A Canadian View of American Politics

Premier Lord taking a page out of the Republican Playbook

2006-04-20T20:48:00.000-03:00

Namely: Changing the rules in the middle of the game.

I just learned of it this evening and it disgusts me. I'll provide a bit of background for those of you who know nothing about New Brunswick politics. Currently we have a Conservative government led by Premier Bernard Lord. The Conservatives have 27 seats, the Liberals have 26 seats and their is one independent (who was formerly a Liberal and votes with the Liberal side of the House). So that means that on most votes, there will be a tie. And who decides a tie? The Speaker of the House, Mr. Tanker Malley.

And it is him on which I shall focus because he is at the centre of the issue I am about to explain.

In a nutshell, back in January, old Tanker decided that he was passed over for a Cabinet position after years of being a "loyal" Conservative back bencher. So, he goes to Lord and demands some things, Lord says no, Tanker becomes an Independent and suddenly the Conservatives have a minority government. The Liberals get high and start planning a spring election because there is no way the Lord budget will pass.

Fast forward a bit. There is no Speaker. At the last minute, the Conservative member who was expected to get that job just drops out and (miraculously!) Mr. Malley becomes the Speaker! Hello! Huge pay raise, a government car, a job for "Judy", the works.

Then, last week, Mr. Malley decides he is going to join the Conservative caucus again. What's really funny is that he stated he was "crossing the floor". Well, guess what Mr. Speaker, you are supposed to be neutral, there is no floor for you to cross! Is it starting to smell fishy yet???

OK, I know it's my opinion and all, but think about it. Tanker gets everything he wants (outside of a little bad press, but for a $30,000/year raise, what's a little bad press?) And he's now back in his beloved party. The Liberals fell all over themselves planning for a new election, and Lord is sitting back smiling at his handiwork. "No election yet!", he's saying to himself. My wager is that this was the plan from day 1 and everybody fell for it.

But now Mr. Lord has a problem. How is he going to get his budget through Committee with the current numbers? Very difficult given the current rules and procedures that have been in place for 100 years. So what is he to do? Well, the only option is to change the rules. Right?

And that is exactly what he is trying to do. He wants rules changed that would allow one of the following: a government representative (read Conservative member) is allowed to have 2 votes in Committee, the budget gets approved in Committee rather than on the floor and the "government" picks the Committee members, and the time allowed for discussion on the floor is limited severely and if there is an impass, the new rule dictates that the bill under discussion automatically passes.

Can you say, "WTF????"

The last time I checked, we were a democracy, one person, one vote. Lord gets to pick who is on the Committee? If there is no agreement on the floor, the bill passes? Out-frickin-rageous!

I know, I know, you're sitting there thinking there is NO way he'll get away with this. Guess again. It all rests with the Speaker who said today if there is a vote on the rules, he will vote to change them. Done. Deal.

The Speaker is supposed to be neutral. He is there to ensure the government runs effectively and fairly. There is a certain code of conduct for the position and certain norms that are in place for a reason. For example, if a bill is on the floor (like the budget) and there is a tie, the Speaker will vote in favour of the government. However, if there are rule changes being debated, the Speaker will stick with the status quo until there is a majority on the floor to vote for the change. It's a way to keep the system clean and fair. Well Tanker Malley has shown his hand today. He is getting paid his big fat salary to be the corruption arm of the Conservative government, not a representative of the people of New Brunswick.

This is dirty folks, really dirty. We need to spread the word that this is unacceptable. It's going to take a filibuster on the part of the Liberals to prevent this tragedy from taking place and I hope they are up for it. If they are, then maybe there is hope.

This is dead serious, our system of democracy is at stake on this very issue. We need to call them on it, all of us.

Oscar Medellin: The guy standing beside Cheney?

2006-02-17T12:37:00.000-04:00

Cheney mentions him as being in the hunting party (he found the second covey), but there is no further mention of him being interviewed or providing an affadavit.

From here:

Mr. Cheney told me that on Saturday, February 11, 2006 at approximately 5:30 pm on the Armstrong Ranch that there was a three vehicle hunting party that consisted of himself, Bo Hubert, Pam Willeford, Jerry Medellin, Katharine Armstrong, Sarita Armstrong Hixon, Harry Whittington, and Oscar Medellin.

So there were eight people in the hunting party (well, eight people at the scene anyway...)

So, there are 3 Medellin's involved:

Jerry (Gerardo) Medellin who was identified in one of the reports as the "hunting guide". But so was Bo Hubert! Can a hunting party with 8 people have two hunting giudes? I guess...
Oscar Medellin who Cheney mentions as being with Bo Hubert and having identified the second covey and never mentioned again...
Ramiro Medellin, the guy who used to be a sheriff, now works at the ranch and was the guy who the current Sheriff called to find out what happened. It was Ramiro Medellin who called the Sheriff back and said it was an accident. That was when he made the decision not to go out until the next morning (sounds like, anyway...)

