue a smaller mission that involves just training, I think frankly that presents minimal risks to Canada, but it helps us to ensure that the gains that we've made," Harper said.

But then, Master Corporal Byron Greff and 16 others working with the NATO training mission were killed on Saturday in a suicide bomb attack in Kabul.  Byron Greff was young, well-liked, and recently became a father.  Steve had to bull-shit his way around last year’s fluffing off of risks.   Can't really go on about "minimal risks" when grieving family and friends don't consider their personal loss minimal.

So...Ministry of Truth time... 

October 30, 2011: “Any mission in Afghanistan involves significant risk. … Any presence in Afghanistan, as I know from my own travel there, is fraught with risk, so there will remain risk to our defence personnel.” – harper

Did he realize he was wrong?  Had he been unaware of how dangerous training missions can be?  Not according to what he now says - 

Harper insisted Sunday his position on the mission's risks hasn't changed. "I think, actually to the contrary, I've always been clear: There are still risks involved in this mission," he said.

Last year, he tried to downplay the dangers real live human beings – our troops - would be exposed to with the training mission so that the extension would not have to be put to a vote.

“As the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others have said, we are looking at a non-combat mission that will occur. It will be a training mission that will occur in classrooms behind the wire in bases. – harper, nov. 2010

Sounds pretty safe, doesn’t it?  Classroom, behind the wire...students probably bring them apples.

Ina briefing to a recent parliamentary committee, Brigadier-General Craig King said Kabul is “extremely violent” and a “high-risk” location for the Canadian trainers. His testimony came on the heels of an attack on the U.S. embassy and nearby NATO base that lasted 20 hours and in which seven people were killed and 19 wounded by insurgents.

Greff was stationed around operations in Kabul and two other cities.

harper lied.  He can't be trusted.  He'll say whatever he thinks will keep him up in the polls.  And sad to see, 30% of Canadians  buy his bull-shit.

Asked to judge the leaders on trust, competence and vision for the country, 30.4 per cent of respondents said Mr. Harper was the most trustworthy leader, compared to 16.3 per cent for Mr. Rae and 11.2 per cent for Ms. Turmel.

The master strategist is loosing ground in one area, though:

Although, Mr. Harper is well ahead of his opponents on this front, the Nanos numbers show his score has dropped significantly since last month when 36.8 per cent said he had the best vision for Canada.  He is now at 28.9%.

Gee.  Could it be his lack of environmental policies, or his failure to forward human rights issues, or his stay the course drone, or his focus on things like the long gun registry and long form census rather than on poverty, jobs, health and safety?

Maybe it's just that people are tired of his helmet hair.  Not many seem to be reading past headlines.

Why are we there again?

Afghan President Hamid Karzai refused to remove a former warlord from atop the energy and water ministry despite U.S. pressure to oust the minister because Washington considered him corrupt and ineffective. Secret diplomatic records showed the minister -- privately termed "the worst" by U.S. officials -- kept his perch at an agency that controls $2 billion in U.S. and allied projects.

The refusal to remove the official despite threats to end U.S. aid highlights how little influence the U.S. has over the Afghan leader on pressing issues such as corruption.

"How little influence the U.S. has..."

As Karzai and his corrupt personal appointees laugh in our faces and take our money, we keep sending our troops to face death and keep this scum in power.  But somehow, it's all for the women and children, right?  We'll bring all our soldiers home in 2014 and Karzai will run a democracy that will be fair to all, right?   

Once more - why are we there?

What’s been missing from the discussions about our post-2011 role is the reality that not only will Canada be training an army under the command of one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, but also that it is a government ridden with warlords and held together only by military support and money from the West. This is not a government with independent staying power.

In all likelihood, the exit of Western troops in 2014 will precipitate a countrywide civil war that will see the Afghan army fractured into militias controlled by warlords battling for roads, opium fields, mineral resources and cities, while the Taliban attempt to take over the country or disintegrate into violent, squabbling factions.

The United States and NATO have been providing the Afghan army with world-class weaponry: assault rifles, grenade launchers, machine-guns and armoured vehicles. With the weapons, and tactical training to date by Canadians and other NATO troops, the national army is an increasingly formidable force, though plagued by desertion, poor discipline and drug abuse.

Canada’s future training of these well-armed Afghan troops will ratchet up the torque on a war machine that appears destined to blow apart.

If we were actually doing something to help establish a government chosen by the people of Afghanistan for the people of Afghanistan and offering aid which would directly encourage the establishment and maintenance of a society concerned about human rights and a fair system for all, that would justify some Canadian presence there, but training troops to fight under a corrupt government that will fragment into a bunch of corrupt groups further ripping the country apart and killing civilians in their bid for power...what the hell are we doing that for? We can't afford the dollar cost of this war, and the cost in lives is beyond measure, certainly not justified.

