The Vancouver Scrum

Interesting tidbit about the world's hottest deck of cards: the damn things, featuring the top 55 officials from the former Iraqi government, haven't actually been distributed to the troops that are suppposed to be using them to fing the officials. How about that? According to this Stars and Stripes story, only 200 decks have been printed, and they haven't been sent to the front lines. Most of their use has been for PR at CENTCOM briefings -- and by newscasters as a way to refer to Saddam apparatchiks by their playing card instead of having to learn to pronounce those weird foreign names. (Yes, blonde bimbo anchors, I'm talkin' 'bout you.)

Well, it's sure turned me off of plunking down US$18.95, plus shipping and handling, to some guy hawking the cards on eBay. I think that I'll wait for a knockoff set to show up at my neighbourhood dollar store... which should happen around the same time that peoples' attention turns from Iraq back to the latest offshoot of The Bachelor. Give it about three weeks, I figure, which means that I'll have those cards before the people opening their wallets on some eBay auction. Ha Ha! Take that, imperialist lackey running dogs! I shall have my Iraqi playing cards before all the Yankee infidel! (with apologies to every one who's done a bad take-off on Baghdad Bob)

Morgue File Sneak Peek!

CNN got a little egg on its face last week when people discovered that the network's web site housed under-construction online obits of the famous and infamous.

News organizations prepare ready-made obituaries of prominent figures. The obits-to-be are also known as the morgue file, a project usually assigned to some cub reporters copy editors and researchers. What's different today is that the olde morgue files stayed somewhere in the news organization's storge, ready to be used -- not on a publicly accessible web server, where files are usually available to anyone who knows how to work a search engine like Google or AllTheWeb.

CNN has since pulled the "Dick Cheney, 1941-2001" pages (and other like it) from their web servers, but not before the good people at The Smoking Gun saved some screen shots for your enjoyment.

Don't you just love the Web? However did you entertain yourself before you installed Mosaic after manually configuring that TCP/IP stack on your three-generationsd removed machine in 1993 or so?

Screenshots from The Smoking Gun. (link should now be permanent)

New York Times article on the minor morgue file gaffe.

Former National Post columnist Patricia Pearson explains why she's a former Post columnist.

My Internet connection's been on the fritz for several days now, which explains the lack of postings. Back soon after I dig through all the penis-enlargement ads in my Inbox. Thanks.

Just seen on CBC's The National...

Some of the opening footage of Paul Workman’s report from Nasiriyah, Iraq shows a little girl smiling... and holding up an upside-down American flag. I'm really not sure what to make of that.

Republican Fiscal MisManagement Illustrated


Notice a trend among U.S. federal government deficits over the last quarter-century? I do. The Democrats are accused of being tax-and-spenders, but then what the hell do you call the GOP? Borrow-and-spend?

More bad news for those in the U.S. who are comewhat concerned about their government’s fiscal position: The latest monthly budget review from the Congressional Budget Office shows that in the first six months of the current fiscal year, the U.S. deficit totalled $248-billion, and that’s in greenbacks, not loonies. In the same October-March period last year, the deficit was $132-billion. Ominously, the CBO also notes in this month’s report: “However, the supplemental appropriation bill currently under consideration would add more than $40 billion to 2003 outlays and the deficit.”

Now, the Bush-boosters will try to claim that the US federal government’s sorry fiscal picture is because of the war. However, the actual figures don’t bear this out. Defence and military spending was only $22-billion higher than the previous year, which accounts for less than one-fifth of the increase in the deficit. The nearly $60-billion fall in government revenue (thanks to Bush’s irresponsible tax-cutting) is a much larger factor. Of course, it seems that the GOP has little problem with spending -- as long as the money that they spend now is collected from future taxpayers.

(Thanks to Mike Bultrowicz, who first found this chart on hail-to-the-thief.org.)

If the photo in this Information Clearing House story showing that the crowd surrounding the toppling of the big Saddam statue wasn’t nearly as large as the media made it out to be is genuine, then it’s another testament to how photography can show the same event in many different ways. The difference between the fairly tight ground-level shot and the high shot of a crowd of a few hundred is pretty dramatic... nonetheless, it’s rather nice to see the Saddam government put out of commission, regardless of how many of Baghdad’s 5 million citizens showed up to party. Now the really hard work begins -- the work of rebuilding the Iraqi state, an exercise whose outcome is not nearly as easy to predict as the outcome of the military action.

Things that make ya go “Hmmm...”

Tune in to CPAC’s Talk Politics sometime this weekend. You’ll be glad that you did. On this week’s show, host Ken Rockburn does what too few broadcasters do: challenge a Canadian Taxpayers Federation mouthpiece on his assertions. The CTF’s Ontario talking head, John Williamson, was doing the standard right-wing whine about Canada’s principled stand to not participate in the war against Iraq. Williamson first swore that this war was about “liberating the Iraqi people.” Your normal radio or TV talker would leave that unchallenged, but Rockburn fired back that this war was previously supposed to be about imposing regime change, but before that, it was because of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that STILL haven’t been found. Would Williamson’s opinion change if WMD are never found? Well, he might be less trusting of U.S. intelligence reports, but no he wouldn’t change his mind, says the now-scurrying Williamson, because he believes that Saddam was in cahoots with international terrorist organizations. Again, says Rockburn, that hasn’t been proven by anyone. That threw Williamson off his guard, leaving with him little more than the old stand-by-your-friends argument to advance his (and his political allies in the Canadian Alliance’s) criticism of the government.

Very refreshing to see, I must say. Normally, the CTF’s claims are unchallenged on air (especially right-wing radio) and in the op-ed pages of most Canadian papers, but once in a while, the unthinkable happens. (And what the hell is some supposedly non-partisan organization concerned mainly with fiscal matters doing commenting about foreign affairs? It couldn’t possibly be because they’re actually virulently partisan Liberal-haters? Naaaaaah, of course not.)

I’m beginning to susect that the help-wanted ad for a CTF “director” reads:“The successful candidate is politically ultra-conservative, but willing to give up existing party memberships in order to allow us to have a facade of independence. Must have the fashion sense of a Mormon missionary. Ability to lie with a straght face is essential. Posession of any sense of shame or dignity are grounds for disqualification.”

You can catch repeats of Talk Politics tonight on CPAC at (all times Pacific Daylight Time; if you’re unable to convert, then you don’t deserve to watch the show) 10 PM; tomorrow at 4 AM and 12 PM; and Sunday at 5 AM and 6 PM. I’ll make a point of taping and transcribing the relevant sections, then posting the dialogue on this little blog for you because I’m such a nice guy.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Joel Connelly nominates some barking advocates, both pro- and anti-war, to go have a look at what’s happening on the ground in Iraq. One of the nominees is my own MP, Libby Davies. Unfortunately, I suspect that Davies would still find some way to blame the United States for more than it deserves.

“They Told You So!”

So screamed the banner atop the front page of today’s National Post. Exulting in the coalition victory, the pro-war daily decided that it was time for a little finger-wagging, and tiome to remind all the sissy liberals that the Post’s army of ink-stained warriors was right all along.

But what were they right about? The outcome of the war? See a couple postings down. Very few of the voices opposed to the war, and certainly none of the credible ones, had much doubt about who would win here. However, in the minds of most of those who never met a war that they didn’t like, victory is its own justification. It still doesn’t answer any of the broader questions.

And what about those weapons of mass destruction, one of the ostensible justifications for this war?

Welcome to British Columbia

An elderly man with a 15-year-plus record of animal abuse is the target of more cruelty-to-animals allegations? Disturbing, but hardly surprising. The man is arrested after allegedly assulting a staffer at a local SPCA shelter? That's getting to be quite odd. .The man in question is the father of a provincial cabinet minister? Only in British Columbia.

One must ask what the elderly animal abuser, one Q.C. van Dongen, taught his son, B.C. agriculture minister John van Dongen...