Also, if you read all of the accounts, it sounds like Jerry Medellin, Kathering Armstrong and Sarita Hixon were hanging out in the vehicles while the other "group of 5" were hunting! But how does that jive with one of the reports indicating that Jerry (Gerardo) Medellin was the hunting guide?

So what happened to Oscar? Why no mention of him from anyone else doing the investigation?

(FYI, I found an Oscar Medellin who graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1999 from Texas A&M. If this is the guy, he sounds young - mid to late 20's?)

Anyway, it's all kind of bizarre, I think...

Plamegate Revisited - Tatel's redaction partially revealed

2006-02-07T15:46:00.000-04:00

Remember the United States Court of Appeals decision on the subpoenas for Judith Miller and Matt Cooper? And the subsequent opinions from the Judges? Remember that a big chunk of Circuit Court Judge Tatel's opinion was redacted?

Well, through an FOIA request by the Wall Street Journal, some of that opinion that had been redacted has been released. Of course, there is still a fair bit redacted (likely to do with Rove as he hasn't been indicted yet), but it does make for a good read.

Here is the link to the newly released information.

I took the liberty of comparing it to the document that was already released and the parts that have been added back in consist mostly of pages 72 (starting with the last paragraph on the page) through 81 (ending with the first paragraph at the top of the page.

There was really only one thing I read that was news to me. Do you recall how it was mentioned that Libby's handwritten notes had the fact that Cheney told him who Plame was in mid-June in a meeting? Remember how everyone (right down to Chris Matthews, blech) was shocked to hear that someone like Libby would actual write down all this stuff? Well, it wasn't Libby who wrote it at all, according to Tatel. Here is the quote:

The special counsel's argument is persuasive. As Libby admits, in mid-June 2003, when reports first appeared about the Niger trip, the vice president informed Libby "in an off sort of curiosity sort of fashion" that the Niger envoy's wife worked at the CIA's counterproliferation division. (I-50-55, 245-46.) In addition, handwritten notes by Libby's CIA briefer indicate that Libby referred to "Joe Wilson" and "Valerie Wilson" in a conversation on June 14. (8/27/04 Aff. at 12.)

So there you have it, Libby didn't keep handwritten notes, his CIA briefer did, whoever that may be. My bet is that whoever it was is currently unemployed...

Sneaky, sneaky China...

2006-01-27T15:42:00.000-04:00

What are they up to anyway? Obviously world domination. I'm amazed at the patience of non-westerners in carrying out their long-term goals. So, you ask, what is she babbling on and on about? Check out this news story: China Supports Russian Plan to Enrich Uranium for Iran's Nuclear Program.

I've believed for a number of year's now that China clearly has a grand plan. I have to admit it's brilliant. See, rather than do what Russia did (i.e. democratize govenment and THEN try to instill a capital economy. Obviously THAT didn't work out all that well...), China went the other way: they are building a capitalist economy and maintaining the pseudo-communist political system. (I know one could argue they are more socialist than communist, but I'm just not competent enough to argue that!).

My point is that China is clearly playing a smart, long-term game. Russia is weighing their options and moving towards the side they see as the ultimate winner. They are buddying up to China like crazy! And the US, as usual, can't see past the end of their nose. China essentially has the US by the short and curlies economically, they own such a huge amount of the debt the US issued to pay for their stupid wars and tax cuts. All China needs to do is say to the US, "If you don't play by our rules, we start selling..." and the US can do nothing but cave unless they really want wordwide economic upheaval, and I'm sure they don't.

Anyway, it's fun to watch. Keep an eye out in the future for little nuggets such as this one and you'll begin to see the chess board forming up for top dog as easily as I do!

BRING ON FRANK! BRING ON FRANK!

2006-01-24T11:29:00.000-04:00

Well, who would have ever guessed that I, of all people, would be excited about a Conservative government in this country! But I am and I'll tell you why...

It's for the greater good really. I fully suspect that over the next 18-24 months, Stephen Harper will show his true colours. The Liberals will get their act together and elect Frank McKenna as leader of the party and we will have a Liberal majority again very soon. In the meantime, there is very little risk that Harper's extreme agenda will get through (if he's even dumb enough to try it) with a good majority of the seats being held by left-leaning parties in the house. I kind of hope Harper pulls a stunt or two, that will make for great talking points in a future campaign and will help to bring him down even more!

Also, with the destruction of Bush in the States over this time period, Harper won't be able to rely on his neo-con friends to help prop up his agenda, because they are going down hard. Although if he's dumb enough to try it, then bring it on! All that will do is send the religious right scattering back into the woodwork for another 10 years, which is exactly what this continent needs. And exactly what I want to happen.

All Canadians on the left should view the election results last night as the best thing that could ever happen for the future of this country. Short term pain for long term gain, that's what it's all about and we will come out stronger in the end.

Unlike the States, Canadians can fend off a right-wing infiltration because about 70% of us are dead set against it. And as I said to a friend this morning, Canadians can say, "Screw you!" better than any country in the world...

I can hardly stand the anticipation. I love this country!

