• MacdoJn

    You're suggesting that it's the Tories' deliberate attempts to mislead and devide Canadians, that can be blamed? . . Can't help that notice this exchange happens in the committee on Agriculture, not Jutice.

  • hollinm

    Well isn't this the sign of civility. I guess it only applies to Conservatives right?
    Don Newman's column was silly. It was more about who attended a party.
    The fact remains Harper and his government has every right to be suspicious. The civil service is filled with bureaucrats that have been appointed by Liberals for virtually all of the last century.
    Then we have the left wing media exaggerating every comment made by the Conservatives. How is it the media trys to ambuse Conservative MPs/candidates during an election.
    How responsible of Julie Van Dusen of CBC asking Harper in one of his first press conferences if it was his intent to hide.
    Then of course we all remember the PPG walking out of a press conference held by the PM because they couldn't get their way.
    We all remember wafergate, poopin puffins in the last election and the list goes on.
    So Harper and his party have real reason to be suspicious and it has nothing to do with Preston Manning.

  • batb

    Don't tell me Don Newman's STILL around? Don't CBC brooooodcasters EVER retire?

    Mercy, as my grandmother used to say.

    In his article about The Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians' fifth annual dinner in Ottawa this week, Newman writes — of course, on the CBC Web site — “It … reminded many of how, not so long ago, Parliament could function more or less civilly while dealing with important and divisive issues, and could actually get the business of Canada done.”

    Good G*d, Mr. Newman, are you blind or just incompetent and shamelessly partisan?

    The reason Parliament could function civilly when the Liberal$ were in power and the CPC was on the Opposition benches, is because Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the CPC MPs cared about the business of Canadians going forward. They didn't manufacture scandals every week — they didn't have to, seeing as the Librano$ were the authors of their own numerous scandals — nor were they interested in stonewalling every proposal made by the Liberal Government, UNLIKE what's going on now in Parliament.

    It is the Liberal$ who have dragged Parliamentary business into the gutter. They never let up on the CPC, they continually try to find fault and seem to be following a policy of non-cooperation with them as they relentlessly pursue their climb back to power. They also have the collusion of (and free PR from) their lapdogs in the media, , including Mr. Newman.

    Canadians no longer need Mr. Newman's toxic opinions foisted on them now that he's retired. Take up a hobby, Mr. Newman. Pack it in, Mr. Newman. Get a life far from the CBC, Mr. Newman.

    We don't need to hear from you anymore. And many of us would prefer not to.

    Mr. Newman should simply bow out gracefully — if that's possible for a Liberal partisan. He's had his day as a journalist and broadcaster and does his reputation no good by being a braying donkey for the Grits.

  • Bec

    Let's celebrate the 1 year anniversary of the “Rally for Canada” by having a “Can the CEE BEE CEE”, tea party!

  • Nicola Timmerman

    How about the Rat Pack, especially Sheila Copps.

  • Gayle

    Fair enough. The CPC have their handbook of “how to disrupt committees so nothing gets done” and the NDP have one single outburst, by a clearly exasperated MP responding to a comment that obviously had zero to do with the committee's mandate.

    BATB – funny how the PC's managed to govern without thinking the civil servide were out to get them after many years of liberal rule, and then the LPC was able to govern on the same terms after many years of PC rule. Seems it is only the CPC who have a problem here.

    Yeah – I can see why you would equate the two.

    Maybe try again.

  • batb

    Gayle: “Seems it is only the CPC who have a problem here.”

    Not really. For some reason it seems to be l/Liberal$ that have a visceral hatred of c/Conservatives, not the other way around. While it's true that I'm not too thrilled with l/Liberal$ and do tend to see their affliction as connected to mental illness, I am always civil — and often very generous — to my l/Liberal friends. I even ask them to my parties.

    OTOH, I don't know m/any l/Liberal$ who countenance c/Conservatives. They tend to make fun of, feel contempt for, and shun those on the right side of the political spectrum.

    So, I suspect that when the Liberal$ came to power and had to deal with Conservative civil servants (though, honestly, how many could there have been after so many years of Liberal rule?), they found a professional group of civil servants not rabid anti-c/Conservative attack dogs.

