(This should have been here rather than preceding post.)

This from the Ottawa Citizen story, July 28, "MP Parrish furious over Afghanistan mission":

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=5a72eaa1-42fa-4a18-8e35-2164d864e940
'Meanwhile, the opinionated MP spoke harshly about Canada's new role in Afghanistan.

"We're sending in armed troops to kill people (in Afghanistan). This is a drastic change in direction..."'

Ms Parrish doesn't seem to realize that the Canadian Forces' initial deployment to Afghanistan in 2002 was in a combat, not peacekeeping, role. How short are memories in this country?

By the way, the air forces of the testosterone-charged Dutch and Belgians have fighters flying combat missions in Afghanistan right now--and the air force of the Yankee-wary French will be joining them--under NATO command. ("Nearly Ready: Communications Deemed Critical to Future NATO Response Forces", Aviation Week, July 1.

Mark
Ottawa

Sorry, Aviation Week story is July 18.

Mark
Ottawa

You know, if there are any Canadian Forces contractors or employers in Ms Parrish district, perhaps they ought to be moved. These employers must be rather distressing to Ms Parrish, in that they support the missios of the Armed Forces.

Perhaps the same should happen to American employers in her district. After all, these companies pay taxes in the US and with the Bush administration preparing the budget, well, that must be very distressing to Ms Parrish, given her feelings toward the US administration.

Might be time to move some of those employers to more hospitable surroundings.

Mark..how dare you inform Ms Parrish that our role in Afganhistan is combat..not lovey-dovey peacekeeping!Are you trying to give her a heart attack? LOL..we can only hope.This useless piece of skin needs to get a life,and quickly(Parrish,not Mark)Don't these people realize that these goons are out to kill us and destroy our way of life?Opppsss,hang on a sec,I have to go beat the wife for daring to walk in front of me.Insolent bitch.When are our saviour Libs going to allow Sharia law into this country so that all women can be properly put in thier places??

"In the letter to Mr. Graham, Ms. Parrish wrote: 'I implore you to muzzle the beast, assume command of Canada's agenda in your usual articulate, dignified and intelligent way. Let the Canadian public know Gen. Hillier does not speak for our government.'"

The "beast" being, uh, the chief of the defence staff, or does she mean to include every member of the armed forces?

And Anne Dawson is another reporter who, whether sloppily or revisionistically, confuses which bastards Parrish was describing while making a basic error about the U.S. system of government:

"Ms. Parrish, who was booted out of the Liberal caucus last year after she criticized the government of U.S. President George W. Bush as 'bastards' and 'idiots...'"

For those who've forgotten or don't care, the exact quote as reported even by the Mother Corp was "Damn Americans … I hate those bastards."

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2C02248B

Memo to worldly Canadian political reporter: when writing "the government of U.S. President George W. Bush" were you talking about "the administration?" Just asking...

"The first time Canadian soldiers come back in body bags, you just wait for the outcry"

Carolyn Parrish paints a fairly pathetic view of Canadians. Is she indicating that Canadians don't have the fortitude to stand up with the U.S. AND Europe against terrorist forces in Afghanistan? Is she seriously indicating that Canadians don't care enough about foreign matters to become involved in combatting anarchy and terrorism in the world? Afghanistan is a no-brainer. If we aren't there, we've thrown in the towl as an international player.

Boy, I hope she's not correct about Canada!

I'm sure this is the millionth time we've corrected the MSM for this but:

Parrish was booted for insulting PMPM, not for insulting Americans. Insulting Americans is Lieberal policy.

Carolyn Parrish is a modern squeaky Liberal. She typifies everything that has gone wrong with the Liberal Party of Canada. Shallow and a panderer of liberal groupthink, Ms Parrish is not a real Canadian. She is a dangerous example of what happens when estrogen and marijuana are mixed. She is also a reminder that our enemies can count on liberals for support.

Jeff - you're absolutely correct and, as one who recently brought up this topic, I should have mentioned it. So many falsehoods, so little time...

It's such a deliciously quintessential Liberal maneuver to condone silently the "hate speech" of a sitting MP, to eject her only when she has directed her venom repeatedly toward the PM, and then to claim credit retroactively through the MSM for addressing her remarks toward those American bastards.

Ironically, it's the blogosphere that's bringing such comments to the attention of, in this instance, "Middle America," a good thing. Those who travel south of the border may notice that they're no longer universally greeted with the "Canadians are sooo nice" comments of yore.

At some point Canadians probably will have to decide, for reasons of economic self interest if nothing else, whether to allow those who carry the latent "anti-Americanism" that has long been part of the Canadian identity to its extreme to speak for the country in discourse with the bastards to the South.

I hope she is reelected.

She is the Howard Dean of Canadian politics.

And an anti-semetic beeatch

General Eisenhower titled his first book of memoirs "Crusade in Europe." Will Parrish demand that this dead man (clearly a "beast" with an excess of testosterone) be "muzzled" by removing his obviously anti-Muslim diatribe from our public libraries? Parrish will certainly not know that the book is about defeating the Germans and Italians in WW II.

Mark
Ottawa

She is just 20 years out of date.....perhaps 40 years out of date....she was born in 46...a prime boomer...cant wait to see her University portrait and what she was apart of in University.

She is a self indulgent boomer playing to local politics, which she may actually happen to agree with.

She doesnt know her countries history and she doesnt know her countries present.

As for the testosterone fuelled comment....I can only imagine how a dismissive comment about her being a post menospausal and estrogen diminished women who is probably having hot flashes would be irrelevant to the debate.

Bottom line, Carolyn Parrish is a blowhard, posuer and a self important grandstander. I hope she gets re-elected as an independent. Maybe she'll start her own party..

And if she cant tell the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, our role, repsonsibilities and mission, then she has an even more thick head than I imagined.

A classic market square hero

The only way to deal with this egomaniac is to completly ignore her comments, say nothing and with no gasoline the press itself no matter how Liberal it is, will extinguish this flame on their own.

She's the spoiled brat from the school yard , ignore her and she will go away.

General Hillier's hide is tough enough to withstand name calling and he rides very high in the polls. Martin and his puppets would not dare touch him .

Here's to hoping that the next fuse lit by a terrorist is hanging out of her keester at the time...

"Here's to hoping that the next fuse lit by a terrorist is hanging out of her keester at the time...
Posted by Brian M. at July 28, 2005 12:17 PM "

Beautiful . . made me laugh out loud.

This Ontario federal MP may yet use her total twit-hood to help elect a more sane government who will then upgrade the CDN. Perhaps then we can send even more troops to help our best friends bring peace to the world.

Ain't it grand it when they are so stupid that they do the work of those they oppose. Her threats to help bring down the Liberals is music to my ears. You go girl!

I couldn't believe the stupidity of that woman. I sent her an email this morning explaining my dismay. My only hope in this situation is that the media starts to bash her, she doesn't get let back into the liberal caucus, and she splits votes with the new liberal candidate in her riding, making way for a possible conservative victory.