What will be REALLY interesting over the coming days though, is whether or not Harper will be stupid enough to fire Frank McKenna and free up the guy who will cause his future downfall. That's what we need to watch for. If he does fire Frank, I'll be dancing in the streets because that is what will start the ball rolling. One could then say at some point in the future, "Well, Harper did it to himself. He should have left Frank right where he was..." How delish.

As the Maritimes go, so goes the Nation...

2006-01-20T13:36:00.000-04:00

In elections past, the Maritime provinces have been an excellent predictor early on during the returns as to how the Nation as a whole will go. It's an interesting phenomenon, one which I perfectly understand being a Maritimer myself.

You see, it's very simple: we are at the bottom of the totem pole, but that's a good thing. When you are at the bottom, you get all the information that flows from the top. So, really, Maritimers are the most well-informed of all Canadians! Therefore, when it comes to these kinds of decisions, we are the perfect "sample" or "predictor" for how the Nation thinks as a whole. Simplistic, I know, but I like it...

SOOOO, what does that mean? My prediction: Conservative minority come Monday. One of the 3 seats in question for New Brunswick will flip to the Conservatives, the others will stay Liberal. Which seat will flip? My first choice would be Tobique-Mactaquac, second choice is Saint John. However, on election night, if both of these "questionable" seats go Conservative along with Miramichi, then we are in big trouble, as this scenario would indicate that a Conservative majority is all but certain... God help us all, in THAT scenario.

If you are interested inlooking at the poll numbers for the Maritimes a little more closely, go to DemocraticSpace.com.

Who Said This? A Future Prime Minister of Canada, That's Who!

2006-01-19T15:53:00.000-04:00

Can we do it? Well, don’t bet against us. We have a heck of a lot going for us in Canada. On our worst day we’re still better than any other country in the world. We have always been able to rise to a challenge in this country. When this country was formed over a hundred years ago, and needed a national railroad to unite it, a ribbon of steel was built from coast to coast by the sheer force of hard work and the perseverance of our pioneer forefathers. When we were asked to stand with other freedom-loving countries in the world during two great wars, Canadians were there standing side by side, and standing tall in the name of freedom around the world. And when the cause of peace became the world’s greatest preoccupation, Canada once again stood at the very head of the line, ready to throw its resolve into the trouble spots around the world, justifiably earning us the title of "the World’s Peacekeepers." And when countries of the world, as so many have, became fractured by violence, by dissent within, by foreign wars, Canada opened its doors to refugees, whether they were Hungarians, or Czechoslovakians or Vietnamese. People of all races, of all colours, from all points around the world, were welcomed - were welcomed with open arms by Canada. Can such an agenda unite us in Canada? Well, you bet it can. After all, there has always been more to this nation which unites us than divides us.

When I talk to salmon fishermen in British Columbia, they are really not very different from the cod fishermen in Newfoundland who also have lost their livelihood. When I talk to the farmers on the Prairies, I find that they’re experiencing the same problems with crop failures as the farmers in the Annapolis Valley. And the flood victims of the Saguenay have suffered from the same unstoppable act of God as the citizens of the Red River areas of Manitoba. There is really very little difference amongst the immigrants to this country who came from points all across the world, all of us, or our forefathers, all having come here because we saw this land as a beacon of light, a welcome to people from all around the world to this peace-loving country that we could live together in harmony. And we’ve embarrassed all of these immigrants, all of these comers to our land, with unconditional love and with open arms. There is really very little difference my friends, between the French of Quebec and the English of the rest of Canada in their common devotion to social democracy, the rule of law to support for universally available health care, and the enjoyment of a reputation, globally unrivaled by any country in the world.

I think all Canadians feel that they are enriched by those differences, stronger for being a country, francophone, anglophone, aboriginal, ethnocultural, with people from all over the world coming here and participating by putting their culture into the mix and enjoying the culture and richness of others. And there really is very little difference amongst us. There certainly is very little difference in the blood that was shed by A. A. Lechapelle of Quebec, killed at age 21, on the fourth of July, 1944, whose inscription reads "I left my wife and child, dearest on earth to me, for peace. May they preserve it." There is very little difference from his blood and the blood of an Acadian from New Brunswick, J. W. Mazerolle, who died just a month later, buried under the marker, "I died for my country, Dear Canada." Vive Le Canada!

- Frank McKenna, "My Canada" , November 1998

God, I love him! I can hardly wait for that election. But when will it be??? I'm betting on a Conservative minority on Monday actually. Yeah, I know the numbers look better than that, but they are always inflated by enough points to make the difference between a minority and a majority. So, if I'm right, then Frank the "Saviour" McKenna should be PM in about, oh, a year and a half? Yeah, sounds about right.

Bush Administration Authorized Illegal Wire Taps of Americans Prior to 9/11

2006-01-13T18:19:00.000-04:00

Well, if this story is true, it certainly blows a hole in the "9/11 changed everything" excuse that the White House uses to justify every non-democratic action they've pulled in the last few years... It also makes Cheney look like even more of a Dick when he commented that officials may have prevented 9/11 had they been able to eavesdrop earlier. What a shithead.

The story was released today via truthout and can be found here.