    ;-)

  • inforrrr

    we think freedom of speech of conservative is only bluffing and steal idea from other and when time come they will cansor and control all other writer and hid the fact and hired judges to hid facts as we know who are conservaitce of canada are bunch of theifs in busienss by looknice but they have two faces play here

  • Gayle

    Hopefully you think you are being funny, but in case you are not, I am not sure how you equate being “civil” and calling people who do not agree with you mentally ill.

    Though I love how you just make stuff up when the facts do not fit your scenario. That whole “attack dog” thing is a nice touch. If I were not so civil, I would say such comments make you look like you are crazy.

  • Anonymous

    I gotta say I don’t what the point of this post was supposed to be.

    An NDP MP walks out of a parliamentary committee because Conservative members repeatedly try to introduce an editorial about gun registry into the record at the agriculture committee, and you think it’s the New Democrat MP would isn’t behving in a mature a civil manner in parliament?

    You’ve gone and lost your mind.

  • east of eden

    Gayle, the CPC may (or may not) have an official handbook but…do they use it? Is the CPC the only party to be rude in Parliament? Good God – ever watch Mulcair spew? Ever watch a certain female LPC spew? Ever watch Ignatieff spew? The CPC is not the only guilty party, here. Yes, I know you didn't say that the party was the only one to be rude.

  • Liz J

    I'd say the Opposition sets the tone in the HOC, they are the ones who put out the questions . It's their attitude when posing the questions that signals whether they really want an answer or whether they're trying to score points and the question is irrelevant. The latter is where the Liberals are at this point and it's not working for them.

    The HOC tone is as it is now because the Liberals cannot accept they are not in power, it's got zero to do with anything else.

    The Liberals and their media hacks and toadies were a disgrace the way they treated Preston Manning so it's not surprising the likes of Newman would blame the victim who endured some of the meanest and personal attacks we've seen in recent memory, everything from his religion to his physical appearance. Mr Manning is a decent human being, a loyal Canadian, nothing phony about the man.

    Dion and Ignatieff are victims of where politics is at as well, the difference with them is they really are not up to the task of leading a party let alone running the country. The Liberals realized it with Dion and forced him out. Ignatieff may be on his way out as well if he continues to tank. It appears the Liberals may well be replaced by the NDP as Official Opposition if the trend continues.

    How long before Mr Newman starts working for the LPC officially?

  • Liz J

    Guess the Liberals haven't watched Paul Szabo or Marlene Jennings in action on committees…..

  • batb

    Excuse me if I got this wrong, Gayle.

    I thought we were talking about civility in the HOC. Weren't we?

    You can diss me all you want, but I'm not the subject of this debate.

    As Liz points out, take a look at the hissing and dissing by the members on the Opposition benches of the sitting government, the lack of respect and decorum in much of their questioning, all condoned and given legs by the Newmans, Tabers, Olivers, Clarks, and the several Susans in the media.

    The Liberal$ have turned the House of Commons into a bawdy and vulgar mud-wrestling pit. And why? Because they simply cannot accept or get used to the idea that they're no longer the “Natural Ruling Party” (sic) of Canada. They've had the reins to the horses, the keys to the coffers, their fingers in the pockets, their brown paper bags on the tables, for so long, they don't have a clue how to operate outside that paradigm. They're pi**ed!

    Hell hath no fury like a Liberal scorned.

  • batb

    Gayle, have you checked out Mr. Atamanenko's ballistic responses — that's crap, go to Hell, let's settle this outside, etc. — as compared to the very civil presentations and responses of two CPC members, Blake Richards and Randy Hoback?

    I'm not aware of CPC members in the HOC making comments about the girth of other members of the HOC or using language like Alex Atamanenko's. How come the media isn't showing this footage? That'd be a frosty Friday.

    However, if this kind of language was being used in committee by members of the CPC, the usual media hacks would be airing this clip every chance they got.

    Conservatives are simply getting tired of the constant double standard. Fair is foul and foul is fair in the newsrooms of this Deranged Dominion (Mark Steyn).