PMPM is too unprincipled however, to lose a seat by letting Parrish run as an independant. I suspect he will let the issue slide into the background, and let her in as the election is called.

Feel free to email this outspoken MP at the following address:

parric@parl.gc.ca

Using civil wording, let her know how you really feel about her musings...

Time to ignore the parrot flutter of Parrish.
She put on a tantrum. She entertained. She is finished. Why? Because her logic is faulty.

Her policy of *Liberano avoidance* would make it easier for Al-Qaida boom - boys. She would
make it more likely that poppings would happen here. Go away Parrish.

If Parrish suggests we pull our support from the Dutch, French and Belians who are also putting out the same fire, she sure does not speak for this Canadian ex-Navy type.

Now on to Willie Graham. I think there is a new sandbar showing in the Gulf that he will want to lay claim to. The Gulf of St. Lawrence, that is. 73s TG

I think Carolyn Parrish would make an ideal
successor to Paul Martin.

The frightening thing is some people would take this seriously.

Drained Brain, There is no latent anti-Americanism in Canadians really.

It is simply a case of the uninformed bashing the neighbour they do not actually know.

It's fun, and other people are doing it, so why not eh?

Why not? Because it makes you look like a sheep or a lemming. Besides, do you want to let Parrish guide you to wisdom? Give me a break. You are headed for a cliff.

I first met a cross-section of Americans and worked with them while in the RCN. Later, I moved and lived in Texas and then to Ventura California. Also visited with friends in Flint Michigan. [ GM town].

The only US people American haters know are the bad guys in the TV news.

I can tell you first hand the ratio is a thousand to one in favour of the good guys in the USA.

So please do not embarrass me in front of good American friends with your uninformed barbs at Americans.

If ever I am stranded, let it be in Newfoundland or the good old US of America.

73s TonyGuitar

Is Parrish ever dismissive of people!!!

She was on our local radio station this morning and stated that the mission in Afghanistan has changed. She stated that it started out as a mission to get Osama bin Laden but now has become a mission of keeping peace in a country that sells 90% of the world's heroin. She then said that MPs don't know what people want out of their military so that MPs should be consulting with their constituents. After all this time in office, she doesn't know what her constituents want out of the miliary?!?

How incredibly dismissive. Apparently, Afghanistan is just a drug-peddling nation that doesn't deserve our attention anymore. I know, I know...taking Parrish seriously only makes you look stupid yourself.

She's a politician and she's not going to cut her own throat. This means that what she says in public are things she thinks will not harm her poitically. In other words, things she feels will go over well with here constituents. I understand her riding contains a huge number of recent immigrants. By extrapolation, one may surmise that recent immigtants share her feelings. If this is so we should all be very afraid for our future as a nation. It would appear that the people coming here today are not made of the same stuff as the people who built this nation.

from TonyGuitar:

"So please do not embarrass me in front of good American friends with your uninformed barbs at Americans."

Huh? My own spouse is an American who finally grew tired at the constant subtle and not-so-subtle barbs of some Canadians, ranging from Ms. Parrish to Rick Mercer. That's why my brain is drained from the Great White North.

Have you never heard of the United Empire Loyalists? That English Canada was influenced largely by settlers who rejected the revolution of the colonists, and were treated rather unpleasantly for their loyalty to the British crown, is an historical fact and there's nothing to be ashamed about.

Unfortunately, the perceived vacuum of lack of a "lack of a Canadian identity" has been filled to the brim by the Trudeaupia of the past 30-or-so years. Most if not all of Trudeaupian "values" - e.g. peacekeeping, medicare, multi-culturalism - are proclaimed in contrast to you-know-who.

Read Granatstein here:

ttp://makeashorterlink.com/?W4C62548B

"The first of these factors is Canadian anti-Americanism-a persistent and pervasive disease that has strong historical books."

You could also consider the article by a disenchanted American LIBERAL immigrant that appeared awhile back in the Washington Post, eh:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1965248B

Sad to say, by claiming there's no latent anti-Americanism in Canada, you're demonstrating exactly the kind of denial to which I earlier referred. My point is that even those "American bastards" are starting to see through it.

If you really think my "uninformed barbs" are aimed at Americans, I have to suspect you were one of Ms. Parrish's students.

AdScam Martin slumming for votes from the Islamists.
The Islamist dog wagging the Librano$$$$$$$/Socialist tail.
Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Martin hopes to strike dialogue with Canadian Muslim leaders
Prime Minister Paul Martin hopes a meeting with Muslim leaders is the beginning of an ongoing dialogue with Canada's Islamic community.
>>>cnews

hz hz hz hz blog

Re my previous post, let's try a better, albeit longer,link to the Granatstein article:

http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_GMs/AGM68/GranatsteinI05.pdf

If that doesn't work, simply search Canadian + anti-American + Granatstein - it's a pdf file.

His quote should of course read:

"The first of these factors is Canadian anti-Americanism-a persistent and pervasive disease that has strong historical roots."

I'd love to know what this moronic excuse for a woman has to say about the atrocities commited by the Taliban. This is a bloody country where women were kicked out of school for being female and men were given nothing more than religious instruction in school. It's finally rid of the most extreme form of a religious dictatorship, with terrorist (and former Taliban officials) remain in caves everywhere and she's outraged that Canadian soldiers will be killing people, and may get killed defending it. Is it really possible to be any more ignorant.

Can't we send her to Afghanistan, clearly in her case education didn't "take" anyway.

We should embrace Carolyn Parrish. Lets seed some rumors that she is the front runner in the undeclared Liberal leadership race, and start talking about her as one of the most influential Liberals in the country. Lets tell people that when she is PM she will actually take us to war with our bitter enemies, the US, Israel, and Britain, and drive them out of Iraq so that the peace loving Saddam can again take over government. In other words, lets tell some nasty lies that will drive Liberal voters away from their party in droves.

An historical curiosity: until Trudeau the Liberals had generally been the continentalist, pro-American party, with the Conservatives being suspicious of the US and pro-Empire. The Conservatives supported the British (and French and Israelis) during the Suez Crisis of 1956, while the Liberal Government joined with the US in opposing them.

Mark
Ottawa

And Carolyn Parrish gets all this free publicity.......
Ignore her-- she's not going away, so just ignore her.Don't waste any time on concerns for Gen. Hillier, either. He's our modern day Churchill, a real Newfoundland dog and Ms. Parrish is not even a flea on his ass.

Kate, what will happen when Canadian soldiers start dying in Afganistan, or terrorists blow up subway trains in Toronto? Will Canada follow the example of Spain?

Mystery Meat: Which Spain?

1) The Spain of the Reconquista from the Muslim conquerors;
2) The Spain that won the world's greatest empire;
3) The Spain that resisted Napoleon and gave us the word "guerrilla";
4) The Spain of the Civil War that defeated Soviet-supported revolutionaries (albeit brutally but was never itself "fascist");
5) The Spain that after Franco peacefully became a democratic constitutional monarchy; or
6) The Spain that bugged out of Iraq.