This is not a criticism of our troops, but of our own corrupt, dishonest government and its utter disregard for the lives of its own soldiers.

harper  and BFF

Kids know that "do as I say, not as I do" is a poor teaching method

This was inevitable, considering our government's contracting practices are scandal-ridden here in Canada -

Western governments that call Afghanistan a hotbed of corruption ought to mind the old maxim about glass houses and throwing stones, the mayor of Kandahar city suggests in a stern letter to Ottawa that accuses Canadian officials of playing fast and loose with taxpayer dollars.  In a letter to Canada's ambassador earlier this month, Ghulam Hayder Hamidi complained that Ottawa's contracting practices are contributing to the culture of malfeasance in Afghanistan. He also expressed similar concerns about the United States and Britain.

   "Your prime minister, (U.S.) President (Barack) Obama and the prime minister of England are complaining that we didn't clean the corruption in Afghanistan (and) they will stop helping," Hamidi said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press.  "Who is doing the corruption? You are doing the corruption."

I expect they feel the same way when we lecture them on torture, cheating during elections, and the use of child soldiers.

So...why are we there?

the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a well-connected Washington DC think tank, released a report on Afghanistan titled, Responsible Transition. The report lays out a strategy for the United States to lessen its investment in Afghanistan while still securing America’s interests in the region.

Remind me, 'cause I don't see a damn thing about democracy, or women and children in that.

Putting Wikileaks to work: Canada's presence in Afghanistan

It's not just gossip, as some would like us to believe in their efforts to trivialize Wikileaks.
 
And while Assange and Wikileaks are stories in and of themselves, they would create not a ripple if Wikileaks did not produce anything that could shake up governments.
 
So, time to look at what's coming out, what floats to the surface as a result, and what that information means.
 
An August 2009 report from Kabul complains that President Hamid Karzai and his attorney general “allowed dangerous individuals to go free or re-enter the battlefield without ever facing an Afghan court.”
 
So let me get this.  Our soldiers face death and maiming capturing insurgents to help Karzai keep power and instill democracy, then Karzai lets them go, as long as they grease his palm, the insurgents go back to the battlefield where our troops face danger again, catch some of them again, hand them over to Karzai who makes more money by letting them go back to the battlefield...


So why are we sending our own to fight in Afghanistan?  Karzai must love it.
 
"We must be prepared for confrontation with Karzai on this issue, he said, or risk losing credibility among our own population if we go along with a rigged election. He argued that a new generation of Afghans is working to run for Parliament and they are watching to see if the electoral changes will happen. 'We can't be seen to collude with it,' (Canadian ambassador Crosbie) said.
 
Right.  Canadians may start questioning why we send our soldiers to face death propping up a corrupt government, a government that stomps all over the democratic process Canadians are told our own are being sent there to instill and defend.


And if enough Canadians kick up a fuss, harper will have to, I don't know, extend the mission anyway, count on the Liberals to back him, and have both parties say that really, a vote isn't needed.  Could happen.

"given what we now know, is there any way that the Karzai regime can be our partner in any Afghan policy that you can support?"
 
Diplomat Perter Galbraith: "the problem is not whether the goals are right or not, it is that they are unachievable because the policy, the military surge depends on having an Afghan government that can provide honest administration and win the loyalty of the Afghan people."

Galbraith goes on to say that this isn't possible because the Afghan government is so corrupt.  He's been saying that for quite awhile, and Hillary Clinton denigrated him, pretty much calling him a liar.  That was until Wikileaks came out with documents that supported all Galbraith had said.
 

So time to really call every politician on the bull-shit about being there for democracy, being there for the women and children.  Propping up a supremely corrupt government that is willing to send our troops out to capture insurgents only to face them again while Karzai gets rich, propping up a government that undermines democracy, propping up a government that doesn't care about stability for its people - these are not things our soldiers should be sent to face death for.

Bring them home now.

Quit lying to us.

Thanks, Wikileaks.

Sure, the box looks all pretty to some...

...until you release the contents and realize in shock you can’t put them back.

When even hard core right-wingers no longer see the glitter, you know it ain’t good.

Norman Spector asks “why would anybody give any credence to the latest warning (issued by harper)?”

Join the 2/3rds of Canadians who have been saying this for years, Norm.

See, that's a mistake

One of the things I like about Dion is that he has vision, foresight.  Too bad too few Liberals share that vision.

Seems they are out of touch with voters, as well.