  • Wicked

    Gayle, peple with blinders on never see right or left. The Tory monkeys who post here have blinderds and white canes.

  • Gayle

    Do you think they wrote the handbook for fun?

    The reason people like Don Newmann bring the handbook up is because it is obvious the CPC are using it.

    There is a difference between being rude, and being obstructionist.

  • Gayle

    Cute. If you are not the subject of this debate, why tell me about how civil you are to your mentally ill friends?

    We could trade examples all day of who is more uncivil than the other. The point Don Newmann was making was that until this particular party entered the House of Commons, we did not have this problem.

    Mr. Taylor here finds one example of one exchange and acts like it is the ultimate proof the CPC are saints. It was a nice try, and it sure brings the paranoid conspiracy theorists like you out, but it really amounts to a pathetic attempt to justify the CPC's behaviour.

    So make all the excuses you want, but the facts are what they are.

  • parnel

    I guess the boo nerds here haven't noticed the very obnoxious and unethical behaviour of Baird in the HOC

  • RIch

    Batb good post, and here I thought “that's the broaaaadcaast ” had finally succumbed. but I guess the LPC needs their political mouth pieces.

  • Rich

    BatB: your comments are very true, the LPC even to this day still feel it is their divine right to govern and that in short order will be returned to power. Most true Liberals like Gayle have a tendency to overlook the abuses of privileges like a Carolyn Bennet, Hedy Fry and Marlene Jennings. The overlook the elimination of Conservative witnesses in committee; example of Paul Szabo and Part Martin in the ethics committed on the Libs so called in out scheme. I really it is impossible to debate with them.

  • east of eden

    Well, I watch QP as well and I think your LPC is also obstructionist. I swear that the CPC could come up with a perfect plan to end poverty (or some other issue, for example) and Ignatieff would get on his podium, grimace all over the map, and vow to bring down the government.

  • east of eden

    What is “peple” and what is “blinderds”? I think you were trying to insult us Tories but somehow your insult became lost in your inability to express yourself correctly. I've noticed that so many non-CPC supporters have not even a basic grasp of English or French. Oh, and BTW – nice insult to blind people. You sure are a classy person – using visual impairment as an insult. Such class. Such intellect.

  • east of eden

    “If you are not the subject of this debate, why tell me about how civil you are to your mentally ill friends?”

    Gayle, I am surprised that you left yourself wide open like that.

  • east of eden

    Well, I hope you find it because obviously you don't have one of your own.

  • east of eden

    Hey, Terry1 is back. Banned from Janke and banned from Taylor so he tries his Janke handle. Baird is nothing compared with Mulcair, Ignatieff, or Goodale when it comes to tantrums, rudeness, and lack of rationality.

  • Liz J

    Being one who always supports the blind, I too was taken aback by that badly chosen analogy. It was wicked but very typical of some of those who do drive-by smut and smears on Conservative sites. The bunker boys are probably finding it hard to get good help these days. Of course some even work for free so you get what you pay for.

  • Gayle

    Well son, your problem is you neglected to say why the witnesses were not allowed.

    Just because the Chair rules against the CPC it does not automatically mean the Chair was wrong. Speaking of overlooking things in order to find fault with anyone who does not agree with the CPC…

    Next time try to educate yourself a little better.

  • Gayle

    Anonymous made a very good point. It amazes me still how much some of you fail to grasp what the CPC are doing.

    Pray tell East – what do you think the gun registry has to do with an agriculture committee? Do you need a gun to grow a crop?

  • http://www.stephentaylor.ca Stephen Taylor

    No, you need a gun to shoot the gophers that tear up your crops.

  • parnel

    And apparently you don't know the difference.

  • tjeerd

    Don Newman. He is still upset that the Dion-Socialist-separatist coalition fell apart.

    No one was more giddy then him when the coalition papers were signed.

  • parnel

    so Mervin are we going to remember Afghhaistan as the Tories downfall for all their extremely poort and possibly criminal handling of the prisoner affair.

  • parnel

    Gsyle…dead on meantal illnes is a Tory trait which is why tory times are tough times and the scandals are starting to come fast and furious.