In a related item, Province political writer Mike Smyth chides the younger van Dongen about his legal bill following the criminal investigation that forced van Dongen to step down from Cabinet for 3 months. Van Dongen, readers may recall, leaked information about an environment ministry investigation into major-league fish farm operator (and B.C. Liberal party donor) Stolt Sea Farm to Stolt, which led not only to the RCMP probe but to the Stolt investigation being “significantly compromised” and eventually dropped. Smyth argues that the Liberals should order the release of the special prosecutor’s report into van Dongen's conduct. I agree.

Required Reading

Michael Kinsley argues in Slate that victory by the U.S. and its allies in the war is not the same as victory in the argument about the war. After all, not many serious opponents of the war (especially the reluctant opponents such as your scribe) ever doubted which side would prevail. That was never the issue -- it was over the rationale for the war.

Repeat ad Nauseam:

[pun only semi-intentional]

Another so-called “smoking gun” about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has turned out to be less-than smoking. Yesterday, a Knight-Ridder wire story claimed that U.S. forces found evidence of sarin [or possibly another G-class nerve agent such as Tabun or cyclohexylsarin] at a facility near Baghdad. The report quoted a Sgt. Todd Ruggles claiming “I was right” about the presence of chemical weapons in Iraq.

Not so fast, Sergeant. AFP reports that further tests have shown the compounds to be organophosphate pesticides, which, although chemically related to common nerve agents, are not terribly effective at killing people; they're much better at taking out arthropods.

A military intelligence officer for the US 101st Airborne Division's aviation brigade, Captain Adam Mastrianni, told AFP that comprehensive tests determined the presence of the pesticide compounds...

Mastrianni said: “They thought it was a nerve agent. That's what it tested. But it is pesticide.”

That helps to explain why the soldiers showed symptoms of pesticide exposure, I suppose...

Whaddaya know? Warren Kinsella has helpfully supplied a copy of the Tory daily bulletin where Ontario premier Ernie Eves describes those opposed to the war as cowards. You know, that Eves communique that was all erroneous and never passed muster with Oilcan? Never existed my ass. One more example of how so many pro-war types in Canada are unwilling to back their bluster up...

Now there’s a blog to be proud of: Slurrey.Com, celebrating all things great about Vancouver’s most-maligned suburb! Well, I think it’s a celebration... at least it’s honest about the city's sleaze, which is more’n I can say for the perpetually-in-denial official city mouthpieces.

Frequently Written Headline:

U.S. Finds No Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

Yet again, this time from Reuters.

Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail notes in its war update that tests on the thousands of boxes of white powder found in a cache near Baghdad have turned up negative for chemical weapons, although the nerve-agent antidote atropine was on hand. A more detailed report that suggests that the white powder is most likely an explosive is available from The Independent.

The Conrad Black-owned Daily Telegraph is reporting that Iraqi troops have dumped hydrogen cyanide and mustard gas in the Euphrates River. So far, this story has not yet made its way onto other websites such as the BBC or Guardian Unlimited or to air so it must, for now, be regarded as unverified. Another repeat of that “huge chemical weapons plant” that wasn’t? Stay tuned.

If you need reminding, though Saddamn Hussein and his ilk are murderous bastards (weapons of mass destruction or not), there’s this piece in The Observer about “something terrible... something muderous, something evil” that British forces have found near Basra.

Another Vancouver voice worth reading: Russil Wvong, the keeper of the alt.politics.international FAQ, has assembled this thoughtful and concise analysis of the Iraq situation.

Lest I be accused of linking to an anti-war pinko commie welfare bum, I assure you that Russil is a reluctant supporter of the war, while I’m a reluctant opponent. When you get right down to it, there is a pretty good case for the forcible removal of Saddam—but I really am uncomfortable with the way the decision to go to war has come about, with very little in the way of rules for regime change, and an uneasy feeling that those rules if they exist will not be evenly applied elsewhere by the United States and its floating coalitions.

Not a bad April Fool's prank. Wish I'd known about it last week.

The ol’ server log shows a handful of visitors coming in from that online den of ultra-conservatism, freedominion.ca. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the world of online extremism, Free Dominion is the Canadian analogue to freerepublic.com, the hang-out for mast every right-wing whack-job in America, and home of the notorious “Freepers.” How interesting, I thought. The ultra-right linking to me, a humble ol’ leftish liberal? I was intrigued. Turns out that they were looking for information on why there’s no Fox News Channel on Canadian cable or satellite. Seems that a Freeper stumbled upon an article I wrote last week (since published in Terminal City Weekly after a little editing) explaining that the market, not the CRTC, had decided that for now, Canadians would not be getting their O’Reilly Fix. Let’s see their reaction, shall we?

The usual denial and lies:

I have an source inside the cable industry that says yes the only reason that we do not have FOX new is because the CRTC does not feel that Canada has or will ever have such a need after all we CBC and CTV nes chanels and they would never steer us wrong. Apparently they always give us the truth with no bias, their words not mine.

Nice try, honeybucket, but an absolute, flat-out lie. Read CRTC Decision 2000-565 which awarded a licence for a Fox News Canada and get back to me, willya?

Seems some posters are barfing up the usual irrelevant crap and the rightist grievances, of course:

Wile, as a fellow Western conservative, I believe we all need to concentrate harder on running the lefties out of Western Canada too. I’m thinking of people like Hedy Fry, Svend Robinson, Anne McClellan, Ken Nichol, Lorne Calvert, David Orchard, Nettie Weibe, Gary Doer and Lorne Axworthy!

I do love those freedom-loving Freepers. Apparently, you’re quite free to live west of the Lakehead if you pass the ideological purity test. By the way, who the hell is Lorne Axworthy? I’m familiar with that Lloyd fellow (he lives out on the Wet Coast these days), and his brother Tom (mister muscular multilateralism), but is there a missing Axworthy?

Something, finally, that’s close to the truth here:

Right now they are predicting that we will have to wait over a year for FOX News because it takes awhile to develop more crappy Canadian content to meet their quota and I think they need to invest in another satelite to allow MORE ROOM for FOX News.

Well, that’s not quite so; all Global would have to do is replay some of their extant programming like Ottawa Inside/Out or Global Sunday. Rogers fulfilled the CanCon rules for MSNBC Canada by picking up some of CBC Newsworld’s programs like Health Matters and Hot Type and running the Canadian shows on weekends when most sane people have no good reason to sit around watching 24-hour cable news. Existing communications satellites also have the capacity to carry more channels, so there’s no real problem there; same goes with digital cable systems which are using a fraction of their potential capacity.

But the old rule still applies: You can lead a Freeper to knowledge but you can’t make him think.

Did Eves call Chrétien a coward?

Ontario Premier Ernie Eves didn’t use those words at a pro-war rally in Toronto yesterday, but a press release issued by his office made just that accusation. The release, which criticized the federal government’s decision not to support the war, said, “I want history to remember Canada for its courage and loyalty, not its cowardice.”

Since then, Oilcan Ernie denies knowing anything about the press release, and his communications stooges swear that it was an “erroneous” release—but where, then, was the new release without the offending accusation? How about that ‘quote of the day’ going around in Ontario Tory circles, then? Smells fishy, but that’s nothing new.

My bias is going to show here, but I believe that the pro-war faction in Canada has not been honest with Canadians about their aims or goals. Their demonstrations are sold to the public not as rallies in support of the war, but to support the Americans, or the “coalition of the willing”, or even of “freedom.” Ray Heard, a former Global TV executive who was one of the forces behind Friday’s rally in Toronto, swore that his event was to show friendship with the USA, but not support for the war against Iraq. Yeah, right. How does that jive with Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper’s statement earlier that day on CFRB that being pro-American and pro-war are tied together? In his world, there seems to be no room for admiring the United States, its relative freedom and accomplishments, while still believing that this war is unjustified. I would suggest that that’s the point of view of most of the more vocal war supporters, even if they’re not ready to be as blunt as Harper about it.

