MURRAY DOBBIN: THANKS TO HARPER, "WE ARE IN GRAVE DANGER"

I have read at least one book by Murray Dobbin namely 'Preston Manning and the Reform Party' and many of his writings. He is one of Canada's great progressive writers and one whose values I respect and share. This piece appeared in his blog yesterday. I thought the substance was so accurate and the emotion so compelling about the dangers posed by the Harper government that it was worth repeating on this blog.


The Republicanization of Canadian political culture
Posted: 25 Nov 2009 09:17 PM PST

Watching the sickening performances of the Harperites in the House of Commons this week – out right lying, bullying, slander, contempt for the public and parliament, and a stunning disregard for the public good – brings home a hard reality: we are witnessing the Republicanization of our political culture.

And it’s not just the torture issue – it’s the Conservative labeling of Liberals as anti-Semitic – a kind of shit-house rat politics virtually unknown in Canadian political history. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that Karl Rove is on the PMO’s payroll; his disciples certainly are.

This is storm trooper politics and the most alarming and depressing part of it is that it actually works. In a poll done by the CBC (though on Afghanistan the CBC and its polls can’t be entirely trusted) only 50% of Canadians believed the testimony of Richard Colvin. The rest, presumably, believed a politician, Peter Mackay, who has repeatedly demonstrated a total lack of character – most notably his self-serving lie to David Orchard about handing the Progressive Conservative Party to the barbarians of the Reform/Alliance.

Colvin – a man of extraordinary courage, knowing that his testimony would effectively end his career – told the truth simply because it was the right thing to do. But in the new Republican world of Canadian politics viciousness can win out – just as it did in the US with the Swift Boat attack ads going after decorated soldier/politician John Kerry. In a political universe where there are no rules of civilized behaviour, the most ruthless can win because the side that plays by the rules just isn’t mean enough.

There is no obvious way to deal with overt and unapologetic political thuggery. Fighting back in the same manner actually plays into the thugs’ hands because part of their broader objective is to poison the well of public discourse. The ferocious partisanship of the Harper Conservatives – who should really be called the Libertarian Party as there is nothing conservative about them – is designed to drive ordinary citizens away from politics. I can barely stand to watch and listen to the vitriol and lies and I have spent my whole life observing and analyzing politics.

I try to imagine what people who have very limited for it must think when they see this performance. But there is no question that it partly explains the fact that 42% of Canadians didn’t vote in 2008 – a huge advantage for the Libertarians.

Part of the explanation for the weakness of Obama’s administration is the simple fact that the Republicans, even though they are out of power, have so damaged the political culture, so scorched the political landscape, that rational discourse is simply no longer possible in the US.

Eight years of George Bush (building on eight years of Ronald Reagan) lives on and will do so for many years to come. Compassion was simply beaten out of US democracy – day after day, week after week, year after year reason was degraded, community destroyed, truth and genuine discourse ridiculed and crushed. It is impossible to predict whether or not these things are actually dead in the US – or whether the hints of fascism will grow into the real thing before reason and compassion can be rebuilt.

The election of Obama suggests that the fight isn’t over – there are millions of progressive Americans who share the best of civic values. But so far they are losing.We are not there yet in Canada but we are naïve if we think the same destruction can’t happen here. After four years of sociopathic governance by a man full of hate and contempt, Canada is already becoming unrecognizable.

We must stop this man before he literally destroys the country – that is, destroys the core of who and what we are and how we see ourselves. The first step is recognizing that we are in grave danger.

THE SWIFTBOATING OF LIBERAL LEADERS: TIME TO FIGHT BACK!

According to Wikipedia the definition of ‘Swiftboating’ is “American political jargon that is used as a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker considers unfair or untrue – for example, an ad hominem attack or a smear campaign.”

The term comes from a smear campaign against Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election of 2004 which was launched by a loud-mouthed, right wing group of ex-military personnel, who told the world that Kerry did not deserve the war medals that were awarded to him for his war service in Viet Nam, and that he was basically a fraud and a coward. The ‘swiftboat’ term relates to Kerry having been a swift boat commander in Viet Nam as well as to those who defamed him, some of which were comprised of rock-ribbed Republican swift boat veterans who called themselves the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The whole sleazy operation – including television ads and a best selling book - was financed by wealthy and extremist, right-wing Republicans.

Kerry to his lasting regret took the high road gently dismissing the charges against him and mildly chiding his opponents for their low level politics. He went on to lose the election and swiftboating thus became a new favorite tactic of the right. For further examples of this odious ploy, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating, and for a further discussion of the term see: http://www.wisegeek.com/in-politics-what-is-swiftboating.htm

In the United States, politicians who have been ‘swiftboated’ have learned to fight back. For example, Sarah Palin made little headway on her ‘death panel’ allegations in connection with Obama’s health care reform initiative. Neither did the ‘birthers’ get much mileage in their efforts to convince Americans that Obama was born in Kenya and thus ineligible to become President. Much of the press in the U.S. – not being as monolithically conservative as it is in Canada – has figured out swiftboating as well, and is not as likely to roll over as it did in the Kerry episode.