    These people are arrogant and their leader cannot get his numbers anywhere close to a majority but yet they persist in their apopolexy.

  • parnel

    Gayle if you simply played back every exchange Baird has had in QP the facts would really stand out. The guy is a bully, a liar and unethical in the Herpecrite tradition.

  • parnel

    anonymous…..they lost their minds a long time ago. they lost their honesty and ethics back then also.

  • batb

    tjeerd, yeah Newman's a has-been who doesn't know it.

    Pathetic.

  • Gayle

    Oh please. Could you get any more lame?

    Tell us Mr. Taylor – was the editorial about how guns are totally necessary in order to save the crops from gophers? And did it also say the registry would prevent the farmers from saving the crops?

    Oh my god! Will we all starve because of the registry?!

  • parnel

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/an

    Stephen Harper's Conservatives just cannot help themselves. They carry on for a while sticking to a carefully controlled message, appearing reasonable and sensible. Then, the temptation for ferocious partisanship gets the better of them.

    This temptation is deeply ingrained in the Harper party. It shows itself in the Conservatives' propaganda attack machine, in which opposition leaders' physical mannerisms are mocked and patriotism is impugned. It is displayed with how Conservative MPs use their mailing privileges, as in the recent outrageous mail-outs playing politics in the Jewish community against the Liberals.

    It is revealed almost daily in the Commons and beyond in the ad hominem partisan attacks on previous Liberal governments. But, most starkly, it appears in the verbal muggings given anyone – even civil servants – who dare get in the way of the government's massive, well-financed and all-pervasive spin machine.

  • Liz J

    Looks like this site is getting infested again.

    It's odd discussing civility in parliament would attract such nasty uncivil comments but then again they are apologists for the same party who are the instigators.

    Since the topic appears to be now down to insults guess it's OK to go OT to ask the Liberals what they think of Janine Krieber's Facebook entry, now taken down but not before it was circulated among party members and made public.

    I don't blame her, her husband was used, made a fool of by his own party to expedite the ascension of Mr Iggy. Gotta ask, at 23% in the polls, hows that working for ya?

  • batb

    'Wonder what the difference is between a Conservative “propaganda attack machine” and a disciplined, hard working, well-oiled, justifiably hard-hitting political party?

    I guess it's all in the mind of the observer.

  • Anonymous

    Speaking of civility here’s Jeffrey Simpson’s take on the reformatort version of civilized democracy:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/and-the-conservative-spin-machine-spins-on/article1372201/
    This temptation is deeply ingrained in the Harper party. It shows itself in the Conservatives’ propaganda attack machine, in which opposition leaders’ physical mannerisms are mocked and patriotism is impugned. It is displayed with how Conservative MPs use their mailing privileges, as in the recent outrageous mail-outs playing politics in the Jewish community against the Liberals.

    It is revealed almost daily in the Commons and beyond in the ad hominem partisan attacks on previous Liberal governments. But, most starkly, it appears in the verbal muggings given anyone – even civil servants – who dare get in the way of the government’s massive, well-financed and all-pervasive spin machine.

    Two weeks ago, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, attacked, of all institutions, the RCMP for having dared to suggest that the Canadian Firearms Program’s latest statistics “highlights the importance of the program to law enforcement.”

    Immediately, the minister turned on the RCMP, whose evidence suggested the government was wrong to abolish the long-gun registry. Quite deliberately, Mr. Van Loan had delayed release of the RCMP report until after the Commons vote on the registry, a typical example of the spin machine in action. The supposedly “tough-on-crime” Harperites (whose anti-crime policies are mostly flops) therefore turned on the police, of all institutions.

    This week, however, the partisanship descended even lower with the assault on the integrity and motives of diplomat Richard Colvin.

    Significantly, for those who paid careful attention to substance rather than bombast, in all the sound and fury from the government and former military personnel, no one actually contradicted a single thing in Mr. Colvin’s testimony.