Anti-war demonstrations are quite honest about the fact that they are not in support of this war. They don’t gussy up their rallies as being “in support of the Canadian position”, although they will talk of the dangers of “unilateral aggression” or “respect for international law.” While some of the anti-war crowd in Canada are reflexively anti-American, this surely is not a term appropriate for every opponent of this war. Even less appropriate is the assertion that every anti-war voice is one in support of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps to fans of George W. Bush’s Manichaean declaration that “either you with us or you are against us,” this is the case, but anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty understands that this statement was supposed to apply to governments that support international terrorism, not individuals’ positions on this war in Iraq.

What also bothers me is the pro-war side’s depth of reasoning. For most pro-war politicians in Canada, the extent of their arguments for supporting the ouster of Hussein is that Canada should stand with its traditional allies, right or wrong. That’s a weak argument—it reminds me of the old question “If your best friend was going to jump off {fill in appropriate tall landmark of your choice}, would you jump with him?” Perhaps it might be better to ask those who say we should participate in the war whether they’d back up their best friend going down to an unfriendly bar to pick a brawl with an old foe. I recall learning from some counsellor-type many moons ago that a best friends will tell each other when they’re wrong, but that’s lost on the pro-war crowd, likely because they thin that the war is right, even in they don’t articulate their position well.

Not every pro-war voice is that simplistic or blinkered. A small number of Canadians who back military action in Iraq have come out with well-presented arguments on why this war is just and why Canada should support this war. They point to UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which foretold “serious consequences” if Iraq failed to comply with weapons inspectors, or how the first Gulf War was a ceasefire contingent on Saddam giving up weapons of mass destruction. While I’d argue that those sorts of resolutions and agreements have been routinely, shall we say, fudged without a war ensuing, at least the idea that there is some sort of legal justification for taking out Hussein does have a bit more rigor than simply going along with one’s traditional allies. It’s too bad that those voices are few, and often when those arguments are articulated, that they seem more motivated by a desire to suck up to W and the boys at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than anything else.

The human-rights case for getting rid of Saddam is strongest of all in my opinion. Nobody for a moment doubts that Hussein abuses the people he rules, that he condones torture, or that the Iraqi people would be better without him. What has me vexed is that many politicos who normally dismiss he work of organizations like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International are now citing their findings. Can I now assume that conservative politicians and pundits will perhaps give a little more consideration to Amnesty’s other reports and complaints? I don’t think so. Had the war been argued from the beginning as a fight based on the desire to remove a murderous dictator and not muddled with arguments about weapons of mass destruction that haven’t yet been found or proven to still exist, or of a tangential connection to Al-Qa’ida, and the case for removing Saddam been made by the Tony Blairs of the world, I can’t help but wonder what kind of coalition to oust Saddam night have been assembled. I’ll leave it to the historical what-if crowd to play with that scenario.

In light of Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper calling Defence Minister John McCallum an “idiot” in the House earlier this week, PC Party leadership blogger and onetime Hill staffer Micheal Wilson offers up a list of insults deemed ‘unparliamentary’ over the years on his blog (permalinks not working; scroll down to April 3, 2003). I must conclude that either

1. successive Speakers have become less picky or


2. parliamentarians have become traded rapiers for bludgeons

Some of those insults are pretty good. I’d think that someone like Sheila Tequila would find “parliamentary pugilist” to be a compliment. I know that if, God forbid, I were ever in the House, I’d take it as such. “Political sewer pipe from Carleton County”, on the other hand, is a bit confusing—is that the Carleton County in Ontario or New Brunswick? Hmm.

Two voices looking for a happy medium between knee-jerk anti-Americanism and unquestioning devotion to the Elephant

Maclean’s editor Anthony Wilson-Smith is one of the few remaining Canadian commentators who doesn’t gravitate to either extreme; he shows it in his current editor’s letter and...

Globe And Mail national-affairs writer Jeffrey Simpson bemoans the degeneration of public debate over the war and the Canada-U.S. relationship into what he calls “the puerile (anti-American) versus the servile (pro-American).” Simpson nails both sides for suspending any pretense of critical judgment, ignorance of the bigger picture, double standards, and fearmongering. He’s also got a special barb for the pro-American right:

That relations are now deemed to be “poor” is Jean Chrétien’s doing, a rather odd assertion given that the only political change since the excellent years of Canada-U.S. relations during the Clinton administration has been exclusively on the U.S. side.

Yeah, baby, that’s right: it was the Americans that (probably) elected an administration that sees international community as a pain in the ass that needs a good dose of American values. Canada’s kept the same crew that had no real problems with the American government from 1993-2001. That Dubya fellow came in and mucked things up. Apparently the Right thinks that the onus is on Canada to kowtow to whoever’s in power in Washington, and that the Canadian government may only make decsions in Canada’s best interest if a foreign power allows us to do so.

Now, if only the Chrétien government could articulate what is probably the Canadian position on this was as well as Simpson can:

Many Canadians have resisted puerility and servility, and concluded that this war is part of a much wider agenda for U.S. behaviour and for remaking the Middle East that could not be made compatible with how Canada sees the world.

It was an optional war, easily won as these things go, that will lead to the likelihood of more terror, greater instability, fractured alliances and abiding anti-Americanism that will plague the world’s hyperpower, and its friends such as Canada, long after it has “solved” the Iraq problem by ill-chosen means.

That judgment, it must be admitted, could be wrong. Events might unfold as predicted by those who wanted this war. But at least the judgment springs neither from puerility nor servility.

Now that Al-Jazeera has had its journos banned from Iraq—for arbitrary reasons—will its critics in the western world quit deriding the station as a tool of the “Islamofascists?”

Another warmonger v. peacenik argument.

(via Textism)

Peaceniks Around? Call in the Cavalry!

Ultraconservative talk station KVI-570 Seattle has been calling out its dittoheaded listeners—the so-called “570th Cavalry”—to crash anti-war demonstrations in the Seattle area. Jeez, if the pro-war rally in Vancouver last weekend had gotten the same treatment, it’d have been swamped. So far, the Vangroovy peaceniks haven’t stooped to those tactics.

Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists

Easily the most craven and stupid attempt yet in America to stifle dissent. I have no doubt that AM talk radio host Michael Savage is praising Oregon state senator John Minnis (Republican, of course) for his proposal to make protestors blocking the street punishable by 25-to-life. If you ever needed proof that Republicans are evil, stupid, and that they don’t give two shits about freedom, there you go. Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz, and their Canadian Alliance allies on this side of the border constantly talk of their love of ‘freedom’—and they’re in bed with that kind of thinking? Hypocrites!

Here’s what’s scary: CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin opined on-air that this bill is probably not unconstitutional. Whatever happened to “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted?” Shows you how far the Eighth amendment has been weakened.

What the hell is it with the business lobby these days? I'm starting to think that they've become Canada's biggest war cheerleaders. Yesterday, the Ontario finance minister railed against the Canadian position in Iraq at one of those chamber of commerce luncheons, and it earned her a standing ovation. Is every business type in this country a super-hawk? No, not likely; I think that they've bought into the idea that unless Canada goes along with the United States in Iraq, trade with the 'States will fall to hell. "Security trumps the economy" and all that chatter...

Rubbish. Let's pick apart the common ‘economic’ arguments for obeying America’s every beck and call. It'll be fun, really!

Favourite Theory Number One is that trade between Canada and the U.S. will be slowed by heightened security on the American side. Sounds reasonable, but even if Canada went along with the United States and supported the war, the border would still tighten up once the shooting started. Wait a second, though. During the first Gulf War, when Canada was part of that coalition against Saddam, cross-border commerce got snagged due to tightened security. There's no evidence out there that the Americans would be any less vigilant about Canadian border security this time out – or that they're more vigilant than they were 12 years ago.

The economic fear monger’s other pet argument is that the United States will slap penalties on Canadian goods to retaliate against our international impudence. They point to the continued softwood lumber dispute, recent duties on Canadian wheat, and the decision to slap tariffs on European and Asian steel imports, and swear up and down that Canadians will face more of this unless we yell "Ready, aye, ready!" and join in the war effort.