Canadians have been slow to learn about swiftboating. The Conservatives used the technique with their attack ads against Stefane Dion. They knew what they were doing. They wanted to define him to the Canadian people as an inarticulate bumbler who was not a leader. To do so they peppered our television screens long before the last election with highly prejudicial film clips taken out of context which sought to portray him in a bad light. The Liberal Party of Canada –presumably in a Kerry-like misguided attempt to take the high road – pooh-poohed retaliation and did nothing. The Conservatives were allowed to smear Dion with their definition of him. They had swiftboated him. The Liberals had been fooled.

And now – quite unbelievably – the Conservatives have done it again to Michael Ignatieff. The swiftboating of Ignatieff, again in the form of television ads composed of out of context and highly prejudicial film clips, has portrayed him as a selfish dilettante with no attachment to the country. The polls seem to be showing that once again the swiftboating of a Liberal leader by the Conservatives is working. And once again the Liberals seem to be doing nothing to retaliate. Surely, they are not being fooled again. Even the immortal George W. Bush said, “Fool me once, shame on . . . you. . . . . You fooled me once, I can’t get fooled again.” See: http://video.google.ca/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=george+w.+bush+fool+me+once+quote&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=pzj8SqrGMoe2swPj38mSAQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CA4QqwQwAA#
To the Liberals and Mr. Ignatieff I say, "Don’t be fooled again!" There is too much at stake. A Harper majority government will change this country so that none of us years hence will recognize it for the great country it once was.

It is time for Michael Ignatieff and his new chief of staff Peter Donolo, to take the gloves off. The country needs energetic engagement on the political battlefield. Politics is a tough and bloody sport with little place for a genteel Marquis of Queensbury rule book. This is particularly so when one’s opponent has no intention of engaging in the contest pursuant to any kind of a rule book.

Its time to fight and fight back – on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets, and in the hills,* not to mention the church basements, small town hockey arenas, barbecues, hockey tournaments, and anywhere else we do politics in this great country. It is time for some realpolitik! And there is not one moment to lose!
(*with all due credit and apologies to the great Winston S. Churchill)

OBAMA: NO TIME FOR TALK WITH RIFF-RAFF LIKE GORDON BROWN

Once again President Obama is doing the right thing. This time he’s sticking it to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the lame-duck leader of the once mighty, now disgraced British Labour Party. Obama within the past few days has turned down no less than five requests from Brown and his minions to have a meeting together at the UN or at the G20 summit.
See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/23/barack-obama-gordon-brown-talks

While in New York Obama had bi-lateral meetings with Russian president Medvedev, Chinese president Hu Jintao, and Japanese prime minister Hatoyama, but not riff-raff like Brown. Obama obviously has his standards.

Obama is still pissed at the Brown-Gaddafi Faustian deal to have the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi released from prison and shipped back home to Libya so that BP could fatten its profits with the proceeds of a gazillion barrels of Libyan oil. For Brown, the only ethical lapse of this sorry deal was that his pal Gaddafi promised a low-key homecoming for Al-Megrahi and didn’t deliver. Instead the Colonel gave the convicted murderer of 270 innocent victims a hero’s welcome. Unlike Brown and his oily and unctuous predecessor Tony Blair - now taking up space as the most useless special Middle East peacemaker in history - Obama has principles.

Not only is Obama ignoring him, the hapless Brown was even outmuscled for a prime time speech slot at the UN by his pal Gaddafi whose 100-minute wacko speech left hardly any time at all for Brown’s snore fest about climate change.

But Brown has even bigger problems than being snubbed and ignored by Obama or bulldozed and elbowed out of the way by his pal Gaddafi. The lastest of a very long list of beefs from within his party and caucus is that he is now under fire for refusing to fire his Attorney General who was convicted of employing an illegal immigrant. Backbenchers, ex-ministers, and party regulars are demanding that he put the party and the country out of their misery by leaving office now, while the party still may have a chance to avoid a cataclysmic defeat in the next election expected in 2010.

This could be the beginning of the end to the once mighty Labourites. If so, because of Brown and Blair there will be few tears should it come to pass.

GREED, LIES, AND GULLIBILITY: PAUL KRUGMAN TELLS IT LIKE IT IS

To those of you who seek out my ruminations from time to time on my blog, I extend to you my apologies for not maintaining my average periodic contribution to the political discourse of our time in recent weeks. The truth is that I have been taking it easy this summer, primarily eating, drinking, reading and observing.

I have also just completed a comfortable 11 day cruise of the Baltic on the Eurodam during which I walked the medieval streets of Tallinn Estonia, marveled at the excesses of the Romanov dynasty in St. Petersberg, became awestruck by Finnish beauties sipping wine or cappuccino in the sidewalk restaurants of Helsinki, stood agape at the gorgeous island vistas of Stockholm, and ate bad food at the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen.

I also had the misfortune to be among almost 2000 American tourists on the ocean liner. I spoke to many of them and had the bad luck to draw several as dining room campanions while on the cruise. A more ill-informed, parochial, and self-centered bunch I hope you will never have the bad luck to meet.