Mark
Ottawa

Parrish pandering to muslims living in mississauga makes me wanna puke!

Terrorism has demanded that the free world put aside all the old psychodrama and grow up.

It's time to lay aside outworn family bickering and sibling rivalry and form an alliance based on our shared values and on the defeat of our enemies.

Carolyn Parrish panders to the worst tendencies in the Canadian body politic.

Anyone who would drive a wedge between the US and Canada at this juncture is a threat and a traitor to the security of the free world.

We have an insidious enemy who will not hesitate to use our weak links against us.

I've read that the Canadian spirit is a sort of unique cross between British and American. If this is true, America is instructed and enriched by Canada's perspective.

However when people like Carolyn Parrish become the voice of a large segment of Canada, she appeals to the worst in Canada, and sends a message of hate to America.

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls," as they say, "it tolls for thee."

It's time for everyone to chose their corner.

Good point Walsh

Sheila: Parrish is a rabid pro-hamas anti-Israeli activist. She admires arafat for christsake!
She is less concerned with the plight of Muslim women than anyone in this country...

She is also an asset to the right... as she alienates everyone even close to the center.

C. Parrish, many of the Liberal regime, too many other Canadians; they have all drunk the Kool-Aid; swallowed it; they are committing suicide. Parrish, herself, is a casualty.
Bulldoze them off the road; road-kill they are. They have lost touch with reality! Onward with the fight against Islamist murderers.
>>>>>>>>>

"ShrinkWrapped said...

From its dim past Euripides once warned, "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad."
We can only lose this war if we surrender; we will surrender if we do not see anything of value to defend in our culture. We lose when fools fight to keep Military recruiters from our high school and college campuses. We lose when the forces of political correctness and multiculturism fog the minds of so many who can not recognize the enemy when he stabs them in the back.
PC & Multi-cult are forms of quasi-psychotic thinking that distort our ability to recognize and assess reality.
As an emample: AFter 7/7, the New York police instituted a program of random searches of subway passengers. There are now 20 complaints (as per NPR this morning) of ethnic profiling against the police, primarily from Hispanics who claim they were mistaken for Muslims. The good news is that Al Sharpton has anounced he will not sue the city...yet.
Cultures that lose touch with reality inevitably crumble."
http://www.rapp.org/url/?TEI7YDGB
Belmont Club

As Rex Murphy wrote in the Globe and Mail on 2003-03-29:

"Americans are mad at us, not because we're not with them, but because of the way in which we have chosen to tell them we're not with them. If we expect the Americans to treat with some delicacy those matters that are most important to us, then they surely have the right to an equal expectation in how we deal with them. [...]

This mingy undercurrent of smug anti-Americanism is one of the most demeaning strands in our national life. Indulging it at a time of great seriousness savages the dignity of both nations. We should strive always, Samuel Johnson once said, to keep our friendships in repair. We disagree, it seems, with the Americans on this war. Fine. But I think Mr. Cellucci is properly ticked with how we're disagreeing."

AdScam Martin and the Islamists: IOU's being called in. O, come all ye faithful!
Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Martin hopes meeting spurs dialogue
TORONTO (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin met with Canadian Islamic leaders Thursday night and praised them for their statement last week condemning extremism. [BS BS BS BS]

"Better to stay silent and have people think you stupid, than to speak forth and remove all doubt."

Cheers
JMH

On 2003-03-20, Alberta's Premier Klein sent a letter to Paul Cellucci, U.S. Ambassador to Canada. An abridged version was published in the National Post on the 27th as follows:

"On behalf of the Government of Alberta, I am writing to express to you, and through you to President Bush and the people of the United States, my support for your nation and its leadership role in ridding the world of terrorism.

"As President Bush said shortly after September 11, 2001, the war on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is not a war the U.S. sought. In accepting this sombre challenge, however, the United States has shown clarity in setting its goals and patience and resolve in achieving them. In short, the President and your nation have exemplified leadership.

"This leadership has earned the deepest respect of many, many Albertans. The people of Alberta enjoy a great friendship with the United States -- a friendship built on common interests, much common history, and shared values. As Americans put their lives on the line to preserve freedom and security, we feel that friendship more strongly than ever.

"We join with Americans and people around the world in praying for a quick, successful end to hostilities, and a safe return home for American troops. Above all, we extend our thanks to the United States for its leadership in the war on terrorism and tyranny. Future generations will owe a great debt to those who fight today."

The following is from http://tinyurl.com/6e4n7 :

A world-record killing shot by a Canadian sniper detachment in Afghanistan could never have been made with the ammunition they were issued when they left Edmonton last winter, the triggerman said in a recent interview. The Canadian .50-calibre rounds have a maximum range of between 2,200 and 2,300 metres.

But the U.S. rounds, they discovered, "fly farther, faster," said Cpl. "Bill", a 26-year-old native of Fogo Island, Nfld. The two-man Canadian team, coupled with American Sgt. Zevon Durham of Greenville, S.C., made the kill from 2,430 metres, or nearly 2 1/2 kilometres, on the second shot.

This feat is the equivalent of standing at the foot of Yonge St. and hitting a target in the intersection of Yonge and Wellesley Sts., just north of College St.

The first shot blew a bag from the hand of their target, an Al Qaeda fighter walking on a road. "He didn't even flinch," said Bill, who spoke on condition that his real name not be used.

"We made a correction and the next round hit exactly where we wanted it to. Well, a bit to the right."

The kill, one of more than 20 unofficially accredited to Canadian snipers during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan's Shah-i-Kot Valley, beat the 35-year-old record of 2,500 yards, or 2,250 metres, set by U.S. Marine Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock.

I'm sorry, that was rather rude of me. I owe a tip of the hat for the reference to my previous posting's content to Damian Penny, proprieter of Daimnation! at http://www.damianpenny.com

There are a lot of posts here, and I've not read them all, so please excuse me if I am repeating someone, but Parrish is likely right that Canadians will go ballistic as soon as some more Canadians return in body bags. Remember the pathetic national convulsions that occurred when four soldiers were killed by friendly fire? Four people who accepted death as a risk of their calling had their numbers called, and suddenly we couldn't shut up about it. We may have been a strong military nation once. We no longer are. And Parrish is a symptom, not the problem.

Some people certainly will go ballistic Peter, just as some do in any society, including our great neighbours to the south. After a time though, or a few times anyway, people start to catch on and modify their judgement call.

I think we've seen some changes after London and Egypt. I'm not saying it's a tipping point, but I think something structural may have shifted. It seems to me that people are, significantly more than before, comming to realize that fundamentalist islamismists are killing more honest hard-working Muslims than they are anyone else.

