Was anyone else surprised when Stephen Harper named Pamela Wallin as one of his senators?
I guess it kind of validated just how conservative CTV really is. Wallin and Duffy. Peter Kent an executive at Global and Peter MacKay engaged to an executive at CTV.
But what surprised me the most about Pamela Wallin was that I had no idea she was a redneck. I've watched her on television and she looked so normal. Who knew?
And who knew she was so pro-war and pro-corporation? Or let me rephrase that: So American pro-war and pro-corporation?
Her appearance on the Manley panel raised flags for Michael Byers.
Ms. Wallin, who served as consul general in New York, played a central role in persuading American opinion-makers that Canada was fully supportive of the "war on terror." She now works as a senior adviser to the Council of the Americas, a free trade-promoting organization that counts some of the largest U.S. corporations among its members.
She was also made an honourary colonel for her pro-war stance and well rehearsed rhetoric on our role in Afghanistan.
Our mission in Afghanistan has matured, and we are at the very heart of the allied effort. We are considered and acknowledged by our allies, including General McChrystal, who we had a chance to meet with, to be the brains of the operation. And they're all looking to put a little bit more Canada in their efforts. I remain convinced that we are in the right place for the right reasons. We chose to be there. Just as our allies had, we responded to the attacks of 9/11 that killed our citizens, and we joined the American-led operation Enduring Freedom. But because we continue to be threatened both here and there, as others try not only to kill us but to undermine what we believe in and what we stand for, we chose to stay in a very significant way. We sought out that Kandahar assignment for NATO in 2005, sending 2500 of our young men and women into the toughest part of a very tough neighbourhood.
But isn't the fact that she is an advisor to the Council of the Americas and a cheerleader for war, a conflict of interest? Because who benefits the most from this so-called "war on terror"? The short answer: The corporations that make up the Council of the Americas.
When Rick Hillier started parading around the country, selling Canadians on the War in Afghanistan, it was hard not to climb on board. All the right words were used - 'freedom', 'democracy', 'women's rights', 'schools', etc.
So I set aside my skepticism and mourned the loss of our soldiers, and believed that they died for a noble cause.
Though it wasn't just the issue of torture, but the way that our government and Hillier himself, responded to the allegations. We heard "scumbags", "Taliban dupes" , "Canadians don't care about Afghans torturing Afghans" ... Who are these Canadians, because everyone I know very much cares. In fact, our own soldiers cared enough to take one detainee back and then start photographing future prisoners before releasing them to their jailers.
Because they know about things like the Geneva Convention and human dignity. They have lived with these people and know that they are not all "Taliban", "terrorists" or "scumbags". They have a job to do and are doing it as well as can be expected.
The above video is the first in a series by author, journalist and activist; Linda McQuaig, entitled Exposing Canada's Role in Afghanistan, based in part on her book: Holding the Bully's Coat. I'm currently reading it, and sharing a bit along the way, but it's well worth picking up.
She has a great writing style and a profound knowledge of the subject.
In the video, she is discussing the Manley Report, that was written to make the war palatable to Canadians and state the case for our continued participation.
The media sure pounced on it, like it was The Bible III: Beyond the New Testament. But despite giving a new direction, and the illusion of being non-partisan, it still did nothing to answer the question: Why are we there? Do we have the moral or legal authority to be there?
And yet, without answering those questions it became the basis for an extension of the war, meaning billions more dollars and countless more lives.
But rejection of this almost ecclesiastical report, was not allowed. Terry Glavin wrote in the Tyee, which is usually one of the moderate publications, under the heading; Fresh Start on Afghanistan Debate:
It just might be that yesterday's report from John Manley's independent panel on Canada's role in Afghanistan will turn out to be the very thing this country needed: a kind of blueprint to build a sensible, non-partisan national consensus about how Canada should conduct itself in that poor, blighted country. There's still hope.
But for it to happen, Canadians, and especially Canada's political leaders, will have to squarely face the hard, horrible and inconvenient truths that Manley and his panelists so thoroughly canvassed.
And he continues:
It means New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton will have to stop the hippie-speak about "George Bush's war" and start brushing up on some basic facts. Reacting to the panel's report Tuesday, Layton's first words, in an official statement, were: "For six years, the Liberals and Conservatives have had Canada involved in a counter-insurgency combat mission in southern Afghanistan." Actually, it was only a little more than two years ago that Canadian soldiers finally moved out of Kabul to take over in Kandahar.
It means Liberal leader Stephane Dion will have to abandon his sophomoric and illogical fixation with a 2009 departure date -- or any fixed departure date -- for Canadian soldiers in Kandahar...
It means the next time Green Party leader Elizabeth May feels the urge to blame "ISAF forces from a Christian/crusader heritage" for the depredations of violent jihadists in Afghanistan, she might first recall that there are hundreds of brave Muslim soldiers from ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in Afghanistan, from such countries as Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Canada's own 'with them or against them' mentality was validated, and most of the mainstream media jumped on the band wagon.
But he does criticize Harper: The weird muzzling of Canadian aid officials and diplomats. Ottawa's bizarre inability to engage in anything resembling a straightforward accounting of the mission's risks. Its absurd hobbling of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) in Afghanistan. The cabinet's irresponsible inattention to the equipment and transportation requirements of Canadian soldiers on Kandahar's front lines.
Now I know the report also came along with new aid organizations like Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee; which is a good thing, but again, I ask; why are we there?
Was anyone else surprised when Stephen Harper named Pamela Wallin as one of his senators?