Once leader, Dion toyed with the notion of parting ways with the government on the Afghan file but was persuaded that he could not win the anti-war argument in the rest of Canada in the face of former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley's recommendation for another mission extension.

The Libs assumed voters would simply buy Manley's recommendations, which few of us have, and as though insulting our intelligence and drastically underestimating our concern for our troops by assuming we would not take the Afghan issue seriously enough to examine the report were not enough, they shut their ears to the many, many polls that show the majority of Canadians want the soldiers home.  They ignored our posts, our letters, our calls.

The latest sequel in the Afghan debate finds Rae and Ignatieff at cross-purposes with a section of their own caucus on a foreign policy issue for the second time this year.

Well, try listening to us and at the very least, engage the CONs in open, in-depth debate on any extension, allow a vote, and don't head into it with your minds already made up.  Dion knew Canada's involvement with Afghanistan had to be re-examined because circumstances change.  And when lives are at risk, all of you who are elected and paid to represent Canadians better damn well study those changes and act accordingly.

Well, when the safe training myth is shattered, Harper can say he didn’t lie.

The training will take place mostly in classrooms or bases in Kabul and possibly elsewhere. (Emphasis mine)

Nice, wide open door there, and since we don’t have an official opposition at this time, stevo will continue to make the rules and waste precious lives.

Later, Ignatieff was asked by reporters about not having a vote on the issue.  "That's what you have a parliamentary democracy for. We will hold them to account every day in the House of Commons," he said.

Sure you will, Michael.  Just like you did on the economic action plan, the several budgets, the Afghan detainee issue, environmental issues...

I”ll bet steve is real scared.

An aside - this photo of the three stooges delivery the news is unsettling.  I think it’s the pretense at concern in each face as they send more Canadians to face hell.

About "minimal risks" and training missions

Let's look at some of those “minimal risks” Harper says our soldiers will face under his latest support the troops extension of the Afghan mission.  Let’s not include rebuilding and development efforts, just the training mission (emphasis mine throughout) -

We are very focussed on our operational objectives: training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army in Uruzghan Province. We've made clear recently about the latest information that is available in terms of the time we believe it will take to complete our training mission in the province, some two to four years, and indicated that it's likely to see the Australian commitment after that period transition to a support role.

But having said that, ladies and gentlemen, I make the point as I have made on so many occasions, it is a difficult and dangerous mission. The reason we are here in Darwin today to attend the funeral of an Australian soldier, and the news we are speaking about today of the death of another Australian soldier in Afghanistan, I think does indicate to you the risks that are involved in our mission.- Australian Defence Minister Faulkner, July 2010.

Wow.  Truth-telling on the risks of training exercises.

In this case, what Harper calls “minimal risks” -

Scott Palmer

The Germans discovered something about minimal risk training missions -

The attack shows just how dangerous it can be to train the Afghan army, which the German government in recent months has declared to be the main aim of the German mission in Afghanistan. "Anyone who thought that training the Afghans was a safe walk in the park ahead of pulling out of Afghanistan, has now seen the reality," commented one German army officer. "At the end of the day, training Afghan soldiers in Afghanistan means fighting side by side with the Afghans."
              
France is aware of the minimal risks of training missions -

The French soldier killed in Afghanistan on Monday belonged to a highly skilled team training Afghan soldiers. The French specialists focus on helping the local army operate independently, often under extremely difficult circumstances.

The Americans have had their share of minimal risks as well -

U.S. defense officials in Washington described the slain soldiers as Special Operations troops attached to the U.S. training mission for Pakistan's Frontier Corps, responsible for security in areas near the Afghan border seen as part of a global militant hub. (Three US soldiers dead, two injured)

Just a couple of reasons why Canada should re-think the whole minimal risks thing::

 
Cpl. Darren James Fitzpatrick, 21 years old

Fitzpatrick, a member of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, was on his first tour of Afghanistan since joining the Canadian Forces in 2006. Since October, he had served with the Operational Mentor Liaison Team, which helps train members of the Afghan National Army.


Cpl. Matthew McCully

A Canadian soldier marching into battle alongside the Afghan troops he helped to train and mentor died today when he stepped on a jerry-rigged anti-tank mine during the opening stages of Canada’s largest anti-Taliban offensive in nearly two months.  The soldier, identified as Cpl. Matthew McCully, was a member of Canada’s Operational Mentor and Liaison Team helping to shape their Afghan counterparts into cohesive, organized fighting units.

Harper stated  “We are proud of Corporal McCully’s contribution to our mission in Afghanistan,” considering this particular minimal risk a “contribution” we should be proud of.