And what's going on in Thailand? They're killing 800 Muslims & Buddhists a year? Buddhists? Call for Yoda, white courtesy telephone please, WTF?

At this point the appeasers syllogisms break down majestically, and even they are starting to see it. Humans change their preferences slowly, because it tends to be (at least mentally) painful, but in the milieu let's not lose track of the direction in which we need to head, pace those who fear every ridge, valley, and swamp along the route. This isn't recreational, we've got a job to do. Wagons, Ho!

Tony:

Thanks for the response. So I am clear, you are suggesting that even though Canadians demonstrated at best lukewarm support for our initial forays into Afghanistan (following an attack on American soil), they will now have more resolve because of the killing of muslims in Thailand? I am sorry, but I see no evidence of strengthening resolve, but perhaps you've seen data I have not.

It's not so much that I have a vision as it is that I think I felt something, Peter. A rumble in the power-supply transformers perhaps.

I understand the low signal to noise ratio in the media. Nevertheless, difference analysis produces useful information. It seems to me that more of the MSM has been picking up more stories by people traditionally not considered to be on "our" side who are starting to decide to agree with us, at least to some degree.

But what do I know? I went to the track with a woman named Marie and bet on a pony called The Pawn in the seventh race. When it pulled away from the pack in the club-house turn I burst out in song, "Marie, The Pawn is breaking."

Oh bother, I forgot the reference again. Here it is:

http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/m/marievarious.shtml

Tony: perhaps you're correct. If not, you're at least funny, which is more than most of us can claim.

Why, thank you Peter, that's mighty neighbourly of you to say that.

I don't deserve the credit though, the real credit goes to Jackie Mason, Milton Berle, and George Burns.

As Peter Loewen says, "Parrish is a symptom, not the problem."

There are many symptoms. The estimable Michelle Malkin has just revealed another one on her website: www.michellemalkin.com

As she puts it, "Death row inmate Scott Peterson, convicted of murdering his wife and unborn son, has sent a message to his groupies at the Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty. You'll love this part of the website:

COMING SOON: Family photos; holidays

Sick."

See for yourself through Ms. Malkin's site or directly at

http://www.ccadp.org/scottpeterson.htm

They even suggest you "send Scott messages of support" and kindly provide his mailing address at San Quentin.

As Canadians, their efforts might have been better directed against Iran regarding the death of Zahra Kazemi, but the U.S. makes such a convenient target, doesn't it?

How short are memories in this country?

Fairly. While Parrish could use some lessons in diplomacy, that doesn't automatically make her wrong about everything. ""The first time Canadian soldiers come back in body bags, you just wait for the outcry," said Ms. Parrish" -- and I don't much doubt it. The four Canadian soldiers killed a few years back by US military error? That wasn't a minor event that didn't affect anybody's opinion.

When are our saviour Libs going to allow Sharia law into this country so that all women can be properly put in thier places??

Given the dribbles of minor misogyny in this thread, I don't know that we need it. And we need not worry about it going away; Iraq's new leaders are quite happy to keep it around as official policy.

There is no latent anti-Americanism in Canadians really. It is simply a case of the uninformed bashing the neighbour they do not actually know.

It seems a fair number of people here have lived in the States for a period, myself included, and how Canadians could avoid hearing about the US, I don't know... I don't dislike Americans personally, but remain uneasy over Bush's isolationist foreign policy; Canadians are, nowadays, still pretty polite when it comes to anti-Americanism -- it's definitely not a trait exclusive to the Great White North.

Speaking of, having an interest in matters northern, the Hans Island issue is of significant military interest as well. Historically, Canada has done a decent job vis-a-vis diplomacy with other countries in the north whether they're putting flags down or not (see esp. Sverdrup Islands) (and I am excluding 'First Nations' for our record of 'diplomacy' here) -- with the notable exception of the US, which doesn't recognise Canadian sovereignity in the circumpolar regions. The US has more than a few holes in its pretensions to being our friend and partner in issues of defence.

Remember Bush breaking with tradition and not officially meeting our PM first? Or his major address just after 11 September, in which he thanked all manner of countries; South Korea, etc, while forgetting Canada? (Raise your hand if it puzzles you as to why David Frum lives in exile, or if you've forgotten his public nastiness here after his mother died...)

Lest I infer bias, American citizens did a bang-up job of thanking the little towns that took in all the passengers on the detoured flights, and then some.

(Also note that Parrish later apologised for and amended the "bastards" comment, saying it was directed at the administration, not Americans in general.)

At some point Canadians probably will have to decide, for reasons of economic self interest if nothing else, whether to allow those who carry the latent "anti-Americanism" that has long been part of the Canadian identity to its extreme to speak for the country in discourse with the bastards to the South.

I think people involved in lumber and cattle industries have already largely decided the extent of their patience and politeness when it comes to economic interests cross-border. Among others.

Terrorism has demanded that the free world put aside all the old psychodrama and grow up.

I'd argue that it's revived 'old psychodrama.' A lot of current news articles read as though somebody grabbed an old one, and just changed "Cold War" to "War on Terror," and "Communism" to "Terrorism."

Sending people off to kill and be killed in Afghanistan (or Iraq, or...) isn't likely to discourage people from wanting to blow themselves up on public transportation. The London response of "No, not bothered; will continue with normal life" might well do the job, though. It's no use risking Canadian lives in any function that might embitter yet more pseudo-religious lunatics when the enemy is living quietly in Leeds or similar.

Give it a few years, and things will die down. Anyone arguing that Parrish is such a vulgar loudmouth that she should be ignored, etc, etc, should be able to see at least a tangenital connexion between that view of Parrish, and the London 'we're not scared.' Both can make unpopular loud noises for a finite period of time before realising they're wasting their lives.

Her policy of *Liberano avoidance* would make it easier for Al-Qaida boom - boys. She would
make it more likely that poppings would happen here.

Quite the contrary. For one, she's not avoiding things: if I have truck with her, it's primarily for paying too much mind, loudly and publicly, to, er, the quandary of dealing with "boom - boys." Canada's enviable record of peace has a lot to do with being quiet (or simply ignored even if not quiet). There's a lot to be said for not making, let alone going looking for, enemies.

The "fifth on the list!" business also deserves little attention. If the jihadists' wont is to frighten and intimidate, why indulge them?

As President Bush said shortly after September 11, 2001, the war on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is not a war the U.S. sought. In accepting this sombre challenge, however, the United States has shown clarity in setting its goals and patience and resolve in achieving them.

Oh, dear. There wasn't a threat of WMDs, as discovered by too many egg-faced politicians world-wide to list; the US set goals under error, has had trouble admitting to same, and shown clarity in changing its purported goals when convenient. Saddam did not blow up the WTC. Installing democracy is a nice idea, but if that's a necessary military commitment for all democratic countries, there are a lot more places than Iraq and Afghanistan in need of help.