I weep for President Obama at the many tasks he has ahead of him in his quest to drag much of American society kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Let all of us pray - and I'm am not a religious person but by God in this case I am - that he survives all of the insane perils and hate-mongers that lurk around every corner, in every hall, in every crowd and on every network, that can do him and his administration in in an instant.

However, there are intelligent voices of reason in the United States, one of which is Nobel prize-winning economist and columnist with the New York Times Paul Krugman. His piece published yesterday in the New York Times is brilliantly coherent and accurate and is a welcome injection of sanity in the screwed-up debate on Health Care that is taking place in his screwed-up country.

Here it is:

Op-Ed Columnist
The Swiss Menace
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 16, 2009

It was the blooper heard round the world. In an editorial denouncing Democratic health reform plans, Investor’s Business Daily tried to frighten its readers by declaring that in Britain, where the government runs health care, the handicapped physicist Stephen Hawking “wouldn’t have a chance,” because the National Health Service would consider his life “essentially worthless.”

Professor Hawking, who was born in Britain, has lived there all his life, and has been well cared for by the National Health Service, was not amused.

Besides being vile and stupid, however, the editorial was beside the point. Investor’s Business Daily would like you to believe that Obamacare would turn America into Britain — or, rather, a dystopian fantasy version of Britain. The screamers on talk radio and Fox News would have you believe that the plan is to turn America into the Soviet Union. But the truth is that the plans on the table would, roughly speaking, turn America into Switzerland — which may be occupied by lederhosen-wearing holey-cheese eaters, but wasn’t a socialist hellhole the last time I looked.

Let’s talk about health care around the advanced world. Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.

In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.

The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. That’s how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. It’s also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are. Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program.

Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies. In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.

So where does Obamacare fit into all this? Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.

If we were starting from scratch we probably wouldn’t have chosen this route. True “socialized medicine” would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system. That’s why I and others believe that a true public option competing with private insurers is extremely important: otherwise, rising costs could all too easily undermine the whole effort.

But a Swiss-style system of universal coverage would be a vast improvement on what we have now. And we already know that such systems work.

So we can do this. At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesopinion

BILL CLINTON: TIME TO GIVE IT A REST

The Incredible Shrinking ex-President

The Clinton-Bush Toronto snore fest of a few days ago was as revealing as it was reported to be dull. For one thing, the event proved that Calgary isn’t the only Canadian community to be so crass and insensitive that it would welcome a putative war criminal to speak to its citizens for hundreds of dollars a pop each. Nor was it the only city to reward him with guffaws at his ghost written jokes and a standing ovation after listening to his nonsense.

Predictably, Calgary has been joined by its big bucks, greed is good, sister Canadian community – namely, Bay Street. Hell, the Bay Street pin-striped brigade turned out a crowd of 6000 to hear these two clowns. Calgary couldn’t hold a candle to that. However, the cowtown is still well up there in the crass department. By my last count, it has welcomed no less than three of the Bush outlaws to regale its corporate citizens about shock and awe, the war against terror, and other shibboleths of that sorry administration. Karl Rove, then Bush, and more recently Condi Rice have graced Dallas North – at prices ranging from $400 bucks a head (Bush and Rove) to Condi (the most expensive at $500). Hogtown – a label better applied to Bay Street than the rest of the great city of Toronto – have only had two – Rove and Bush, with Rove generating $700 a head. Bush and Clinton in TO again made Calgary look like pikers, getting up to $2500 a ticket.

Read: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1644965

As might be expected for a man whose classy speeches were a staple of derision on the David Letterman show over the past year, Bush’s repertoire of jokes at the affair included two that dealt with animal fecal matter, and another apparently cribbed from the tired joke file of the disgraced Brian Mulroney. Nonetheless, the crowd chuckled and guffawed and at the end of the day, the two sorry comedians left the city like a couple of absconding pool sharks, a few hundred grand to the good.

Apart from the corporate big wigs and their minions shelling out the big bucks to hear Bush and groveling to him with chuckles and ovations, the big story of the day was that neither Clinton nor Bush knew anything about the new U.S. requirement of Passports for all Canadians going into the States. Well, we shouldn’t be surprised. Bush appointed an Ambassador to Canada whose previous Canadian experience was limited to one previous trip to Niagara Falls and who knew sweet tweet about the country. Clinton’s wife thought that some of the 9/11 terrorists had made their way into the United States from Canada, as did Janet Napolitano, Obama’s new Homeland Security Czar. By the way, Napolitano’s only venture into Canada until now was to see polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba. And people like Jack Granatstein believe that we are anti-American when we get fed up with some of this stuff!

All of which is interesting in a sick sort of way. But what really sticks out in my mind is how far Bill Clinton has fallen. I liked Bill Clinton from the moment he arrived on the political scene. He was thoughtful, smart, and could give a speech like no President before him in my memory. I thought his dalliances were reckless but certainly not impeachable, and the resulting attacks on him were launched largely by right wing Republicans most of which lived in glass houses. I thought he was a good President and was saddened when he stepped down from the Presidency. I even paid to hear him speak once.

