CBC, CTV et al. are lying hypocrites with an agenda - get back on that gravy train, damn the country!
They won't rest until the Conservatives are thrown out of power. And they know the Liberal Party of Montreal will be very good to them once they have control of Canada's money again.
Groan. The problem here, as I pointed out in some detail at my place the other day, is with the implementation of the agreement. This would have fallen after the “new government” would have taken office. Personally, I think the agreement was flawed because it referenced the Geneva Conventions too broadly and wasn’t specific in detailing what its expectations were of the Afghan authorities in terms of allowing unrestricted access. While full access was implicit in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, it needed to be spelled out clearly and plainly as the British did in their agreement. However, in attempting to shift the blame onto the Liberals, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. So, to recap, the agreement was poorly drafted (Liberals) and badly implemented (Conservatives), if you absolutely must allocate blame.
* "red tory said... The problem here, as I pointed out in some detail at my place the other day, is with the implementation of the agreement. This would have fallen after the “new government” would have taken office."
so, harper and the conservatives are backstabbing bastards for not implementing the liberals "proposed" kelowna agreement election promise... and insensitive torture-mongers for continuing to abide by the agreement the liberals negotiated, signed and were using in afghanistan for years until harper got elected?
right... i just have one question.
has anybody ever seen red tory and steffi in one room at the same time?
I never said any of those things. You're just being a jackass and putting words in my mouth. Maybe such feeble strawman arguments work well here in the Beerhalls of Macadamia, but I'm not impressed.
* "red's exact words... the agreement was poorly drafted (Liberals) and badly implemented (Conservatives)"
red... why don't go back and look a little closer?
you imply the fiberals had some sort of poorly thought out theory, a mere draft... but the conservatives, from the point they came into power, solidified and implemented a plan, fashioned from this theory, this draft... that then caused terrible human rights violations.
i merely took your intricately crafted word stew, applied a little simile and hyperbole and tossed it back in your lap.
in actual fact, the liberals crafted and signed this agreement, explicitly handing over taliban prisoners to the afghanis rather than the usa, for the explicit purpose of sticking a thumb in uncle sam's eye.
it was used for years by the fiberal government and also in the 400 some odd days since the harper government was elected.
i respectfully submit... this one is clearly on the fiberals and to argue otherwise is blatantly partisan, pathetic, illogical and hypocritical.
You can twist and mangle what I said all you want and then argue against those distortions, it’s an entirely fallacious line of reasoning. I never said that the Conservatives were “backstabbing bastards” or “insensitive torture-mongers” or anything of the sort. If you want to dismiss this as “a little simile and hyperbole” on your part that you engaged in while extrapolating wildly from what you think was implied by what I actually said (the “word stew”), then I submit you’re just being a jackass and there’s no point in further discussion.
Gotta love the blatant, premeditated hypocrisy here... former Liberal Prime Minister Dithers wallowing in the very mud his successors have been throwing at Prime Minister Harper and General Hillier all week. -- OTTAWA -- Former prime minister Paul Martin gave approval almost two years ago for then defence minister Bill Graham to negotiate a detainee transfer agreement with the Afghanistan government, say documents obtained by CanWest News Service.
The documents show that Mr. Martin, who has yet to speak publicly on the controversy, was briefed on the agreement more than six months before it was signed.This, of course, isn't really news... except to the spin-twins at CTV and the CBC politburo. The previous Liberal governments took exactly the same position on Taliban detainees as the Conservatives did later.
Lest anyone doubt that this was official and longstanding Liberal policy, the audit trail shows the smoking fingerprints of the Prince of Darkness himself, all over this missive...The May, 2005, letter states that Canada's new detainee policy "proceeds from the same premise" as strategic objectives approved by former prime minister Jean Chretien in November, 2001.
Mr. Chretien was the first prime minister to commit warships and special forces commandos to the U.S.-led war on terrorism, one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.Ironically... the Liberals likely did it to keep those poor Taliban terrorists out of the hands of the "evil Americans."
Let's hear one Liberal with a shred of decency admit that.
"Apparently he didn't dither..."
8 Comments -
CBC, CTV et al. are lying hypocrites with an agenda - get back on that gravy train, damn the country!
They won't rest until the Conservatives are thrown out of power. And they know the Liberal Party of Montreal will be very good to them once they have control of Canada's money again.
11:06 am, May 03, 2007
*
check out what kate has to say about the scurrilous attacks on general hillier.
*
11:51 am, May 03, 2007
Groan. The problem here, as I pointed out in some detail at my place the other day, is with the implementation of the agreement. This would have fallen after the “new government” would have taken office. Personally, I think the agreement was flawed because it referenced the Geneva Conventions too broadly and wasn’t specific in detailing what its expectations were of the Afghan authorities in terms of allowing unrestricted access. While full access was implicit in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, it needed to be spelled out clearly and plainly as the British did in their agreement. However, in attempting to shift the blame onto the Liberals, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. So, to recap, the agreement was poorly drafted (Liberals) and badly implemented (Conservatives), if you absolutely must allocate blame.
4:49 pm, May 03, 2007
*
"red tory said... The problem here, as I pointed out in some detail at my place the other day, is with the implementation of the agreement. This would have fallen after the “new government” would have taken office."
so, harper and the conservatives are backstabbing bastards for not implementing the liberals "proposed" kelowna agreement election promise... and insensitive torture-mongers for continuing to abide by the agreement the liberals negotiated, signed and were using in afghanistan for years until harper got elected?
right... i just have one question.
has anybody ever seen red tory and steffi in one room at the same time?
*
5:36 pm, May 03, 2007
I never said any of those things. You're just being a jackass and putting words in my mouth. Maybe such feeble strawman arguments work well here in the Beerhalls of Macadamia, but I'm not impressed.
7:22 pm, May 03, 2007
*
"red's exact words... the agreement was poorly drafted (Liberals) and badly implemented (Conservatives)"
red... why don't go back and look a little closer?
you imply the fiberals had some sort of poorly thought out theory, a mere draft... but the conservatives, from the point they came into power, solidified and implemented a plan, fashioned from this theory, this draft... that then caused terrible human rights violations.
i merely took your intricately crafted word stew, applied a little simile and hyperbole and tossed it back in your lap.
in actual fact, the liberals crafted and signed this agreement, explicitly handing over taliban prisoners to the afghanis rather than the usa, for the explicit purpose of sticking a thumb in uncle sam's eye.
it was used for years by the fiberal government and also in the 400 some odd days since the harper government was elected.
i respectfully submit... this one is clearly on the fiberals and to argue otherwise is blatantly partisan, pathetic, illogical and hypocritical.
are you saying, "it is not fair"?
hmmmmmm...
*
11:46 pm, May 03, 2007
You can twist and mangle what I said all you want and then argue against those distortions, it’s an entirely fallacious line of reasoning. I never said that the Conservatives were “backstabbing bastards” or “insensitive torture-mongers” or anything of the sort. If you want to dismiss this as “a little simile and hyperbole” on your part that you engaged in while extrapolating wildly from what you think was implied by what I actually said (the “word stew”), then I submit you’re just being a jackass and there’s no point in further discussion.
5:21 pm, May 04, 2007
*
"red said... then I submit you’re just being a jackass and there’s no point in further discussion"
oh no... he called me a name and says he won't talk to me anymore... "shane, shane... come back shane"
*
6:09 pm, May 04, 2007