For all the claims that Reagan ended the Cold War, there are many more that point to his exacerbating it. Which wasn't a helping hand to people behind the 'Iron Curtain,' given communism's rather natural death. Untenable political regimes do die out on their own; it was not that long ago at all that Afghanistan was relatively modern/westernised, and people were paying attention to the problem of the Taliban well before Bush noticed it. Troubled/troublesome regimes are often correctly frightened by the internet and other global media; some aspects of 'globalisation' make it awfully hard to hide, and substantially easier for internally-driven change. Problems stemming from half-wit interpretations of the Koran and similar will eventually go the way of communism; in the meantime, we might consider opening the borders to (yes, yes; carefully screened) refugees.

Parrish is a rabid pro-hamas anti-Israeli activist.

Pick up a copy of Joe Sacco's "Palestine," and, well, let's pick up more refugees...

I understand her riding contains a huge number of recent immigrants. By extrapolation, one may surmise that recent immigtants share her feelings. If this is so we should all be very afraid for our future as a nation. It would appear that the people coming here today are not made of the same stuff as the people who built this nation.

This is so low it shouldn't be dignified with a response, but perhaps one part of it has a bit of truth: statistically, immigrants to Canada make more money than Canadians born in Canada -- not, for many ethnicities, anywhere near the case in 1867.

DrainedBrain, You misread my comment. Check and correct and then we'll debate.

In the mean time, accept that the majority of Canadians do not hate Americans.

Parrish is doing real damage to the Liberal Party. She is tolerated because Martin is holding on to power with white knuckles. She will fade before long.

Greg [outsideDallas], more good points from a sage. Parrish's U.S. bashing at this juncture does make her a traitor to free - world security.

Tony, no room for debate here. Your comments and humour are good reading.

This graffiti on the back of Safeway store.
*God is Coming* [and he's bringing doughnuts].
73s TG

TonyGuitar....is that like BillyViolin??..no insult intended...just trying to make sense of all these posts.Have we lost all rationality here? Ms Parrish is,and will remain,a piece of crap in the real world.Lets throw the PC language out and speak the truth,she is a traitor,a commie slut,and I defy any Liberal asshole to come and refute that.But guess what,Liberal asshole,you can't and won't.Piece of crud!

As to previous post..am I pissed off?You bet.We are allowing this country to be destroyed,and nobody stands up for it.My tongue-in-cheek comment about Sharia Law was only picked up by one commenter.Pathetic!

Random Bytowner: The US does recognize Canadian land sovereignty in the North. What they do not recognize is our soveignty over the sea passages. Many other countries take the same view.

It is not really an issue now with the ice pack, but if the ice does indeed recede and the passages become practically navigable, the issue will likely go to diplomatic negotiation and/or international judicial arbitration. Which we well might lose--the various sea passages in the Indonesian archipelago would be a relevant precedent and are considered international waters.

It is difficult to see countries with major merchant shipping interests--Japan, Greece, Germany, China, Norway, US, Hong Kong, UK, South Korea, Taiwan--having much interest in supporting Canada's claim of internal waters.

Mark
Ottawa

Mark Collins: I heard the Rutherford show with Parrish on it yesterday. Once again, I heard her say, "I was our representative for NATO for 7 years."

If the woman wasn't a representative to NATO, why does she keep telling the country she was? Or if she was, why are you telling me she was not?

The sad fact is, she does speak for a lot of Canadians.

Peter Loewen said:

"We may have been a strong military nation once. We no longer are. And Parrish is a symptom, not the problem."

I see. This is your contention. Okay. Parrish is a symptom, not the problem.

But can you enlighten us as to what you believe to be the problem? This inquiring mind wishes to know.

http://canadafreepress.com/2005/media072805.htm
http://www.newsbeat1.com/

It is reassuring to know that Canadian bloggers are performing the same function as their American counterparts. On July 26, The Globe and Mail ran an article by Jane Taber about the latest idiotic rant of MP Carolyn Parrish. Taber described as Parrish as having been "kicked out of [the Liberal] caucus for her anti-American statements."

Of course the Liberal Party and their cheerleaders at The Globe would love Canadians to believe that Parrish was booted from the party because of her anti-Americanism. The only problem with Taber’s description of Parrish’s exit from the party is that it simply wasn’t true.

On the same day that the Taber piece appeared, Kate, of Small Dead Animals (www.smalldeadanimals.com) pointed out that the real reason why Parrish and the Liberals parted ways. Parrish was only dumped from the caucus after she said that she wouldn’t shed a tear if Paul Martin lost the next election and then proceeded to say that Martin’s advisors could all go to hell.

Small Dead Animals, which referred to Taber’s article for what it was; "revisionist history", also provided a link to an article in a November 2004 edition of The Hill Times that reported correctly on the reason for the outspoken MP’s departure from the Liberal Party.

The mainstream media in the United States are now conscious of the fact that their biases and mistakes will come to light via the Internet. It’s nice to know that the same is happening in Canada.

Keep up the good work, Kate.

I think I can top the Einstein quote about stupidity:

"There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life."
Frank Zappa

Yes, we all know ( including the MSM) that Parrish has made herself the nation's number one international buffoon in a bid for attention.....but she also plays to the home audience to secure her seat. If Parrish's brand of uncivil buffoonery and blindly stupid rage is what plays well in her riding, the buggers should have their franchise removed so they stop abusing the ballot....failing that, maybe we should think of burning Canada's now infamous ghetto of Mississauga.

Kyla: Parrish was not the Canadian representative to NATO. The government's representative is to the North Atlantic Council (under the Chairmanship of the Secretary General) and is an ambassador.
http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb070101.htm

From Parrish's web site:

'Two eventful years were spent as the Chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. The chairmanship made Carolyn the Head of the Canadian Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. As a the [sic] parliamentary arm to NATO, the Assembly provides policy advice and studies issues of military, economic, civil, scientific and political relevance to NATO countries.

As head of the Canadian delegation, Carolyn was a member of the steering committee for the Assembly and often served as the moderator for the annual sessions. She was elected the first female Vice-Chair of the International Executive...

In March of 2003, Carolyn decided to resign her post as Head of the Canadian delegation. Despite the positive experiences at NATO, her concern that the organization was becoming an extension of its dominant partners who were involved in a pre-emptive strike on Iraq meant that she could no longer participate.'

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is a talking shop with no authority of any sort. But at least she is one Liberal who made a principled resignation (unless she knew the government was going to get her removed as Chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, and her resignation was a pre-emptive strike).

Note though that she was chair for only two years, not seven.

It is sad that she speaks for many Canadians, no doubt as ignorant as she.

Mark
Ottawa

The problem, Stephen, is that anti-Americanism sells. And it's not that surprising why - there is just a lot about that country which is very distasteful (and this is coming from someone who just lived there for a year, in two different regions, and generally liked the experience). Indeed, there is much not to like about Canada as well, but it's just not so damned obvious. Parrish is, in the end, just playing easy politics.