But what the hell is he doing traipsing around the world at events such as this where he shares the spotlight with such a twit? With a man who sanctioned torture, was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, lied to and divided the American people, pushed the United States into becoming a pariah state, let New Orleans flow into the Gulf of Mexico, did nothing while the economy went to hell, and rewarded greed like no President before him? I guess he does it for the money. And in the process he diminishes himself daily. Indeed, the Toronto Star thought Bush was the more entertaining of the two. See: http://www.thestar.com/news/columnist/article/642978

I think its time Bill Clinton gave it a rest. He had his turn at the plate. If he wants to make some big bread by giving speeches, he hardly needs to do it with riff-raff like George W. Bush at his side. And there is certainly no reason why he should be interested in salvaging Bush’s legacy or reputation. Better he give more help to Barack Obama who is saddled with the responsibility of cleaning up Bush’s mess.
See also:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/29/clinton-bush-conversation-toronto.html

JACK GRANATSTEIN: TAKING A PAGE OUT OF THE BOOK OF JOE McCARTHY

Jack

For years I have watched the illustrious career of Jack Lawrence Granatstein wend its way through my generation. I have read many of his writings (I admit I have to be up for it), and I have intently watched and listened to him on the tube and radio. Granatstein is a genuine political and military history scholar who has earned many university degrees from good schools including a PhD from Duke University. He served in the Canadian Army for ten years and so possesses much more than academic knowledge of that field. He has taught at universities and written over sixty books including some distinguished prize and medal winners. We see his avuncular personage frequently on our television screens providing mostly trenchant and wise observations of historical and current events. Honours and medals have followed him throughout his adult life. By any standard, he is a great Canadian. For more on Granatstein’s career read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_of_the_Royal_Society_of_Canada.

Alas, he has his blind spots. For example, for some years now he has taken every opportunity to hector Canadians about what he sees as our endemic anti –Americanism, particularly from what he perceives as the Canadian left. He believes Canadian anti-Americanism exists, and he believes it is bad and unfair. He was at it again in a column that appeared in this morning’s Calgary Sun. Unfortunately, as of this writing it has not made it on line. However, I will review it and pass on my comments.

His entrée into the subject is Barack Obama's popularity in Canada. Granatstein asks the question, “How will his presidency sit with the great Canadian anti-American coalition, many Liberals, the New Democratic Party, the Greens, the Bloc Quebecois and all those raging grannies of whatever age who despise the United States and all its works?” His answer was, “Not well, is my guess.” He goes on to say that history leads him to believe that by the summer because of their innate anti-Americanism Canadians will be attacking Obama.

To back up his conclusion, he argues that even though Canadians were largely sympathetic to the U.S. Democratic Party, they denounced even John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton during their terms in office. He writes that Kennedy suffered the wrath of Canadians because of the Bay of Pigs Invasion and for risking nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.

Well, if there were Canadians who felt that way, they were hardly on the radar screen. I was around in those days and paying some attention to the news. I never observed a helluva lot of antipathy from Canada towards Kennedy at any time. The only Canadian I recall as not having cared too much for Kennedy was John Diefenbaker, who was reported to genuinely dislike the man. But let's say there was a bit of it. Was that anti-Americanism or was it anti - American foreign policy on some level - like, say, the Bay of Pigs Invasion or the growing commitment to the folly of Viet Nam? In any event, at the time of the assassination Kennedy was overwhelmingly in the good books of the vast majority of Canadians.

About Bill Clinton, Granatstein says, “those on the left soon complained about NAFTA and his use of American troops around the world, and Prime Minister Chretien tried hard to camouflage his good relations with the Arkansan.”

Well, again, I recall some pockets of criticism in Canada, but it was hardly discernable, even from those on the left. As far as Chretien trying to hide from his buddy – buddy relationship with Clinton, that is pure bullshit and Granatstein surely knows it. And if there were some Canadians who opposed NAFTA or the U.S. led NATO bombing of the Balkans - and there were - does that make them anti-American, or anti - aspects of American trade policy or foreign policy?

Granatstein says, “The Canadian left sees the US. as the great Satan.” I suppose that explains why most Canadians are so hooked on American culture like its movies, pop stars, fast food joints and cities. He predicts that Obama will ask for further troop commitments in Afghanistan beyond 2011, and that “the response from the anti-American Canadian left will be as vehement as if it had been George W. Bush asking.” But whether people are on the Canadian left (as he describes it) or not, if they oppose such a request, does it make them anti-American? Or could they be merely opponents of come components of American foreign policy that is going nowhere and will likely go nowhere unless there is a troop commitment of some three hundred or four hundred thousand strong?

Granatstein continues his rant saying that when Obama does ask for the troop commitment, “The shouts won’t initially include the same sneers hurled at Bush, but Canadian critics, I suspect, will attack the U.S. and the Obama administration with equal fury. Over time, as Obama fails to live up to expectations - no one could meet the high hopes he has created – new personalist slurs will emerge.”