I hate to be the one to burst their balloons, but none of those trade disputes has word one to do with Canada's or Europe's geopolitical stances. The softwood (oh, to use the French term bois d'oeuvre instead!) dispute has been years in the making. Any time that Canadian wood takes more than around 30% of the American market, American producers get their K Street crew to convince lawmakers to slap on a duty because Canadian lumber is supposedly subsidized -- despite three past GATT and WTO rulings to the contrary. Canada’s participation in the campaign in Afghanistan won it no favours on softwood. Why should support for the war in Iraq improve our position?

The same goes for steel and wheat. In every case, the American government’s decision to levy countervailing duties was to protect American businesses from foreign imports. It doesn’t jibe with the free-trade rhetoric of man a politician, but protectionism can win you votes in ways that open competition doesn’t. Your average voter in the Rust Belt, agriculture, or the timber industry cares about his job, not free-market ideals.

American businesses don’t trade with Canadians out of charity; they do it because there are deals to be had, whether it’s a market to sell to or producers to buy from. A handful of companies have refused to do sell to Canadians, the French, Germans, and Mexicans as a PR stunt and political statement. Those businesses do most of their trade at home, and they’ve gambled that the extra business that they get by appealing to a certain sort of patriotism makes up for any lost sales abroad. Companies that do a lot of trade with Canada will continue to do so, and any boycotts that make no economic sense won’t last long.

“But wait!” holler the business hawks. “Canada won’t get a fair hearing in Washington after how we’ve abandoned out allies!” To them I ask: Did Canada get shuffled to the back of the line over its decision to stay out of ‘Nam? No. Neither did they lose out when Canada opened relationships with China before the Americans. Only minor repercussions stemmed from Canada’s decision to trade with Cuba, and they’ve been tiny compared to the billion dollars a day in trade between Canada and the U.S.

The Canada-U.S. trade relationship is what it is because of geography and economics – and not for any other reason. Surely the war supporters on this side of the border understand this, even if they would like the masses to believe otherwise.

(Then again, if the American government agreed to take on about half of Canada's national debt, I'd probably change my tune on Canada's role in the war. That kind of relief would free up $19.6-billion in the federal budget, some of which could be spent on defence to shut Paul Cellucci up. What can I say? Everyone has his price.)

Jane Finch of the Daily Rant takes a swipe at the notorious Paul Martin Blog while grumbling about a similar effort by Gary Hart. Jane (after BruceR over at Flit) calls He Who Would Be Prime Minister's entry into the blogosphere "The Worst Blog In the World." Delightful! If Martin gets more of that sort of criticism, he'll have to hire himself a ghost-blogger. Yo Paul, I'm available, I'm a lot cheaper than anyone down at Earnscliffe, and my writing is nicely unrefined. Let's make a deal!

Blogger continues to give me untold grief.

If you're reading this, the damn thing has published for the first time in 14 hours. Something to do with the template server, which explains why mine ended up in /dev/null.

AAAAAGH! Blogger ate my template! I'll rush to rebuild one ASAP, I swear!

Send me some e-mail here if you need to get a hold of me.

UPDATE: I think that it's fixed. On the other hand, everything else had been screwing up tonight. Losing my template to whatever-it-is that's been plaguing Blogger has a bright side: I finally dredged up the original template and cleaned out all the excess code. It should local a little more quickly than before. Let me know what you think of the mods, the use of different fonts, and the re-arranged sidebar. Thanks.

Following his unceremonious dumping by National Geographic Explorer and NBC, veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett has signed on -- for now -- with the Daily Mirror His first report from Baghdad for the left-leaning London tab is basically his take on his notorious appearance on Iraqi state television. Here's a snippet of his piece:

The right-wing media and politicians are looking for any opportunity to be critical of the reporters who are here, whatever their nationality. I made the misjudgment which gave them the opportunity to do so.

I gave an impromptu interview to Iraqi television feeling that after four months of interviewing hundreds of them it was only professional courtesy to give them a few comments.

That was my Waterloo - bang!...

Some reporters make judgements but that is not my style. I present both sides and report what I see with my own eyes.

I don't blame NBC for their decision because they came under great commercial pressure from the outside.

And I certainly don't believe the White House was responsible for my sacking.

But I want to tell the story as best as I can, which makes it so disappointing to be fired.

Walter Cronkite, who knows a thing or two about war reporting, was not terribly kind to Arnett in this New York Times op-ed piece.

Here's the front cover of the Daily Mirror heralding Arnett's debut with the paper

Arnett's appearance on Iraqi state television and subsequent sacking will be debated endlessly in journalistic circles over the coming weeks. Should he have given the Iraqi propganda machine the interview? Should it really be a firing offence? Stay tuned.

Vancouver Sun city columnist Pete McMartin is a duplicitous twit. Those of you who read this thing regularly know my opinion of the man's writings, but it just feels so good to say it. Since last fall's civic elections, he's taken it upon himself to be Vancouver city council's antagonist, using his space to slag a council for which he never had any use in the first place. McMartin, I should note, does not actually live in Vancouver but in the distant suburb of Tsawwassen, renowned for its isolationist mentality. His latest "outrage"? The city's struggle with allowing slot machines into the city. McMartin rails about how the city has trouble 'enabling' gamblers by possibly sticking with a long-standing ban on slots, while pressing forward with safe-injection sites. Something about his moralizing's got his dander up. My advice: if you want morality, go to church, buddy. Governing the city's no place for moral purity; I'll take a pragmatic government that isn't philosophically coherent, thanks. Unlike McMartin, who can go off to his sterile suburban fortress at the end of the day, I have to live with the city government's decisions, so for me, the city's decisions are something more than a philosophical treatise or some thought experiment.

Earth to McMartin: Vancouver voters decided -- no thanks to your ivory-tower advice -- in favour of safe-injection sites in the 2002 election. Larry Campbell, who promised to bring them in as soon as possible, got twice as many votes as Jennifer Clarke, whose position on the subject changed from day to day. Voters also made sure that every single one of the city council members were solidly in favour of safe injection sites. That's democracy in action. End of story, but you know how we Vancouverites need to have self-important gits from the suburbs constantly lecturing us silly little city children.

Second: The ban on slot machines in the City of Vancouver was approved in 1997 by a council that had not one member from the now-in-charge COPE party. McMartin acknowledges this, but still uses the policy to berate a council that not only had no part in drafting the policy, but that generally campaigned on taking a cautious apprach to gaming expansion -- as did their principal rivals in the conservative Non-Partisan Association. However, I'm confident that if the new council decides to allow slots as he suggests they should, he'll find some reason to criticize them over that -- probably for flip-flopping. And for some reason, the Sun will continue to sacrifice trees for his drivel...

Dozens Mass at Pro-war Rally!

I thought that that would be a facetious headline describing this weekend's pro-war rally in Vancouver. It wasn't that far off the mark. A small crowd gathered at the south end of the Burrard Bridge, ostensibly to show support for the United States and the other members of the coalition in the war against Iraq. The crowd grew from about 50 at the start of the rally to a padded 200 at its peak. Speakers included local tax preparer David Ingram -- drumming up business -- and Chris Delaney, leader of a right-wing fringe political party.

Not all that impressive when you consider that there are 2.2 million people in the greater Vancouver area. Granted, most of the pro-war people aren't habitual public demonstrators like the anti-war camp, but that's still a really weak showing.The nearest pro-war rally was over in Calgary, so it's not as if there was a lot of competing demonstrations to distract the hawks of the Lower Mainland. Maybe they should have picked a different location than Kitsilano -- it's not exactly a hotbed of conservatism. Somewhere out in the Fraser Valley, the Vancouver analogue of Orange County, would've fit the bill if they wanted a better crowd.

I seem to recall that some political soulmates of the pro-war set were crowing about all the people that didn't show up to the world-wide anti-war protests some six weeks back. They were happily pointing out that 30 million or whatever the total crowd was around the world is but a mere fraction of the global population; that 750,000 in London is around one-twentieth of the area's population. Well, time to turn that "logic" around: 0.0091% of the people in and around Vancouver could be bothered to show up to support the war, or, if you like, here's the headline:

2,199,800 STAYED HOME!

Good God, this is fun!