    Canada’s chief military blusterer, retired general Rick Hillier, who led Canada’s military foray into the Afghan mission, predictably dismissed the Colvin testimony, saying the diplomat wasn’t “qualified.” Even in Canadian prisons, “somebody can get beaten up. We know that.” It turns out, from Mr. Colvin’s sworn evidence, that he served in Afghanistan from April, 2006, to October, 2007 – for three of those months as political director of Canada’s provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar. It was dangerous work in a dangerous place where one of his diplomatic predecessors, Glyn Berry, had already been killed by a suicide bomber. It was a lot more dangerous there than at Defence headquarters in Ottawa.

    Mr. Colvin knew, as well as anybody on the ground in Kandahar, what was going on. He tried repeatedly to alert his superiors in the Foreign Affairs department and the military about the systematic abuse prisoners would face when turned over to Afghan authorities.

    In his testimony, he said he sent messages to 76 people in the Canadian lines of command, just to be sure that everyone would know. Mr. Colvin says he specifically wanted the information to be known by four “key recipients”: the Foreign Affairs group responsible for detainees, the senior military chain of command (up to Gen. Hillier) in Ottawa and Afghanistan, Defence headquarters, and local Canadian officials.

    In other words, his testimony suggests he blanketed the government of Canada with his many messages, warning that prisoners would be routinely tortured and that, as a result, Canada would be complicit in their torture.

    When The Globe and Mail began reporting about abuse of prisoners through the redoubtable correspondent Graeme Smith, the Harper response was typical: Deny and attack the source. Typical, too, is Mr. Hillier’s description in his memoirs of the reporting as “yellow journalism: innuendo, implication and assumption without fact.” Writes he: “The Canadian Forces handled the detainees correctly and professionally.” The whole affair, he writes, was a “massive kerfuffle.” Maybe soldiers did act properly – before handing prisoners over to the Afghans, whom the Canadians had to know (unless they deliberately chose not to know) would be abused and likely tortured. And if reasonable conjecture wasn’t enough, there were Mr. Colvin’s reports, sent far and wide in the bureaucracy and military.

    The attack script written this week for Conservative MPs by the Prime Minister’s Office and party research office impugn Mr. Colvin for a) wanting to assist the Taliban, b) undermining the morale of the Armed Forces, and c) making recruitment difficult.

    These are the classic responses of politicians whose government, and the military it supposedly directed, are engaged now in a massive campaign against someone who reported what he saw, tried to alert his superiors to danger, but found that plausible deniability and professions of ignorance were the preferred elements of the endless spin campaign that characterizes everything this government does.

    And, as Mr. Colvin (a career diplomat with top security clearance) is learning, anyone who gets in this government’s way or does not reflect the dictates of its spin machine will be targeted, diminished and, if possible, crushed.

    The Harper party loved whistleblowers when in opposition. They even ran a high-profile one as a Conservative candidate. But when the whistle is blown against the Conservatives, no one actually contradicts the whistleblower’s sworn evidence, they just attack and spin.

  • Anonymous

    Speaking of civility here’s Jeffrey Simpson’s take on the reformatort version of civilized democracy:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/and-the-conservative-spin-machine-spins-on/article1372201/
    This temptation is deeply ingrained in the Harper party. It shows itself in the Conservatives’ propaganda attack machine, in which opposition leaders’ physical mannerisms are mocked and patriotism is impugned. It is displayed with how Conservative MPs use their mailing privileges, as in the recent outrageous mail-outs playing politics in the Jewish community against the Liberals.

    It is revealed almost daily in the Commons and beyond in the ad hominem partisan attacks on previous Liberal governments. But, most starkly, it appears in the verbal muggings given anyone – even civil servants – who dare get in the way of the government’s massive, well-financed and all-pervasive spin machine.

    Two weeks ago, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, attacked, of all institutions, the RCMP for having dared to suggest that the Canadian Firearms Program’s latest statistics “highlights the importance of the program to law enforcement.”

    Immediately, the minister turned on the RCMP, whose evidence suggested the government was wrong to abolish the long-gun registry. Quite deliberately, Mr. Van Loan had delayed release of the RCMP report until after the Commons vote on the registry, a typical example of the spin machine in action. The supposedly “tough-on-crime” Harperites (whose anti-crime policies are mostly flops) therefore turned on the police, of all institutions.