That is highly doubtful. Canadians whether on the left or right, recognize honesty and competence as paramount values in leadership. Obama has both in spades. Granatstein’s pal Bush, had neither.

After a little more haranguing and whining which makes him sound more like Rush Limbaugh rather than the scholar we take him for, Granatstein concludes, “Obama is on his Canadian honeymoon today, but tomorrow he is almost certain to become merely another target for those who reject America’s world view. Canadian attitudes almost demand this.”

That there will be Canadian critics of Obama’s policies there is no doubt. But they will certainly not be critics of the American people and probably not personal critics of the President himself, unless he is perceived to have done something dastardly wrong - like having lied about a war, or condoned torture.

To criticize U. S. policies is not being anti-American. It is to have an opinion about policies. Those who demonstrated in Canada against say, the war in Viet Nam or those who demonstrate today in Canada at the presence of Dick Cheney or G.W. Bush within their environs are not anti-American. They are demonstrating against American foreign policy, or rogues and charlatans who lied to the world. In fact, to paint such demonstrators or opponents of policy as anti-American is akin to Joe McCarthy calling all those on the left or moderate left, or merely those who got in his way, communists. Jack Granatstein, a Canadian icon, scholar, feted author, and so on should be so much better than this.

THE EVISCERATION OF AMERICA'S DR. STRANGELOVE: THE McLATCHY PRESS SHOWS US WHAT GOOD JOURNALISM IS ALL ABOUT

DICK CHENEY (taken when he was CEO of Halliburton)

DICK CHENEY (leaving the White House for the last time)

"Cheney's speech contained omissions, misstatements"

…. By Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers Jonathan S. Landay And Warren P. Strobel, Mcclatchy Newspapers – Thu May 21, 7:10 pm ET

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney's defense Thursday of the Bush administration's policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.

In his address to the American Enterprise Institute , a conservative policy organization in Washington , Cheney said that the techniques the Bush administration approved, including waterboarding — simulated drowning that's considered a form of torture — forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, were "legal" and produced information that "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."

He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair , as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."

In a statement April 21 , however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general's investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.

FBI Director Mueller Robert Muller told Vanity Fair magazine in December that he didn't think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.

— Cheney said that President Barack Obama's decision to release the four top-secret Bush administration memos on the interrogation techniques was "flatly contrary" to U.S. national security, and would help al Qaida train terrorists in how to resist U.S. interrogations.

However, Blair, who oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, said in his statement that he recommended the release of the memos, "strongly supported" Obama's decision to prohibit using the controversial methods and that "we do not need these techniques to keep America safe."

— Cheney said that the Bush administration "moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks."

The former vice president didn't point out that Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahri , remain at large nearly eight years after 9-11 and that the Bush administration began diverting U.S. forces, intelligence assets, time and money to planning an invasion of Iraq before it finished the war in Afghanistan against al Qaida and the Taliban .
There are now 49,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting to contain the bloodiest surge in Taliban violence since the 2001 U.S.-led intervention, and Islamic extremists also have launched their most concerted attack yet on neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan.

— Cheney denied that there was any connection between the Bush administration's interrogation policies and the abuse of detainee at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which he blamed on "a few sadistic guards . . . in violation of American law, military regulations and simple decency."

However, a bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report in December traced the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the approval of the techniques by senior Bush administration officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld . "The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," said the report issued by Sens. Carl Levin , D- Mich. , and John McCain , R- Ariz. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality and authorized their use against detainees."

— Cheney said that "only detainees of the highest intelligence value" were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques, and he cited Khalid Sheikh Mohammad , the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks.

He didn't mention Abu Zubaydah, the first senior al Qaida operative to be captured after 9-11. Former FBI special agent Ali Soufan told a Senate subcommittee last week that his interrogation of Zubaydah using traditional methods elicited crucial information, including Mohammed's alleged role in 9-11. The decision to use the harsh interrogation methods "was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaida ," Soufan said. Former State Department official Philip Zelikow , who in 2005 was then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's point man in an internal fight to overhaul the Bush administration's detention policies, joined Soufan in his criticism.

— Cheney said that "the key to any strategy is accurate intelligence," but the Bush administration ignored warnings from experts in the CIA , the Defense Intelligence Agency , the State Department , the Department of Energy and other agencies, and used false or exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to help make its case for the 2003 invasion.

Cheney made no mention of al Qaida operative Ali Mohamed al Fakheri , who's known as Ibn Sheikh al Libi , whom the Bush administration secretly turned over to Egypt for interrogation in January 2002 . While allegedly being tortured by Egyptian authorities, Libi provided false information about Iraq's links with al Qaida , which the Bush administration used despite doubts expressed by the DIA. A state-run Libyan newspaper said Libi committed suicide recently in a Libyan jail.

— Cheney accused Obama of "the selective release" of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging that Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove that information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.
"I've formally asked that (the information) be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained," Cheney said. "Last week, that request was formally rejected."

However, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA , which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits.

— Cheney said that only "ruthless enemies of this country" were detained by U.S. operatives overseas and taken to secret U.S. prisons.