---

It irks me that organizers of rallies in support for the war effort are reluctant to call themselves 'pro-war'. Why be shy, aside from the connotation that they might get off on armed conflict? It's exactly what they are -- people who favour this war; and, at least in Canada, those who wanted to see Canada support the war and want to cange the government's position. Instead, they cover up in terms like "pro-US", "pro-Coalition", and my favourite, "pro-freedom." Some have even taken to calling the anti-war protestors "anti-freedom," as if this particular war was in the name of 'freedom' at home. Please. Just come out and say it, awright?

Canadian quislings Freepers call for overthrow of duly elected Canadian government at yesterday's pro-war rally in Ottawa. I guess that some people have a hard time accepting the fact that they got their asses kicked fairly soundly in the 2000 federal election.

Hey, wait a second...

Today at a press briefing, U.S. General Tommy Franks announced, among other developments, that his forces had destroyed a "massive" terrorist training facility in northern Iraq near the Iranian border. Good news for those who beleive that Saddam Hussein harboured terrorist networks, right?

Maybe not. Have a look at this map of Iraq published on CNN.com last August. The northern part of Iraq near the Iranian border is in Kurdish-controlled territory. I think it's best to stay tuned for more news on this one -- it might turn into a repeat of last week's find of a "huge" chemical weapons plant that wasn't. The map on the MSNBC report also shows that this place was in an area considerably removed from the part of Iraq under the Saddam government's rule.

Time to refute another right-wing lie

One legend that never seems to die in Canadian conservative circles: The Liberal government, through the country's broadcasting regulator, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), is keeping Rupert Murdoch's conservative Fox News Channel out of Canada. The "proof" that the conservatives usually present is that the governing Liberals would be so threatened by a right-wing 24-hours news channel that they have informally instructed the CRTC's commissioners to deny a licence for a Fox News channel in Canada. Corroborating evidence usually includes the ban on American direct-to-home satellite services -- although this ban is at the behest of Canadian cable companies and satellite systems fearful of competition from south of the border. Therefore, the evil Liberal government, which can also conveniently be blamed for El Nino, protectionist American lumber barons, the Asian currency crisis of 1997 and the resulting 'Asian Flu', lousy commodity prices, and so on, has kept conservative Canadians from their Bill O'Reilly fix.

Too bad that it just ain't so

In 2000, the CRTC announced that it was going to licence an unlimited number of digital cable and satellite channels. The old requirements for having solid business plans, content requirements, and even original programming were all but tossed out the window. New "Category 2" digital stations would fight it out in the rough-and-tumble market; none would have any protected programming turf, and each station would have to convince cable or satellite companies to carry them. It was a departure from the usual CRTC approach to broadcast licencing, but one that critics of excessive government regulation applauded.

On November 24, 2000, the CRTC announced that a total of 262 Category 2 licences for digital specialty channels had been approved -- including one to CanWest Global for a Fox News Channel Canada, that, like Rogers Media's MSNBC Canada, would basically be programming from an American news network brought to Canadians by a mostly-Canadian owner. CanWest Global has a close relationship with Fox Broadcasting; Global gets first crack at the Canadian rights for Fox entertainment programming and they are the company that brings Fox Sports World to Canada. This was another step in a long business relationship that dates back to the 1980's when Global was the first large Canadian broadcaster to bring shows from the then-nascent Fox television network to Canada -- and pay Fox for the privilege. Other new digital stations reflected the same sort of ties: Bell Globemedia, owner of the Canadian Discovery channel, got licences for Discovery specialty channels like Animal Planet. You can view the whole sordid list in Volume 134, Number 50 of the Canada Gazette (PDF)(text).

[I'll link to the decisions posted on the CRTC website once it comes back on line -- for some reason, the CRTC's server is down this weekend. Until then, you can check out Google's caches of the decisions.]

The channels that were approved that day have had mixed fates. Lone Star, BBC Canada, the National Geographic Channel, and TechTV are reportedly doing well, while others are struggling to stay afloat. Not every digital channel is carried on every cable or satellite system -- for example, MuchLoud is not available to Shaw Cable subscribers, but it's on the Bell ExpressVu satellite network. Other channels existed only on paper: a swath of regional news services never got off the drawing board. Neither, to my knowledge, did the Wine Television Network, various martial arts networks, parenting channels, the interesting-sounding Late Night Vidiots, and dozens of others. They never went to air because there weren't enough potential subscribers, or willing advertisers, or the cost of programming was too high. That's what happened to Fox News Canada: CanWest decided to shelve Fox News Canada due not to the hand of the government, but because their research showed that Fox News Canada wouldn't attract enough subscribers to turn a profit. With a bunch of other money-losing properties like the National Post and the troubled broadcast-print-Internet convergence project, the last thing that CanWest Global needs is another financial dog to help swell its $4-billion debt even further.

So, to summarize: it's the private sector, the free market, which decided against Fox News in Canada. Neither the commissioners of the CRTC, nor Heritage Minister Sheila Copps, nor even Prime Minister Jean Chrétien can take the blame. Ironic how the channel that Canadian free-market fundamentalists most want is the same channel that the Canadian private sector has, for now, decided against. Wonder if Canadian Fox Fans will lobby the government to intervene on their behalf?

The idea that conservative voices are shut out of the Canadian broadcasting spectrum is, to put it diplomatically, laughable. A quick run up and down the AM radio dial should be enough proof -- talk show hosts who aren't right-wing are the exception. I think that CFRB Toronto's Bill Carroll said that he stuffed envelopes for the Liberals or something similar during an election campaign, and CTV NewsNet anchor Ravi Baichwal sits in over at CFRB from time to time, but that's about it for talk show hosts that aren't screaming conservatives. Most of the rest of the crop of radio yakkers spend hours of airtime criticizing this government, often mercilessly so. That hasn't kept their stations from getting their licences renewed with little hassle. Think about it: if the Chrétien government had wanted to get dissenting voices off the air, stations like CFRA Ottawa (home to ultra-righties Lowell Green and Michael Harris), CJOB Winnipeg (Charles Adler, formerly home to the incomparable Peter Warren), QR77 in Calgary (Dave Rutherford -- need I say more?), and CKNW (Rafe Mair, Peter Warren, Stirling Faux) in Vancouver would have had their broadcasting licences pulled by now -- or have been told to get the right-wingers off the air or kiss that licence goodbye. Of course, if this had actually happened, it would be public knowledge very quickly.

On television, the Global television network's flagship public affairs program Global Sunday has been hosted first by the aforementioned Adler, now by Danielle Smith, a young conservative whose entire career has been spent at right-wing think tanks and in the conservative press. Global's "Last Word" commentary series has tended to feature a preponderance of right-leading pundits offering their opinions to Global National with Kevin Newman viewers. CTV's political weekly, Question Period, is co-hosted by Globe and Mail political scribe John Ibbitson. Even the supposedly screamingly leftist CBC -- a favourite target of CanWest Global's executives -- features conservative commentators on its panel discussions and its news reportage. Then again, conservative media critics think that having a socialist, a liberal, and a conservative commentator on a panel is unbalanced, and that not repeating Pentagon propaganda equates to an anti-war bias. You can't please some folks, I tells ya...

So the International Labour Organization has slapped around the government of British Columbia for violating international labour standards when the government re-wrote collective agreements and imposed contract settlements. I can't work up any enthusiasm, because the ILO is a toothless tiger like too many international governing bodies, and besides, this report is probably seen as good news by the more virulently anti-union types in the government...

15 Iraq stories the press has already bungled, from Editor & Publisher.

Wow.

I see that this blog's been mentioned in MSNBC.com's Weblog Central. Some thoughtful soul at a teensy-tiny division of a subsidiary of General Electrickery found my diatribe on the coverage of that chemical weapons plant in Iraq that wasn't -- and deemed it linkworthy! Cool!

If you were looking for some sort of warblog, you're probably in the wrong place. There are dozens of bloggers who are obsessively following the war in Iraq, and posting every reaction, story, and development. They also do it far better than I ever could -- so check them out. What's this blog about then? Well, I suppose that most of the war-related stuff has to do with the debate surrounding the war. I am in Canada, and this is still a hotly debated topic here -- follow the links on this blogs to Canadian op-ed pieces about the war and Canada's place in it; you'll soon see what I mean. There's also the question of how the press looks at the war. Or who's saying what at which rally. Or... fill in the blank.