There is also a diary up a DailyKos where it is being discussed.

Stephen Harper DOES plan to do America's bidding

2006-01-11T16:36:00.000-04:00

Well I happened to come across something very, very interesting today. Do you recall the news item out Friday, January 6, 2006 concerning Stephen Harper's plan to have a new "intelligence agency"? Well here is a link to it and here is a snip from the article:

Canada's Conservative Party Leader, Stephen Harper, said on Friday his government would set up a separate foreign spy agency to "independently counter threats before they reach Canada."

"We're going to create a distinct organization through legislation," Harper said at a campaign stop in Bolton, north of Toronto.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the country's existing civilian spy agency, operates on the domestic front, has mounted specific operations in other countries.

Harper said that the Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency, when created, would fall under the guise of a new security czar, who would co-ordinate the activities of CSIS, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canada Border Services Agency.

Cool huh? I remember thinking to myself, "We already have CSIS, is that not quite good enough for Mr. Harper? Why does he feel we need to do this?" I wondered about it, found it curious, then forgot about it.

Well, guess what? I found an article today that gave me the answer to why he's doing that: Because that is what the Americans want.

Have I whetted the appetite yet? I hope so. Here's the story: David Frum gave a speech to AIMS on June 12, 2003. The premise of the speech was to provide insight on what the US thinks of Canada and how the relationship is going. In that speech, David Frum said this (bolding mine):

The last structural problem is a problem of diplomacy, which is I think the Americans would be very well satisfied if CSIS were an effective organization. If CSIS were an effective organization, or as good an organization as say its Australian or German or French counterparts are, I don't think they would care much what the Canadian military was like. Ultimately from an American point of view even if Canada had the most fantastic military a country of its size could have, it would be a very marginal contribution to continental security. Whereas an effective intelligence service in Canada would be an extraordinary -- that would be really helpful.

So I read this and went, "Whoa! So THAT'S where Harper is getting this bright idea from!" I would bet dollars to donuts that Harper is somehow in communication with the American neocons and he will make the perfect puppet for them to implement their crazy foreign policy agenda. In fact, Frum is probably the conduit between them and Harper! He did organize the Winds of Change back in 1996 in an attempt to unite the right. I read a comment today from an old article about that Conference that states:

Patrick Boyer, one of the Tories who attended the Winds of Change conference, emerged from it saying Frum's draft manifesto was "a ripoff of right-wing American Republican Party policy" that would not be supported by the Canadian electorate.

So, clearly Frum has been in cahoots with these creeps from way back. Of course, we knew that anyway, he worked for Bush! Damn straight he'd know what the neocons want from Canada... The whole thing sickens me.

Pre-Debate Thoughts...

2006-01-09T20:00:00.000-04:00

Well, just an hour before the second English debate and I've got my beer and popcorn ready! (Sorry, poor taste...)

I'm listening to CTV News Net right now and feeling a sense of deja vu. Weren't the media announcing a potential Conservative majority two weeks before the last election? Or is my memory not working?

So the polls are showing a HUGE swing towards the Conservatives. At first I was concerned, but maybe it's just the kind of kick in the ass the Libs need to remind voters we are Canadian, not America Light. We'll see in less than an hour. I'll probably comment tomorrow. Cheers!

The English Debate - Thoughts

2005-12-17T09:26:00.000-04:00

So, yes, I did the four hour vigil again last night in front of the telly. It was a little more entertaining than the previous night. And, yes, I enjoyed it. Here are some of my random thoughts:

Is it just me or was Jack Layton the only one whose microphone ever got cut off? Wait, let me put it another way. The only speaker whose micrphone NEVER got cut off was Paul Martin. I kind of thought he talked too long at least a couple of times. So why didn't he get cut off? I could be wrong, but it did seem a little suspicious to me.

I really chuckled at one point when Stephen Harper actually started a comment off with the word "Notwithstanding"! Priceless... I think an ad should be made of that.

Also, did that spaz really call Martin a flip-flopper??? How HILARIOUS is that? I swear, Harper really needs to hire campaign advisors who DIDN'T work for Bush. It's ridiculous.

As much as the pundits think Martin's tirade on Duceppe was "staged", I thought it was pretty powerful myself. That's a clip I could watch again and again and, at the end, still go "Yeah!"

I'm usually never that impressed with Paul Martin, but he held his own pretty well last night considering he was being constantly bashed from three sides. Maybe the other leaders should consider that it could get him a sympathy vote? I don't think people really feel comfortable watching that kind of incessant bashing. They said as much when the topic of the behaviour during Question Period on the floor came up. But I'm female, so maybe it's just my nature to want to defend the person being attacked...

I'm glad Martin got the dig in on Harper's speech from 1997 about the country in theory and in practice. Too bad most people wouldn't have understood it.

I did pick up on something though, and I'll make a prediction right now that the Martin people have uncovered something juicy about who has donated to Harper's leadership campaign. Did you catch that part? When Martin asked Harper to tell who contributed? It sounded to me very much like a warning that they've got something on him. I wonder when they'll let that information "leak" out. I can't wait to find out, I've been convinced for a while now that American money is making it's way to Harper somehow. If the Liberals have something like THAT? Well, say goodbye to Mr. Harper and hello to a Liberal majority.