A 2008 McClatchy investigation, however, found that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees captured in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent citizens or low-level fighters of little intelligence value who were turned over to American officials for money or because of personal or political rivalries. In addition, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Oct. 5, 2005 , that the Bush administration had admitted to her that it had mistakenly abducted a German citizen, Khaled Masri , from Macedonia in January 2004 . Masri reportedly was flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan , where he allegedly was abused while being interrogated. He was released in May 2004 and dumped on a remote road in Albania . In January 2007 , the German government issued arrest warrants for 13 alleged CIA operatives on charges of kidnapping Masri.

— Cheney slammed Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and criticized his effort to persuade other countries to accept some of the detainees.

The effort to shut down the facility, however, began during Bush's second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates . "One of the things that would help a lot is, in the discussions that we have with the states of which they (detainees) are nationals, if we could get some of those countries to take them back," Rice said in a Dec. 12, 2007 , interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. "So we need help in closing Guantanamo ."

— Cheney said that, in assessing the security environment after 9-11, the Bush team had to take into account "dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists."
Cheney didn't explicitly repeat the contention he made repeatedly in office: that Saddam cooperated with al Qaida , a linkage that U.S. intelligence officials and numerous official inquiries have rebutted repeatedly.

The late Iraqi dictator's association with terrorists vacillated and was mostly aimed at quashing opponents and critics at home and abroad. The last State Department report on international terrorism to be released before 9-11 said that Saddam's regime "has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President ( George H.W.) Bush in 1993 in Kuwait ."

A Pentagon study released last year, based on a review of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the U.S.-led invasion, concluded that while Saddam supported militant Palestinian groups — the late terrorist Abu Nidal found refuge in Baghdad , at least until Saddam had him killed — the Iraqi security services had no "direct operational link" with al Qaida .

THE OBAMA ERA BEGINS

Wall Street November 2008

What can one say about the last few months? Everything has happened so quickly. Barriers have collapsed. Truths revealed. Rhetoric many thought was gospel has been debunked. Freedman is out. Keynes is in. Deficits have replaced surpluses. Banks have collapsed. The US. Secretary of the Treasury behaves like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming semi-trailer. The President-elect and his team begin to govern two months before he actually takes office, because the current President is paralyzed and irrelevant and everybody knows it.

A black man whose middle name is Hussein and whose last name is easily confused for one of the great villains in American history is President of the United States. Wall Street has been finally exposed for avarice the world has seldom known. It finally dawns on us that a repugnant sense of greedy entitlement, long promoted by the rich to be exclusive to the psyche of welfare recipients and union members, runs through the veins of big-shot corporate executives just as blood runs through the veins of ordinary people.

The President of the United States – that boorish, bullying, torturing, arrogant, unread, untaught, uncurious, untraveled, child of privilege that his daddy’s rich pals installed in the White House to loot the nation, indeed the world – is a discredited heap. He is a blot on the presidential history of the United States. Nothing good has come from his years in office. The fact that the Republican Party and the Bush family foisted this fool on the people of the United States will stand as a monument to the arrogance of the American ruling class.

Even Stephen Harper, long suspected with good reason of being a neocon ideologue, has abandoned ideology – at least for the time being. Suddenly deficits don’t seem so evil to him as they were a few short weeks ago during the federal election campaign. He says he will do what he has to do to help our threatened economy. We can only hope that he does so. Who knows, maybe this will cure him of his Bushite delusions and help lead the Conservatives back into the red-Tory dominated mould of the old Progressive Conservative Party. It would be a good thing for the country if he did just that.

The world has changed. We really have entered into a new millennium. And once we get over the rough spots in the months or even years ahead, we will all be better off for it. Let’s hope so!

MORE TWADDLE FROM THE CALGARY HERALD: HARPER, OBAMA TWO PEAS IN A POD!!!!????

As if we needed more proof that the inmates have taken over the asylum at the editorial offices of the Calgary Herald, the lead editorial today is titled – don’t laugh – ‘Harper, Obama two peas in a pod.’ I’m being serious and you can read this twaddle here: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=d69059bd-e25d-4239-8485-1808f1d6786d&p=1

According to the editorial writer, “Harper is only conservative compared to the Canadian left. By American standards, the prime minister is a northeast U.S. Democrat . . .”

Well, let’s see if you agree with the above drivel once you have considered the following statements delivered by Stephen Harper during the course of his public career:

"America, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world,"

"Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative. He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work."- Stephen Harper endorsing Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders, who in 2001 called Nelson Mandela "a Communist and terrorist."

"You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."

"Mr. Speaker, the issue of war requires moral leadership. We believe the government should stand by our troops, our friends and our allies and do everything necessary to support them right through to victory."- Stephen Harper, supporting the American invasion of Iraq, House of Commons, April 1, 2003.

"It is inherently dangerous to allow a country such as Iraq to retain weapons of mass destruction, particularly in light of its past aggressive behaviour. If the world community fails to disarm Iraq, we fear that other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can have these most deadly of weapons to systematically defy international resolutions and that the world will do nothing to stop them."- Stephen Harper supporting the American invasion of Iraq, House of Commons, March 20, 2003.