Then again, there are also thoughts about politics in Canada and closer to my home in Vancouver, B.C. on this site, along with the requisite links to relevant news stories. Or just dumb stuff that I've found on the Web and thought that people who stumble by might find interesting. So I supposed that this is currently a political weblog that happens to be looking more at the war in Iraq for now, but whose editor is a little scatterbrained and it shows. Judge for yourself. Send praise or scorn. Send links to interesting articles. Send large sums in small bills. Or send nothing at all.

I suppose, though, that those of you coming here from MSNBC will not be terribly thrilled by future postings about the redistribution [re-districting in American parlance] of federal electoral districts in British Columbia, or notes from the City of Vancouver's pre-budget consultation forums. Well, I suppose that you can be glad that most mice have scroll wheels, and that browsers have 'back' buttons (and Opera has mouse gestures -- beat that, Microsoft!). Now that you've read this caveat, knock yourself silly. And enjoy.

No, Laurier LaPierre did not say "Screw the Americans!"

... to back up a bit, on Tuesday when another senator was making a speech about Russia's sales of arms to Iraq, Senator Laurier LaPierre interjected, "So did the Americans!" Now, putting aside the fact that the Americans didn't sell very many munitions to Hussein (if he had, then Husseim would be using M-60 talks instead of T-55's, and soldiers would be armed with M-16 rifles instead of AK-47's or locally built knockoffs) for a second, shouting "Screw the Americans!" in that contect would make little sense, even for a Parliamentarian. Independent observers of all political stripes have concluded from listenting to sound recordings that LaPierre did say what he claimed that he had -- although that wasn't enough for Canadian Alliance MP Jason Kenney, whose new role is apparently to attack anti-Americanism, real or imagined, by Liberal politicians. It's a role that the rabidly pro-American Kenney relishes, but he should have curbed his enthusiasm on this particular case.

Yesterday in Question Period, Kenney repeated the charge that LaPierre had screamed "Screw the Americans!" This earned him a rebuke from Prime Minister Chrétien, who pointed out that Kenney's acusations had no basis in fact. Chrétien suggested that Kenney should apologize to Sen. LaPierre in the House, and that until Kenney apologized for his false allegations, Chrétien would not answer any more of his questions. Score one for Chrétien -- albeit due more to his opponents' incompetence than Chrétien's own skill.

Canadian Troops Operating in Iraq

... the National Post did run the story today, that it did. The troops that are working inside Iraq are probably a half-dozen Canadian officers that are with the British Marines on what would normally be an unremarkable troop-exchange program. Of course, this raises interesting questions, ones that have been lingering since Prime Minister Chrétien announced that Canada would not participate in a war on Iraq. If Canadian soldiers on personnel exchange are operating in Iraq, is Canada effectively at war with Iraq, or are we not because Canada has no control over these officers duuring the troop exchange? Beats the bejeezus out of me. The anti-war New Democrats have asked the Speaker of the House to rule on whether the Prime Minsiter is in contempt of Parliamnet for telling the House that he would not commit troops to the war, when, in fact, some Canadian tropps are technicaly participating. At least the Speaker is a walking Parliamentary rulebook -- he had a subscription to Hansard (the official record of what was said in Parliament) when he was a teenager. And I thought that I was weird when I was in my teens...

Try a little anti-Canadianism on for size...

Are you tired of the constant accusation that Canadians and their government are a bunch of sniveling anti-Americans? Actually, I don't really care what you think. Seems, though, that I'm not the only one who's a wee bit pissed off at the suggestions from some quarters that any disagreement with the poicies of the current U.S. administration equates to anti-Americanism. Dimitry Anastakis, who has spent his academic career studying the economic ties between the two countries, fires back. He suggests that those Canadian who scream Anti-Americanism are, in fact... Anti-Canadians! Ha ha!

...criticism of Canada has been so consistent and pointed by certain elements in this country that what might be termed a loose anti-Canadian party has emerged. The anti-Canadian party has its own newspapers, its own spokespeople, even its own party in the House of Commons.

The anti-Canadians simply don't like Canada because it is so unlike the U.S. in so many ways and lament the fact that we are not in lockstep with the U.S. on all aspects of our foreign and domestic policies...

The anti-Canadians are always looking for the worst, celebrating Canada's failures, whether real or perceived. The National Post, the most virulent right-wing newspaper in Canadian history, is rife with anti-Canadianism. The paper's editorial policy has been described as "Canada sucks," never missing a chance to point out its "inadequacies"...

Try as it might, the Post's search for a Canadian link to the 9/11 terrorist attacks did not yield any results...

[Alliance leader Stephen] Harper and his party are another bastion of anti-Canadianism.

Their toadyism toward America is only barely outmatched by their disdain for Canada.

Remember, Harper is a "national" leader who once said that "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status ..."

Calling a spade a spade? Sure -- but it does apply to most of the Canadian government's conservative critics.

Now, I have little doubt that there are many who criticize the government's decision to stay out of the Iraq invasion who honestly beleive that it was the right action, and that the case was there to invade Iraq now (while still preferring to regard North Korea as a 'regional threat). However, you can be pretty sure that most of the marchers at next week's sceduled "Rally for America" in Toronto's Nathan Phillips Square are from that contingent of Canadians who want Canada and its government policies to be much more like those of our southern neighbours, and who are less than pleased with the views of their fellow Canadians, and the governments that they elect.

Bonus for you Scrum readers out there: While he was working on his dissertation, Anastakis wrote some articles for the (apparently-defunct) PunditMag.com -- here they are. I rather like this one about how the province of Alberta constantly complains about federal government policy -- then gets what it wants, and cries for more. It should give people in Alberta, and to a lesser extent, BC) pause to consider just how it is that they're seen in the rest of Canada.

One last thing: Another Toronto Star opinion piece, this one from Thomas Walkom, on why this war is America's and not Canada's -- and that while U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci might suggest that America would rally to Canada's defence in a crisis, it has not so far except when America has faced the same threat.

Prince of Darkness Richard Perle has resigned his position as chair of the U.S. Defence Policy Board. Perle said that he didn't want controversy over his personal buiness dealings to distract froom the Pentagon's operations in Iraq...

Warren Kinsella has a few choice words for American ambassador Paul Cellucci and his complaints about the Canadian government's refusal to commit troops to the war in Iraq, and a history lesson for the Ambassador to boot. Right on.

You learn something new every day -- I was unaware that Cellucci ran an automobile dealership before he entered public life. Great training for the diplomatic trade, I suppose. Feel free to insert smart-ass coment about Cellucci's previous occupation here.

Some more views on Canada's national obsession -- our country's relationship from the United States. One take on the Canadian psychic quandary is from the New York Times's Canadian correspondent Clifford Krauss; the other is Ikram Saeed's critique of the efforts of one Canadian to combat what some see as the "pervasive Anti-Americanism" in this country.

(hey, at least it's a topic that for all practical purposes never goes stale.)

I love this: an AP story about the Al-Jazeera English language site says that it has been intermittently unavailable due to attacks from hackers. My experience has been that the site is "almost always unavailable." I've tried that thing at almost any hour and I've never gotten through.

Apparently the governing Liberals debated today in caucus whether or not to censure or possibly expel U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci over his comments yesterday about Canada's stance on Iraq. It's just as well that they decided to do nothing. Canada does not need to escalate this diplomatic dispute any further; we've got a Republican hack as the American government's representative here instead of a State Department veteran, and that's bad enough.

Fer gawd's sake, people, you're givin' me whiplash.

Polls seem to show that most Canadians support the Canadian government's handling of the Iraq crisis. The string of seeming flip-flops and contradiction on the subject of regime change in Iraq makes one wonder why the support is that high -- it's certainly not because of the style or presentation of the government's arguments. From today's Globe and Mail:

The federal government backtracked furiously yesterday, saying it does not necessarily support Washington's war objective of toppling Saddam Hussein.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien disavowed Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham's remarks on Monday that Canada wants to see regime change in Baghdad.