You know, this could make for a juicy campaign after all... Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

The French Debate - Thoughts

2005-12-16T09:12:00.000-04:00

Well, last night I sat in front on my TV for 4 hours. The first hour watching Duffy's show on CTV NewsNet, the next two watching the french debate (which, by the way, I actually enjoyed) and the last hour watching the commentary on Duffy's show.

I have a few random thoughts:

Why does Mike Duffy have partisans on to "discuss" the debate? I mean, come on. I think we ALL know what their comments will be. I find it very annoying. And then Duffy himself has the audacity to be rude to the NDP guy! He asked him what he thought of the debate, the guy responded with, "I think the NDP did great." and Duffy snidely replies, "Of COURSE you do!" and rolls his eyes! Well that goes for the two partisans sitting beside you too Mike. If you know what they are going to say, why bother having them on? I much prefer listening to real political analysts with some bit of independent thought.

I find particularly annoying the Conservative partisans that get on these shows nowadays. Haven't they figured out yet that the FOX model won't work in Canada? We are for the most part literate here, we aren't sheeple Americans who fall for simple words and divisive phrases. Have these new Conservatives gone to the same school Ann Coulter and JimmyJeff went to? I partly blame CTV News for this. If I wanted to watch conservative Republicans, I'd watch FOX News, not CTV. (And this goes double for Mr. David "Axis of Evil" Frum, he's just an American pretending to be Canadian as far as I'm concerned. But wait... So is Stephen Harper! Are they friends, I wonder??? Hmmm....)

Now I know I'm probably going to upset some people with my next beef, but whatever. What the HELL is the Bloc even in the debate for? Seriously? I get absolutely infuriated with this separatist bullshit. It reminds me of my 28 year old nephew who stays at home playing video games, whining about how he deserves better in life, while his parents continually foot the bill and allow him to stay. He won't leave and his parents won't kick him out. But guess what? He's still family and I love him to death. But either shit or get off the pot. Figure it out one way or another and then STFU.

On a more polite note, Gilles Duceppe is REALLY good... I probably agreed with about 70% of what he said! He is intelligent, comfortable in his own skin, speaks with confidence. I can't really blame Quebecers for voting for a Party this guy leads. It's just the principle of the thing. They are very clear in the fact they are a Separatist Pary. If you are a French Canadian in Quebec who loves Canada and believes, as I do, that Canada isn't Canada without Quebec, why on earth would you vote for the Bloc? Do you really hate the Liberals THAT much? I dunno, something seems a little wanky to me here...

On to the NDP. I like the NDP. I'd probably vote NDP if Stephen Harper wasn't the leader of the Conservative Party. (Heck, I might even vote Conservative is Stephen Harper wasn't the leader of the Conservative Party!) But the negativity that comes out of Layton's mouth just doesn't feel NDP'ish to me. Maybe it's my problem with my perception of the NDP as the party of nice people who act like grown ups. The moderators, if you will. The "Miss Congeniality's" of the race. So when Layton starts off a comment with negative attacks, it kind of makes me a little queasy and I lose a little bit of respect for the Party as a whole.

And finally, how long is it going to take before these guys realize that the Gomery thing is OLD NEWS! Yes, it happened. It would happen to ANY Party with too much power. That kind of corrupt behaviour due to too much power is not strictly limited to the Liberals. And EVERYBODY knows it! The other parties are beating a dead horse with that one, Canadians don't much care about that scandal anymore... Face it. This is what I hear from EVERYONE I know. They don't give a shit.

It's the bread and butter issues people care about and most Canadians haven't been forced to switch to margarine just yet, so the status quo is just fine. If it ain't broke... and all that. Trying to convince a Canadian that this country is broke and needs change is just going to piss them off because it's simply not true. It just makes you sound like a trouble-maker who is forcing the average Joe to go vote in the dead of winter for what? No good reason. Well guess what? THIS voter is going to vote Liberal just for spite! (Even though I'd vote Liberal anyway. But this IS what I'm hearing...)

All right, that's enough for now. I'll be back tomorrow with thoughts on the English debate being held tonight. Ta ta!

What Stephen Harper REALLY thinks...

2005-12-15T16:23:00.000-04:00

OK, so this speech from 1997 that Stephen Harper gave to a right-wing US think tank, called the National Citizens Coalition, has made it's way into the media here in Canada. The current response of the Conservative Party is that Harper isn't the same person he was then, but I doubt it. Yes, people can change, but I'd bet money that this leopard hasn't changed ANY spots, he just got a good dye job to cover the spots up!

However, I did find the speech a very interesting read. I did get more of a sense of Harper and what he may be like. I think he is obviously a very smart man, brilliant even. But have you ever met a brilliant person who is secretly an extremist? They're a little scary. They are also able to hide their real views very, very well because they know their views aren't popular and will expose the secret beliefs they really have. How do I know this? I grew up in a fundamentalist religious environment. I can spot a fraud a mile away. And the truly committed who pretend they are like you and me are just as much a fraud as the cult leader who doesn't believe a thing he spouts, he's just in it for the money.