"I think it's a typical hidden agenda of the Liberal party... They had the courts do it for them, they put the judges in they wanted, then they failed to appeal -- failed to fight the case in court... I think the federal government deliberately lost this case in court and got the change to the law done through the back door."- Stephen Harper, attacking the Liberals on same-sex marriage by claiming a conspiracy, News Hound, September 7th 2003.

For more left wing statements from our Northeast Democrat Prime Minister who the Herald says has so much in common with President-elect Obama read: http://trustbreaker.freehostia.com/stephen_harper_quotes.htm

STEPHANE DION: A MAN OF HONESTY, NOBLE PURPOSE, AND CLASS

A GREAT CANADIAN

Stephane Dion announced intentions to leave as leader of the Liberal Party in the same manner as he has conducted his whole political career - with honesty, noble purpose, and class.

He leveled with the Canadian people as to why he lost. The Conservatives had painted him into a corner with unprecedented attack ads well before the election got under way, and they could do it because they had bucks that the Grits never had. He could have said that the Grits never had the bucks because they had spent too much time and effort fighting each other in the few years before he became leader. He did not have to say that though because people already know. He knew that, and he had too much class to remind them.

He defended the Greenshift plan as the forward thinking good policy that it was. I'm sure there will be the usual neocon bumboys who will rant about that statement. However, I refer them to the hundred or so economists who endorsed the plan, as well as to the recent statements of Bill Clinton giving B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell a pat on the back for the same policy.

The right-wing press never stopped talking about Greenshift's so-called complexity. Yeah, complex - a plan that taxed the big polluters who had been ripping off the world with high energy prices, so that some of their excessive gains could be put back in the hands of the little guy, and so the polluters themselves would discipline themselves to produce greener emissions. What was it about that statement they didn't understand?

Dion also made clear that the Liberal Party had to deal with the new era of fund-raising. The party has got to stop talking about it, and do something about it. They have to take a page out of the book of Howard Dean and Barack Obama on mass fund-fundraising. One of the Chretien legacies - and a good one in my opinion (although not in the opinion of the Gritdom's disloyal, bonehead, narcissist-in-chief Stephen Ledrew) - is that political parties henceforth be funded by people. What could be more noble than that? I thought that democracy was all about people. Whatever program the Liberals settle upon must be broad based, and work has to start in earnest on it yesterday. Dion knows that this has to be done in order to protect the same Conservative personality assassination squads screwing his successors as they did him.

He also intends to preside as leader until the convention that chooses his successor. If anyone has the honor and stature in the party to ensure fairness in the leadership process and unity in the face of the result it is Dion.

Dion has always been a respected figure in the party. Today's substance and style of his announcement sustains that respect. His whole career - which happily remains ongoing - and the manner that he has conducted it will ensure his place in the pantheon of great Liberal leaders.

JOHN McCAIN: DEMENTED OR DUMB ?

McCAIN: DEMENTED?

GUN TOTIN' PALIN (Second Row on the Right)

POLITICAL OPPONENT (Reclining in Front Row)

The United States is in big trouble. Any discerning observer can see it. Its problems are visible on a host of levels. Indeed they are obvious to anyone who switches on the boob tube or to anyone who can read. Obvious to anyone except perhaps to many, if not most, Americans.

The nation remains divided along racial lines. Let’s take the prison system. It’s bursting at the seams. According to recent statistics, 7 million adults (3.2% of the country’s adult population) are in U.S. slammers. And how’s this for a sobering statistic - the U.S. has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the total number of incarcerated adults world-wide. In the U.S. there are 737 adults per 100,000 people in jail. This compares to England and Wales with 139 per 100,000 and even China – with 4 times the population - at 111. Norway is at 59 per 100,000. Whatever the reasons, something is dreadfully wrong.

Furthermore, we find that 10.4% of all black males in the U.S. between the ages of 25 and 29 are in jail. 2.4% are Hispanic and 1.3% are white. Blacks comprise 12% of the population of the United States. They also comprise 44% of all incarcerated inmates in the United States. Indeed, something is dreadfully wrong – and racist too! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States

And the books are in a shambles. As of this month, the war in Iraq had cost the poor Yankee taxpayer 550 billion bucks. The burn rate for the conflict is somewhere between 8 and 12 billion a month. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are projected to cost 3 trillion dollars before they are over, and that is likely to be a modest estimate. The total U.S. deficit this year is expected to be 410 billion dollars – keeping pace with the 500 billion dollar average deficit per year since 2003. The total debt as of this spring was 9.5 trillion dollars or $31,600 for every man, woman and child resident in the U.S. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

This is bad news for a country that a few short years ago – during the Clinton years – was running surpluses with the books in great shape. Not so today. And it looks to get much worse if the country decides to give their citizens a break and get into the universal medicare world.

The nation has become uncompetitive in manufacturing. The great automotive companies, long a staple of American industrial might, are edging towards bankruptcy. Other U.S. corporations to remain competitive are building their widgets in the low wage markets of emerging economies in the third world. Good jobs are being lost. Banks are in trouble. The real estate and financial markets across the country have taken an enormous hit from the sub-prime financial crisis.