"The question of changing of regime is not a policy that is acceptable under the United Nations charter," Mr. Chrétien said.

Mr. Graham changed his message from the previous day.

"No, Canada has never been in favour of regime change," Mr. Graham told reporters after a committee meeting on Parliament Hill.

On Monday, he said, "We as a government are supportive of the United States' desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein, to deal with the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue around the world. And we'll continue to work with the United States in terms of non-proliferation, in terms of the war on terrorism."

Uh, which one is it? There's no shame in saying that even though the government has not endorsed the war, it wants to see the back of the Hussein regime. It's perfectly possible to have been against the war because of the fact that the Canadian government does not believe that one nation should be the international arbiter and enforcer of which regimes shall be allowed to continue and which must fall, but to now take a position that is not neutral. Lysiane Gagnon said it so well in her column yesterday that Canada can still (and must) choose sides with honour.

In fact, the government could use the fact that the war is now on to say that it will pitch in to the humanitarian effort in Iraq after the fighting ends, and to the rebuilding of Iraq and helping to ensure that the next government of Iraq is one that is acceptable to the Iraqi people and not just to the Bushies. Given the United States' less than sterling record of installing governments in foreign counties -- the honourable exception of West Germany does not compensate for the likes of Pinochet, Noriega, that Hussein guy, and other less-than-luminaries -- it's a solid stance for Canadians to take. Don't knock our constitutional lawyers; once they've cleaned up in Afghanistan, on to Iraq!

I think that that's what the government has been trying to do, what with today's announcement of $100-million earmarked for Iraqi aid, but the message is so muddled that it'll be lost in the storm of controversy over Canada's stance on military intervention. What the hell is going on? This government has been masterful on making a modicum of sense to Canadians on most issues. Right now, it seems that Chrétien and company have settled for being less unacceptable to the Canadian public than the "America, right or wrong" rhetoric of the opposition Canadian Alliance, the absolute commitment to pacifism of the New Democrats, or the muddled Progressive Conservatives, a party that preached multilateralism six weeks ago but that has (mostly) gone into full hawk mode as the war neared.

Where's the Liberal spin machine to get the message out when you need it?

Either this guy has a spelling problem, or he's still pissed off at a congressman from Virginia... although I believe that only one congressman with that name made a stupid comment about "Jewish influence on U.S. foreign policy." So he's still got a singular-plural disagreement there.


(via Peter Jung at e-town)

For those of you wondering, I'm aware of the problems with the commenting system on this blog. For some reason, Microsoft Internet Explorer has been having troubles with BlogOut's bits of JavaScript and will not display the generated links to the comments. Opera 7 is running the scripts just fine 'n dandy, though. I've also noticed that BlogOut is not working for me in IE on Chris Taylor's Daily Blah, so I'm not sure if the problem is specific to my machine or to IE in general. Let me know if the comment links don't work on your side, or if you've got any ideas on how to fix this. Thanks.

UPDATE: The problem was with my browser set-up, not with the webpage, which explains why using IE was giving me grief, while Opera wasn't. If the truth be known, I prefer using Opera, but it doesn't work properly with Blogger, so you do what you gotta do.

From the "We swear that we couldn't make this up" file, a group of Alberta separatists says that an independent (and landlocked?) Alberta should buy nuclear submarines in order to gain international clout. I kid you not. There seems to be two explanations for this: either an independent Alberta will annex the Northwest Territories (or maybe B.C.) so that they can get ocean access, or the subs will patrol the Bow and Saskatchewan Rivers for... what? Enemy jet-skis?

I like this one: Carleton University J-skool boss Chris Dornan opined on CPAC's Talk Politics that Canadian journalists in the Gulf region should have 'embedded'... with Al-Jazeera. His rationale? Al-Jazeera gets its eyes and ears into more places in Iraq and the region that any other news organization -- and that Canadian media should take advantage of the Qatari braodcaster's information-gathering ability, if not its presentation of the assembled information. Cute.

A Series of Headlines:

Ground forces approach Baghdad
ABC Online, Australia - 21 Mar 2003

Former senior Australian Army commander says coalition close to Baghdad
ABC Online, Australia - 22 Mar 2003

Troops approach Baghdad; missing GIs may be POWs
Billings Gazette, MT - 23 Mar 2003

Iraq Inflicts First Casualties As Troops Approach Baghdad
Quicken - 24 Mar 2003

US Forces Approach Baghdad
Voice of America - 25 Mar 2003

... although one SHOULD note than any progress from the Iraq-Kuwait border does mean that the troops are 'approaching' Baghdad in one sense of the word.

A little something to consider about U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci's criticism of the Canadian government's stand in the war against Iraq: Cellucci is a career politician, not a diplomat by training. One should expect his remarks to be a bit more crude than those of a seasoned State Department man, and that's been the case. Last fall, Cellucci directly criticized Canada's relatively small defence spending. Even so, I think that his remarks were off base.

"There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with. There would be no debate, there would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada -- part of our family."

A little problem, Paul: Can you kindly point out just when Iraq threatened war with the United States; that is, before the United States said that it would chenge the Iraqi regime? I'm not aware of any such threats, or of any Iraqi plan to lauch or back an invasion of the United States. Comparing the Iraq situation to a direct threat against Canada or the U.S. rings hollow in this observer's eyes.

Remember that supposed chemical weapons plant that American troops found at An Najaf in Iraq? Turns out that after two days, nothing has been found to show that the place was used to produce weaponry. I think I'll check the Fox News Channel web site to see if they've posted any sort of mea culpa for reporting that the site was a chemical weapons plant, as 'confirmed' to them by an anonymous senior Pentagon official.

18:48 PT: Nope, not a chance. Interesting to note that Fox's web site, parroting the administration's line (quelle surprise), has lumped in its Iraq section with existing "War on Terror" features.

More Homeland Stupidity Exposed!

In their rush to boycott all things French, some Americans have apparently taken to boycotting French's Mustard. This ranks right up there on the Homeland Stupidity Index with renaming French bread to Victory Bread (victory bread being an American concept, and most if not all French bread sold in the US being baked in those united states) and renaming French fries to Freedom Fries (fries, or 'frites' being a Belgian specialty). For those that are a little thick of skull, French's mustard is named after its creator, and the British company that makes the stuff has felt it necessary to remind consumers of this fact. Yikes.

Now that the notorious PacifiCat 'fast ferries' have finally been sold at auction for pennies on the dollar (about four pennies, to be exact), will the story finally die? Don't bet on it. The 'fastcats' were far over budget, a technical failure, and were ultimately liquidated at a huge loss. For the B.C. Liberal party, they're a perfect symbol of the previous New Democrat government's (which began the ferry project) incompetence. One way or another, the Libs will bring up the fast-cat failure sometime during the 2005 provincial election campaign.

On the other hand, the NDP and Libs could come to a gentlemens' agreement: if the Dippers don't harp on Gordon Campbell's drunk-driving conviction (a criminal offence in this country, though not in Hawaii where he was convicted), the Liberals won't holler about the fast cats. Given the political climate in British Columbia, I wouldn't bet on it.

Campbell's bill: US$913

That's the fine that B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell is looking at after his Maui court date over charges stemming from his January drunken driving escapade. Campbell was not present at the hearing; his lawyer entered a plea of no contest on his behalf.

In addition to the fines, Campbell must also undergo a 14-hour alcohol abuse assessment and another one for substance abuse. he will also have his B.C. driver's licence suspended for one year.

CBC News Editor-in-Chief Tony Burman fires back at suggestions that associates of Liberal leadership contender Paul Martin strong-armed him into pulling a story on Martin and the business practices of Canada Steamship Lines, the company that was until recently owned by Martin. Some excerpts of Burman's memo to CBC News staffers:

* The segment was originally scheduled for April 1, but was moved up two weeks because the issue was in the news. The Disclosure production team was working on it right up until a few hours before air and on the eve of a war.