I think Harper is the former type of fraud. Just read the speech. His true colours shine through.

I have to admit, his description of the Canadian political landscape is quite accurate. If someone asked me to describe it to them, I would probably have the same take (except that I would demonize the right, not the left :)). But it's his description of those on the left where his real thoughts come through. The Harper spokesperson mentioned the speech was in jest, but often humour shows us the truth in people.

Here are some quotes related to the NDP (New Democratic Party for those non-Canadians out there reading this):

The NDP could be described as basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it's actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.
This party believes not just in large government and in massive redistributive programs, it's explicitly socialist. On social value issues, it believes the opposite on just about everything that anybody in this room believes. I think that's a pretty safe bet on all social-value kinds of questions.
Its main concern, of course, is simply the left-wing agenda to basically disintegrate our society in all kinds of spectrums.

OK then! He also describes the Liberal Party, the former PC Party (of which he is now the leader since the Reform Party and PC Party essentially combined to become the current Conservative Party), the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois (the separatist party from Quebec).

His comments on the Liberal Party:

It's not what you would call conservative Democrat; I think that's a disappearing kind of breed. But it's certainly moderate Democrat, a type of Clinton-pragmatic Democrat. It's moved in the last few years very much to the right on fiscal and economic concerns, but still believes in government intrusion in the economy where possible, and does, in its majority, believe in fairly liberal social values.

His comments on the former PC Party:

But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters.

In fact, before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country.

At the leadership level anyway, this was a pretty liberal group. This explains one of the reasons why the Reform party has become such a power.

And his views of the Reform Party (HIS party):

The Reform party is much closer to what you would call conservative Republican...

So there are some non-conservative tendencies in the Reform party, but, that said, the party is clearly the most economically conservative party in the country. It's the closest thing we have to a neo-conservative party in that sense.

It's also the most conservative socially, but it's not a theocon party, to use the term. The Reform party does favour the use of referendums and free votes in Parliament on moral issues and social issues.

He discusses the Bloc, but he really displays a fair amount of disdain for the French overall. He insists that Canada is NOT a bilingual country, it is a country with two languages. He tells the audience explicitly that Canada IS an english speaking nation, if you exclude Quebec, etc..

Finally, he talks about social "problems" with Canada, comments I found quite distasteful. Here, see for yourself what he thinks of Canadians:

First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.

Nice, huh? Ok, there are some who abuse the unemployment system, but to lump everyone on social assistance into some group that should be sneered upon is truly disgusting and clearly shows his complete lack of empathy with those less fortunate than himself.

And what, exactly, does this mean???

Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.

Ummm... is he saying Canadians are stupid, or am I missing something?

So, in closing, this guy is a fraud who is clearly pissed that he is stuck being a Canadian rather than an American. Poor him. So, why is it again that there are those is this country that actually want this guy to lead a country he doesn't even like? Beats me... The Conservative Party would do well to get rid of this guy if they want to be taken seriously as a Canadian political party.

The Niger Forgeries: France speaks...

2005-12-01T15:36:00.000-04:00

The Italian publisher, La Republicca, has just posted a story:

Nigergate, lo 007 francese che smonta la tesi del Sismi
(Read an English translation here: French Spy Chief Debunks Sismi and Washington)

It's a long article and is basically saying that Rocco Martino did not work for French Intelligence but was more likely working for Sismi (Italian intelligence). It is mostly based on an interview with Alain Chouet, former Vice Director of The Direction Générale de la Sécurité extériéure (Dgse), or French counter espionage abroad, during the crucial time in question.

Another interesting snippet is that it leads me to believe that the CIA had copies of the Niger Forgeries prior to September 11, 2001. Up until this article, it was assumed that the CIA didn't get these forgeries until presented to the American Embassy in Rome in the fall of 2002. However, this article indicates that the CIA absolutely had the documents in the summer of 2002 (they had sent copies of some of the documents to French Intelligence for review), but hints that the CIA may have had the documents prior to September 11, 2001 because the CIA had asked the French to look into uranium purchases in Africa but did not provide them with any documents at that time. Here is a quote related to this:

"Early in the summer 2001, the CIA passed us a piece of information both general and alarming. `Iraq' - Langley warned - `is apparently trying to purchase uranium from an African country'. The Americans added that they had been put on the alert by a trip, dating back two years, of the Iraqi ambassador to the Holy See to [several] Central-African Countries. As standard procedure, the Americans never reveal the source of their information. Washington did not mention Niger but, in more general terms, Africa. The USA knew that not a leaf stirs in the African French-speaking ex-colonies that the French aren't aware of, especially in the field of counter-proliferation. For that matter, that information, though general, was not just like the others for us. From the Gulf War (1991) onwards, France could not afford to be accused of underestimating Saddam Hussein's rearmament programs. Therefore, when the Americans moved in the summer 2001, I rolled up my sleeves. I instructed my men to get to work in Africa. In Niger, obviously, but also in Namibia (you will soon understand why). The outcome was entirely negative. At the end of August 2001, the alert died down.