    This week, however, the partisanship descended even lower with the assault on the integrity and motives of diplomat Richard Colvin.

    Significantly, for those who paid careful attention to substance rather than bombast, in all the sound and fury from the government and former military personnel, no one actually contradicted a single thing in Mr. Colvin’s testimony.

    Canada’s chief military blusterer, retired general Rick Hillier, who led Canada’s military foray into the Afghan mission, predictably dismissed the Colvin testimony, saying the diplomat wasn’t “qualified.” Even in Canadian prisons, “somebody can get beaten up. We know that.” It turns out, from Mr. Colvin’s sworn evidence, that he served in Afghanistan from April, 2006, to October, 2007 – for three of those months as political director of Canada’s provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar. It was dangerous work in a dangerous place where one of his diplomatic predecessors, Glyn Berry, had already been killed by a suicide bomber. It was a lot more dangerous there than at Defence headquarters in Ottawa.

    Mr. Colvin knew, as well as anybody on the ground in Kandahar, what was going on. He tried repeatedly to alert his superiors in the Foreign Affairs department and the military about the systematic abuse prisoners would face when turned over to Afghan authorities.

    In his testimony, he said he sent messages to 76 people in the Canadian lines of command, just to be sure that everyone would know. Mr. Colvin says he specifically wanted the information to be known by four “key recipients”: the Foreign Affairs group responsible for detainees, the senior military chain of command (up to Gen. Hillier) in Ottawa and Afghanistan, Defence headquarters, and local Canadian officials.

    In other words, his testimony suggests he blanketed the government of Canada with his many messages, warning that prisoners would be routinely tortured and that, as a result, Canada would be complicit in their torture.

    When The Globe and Mail began reporting about abuse of prisoners through the redoubtable correspondent Graeme Smith, the Harper response was typical: Deny and attack the source. Typical, too, is Mr. Hillier’s description in his memoirs of the reporting as “yellow journalism: innuendo, implication and assumption without fact.” Writes he: “The Canadian Forces handled the detainees correctly and professionally.” The whole affair, he writes, was a “massive kerfuffle.” Maybe soldiers did act properly – before handing prisoners over to the Afghans, whom the Canadians had to know (unless they deliberately chose not to know) would be abused and likely tortured. And if reasonable conjecture wasn’t enough, there were Mr. Colvin’s reports, sent far and wide in the bureaucracy and military.

    The attack script written this week for Conservative MPs by the Prime Minister’s Office and party research office impugn Mr. Colvin for a) wanting to assist the Taliban, b) undermining the morale of the Armed Forces, and c) making recruitment difficult.

    These are the classic responses of politicians whose government, and the military it supposedly directed, are engaged now in a massive campaign against someone who reported what he saw, tried to alert his superiors to danger, but found that plausible deniability and professions of ignorance were the preferred elements of the endless spin campaign that characterizes everything this government does.

    And, as Mr. Colvin (a career diplomat with top security clearance) is learning, anyone who gets in this government’s way or does not reflect the dictates of its spin machine will be targeted, diminished and, if possible, crushed.

    The Harper party loved whistleblowers when in opposition. They even ran a high-profile one as a Conservative candidate. But when the whistle is blown against the Conservatives, no one actually contradicts the whistleblower’s sworn evidence, they just attack and spin.

  • hollinm

    Well you are still around eh parnel…..this happened 2 1/2 years ago and it was Paul Martin who changed the system of handing Afghan detainees over to the Afghan government versus the U.S. military. So how many terrorists got tortured when the Libs were in power. Don't get to smug because some of this could well wash all over the Liberal party and its incompetence in protecting detainees.
    The government changed the system and you know it to allow for more visits to prisons etc.
    So you may think this is a real issue with Canadians but the fact is they could care less about Afghans torturing Afghans.
    The polls sure show Iffy is winning the hearts and minds of Canadians (sarcasim intended).