The country’s thirst for oil remains unabated despite skyrocketing prices. Domestic supplies continue to diminish and high price imports continue to increase with no serious attempt by government to change the people’s appetite for gas guzzling.

And all the while, vacuous and shrill talking heads on the cable and network news channels waste the viewer’s time with trivial matters of sex or mayhem, not designed to inform but to entertain. Print publications that dare to deal with public policy are usually doctrinaire, selling the flim-flam of their ideological masters – their advertisers. Most politicians – particularly Republican politicians - with some notable exceptions, continue to mislead the public on wars, energy, the economy and most everything else.

And now, in a move that is as irresponsible as it is bizarre, John McCain has picked as his running mate a ditzy, ardently pro-life, gun totin,’ creationist, and ex-beauty queen runner-up in Wasilla, Alaska, population 5469. Oh yes, she was Mayor of Wasilla and served on its Town Council. In December 2006 she became Governor of the State of Alaska, population 683,478 – ranking 47th of 50 states. If McCain is elected President and during his tenure finds himself on the wrong side of the grass, well, it will be President Sarah Palin.

McCain has the nerve to say that she is as qualified as his Democratic opponent Barack Obama and his running mate Joe Biden, to be President of the United States. Only doctrinaire neocons and obtuse Canadian Conservatives would ever buy that line. The fact is that McCain, like Fox News and the talking heads and all of the rest of the sorry lot who are leading what was once the great United States down the road to perdition, are trivializing the challenges that lie ahead. They have no appreciation of the complexity to make things right. They are not serious about their country.

And in the meantime, the Democratic ticket instead of being far and away the heavy favorite to win, is struggling in the polls. They are only neck and neck with the yahoos that brought that poor country to its knees through arrogance and stupidity. And why are they only neck- and – neck? Well, you see, Obama happens to be black. It’s a helluva mess.

HILLARY CLINTON AND THE CRAZY AUNT IN THE ATTIC

I only know Hillary Clinton as a politician. I like her. I respect her fighting spirit and loyalty. I share her values that focus on concern for the underdog and the poor. Although some male neanderthals find her shrill, I love her feisty and articulate presentation. She is honest and - a rarity among politicians - outspoken. And she is smart. She would make a great President of the United States.

As I see it, all of her many qualities converged during this year's exciting Democratic Primary campaign season. But it has been a tough campaign. With Barack Obama, she is up against an equally smart and articulate younger man. He has the added advantage of not having to carry the usual baggage accumulated by politicians who have been around for awhile.

Obama is the new kid on the block. Hillary is the battle scarred veteran that people have been watching on the tube for years. After almost eight years of the worst Presidency in the history of the United States, the American people are yearning for change. There is a sense that Obama will more likely be the agent of change. And so, despite her skills and drive, Hillary is in trouble.

Indeed, according to the delegate count, Obama has already won the nomination. The talking heads, two-bit pundits, and party hacks are demanding - in the interests of party unity - that Hillary toss in the towel and publicly concede defeat. They warn that if she stays in the race and fights down to the wire towards the August Democratic convention, the Party may split into hostile factions, making it easier for the Republicans to retain the White House.

Ah, but she battles on. Speeches, debates, perpetual travel, massive campaign expenses and debt - nothing deters her. It is an altogether heroic performance.

Why does she continue in the face of now almost impossible odds? Because she knows - as every American in their heart knows - that anything can happen in a U.S. Presdential campaign. Indeed, anything can happen in the U.S. political process which can immediately, violently and permanently change the course of history. To any observer of the passing political parade in the United States, that is the crazy aunt in the attic, the elephant in the room, the sum of all fears.

The very tough Clinton and Obama campaigns have reminded all but the densest of human beings of the dark moments of recent American political history when shadowy and violent madmen or conspirators have dramatically changed or tried to change the course of events with the gentle squeeze of a trigger. The dangers are compounded during times of emotion-charged political upheavels, when charismatic men and women fight to lead the masses, each enlisting millions to fight on opposite sides in the conflict. Indeed, anything can happen. And we've seen it.

On May 23 during a meeting with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, during a discussion as to why she should stay in the race, Clinton said, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somehere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California, I don't understand it."

You can see the video here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/clinton-kennedy-assassina_n_103319.html

She has faced a volley of criticism for her remarks. She has issued an apology

Clearly her words were impolitic and probably damaging to her. But consistent with her political record, they were honest. The words that slipped from her mouth have been on the minds of every political observer of this election. Yes, assassination is clearly not outside of the realm of possibility in a contest that features a charismatic black man against a charismatic white woman both of whom are obvious agents of real change and either of whom is likely to be elected the next President of the United States. With the exception of some of the events of the sixties, I can't think of an American political situation in the last fifty years that is more explosive and conducive to the incitement of crazies or conspirators to do bad things.

Yes, it is true, between now and August, anything can happen. And people should not be too critical that Hillary had the guts to say so.