This bit of information only confirms to me one thing: Bush and the boys were intent on going into Iraq from day 1. The terror attacks of 9/11 just made it a little easier to sell. And the Niger Forgeries were part of the game plan from the beginning. That's why they were bringing it up to foreign agencies even before 9/11.

It's either that or they were laying the groundwork for blaming 9/11 on Iraq, but that means I'd have to travel down the road of the US being behind the attacks in the first place and I just can't go there.

If you want to dig into the details of the Niger Forgery story and how it all relates to the current CIA Leak scandal, I suggest you start with eRiposte at the Left Coaster blog. The best coverage I've read of the Plame scandal can be found at firedoglake. I have also done a couple of diaries on the topic, here are the links to those:

60 Minutes Niger story that never aired... Let's get it aired!

Niger Forgery and Michael Ledeen

It was Bush.

2005-12-01T14:55:00.000-04:00

Posted on Daily Kos Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:41:26 AM AST

Yes, I'm speculating, but please consider what I have to say...

I listened to Woodward last night on Larry King. I admit to already believing that Bush was his source so I could be guilty of seeing things that aren't there, but I don't think I'm wrong here.

I'm going to lay it out for you. Here is the link to the transcript.

First, things that relate to the source, from last night (November 21) on Larry King:

It's a male. Bob actually said "he" in an unguarded moment.
WOODWARD: ... I guess a few weeks later. So I said to this source, long substantive interview about the road to war. You know, at the end of an interview like this, after you're doing an interview on television, you might just shoot the breeze for a little while. And so, I asked about Wilson, and he said this.
It came from someone he had a formal interview with, in casual conversation at the end of the interview and the question wasn't on the datailed list of questions because it was related to a recent story by Pincus. This tells me that the "list" of questions was sent well in advance of the interview so the "source's" people could review it. (See point 4).
WOODWARD: ... I guess a few weeks later. So I said to this source, long substantive interview about the road to war. You know, at the end of an interview like this, after you're doing an interview on television, you might just shoot the breeze for a little while. And so, I asked about Wilson, and he said this.
KING: I see.
WOODWARD: Most kind of off-hand....WOODWARD: Yes, I don't -- somebody has questioned that. In my book, "Plan of Attack," I outline how I sent a 21-page memo to President Bush with the chronology and some of the questions I wanted to ask, in no sense limiting the questions. And I've done that with Cheney, and I've done that with other people.
It is an aid and a way to say, "This is the period of time I want to cover, some of the issues, some of the, quite frankly, things I've learned that you may not be comfortable with or some of the secrets in all of this," and then let the person respond. But no one has ever said, OK, that's not on the list, you can't ask that question. So...
The only two people he had formal interviews with (i.e. "not on background") were Bush and Rumsfeld.
WOODWARD: The people who are on record for the second book, for "Plan of Attack," are the president and Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense. All the other interviews are on background. So again, I'm not going to go parading a list of people I talked to.
The only two people he had sent detailed questions to prior to speaking with them were Bush and Cheney (that he mentioned anyway, see quote in point 2. There could have been others...)
WOODWARD: Yes, I don't -- somebody has questioned that. In my book, "Plan of Attack," I outline how I sent a 21-page memo to President Bush with the chronology and some of the questions I wanted to ask, in no sense limiting the questions. And I've done that with Cheney, and I've done that with other people.
He said that Cheney was not interviewed "during the time in question".
KING: ... did you meet with Cheney?
WOODWARD: Not in this period.
The source told Woodward sometime between June 15 and June 18, 2003. Woodward said that when he read that Libby told Miller on June 23rd, that's when he realized he had been told "a week to 10 days prior". Combine that with his comment about the June 12 Pincus article coming out "a few days" before his interview with the source and you can nail down the timing of the interview a little better.
Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.
I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this. ...WOODWARD: Came up because I asked about Joe Wilson, because a few days before, my colleague at the "Washington Post," Walter Pincus, had a front-page story, saying there was an unnamed envoy -- there was no name given -- who had gone to Niger the year before to investigate for the CIA if there was some Niger-Iraq uranium deal or yellow cake deal.
During a discussion about Bush himself and Woodward's interviews with him, it looked like Woodward got a little confused and uncomfortable at one point. Below is the part I'm talking about, but I got the sense in that exchange that his comments were in relation to the "source" based on his apparent confusion.
WOODWARD: (INAUDIBLE). No it's not quid pro quo. That's what's nice about the process and the method of going to everybody else involved. And in these matters in the Bush administration I've been able to do two books.
I've been able to interview President Bush for the last book "Plan of Attack" for three and a half hours over two days, no limitations on questions, no practical limitation on time.
It was like -- people who have read the transcript said it's like a deposition. Why did you do this? Cheney said this. How about this intelligence? So, all the stuff, all the material I've gained from confidential sources and documents and notes and so forth can be tested in this case with the president who is on the record and if he wants to say, oh, that's not true or offer his point of view, as he does, then that will be included.
Woodward may have indicated to Libby that he knew about Wilson's wife. Libby would know there was likely only one person who could have told him.
He said, "Well, is it possible you asked -- in other words, that you conveyed to Libby that you knew Joe Wilson's wife worked in the CIA? Because it's on a question list."
And my sworn testimony is that it's possible. I certainly don't recall it, and he certainly said nothing. But after long interviews and you have long lists of questions, you can't really say, "Gee, did I ask that or that." At least, two years later, I can't. Maybe the next day I might have been able to.
It sounded like the "source" forgot about the conversation until Woodward called him up and reminded him. Who in the administration is that stupid? (I think you know the answer to that...)
And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."