    More importantly what did you think of Ms. Krieber (Dion's wife) blasting your beloved leader?. I see a very juicy ad in the next election.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s more from your heroes, the reformatort thugs. I wonder how many Afghanis are crippled or dead from the tortures HARPER DID NOTHING TO STOP

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/729157–pmo-issued-instructions-on-denying-abuse-in-07

    WASHINGTON–Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office used a “6,000-mile screwdriver” to oversee the denial of reports of Afghan detainee abuse when the scandal first erupted in 2007, according to a former senior NATO public affairs official who was then based in Kabul.

    The former official, speaking on condition his name not be used, told the Toronto Star that Harper’s office in Ottawa “scripted and fed” the precise wording NATO officials in Kabul used to repudiate allegations of abuse “at a time when it was privately and generally acknowledged in our office that the chances of good treatment at the hands of Afghan security forces were almost zero.”

    “It was highly unusual. I was told this was the titanic issue for Prime Minister Harper and that every single statement that went out needed to be cleared by him personally,” said the former official, who is not Canadian.

    “The lines were, ‘We have no evidence’ of coercive treatment being used against detainees handed over to the Afghans. There were very clear instructions for a blanket denial. The pressure to hold to that line was channelled via Canadian military and diplomatic personnel in Kabul. But it was made clear to us that this was coming from the Prime Minister’s Office, which was running the public affairs aspect of Canadian engagement in Afghanistan with a 6,000-mile screwdriver.”

  • Anonymous

    Here’s more from your heroes, the reformatort thugs. I wonder how many Afghanis are crippled or dead from the tortures HARPER DID NOTHING TO STOP

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/729157–pmo-issued-instructions-on-denying-abuse-in-07

    WASHINGTON–Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office used a “6,000-mile screwdriver” to oversee the denial of reports of Afghan detainee abuse when the scandal first erupted in 2007, according to a former senior NATO public affairs official who was then based in Kabul.

    The former official, speaking on condition his name not be used, told the Toronto Star that Harper’s office in Ottawa “scripted and fed” the precise wording NATO officials in Kabul used to repudiate allegations of abuse “at a time when it was privately and generally acknowledged in our office that the chances of good treatment at the hands of Afghan security forces were almost zero.”

    “It was highly unusual. I was told this was the titanic issue for Prime Minister Harper and that every single statement that went out needed to be cleared by him personally,” said the former official, who is not Canadian.

    “The lines were, ‘We have no evidence’ of coercive treatment being used against detainees handed over to the Afghans. There were very clear instructions for a blanket denial. The pressure to hold to that line was channelled via Canadian military and diplomatic personnel in Kabul. But it was made clear to us that this was coming from the Prime Minister’s Office, which was running the public affairs aspect of Canadian engagement in Afghanistan with a 6,000-mile screwdriver.”

  • Gayle

    The difference is in the definition of propaganda:

    “Official government communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but it is always carefully selected for its political effect.”

    This passage from the editorial Parnel links to explains further:

    “It shows itself in the Conservatives' propaganda attack machine, in which opposition leaders' physical mannerisms are mocked and patriotism is impugned. It is displayed with how Conservative MPs use their mailing privileges, as in the recent outrageous mail-outs playing politics in the Jewish community against the Liberals.

    It is revealed almost daily in the Commons and beyond in the ad hominem partisan attacks on previous Liberal governments. But, most starkly, it appears in the verbal muggings given anyone – even civil servants – who dare get in the way of the government's massive, well-financed and all-pervasive spin machine.”

    You can be a “hard-hitting” political party and still stick to the truth. Maybe Harper should try that whole “taking responsibility for his own actions” thing you conservatives say you are so big on.

  • east of eden

    Although Dion is by no means perfect, I do kind of feel sorry for him. His party hung him out to dry and, along with a few bad decisions, he was doomed from the start. Considering that they accepted you-know-who, it's not surprising. That is the type of person who emobodies the LPC credo.

  • Liz J

    When they start eating their own there's not much hope for growth.

  • parnel

    The infestation is local and limited to the tried and untrue group who post here. Try dealing with the issues for a change and not the ad hominum ATTACKS you specialize in.