* I screened the piece in late afternoon on the day of broadcast. In my judgment, it was rushed together too quickly and was not ready for air. It is a complicated story and I felt it needed more clarity. I didn't feel there would be a problem if we delayed it to the next edition of Disclosure. This decision was shared by Julie Bristow, our Director of Current Affairs and Senior Director Don Knox.

* As reported in the newspapers, a few days earlier I got a call and an e-mail from [former CBC Parliamentary Bureau Chief] Elly Alboim who frequently works with Paul Martin... There was nothing unusual or inappropriate in receiving this communication from Mr. Alboim. We are Canada's national public network. Our journalistic policy book is a public document. If any Canadian alleges that we are violating our own policy -while we are preparing a piece or after it has been broadcast - then it is my obligation as the CBC's Editor in Chief to take it seriously.

So to repeat: the piece was delayed because we felt it needed more work. There were no outside pressures involved in this decision.

You be the judge.

The Chemical Weapons Plant Story:
Honest Confusion or Yellow Journalism?

On Sunday, the Jerusalem Post's Catherine Glick, who is embedded with a United States military unit, reported that US forces had found what appeared to be a chemical weapons plant at An Najaf, south of Baghdad. Her first report, which described a 'suspected' chemical weapons facility, set off a tizzy. Was this the first proof that Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, as opposed to the absence of proof that he didn't? For those who had claimed that Saddam had WMD, this was looking like vindication time. Even though Glick's report didn't say that it was a chemical weapons plant (and how would she be able to get another independent source to confirm this in her situation?), pro-war television and web pundits were ready to pounce. They could now shout out, "TOLD YA SO! You useful idiots wouldn't believe our President, and that you wanted proof! There it is -- now eat your crow!" to all those who didn't take the Bush administration's claims on faith.

Pretty soon, speculation fluttered across the 24-hour news channels that the Bushies and the warbloggers had gotten what they wanted. Then the big boost came: FOX News, that paragon of quality journalism, reported on air and on line that a "senior Pentagon official" had confirmed that the facility was, in fact, a chemical plant. The text report, as it originally appeared on the Fox News Channel web site, read:

'Huge' Chemical Weapons Plant Found in Iraq

A senior Pentagon official has confirmed to Fox News on Sunday that coalition forces have discovered a "huge" chemical weapons factory near the Iraqi city of An Najaf, which is situated some 225 miles south of Baghdad.

Coalition troops are also said to be holding the general in charge of the facility.

The Jerusalem Post ran a story earlier Sunday that was written by a journalist on-hand with the U.S. unit -- the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division - that took the plant.

The article states that one soldier was lightly wounded when a booby-trapped explosive was triggered as he was "clearing the sheet metal-lined chemical weapons production facility."

Huzzah! Hallelujah! Saddam has WMD, and the ostensible reason for the war -- to disarm the Hussein regime -- now had some basis in fact.

Or did it?

The only major news source that was reporting that this was an honest-to-goodness chemical weapons plant was Fox News Channel. Even the Times of London, also owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, was not running with the story. CNN was refusing to report that this site was a weapons factory, although it was reporting what any decent journalistic organization would: that the site was "suspicious." Agence France Presse's stories, in a nice trick to distance themselves from Fox's claims (and preserve their own reputation?), said only that Fox was confirming that the facility was real. Naturally, the BBC, with its stringent sourcing requirements, was not about to touch the story. So what we had here was a claim by one news source with a known right-wing bias, that promotes the Bush position and that has a fondness for bombast, and no other reputable news organization that was willing to confirm it. Dubious -- but not to those who didn't need independent confirmation, or who perhaps just wanted the story to be true.

The warbloggers spring into action, all right. Glenn Reynolds, the InstaPundit, grabbed on and posted what he thought to be links that confirmed the Fox story; in fact, the 'supporting' stories also mentioned that the plant at Najaf was only suspect -- not one confirmation. Little Green Footballs, one of the net's premier meeting places for the pro-war (and anti-Arab) set went wild, with hundreds of self-congratulatory posts in the few hours after the "story" broke. Same over at Right-Wing News, and a dozen or so other (mostly pro-war) web logs found in MIT's insidious Blogdex.

But what about the confirmation?

It hasn't come yet. While AFP continued to put cautiously worded stories out onto the wire, the warbloggers fumed, pontificated, and beat their chests. Unfortunately for them, Fox News has changed its story to say that the plant is An Najaf is "suspected" of being a chemical weapons plant. Sometime between 8:00 PT and 10:00 PM PT that evening, the web report was revised to read:

Coalition forces discovered Sunday a "huge" suspected chemical weapons factory near the Iraqi city of Najaf, some 90 miles south of Baghdad, a senior Pentagon official confirmed to Fox News.

Hmm. Not only is this place no longer confirmed to be a chemical weapons factory, but apparently An Najaf is 135 miles closer to Baghdad than it was that morning. Earth-shattering.

The fact that Fox put out this story is disturbing. One wonders if the editors at Fox News Channel and foxnews.com were letting their political biases get in the way of their editorial judgment. Would they run with this because they were confident that it would be confirmed as a chemical plant, and that Fox could then claim that it was the first to break the news? Perhaps Fox ran the story to stir up more pro-war and pro-Bush sentiment, in the fine tradition of the Hearst "yellow press." There is an echo of the telegraph that William Randolph Hearst once sent a reporter in Cuba in is efforts to whip up enthusiasm for the Spanish-American War: "You supply the pictures, I'll supply the war."

It makes one wonder if they've forgotten the hack's maxim, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." Fox's decision to run this story seemingly without confirmation raises questions about its editorial policy, and of its guidelines for sourcing stories before they make it to air or to the web. After all, Fox's report contradicted every other major news outlet with their initial report, and the network later changed its story -- did the "senior Pentagon official" unconfirm this?

Whatever the reasons for Fox's handling of the story, sloppy work like this helps to cement Fox's reputation as a questionable news source -- as if the pervasive conservative opinion-mongers on the network’s programs, the hiring of Geraldo Rivera as a high-profile correspondent, and the preference for sensationalism over substance weren't enough.

So is this place in An Najaf a chemical weapon plant or not? The answer, for now, is: I don't know for certain, and just as one does not call someone accused of a crime a criminal, this rule applies as to this place, whatever it turns out to be. To report it as being a place as a chemical weapons factory is not responsible reporting. Then again, they don't call it the Faux News Channel for nothin'.

UPDATE: Associated Press reports that U.S. troops have found "no evidence" at the site:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. military investigators have found no evidence that chemical weapons have been made in recent years at a suspect chemical plant secured by U.S. troops in southern Iraq, a senior defense official said Tuesday.

Read the rest...

Quite what this means is beyond me. You'd think that American Idol would stay static at best...

(via Marc Weisblott at the weisblogg)

Pentagon To Journos: Toe The Line, Or Else?

Veteran BBC war correspondent Kate Adie claims that the Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplinks of independent (not 'embedded' with US or British forces) journalists reporting from Iraq. Adie, who was speaking to an Irish radio program, accused the Pentagon af an attitude "entirely hostile to the the free spread of information."

Patriot Missile Performs Its Job

... All right. That was just a little black humour on my part. However, the Raytheon Patriot anti-missile missile was originally developed as an anti-aircraft system and only in the lead-up to the first Gulf War was it adapted to take down tactical ballistic missiles. Its performace in Gulf War I was overstated -- all but perhaps one or two of the supposed "intercepts" in 1991 were actually Scuds disintegrating on re-entry. The combination of the crossing of the Patriot's trajectory with the remains of the Scud/al-Hussein missiles led to the false impression that the Patriots had taken down its target.

The Gulf War Two Drinking Game.

I gotta try this. However, my liver might not survive if I have to take a drink wherever White House flack Ari Fleischer tells another whopper, and two if he lies to Helen Thomas... or whenever Tariq Aziz's glasses get larger, or when Dubya quotes scripture, or somone at an anti-war protest is carrying a sign denouncing Saddam, or someone who dodged military service gets a hard-on for military force.