Indeed, Peter, there are distasteful aspects to any country. Sometimes residents don't notice factors that outsiders would. I hope you don't infer I'm implying a certain "distasteful" Canadian smugness to your statement.

Let's just say that, if the Pharisee of the Bible had been a Canadian, his prayer would have been "I thank Thee that I am not as Americans are..."

Can Canada ever get over its yin-yang superior-inferior obsession with "The States?" Is there a 12-step program for countries?

"We may have been a strong military nation once. We no longer are. And Parrish is a symptom, not the problem."

This doesn't seem like an outlandish statement to me. If Canadians viewed Afghanistan as something important, there would not be any outcry about soldier deaths. I obviously can't comment directly but the major wars of the 20th century were battles that Canada was committed to. We were willing to accept defeats along with the victories because it was important to Canada. Canada of the 21st century has become a country that, both politically and militarily (even economically), largely doesn't concern itself with issues particularly outside of North America. Our last major peacekeeping operations were Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. Honestly, I don't think a lot of Canadians are convinced that the war on terrorism involves Canada.

Why does anti-Americanism sell? It allows Canadians to convince ourselves that the war on terrorism is someone elses fight. It isn't so much personal as a rationalization to explain our own lack of involvement in the world.

Mark: Thanks for the clarification. Was she even in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for 7 years?

I'm having a hard time believing anything she says these days.

Her direct quote was, "I was our representative to NATO for 7 years."

She made it seem like there was only one representative in any capacity from Canada and she was it. You can see wherein my confusion came.

Re 4 dead Canadians--bombed by Americans--my understanding is that all friendlies had a piece of electronic equipment that would signal a secret code to inform other 'friendlies' as to who they were. As usual, our soldiers did not have this equipment. This was kept very quiet by the MSM. That is why I am against our military going to Afghanistan--they will be ill equipped for their mission--I see that Haliburton will be supplying our soldiers with food etc.--"too dangerous for our own suppliers" outside Kandahar. I believe that our 'suppliers' are as ill equipped as our military--and do not have airlift capabilities to supply anything other than American beef while our own farmers crash and burn

We at least have to appear like we believe in the war on terror, even if we don't walk the walk. The muslim cleric in NY that was sentenced yesterday to 75 years (or something like that) was found guilty of funneling money to terrorists including Hamas, which Canada continues to praise for its charitable works. Can't help but wonder whether this latest mission, coinciding as it did with the reopening of the borders, wasn't a sop that will appease the US and Lib types who feel that for the sake of appearances at least, we ought to at least look as though we care about what happened in the UK and Egypt, even if, in our smugness, we feel it'll never happen to us 'cause we didn't go to Iraq (neither did Egypt, but since when did that matter to a terrorist?).

Something to make your blood pressure rise:

darcykisses@hotmail.com Printed: July 29, 2005 9:16:33 AM

Wake up, folks — it’s war!
Mark Steyn

A couple of items from Tuesday’s papers. On the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian pilot programme for the Met’s new shoot-to-kill policy, the Daily Telegraph reports:

‘A Home Office spokesman last night admitted that it had not yet identified his immigration status: “We are looking into the case and will provide more information as soon as we are able to do so.’’’

Meanwhile, the Times includes this background information on one of the thwarted bombers of the 21 July attacks — Yassin Hassan Omar, a Somali ‘asylum-seeker’:

‘Omar, who was last seen vaulting a barrier at Warren Street station, has been the registered occupant of the flat since 1999. Ibrahim, who was last seen in Hackney Road, East London, after his failed attempt to blow up a No. 26 bus, shared it with him for the past two years. Omar received £88 a week in housing benefit to pay for the council property and also received income support, immigration officials say.’

So here’s how things stand:

1) Four days after Mr de Menezes became the most famous foreigner in the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Government is unable to give a definitive answer on his immigration status.

2) Four years after 9/11, British taxpayers are subsidising the jihad — in Mr Omar’s Bounds Green council flat and in many other places.

There’s a pleasant thought the next time you’re on a bus when some Islamakazi self-detonates: it’s on your tax bill; P-A-Y-E — pay as you explode.

Number One comes at a time when the relevant department, the Home Office, not content with being unable to run its existing records system for foreigners, is determined to inflict an expensive and cumbersome bureaucracy on every non-foreigner in the land. Indeed, the Home Secretary has now upgraded it into a fundamental human right: ‘Just let us put in place our hierarchy of rights,’ Charles Clarke told MEPs just before the second attacks. ‘The right to live. The right to go to work on the Underground. The right to have an ID card.’ Human rights-wise, that last one is right up there with the right to be subject to confiscatory taxation.

And Number Two isn’t some stunning shocking development, either. In The Spectator of 29 December 2001, I noted the likes of Zac Moussaoui, the French citizen who became an Islamist radical while living on welfare in London, and wrote:

‘If you’re looking for “root causes” for terrorism, European-sized welfare programmes are a good place to start. Maybe if they had to go out to work, they’d join the Daily Mirror and become the next John Pilger. Or maybe they’d open a drive-thru Halal Burger chain and make a fortune. Instead, Tony Blair pays Islamic fundamentalists in London to stay at home, fester and plot.’

I wasn’t the first to notice the links between Euro-Canadian welfare and terrorism. Mickey Kaus, an iconoclastic California liberal, was way ahead. But, after three-and-a-half years, one would be entitled to assume that a government whose fortunes are as heavily invested in the terrorist threat as this one’s might have spotted it, too — especially given the ever greater numbers of British jihadi uncovered from Pakistan and Afghanistan to Israel and America.

That’s why I regretfully have to disagree with the editor of this great publication in his prescription of the current situation which appeared in these pages a week or two back under the headline ‘Just don’t call it war’. As you’ll have gathered, the boss objects to the language of ‘war, whether cultural or military.... Last week’s bombs were placed not by martyrs nor by soldiers, but by criminals.’

Sorry, but that’s the way to lose. A narrowly focused ‘criminal’ approach means entrusting the whole business to the state bureaucracy. The obvious problem with that is that it’s mostly reactive: blow somewhere up, we’ll seal it off, and detectives will investigate it as a crime scene. You could make the approach less reactive by a sustained effort to improve scrutiny of immigration, entitlement to welfare and other matters within the purview of government. But consider those two snippets from the Tuesday papers and then figure out the likelihood of that happening. A ‘criminal’ approach gives terrorists all the rights of criminals, and between British and European ‘human rights’ that’s quite a bundle. If it’s a war, you can take wartime measures — including withdrawal from the UN Convention on Refugees, repeal of the European Human Rights Act, and a clawback of sovereignty from the EU. But if you fight this thing as a law-enforcement matter, Islamist welfare queens will use all the above to their full extent and continue openly promoting the murder of the Prime Minister, British troops, etc. with impunity.