Put names, faces, families to the minimal risks before you decide to force others to face them without consulting with Canadians, without even holding a serious debate, you poppy-wearing politicians.  Tell us about the ones who are killed or maimed while on routing patrol during such training missions, during reconstruction and development missions.  Tell us and those you send about the real state of unrest in Afghanistan, the real reason soldiers are being placed in harm’s way, the real reason they are being asked not only to give their lives but take lives as well, something they will have to carry home with them.

And quit wearing our soldiers deaths and injuries like they are some sort of your own personal badge of honour.  You're not the ones taking those "minimal risks."

Flip and flop onto your lying faces, bastards

In 2007 ther Liberals put through a motion calling “upon the government to (inform) NATO "immediately" that Canada's current military commitment to Afghanistan will end in February 2009.”

Now the Liberals say no debate is needed to extend the mission once more. Saying it is not really a military one is more than deceptive since they well know that training Afghan soldiers will place them in the line of fire and that any military presence in Afghanistan draws fire.

Prior to that 2007 motion, “O'Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper have repeatedly said the troops are only committed until 2009. Harper also said MPs would be informed of any changes to the length of the deployment. "If the government wants to extend it further, it will seek the approval of Parliament to do that," he said.

Today Harper tells us he’s the Big Boss of everything and doesn’t have to debate this new extension, “that he had changed his mind and had reluctantly decided to deploy trainers because he doesn't want the past "sacrifices" of Canadian soldiers to be in vain.”

Oh. I see. If more soldiers die, the sacrifices were worth it? Because seriously, as Harper himself said in 2009 when he wanted to extend the mission and include training, 6 years is long enough, and if the Afghans haven’t learned from our troops by 2011, they aren’t going to.  So it's all about having more soldiers die to justify the death of the ones who have already died?

But did any of us really believe he’d stick to the 2011 deadline? I sure as hell didn’t.

"My position is that if you're going to put troops into combat, into a war situation, I do think for the sake of legitimacy, I do think the government does require the support of Parliament," said Harper.

Typical Harper not to get it because he just doesn’t see the soldiers as human beings. “For the sake of legitimacy,” he says, failing to understand that debate is necessary not to cover his precious ass, but to make sure that our precious soldiers are not placed in harm’s way unless every other option has been exercised.

Mr. Megalomaniac sociopath goes on -

"But when we're talking simply about technical or training missions, I think that is something the executive can do on its own."

On paper, maybe. But we’re not sending paper over there to face spitballs. So legitimacy aside, serious debate must take place when deciding on any mission that risks flesh and blood.

And the Liberals don’t think we need such a debate. No doubt they would like to avoid facing questions from the Bloc and NDP in the House since they’ve already decided it’s just perfectly fine to send more Canadians to Afghanistan to face death and maiming. What’s the value of debating the lives of our soldiers compared to the embarrassment the Liberal party might suffer, eh?

The prime minister said he believes that a smaller mission that just involves training will present "minimal risks for Canada."

Well, steve, you tell that to families of dead soldiers in 2014, ok? You go visit the new vets in the hospital, maybe drive them to their therapy sessions (if you haven’t cut off funding for that by then).  Talk to them then about "minimal risks."

And you Liberals who won’t even insist on a debate over this, you had better stand beside harper in 2014 and face those affected by this endless war because any blood spilled after the original 2011 pull-out of troops will be on your hands as well.

I’ve had it with the lot of you inhuman bastards.

Condolences to friends and family

Sgt. George Miok

Cpl. Zachery McCormack

Sgt. Kirk Taylor

Pte. Garrett Chidley

 

Michelle Lang, Journalist

Our hearts are heavy.

Right-wing fantasy come true?

The slavering, blood-thirsty KKKate Mcmillan followers must be celebrating tonight.

(Dec. 22, 2009)
I wish I'd bought the T-shirt:  "Journalist. Rope. Tree. Some assembly required." - Jim

Well darn. I thought I was linking to a story about something bad happening.
What's that old saying..I'd rather have a mother as a whore then a journalist? - Justthinkin

I've said for years the only way to save the US is to hang all of the media first. Looks like my views aren't so out of the main stream. - paulcr49

You bastards wished for this. 

Five Canadians were killed in Afghanistan on Wednesday — four soldiers and a Calgary reporter.  The journalist was identified as Michelle Lang, who worked for the Calgary Herald.

Lang, who was 34, grew up in Vancouver and was a well-respected health reporter for the Herald, winning a National Newspaper Award in 2008 for best beat reporting. She had also worked in Regina and Moose Jaw.

Condolences to Ms. Lang's family and friends, and those of the as yet unnamed soldiers.