From the following on-line interview with Len Downie:

Post Executive Editor Discusses Woodward
Reporter's Silence in CIA Leak Case Scrutinized

Well, I read through this and what struck me were his very specific references to the blanket waiver surrounding the confidentiality between Woodward and his secret "source". Below are both references from the article:

Leonard Downie Jr.: This casual part of a long interview for Bob's book was part of an overall confidential source agreement that cannot be broken or taken apart in any way without the source's permission. So far, the source has agreed only to Bob testifying about their conversation in the Fitzgerald investigation.

Leonard Downie Jr.: Excellent question. The interview that was taking place when the gossipy exchange took place was entirely covered by a confidential source agreement. Therefore, the gossipy exchange was, too. It wasn't as though it had occurred in some other casual conversation outside the confidential source agreement.

So it looks to me that whoever this source is, he had a very complex confidentiality agreement with Woodward and he spent hours with him in an interview for the book which is when he spewed forth the interesting gossip about Wilson's wife.

So my question is this, would all 75 of the offficials he interviewed (either officially or on background) have THAT complicated a confidentiality agreement? Or would that type of agreement fit more closely with a very important figure?

A few other bits of information:

Fitzgerald apparently met with Bush's lawyer around the time of the Libby indictment.
One report stated that the source was never infront of the Grand Jury, another report indicated the source was interviewed. That scenario only applies to Bush and Cheney and Woodward basically said last night that it wasn't Cheney.
Rumsfeld denied emphatically on a Sunday talk show that he was the source.

Now, to the question of Woodward's earlier claim that this was nothing but harmless chatter and his revelation that he came upon another piece of information in his recent "reporter mode". FYI, speculation from this point forward.

IF Bush were lied to about Plame's status, he WOULD make an offhand remark to Woodward about Wilson's wife working as an "analyst" at the CIA when asked about Wilson. Woodward would ASSUME that the President would have accurate information, so he ASSUMED that this was all just chatter.

BUT if Plame was indeed covert, as Fitzgerald said in the indictement, then either Bush lied to Woodward or someone lied to Bush. This was the new peice of information Woodward picked up that sent him into "reporter" mode.

WOODWARD: An excellent question. The week of the indictment I was working on something and learned another piece of this puzzle and I told Len Downie about it and I told him about the source and what had been disclosed to me and there was a sense before the indictment, well, this is kind of interesting but it's not clear what it means.

Woodward then called Bush. Bush, being the President, would be the only one I can think of who would run to Fitz with the Woodward news. He above all cannot be viewed as being complicit in this, especially if he was lied to by, say, Cheney or Rove. And he, above all, would not want his identity to be known at this stage of the game. Woodward agreed to keep his identity secret for now because he recognizes that Bush was likely lied to and didn't knowingly out Plame. Bush (God forbid!) could actually be a whistleblower!

So that's my theory. I'm telling you, it's Bush. The big news in that, besides the obvious headlines and speculation it would generate? Someone lied to Bush about Plame's status in the first place. Bush may finally get to play his pre-determined role of "patsy" for this pathetic, rogue administration run by neo-cons.

Update: I just read through the comments and thought it prudent to highlight a couple of things that tend to debunk my theory:1. Woodward's book says Bush was interviewed in December 2003.2. That people interviewed on background have the confidentiality agreement, not those interviewed on the record (as Bush and Rummy were), which would mean that Bush is not Woodward's source.
I still think it's Bush (call me stubborn) but it's important I point these things out to you. I don't intend to delete the diary, the discussion in the comments section is just too good.

My Greetings to BlogWorld!

2005-12-01T14:14:00.000-04:00

I have been an occasional poster at Daily Kos for about a year now (under the name jbalazs). I have also posted diaries at the Booman Tribune under the name emmajoe. I thought it about time I create my own blog rather than post diaries at other sites. Chances are good that I won't get much traffic here, but it's a good base of operations for my thoughts, ideas and analysis of the goings on in American politics.

Why am I obsessed with American politics you ask? Why not Canadian politics? Well, I really don't know the answer to that. I think it's a number of things but I've resigned myself to the fact that it's an enjoyable hobby and if I begin to psycho-analyze it, it just won't be as much fun anymore...

So, I hope you find my postings interesting and informative. I look forward to viewing any comments I may get.

Cheers!