Softly-softly won’t catchee monkey. Slo-mo conflicts are the hardest to win, in part because in advanced societies the public finds it hard to stay focused. Granted, there are exceptions to that rule: the government, battling the commies in Malaya, went the Boris Johnson route and declined to call it a war; and the eventual victory in the Malayan ‘Emergency’ might tend to support his thesis. It was said that London was reluctant to use the term ‘war’ for reasons of home and business insurance, but it’s also a broader kind of insurance: it lowers the stakes, it softens the people up for a non-victory — as in the Irish ‘Troubles’. Sometimes, as in Malaya, you happen to win one of these ‘emergencies’ or ‘troubles’, and that’s a bonus. But the point is, by designating something as other than a war, you tend to make it peripheral, and therefore loseable.

That’s not an option here. Madrid and London — along with other events such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh — are, in essence, the opening shots of a European civil war. You can laugh at that if you wish, but the Islamists’ most often-stated goal is not infidel withdrawal from Iraq but the re-establishment of a Muslim caliphate living under Sharia that extends to Europe; and there’s a lot to be said for taking these chaps at their word and then seeing whether their behaviour is consistent.

Furthermore, there’s a lot more of the world that lives under Sharia than there was, say, 30 years ago: Pakistan adopted it in 1977, Iran in 1979, Sudan in 1984.... Fifty years ago, Nigeria lived under English common law; now, half of it’s in the grip of Islamic law. So, as a political project, radical Islam has made some headway, and continues to do so almost every day of the week: since the beginning of the year, for example, some 10 per cent of southern Thailand’s Buddhist population have abandoned their homes — a far bigger disruption than the tsunami, yet all but unreported in the Western press. And whatever one’s opinion of the various local conflicts around the world — Muslims vs Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs Jews in the Holy Land, Muslims vs Russians in Chechnya, Muslims vs Christians in Africa — the fact is that the jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you’re not shy about taking on the Israelis and Russians, why wouldn’t you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Spaniards?

If the jihad has its war aims, maybe we should start thinking about ours. What would victory look like? As fascism and communism were in their day, Islamism is now the ideology of choice for the world’s grievance-mongers. That means we have to destroy the ideology, or at least its potency — not Islam per se, but at the very minimum the malign strain of Wahabism, which thanks to Saudi oil money has been transformed from a fetish of isolated desert derelicts into the most influential radicalising force in contemporary Islam, from Indonesia to Leeds. Europeans who aren’t prepared to roll back Wahabism had better be prepared to live with it, or under it.

Mustering the popular will for that sort of struggle isn’t easy. But the longer you leave it the harder it becomes. Whether or not one accepts the Johnson line that Iraq is irrelevant to the war on terror, it requires a perverse genius on the part of Tony Blair to have found the political courage to fight an unpopular war on a distant shore but not the political courage to wage it closer to home where it would have commanded far more support.

On a couple of very fleeting visits to London and Belfast in recent weeks, I had the vague feeling that Britain is on the brink of a tragedy it doesn’t quite comprehend. America’s post-9/11 muscular nationalism was easily mocked by Europeans, but its absence in London is palpable: try to imagine Mayor Giuliani uttering half the stuff Ken Livingstone said in the last fortnight (‘The bombings would never have happened if the West had simply left the Arab nations alone in the wake of the first world war’). Even if he’s right, the message it communicates is weakness: bomb us, and we apologise — or at the very least go to comically absurd lengths to distinguish terrorism against London from terrorism against Israel. Tony Blair, in his recitation in the House of Commons of nations afflicted by terrorism, couldn’t even bring himself to mention the Zionist Entity. Boris Johnson, in his call to non-arms, began with an elaborate riff on the difference between Brits and Jews in these matters:

‘If we were Israelis, we would by now be doing a standard thing to that white semi-detached pebbledash house at 51 Colwyn Road, Beeston. Having given due warning, we would dispatch an American-built ground-assault helicopter and blow the place to bits. Then we would send in bulldozers to scrape over the remains....’

The distinction between coarse blundering Israelis and subtle sophisticated Britons depends where you’re standing. If you happen to be the late Jean Charles de Menezes, for example, you might wish fate had selected you instead to be the Palestinian suicide bomber interrupted en route to Tel Aviv that same Friday. The Euro-reviled IDF managed to disarm the Fatah terrorist of his explosives belt, packed with nails, without harming a hair on his pretty little suicide-bomber head. If the demented anti-Zionism of the British and Continental media these last four years ever had a point, it doesn’t now, when you’re in the early stages of the Israelification of Europe — and, in one of fate’s better jests, in this scenario you’re the Jews.

Any one of these issues would require enormous political will — stop funding the intifada, reclaim lost sovereignty from Europe, imprison and/or expel treasonous imams, end the education system’s psychologically unhealthy and ahistorical disparagement of the Britannic inheritance in your schools. But, without a big ambitious war-sized project, what’s left — aside from shooting the occasional Brazilian?

On the Thursday of the second attacks, I happened to pass through London, which isn’t the easiest town to pass through these days. I am a Canadian subject of Her Majesty and, when I showed up at the ‘Fast Track’ lane at Heathrow, the immigration officer plonked down in my passport a big stamp saying ‘RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUNDS PROHIBITED’. ‘Tosser,’ I sneered. Well, OK, I murmured it, very sotto voce, as I had no desire to miss my appointment because the zealots of HM Customs suddenly fancied an intimate cavity search. But honestly, what a pathetic example of pointless gesture politics: if you’re a fancypants North American business traveller in town for less than 24 hours and splashing a ton of hard currency around the West End, the Home Office goes through a big hoop-de-doo about saying you’ve no entitlement to welfare. But if you’re a Somali and you want to live in public housing at public expense for six years while you fine-tune your plot to blow up Warren Street Tube station, pas de problème!

And, of course, in the event that I were overcome by a yen to join Yassin Hassan Omar on the public teat, an automatic stamp in the passport of every Canadian, American and Australian landing at Heathrow isn’t going to do anything to prevent it. For all the Home Office knows, I may already be living in a council flat in Bounds Green. This silly passport stamp was introduced after 9/11, in the wake of concerns about ‘asylum-seekers’, and it’s a classic example of what you get when you opt for a narrowly drawn law-enforcement approach entrusted to a complacent bureaucracy: rather than do anything about immigrant welfare fraud, they’ll simply order up a new rubber stamp that gives the vague air of doing something about it.

How come Tony Blair can bestride the world like a colossus, liberating Iraq, ridding Africa of poverty, and yet know so little about the one tiny corner of the planet for which he bears formal responsibility? Well, there are several possible reasons, but the effect is pretty much the same: daily, weekly, remorselessly, the situation will deteriorate. If it’s a war, you can win it. Anything less is unlikely to end in victory.

Click here to return to the article

Quite the contrary. For one, she's not avoiding things: if I have truck with her, it's primarily for paying too much mind, loudly and publicly, to, er, the quandary of dealing with "boom - boys." Canada's enviable record of peace has a lot to do with being quiet (or simply ignored even if not quiet). There's a lot to be said for not making, let alone going looking for, enemies.

I disagree with almost everything you said ,however...
Get your head out of your ass you scared pathetic chickenshit.
By Allahs grace let the next terrorist strike happen on the very point of your muddled cowardly head.

Your post is probably the most moonbatty awkward piece of garbage I've ever read .
Why don't you just send your house keys over to the Jihaddis right now.
Thirtythree Canadians were killed on Sept. 11 you numbskull.Here's a news flash for you,... they've already noticed your feet sticking out from under your racing car bed in your parents basement.

Is there any question any more of the lefty moonbats willingness to fall on their sword.

Your black belaclava you hide behind like a child behind your mothers dress is a burka in the new globalized world you so despise.

I hate grubby liberal cowards masquarading as intellects!

Random Bytowner made another error:

" uneasy over Bush's isolationist foreign policy"

Random: You do not understand the definition of "isolationist"!

Isolationist describes American foreign policy in the early years of WWII. It was then, as in Canada today, non-interventionist and non-confrontational towards genuine grave threats originating internationally. This isolationism permanently ended when America was attacked in Pearl Harbor. There was no choice: they HAD to defeat Japan and finally get engaged in destroying the Axis, who were also a real, incipient threat to America herself.

9/11: Same story. Unprovoked attack (yes, it WAS unprovoked; I dare you to conclusively prove otherwise) also. Massive loss, wholly unnecessary, w/o a war or anything happening, of innocent civilian life in a deliberate, illegal premeditated mass murder for no valid aim. Therefore, the US engagements in Afghanistan and, yes, Iraq, which had proven herself to be malevolent, perhaps not instantly, but without a doubt, after a not-too-long period of time following any discontinuation of sanctions. No doubt the guy in his pretty white panties, Saddam, would have done whatever it took to attack America, perhaps by proxy via terrorists. Hence the intervention in Iraq is justifiable. Even a majority of Canadians now realize this, as evidenced in a recent poll stating 59% of us believe it was the right move.

Therefore, America under Bush is NOT isolationist. It practices international engagement. Yes, indeed. You could argue bluefaced that that's false as so many nations are not onside with the Iraq invasion and liberation, but that's not Mr. Bush's fault; it is the fault of those nations who think that Chamberlainian appeasment of the minions of the devil will guarantee them protection from terrorists. Boy, have they been proven soooo wrong! They're suffering attacks and more will because terrorists attack those who are not like them, Islamic fundamentalist fascists.

So, what do you have to say for yourself, Random?

And WHERE'S YOUR APOLOGY TO KATE for dumping your load all over her merely because YOU made an error in judgement and didn't bother to examine the link to the bastard Mikey Mooreon's piss-poor tipping? If you fail to acknowledge your failing and apologize, you will have no credibility nor respect around these parts, lefty-wefty.

Another stupid error by Random Bytowner:

"Also note that Parrish later apologised for and amended the "bastards" comment, saying it was directed at the administration, not Americans in general.)"

Oh, I see, Random, you're oh, sooooooo willing to give that piece of weasel dung the benefit of the doubt, but not George Bush and Stephen Harper? Yes, I mention Stephen because you leftist moonies are soooooo predictable!

The thinking person realizes that Parrish is really an Anti-American bigot. She only "apologized", and in a piss-poor, non-credible way, because even the left found her to be over-the-top hateful and thus shocking.

Random Bytowner: "There wasn't a threat of WMDs"
The deposition of Saddam was morally and legally justified without the WMD threat. Remember the culmination of the EU/UN opposition when France said it would never vote for war no matter what. That showed that the nature of the opposition was anti-American. The over-reliance on the WMD argument came about when that opposition refused to let common sense rule.

This entire intellectual dishonesty is supportable only because of the preponderance of leftist thinking in western politics and media.

In hindsight you will all look evil or stupid.

Richfisher, of whom were you speaking? Iron Lady? The Lady's no lefty, I can assure you. Perhaps you were referring to Random Bytowner? That'd make sense.

Sorry, my bad Terminator.
Spelling and punctuation are embarrassments for me.

I forgot to credit the first paragraph of my post to Runsdown Bystanders.

Agreed, Iron Lady is right and right.

GreenMamba, You make your point about the tired WMD argument so well.

I have several times outlined why not finding WMD was a moot point.

Finding a stash of gas warfare suits in a hospital amounts to the same thing in my book. Why? Because Kurd villages had been gassed and more Kurds were in for a gassing had forces not shown up.

Also, Saddam was guilty of invading Kuwait and performing genocide there, or maybe that was just a dream after I overdid the beer, deviled eggs and pretzels.

How anyone can still refer to the lack of WMD at this stage boggles the logic of what is now crystal clear. 73s TG

Who is the Conservative candidate running against Ms. Parrish? For that matter who will be the Liberal and NDP candidate running in that riding - against an Independent?

In point of fact, Parrish admitted in a letter still available at her website that her comments were directed at Americans:

"April 2003

Dear constituents,

I'd like to take the time to offer an explanation and an apology for some inappropriate remarks I recently made about Americans. By now the story is well known and doesn't bear repeating. It has grown to mythical proportions and has caused concerned on the part of many.

My comment was flip, not calculated or pre-meditated. Of course, I regret it immensely. America is a valued neighbour, going through very difficult times.

I am opposed to this war and I support Canada's decision not to be involved. As your M.P., I will continue to speak out on these and other matters of national interest - in a forceful but thoughtful manner. I will continue to oppose this action, but promise to avoid any further un-parliamentary remarks.

In closing, I'd like to thank all the thoughtful people who have taken the time to express their views to me on this issue. I appreciate the great honour and privilege that it is to serve as your Member of Parliament.

Yours most sincerely,

Carolyn Parrish

In politics, there are numerous opportunities, on a daily basis, to make mistakes. There are very few opportunities to correct them."

Somebody in her office wrote up that nice form letter to reply to the complainers while she was on tv laughing about it and playing for the hardcore anti-American crowd.

Virtually all politicians say to whoever's listening at the moment what they think will sell - it's the blogosphere that's making it a little less comfortable for those of the two-faced persuasion.

Radio reports C. Parrish "not welcome" in Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ caucus.
Oh, my. The fury of a witch scorned. Take cover.
Cruella will take revenge on AdScam Martin.
"Come along and be my party doll"

With Chuck Cadman gone, Carolyn scorned, Kilgour disgruntled, O'Brien disgusted, who's going to prop up PMPM? And thank you to all of you who recognize I'd rather be dead than red.

Thanks for setting the record straight, Richfisher.

BTW, I'm a GOOD terminator, you know, like in T2 and T3. I only terminate insurgent moonbats who somehow slip through the cracks around the edges of the firewall and try to blow up our good right-thinking citizens here in these parts with all the mysterious small dead animals all over the place. Wonder who popped the poor little critters. Wasn't me. Must be another terminator. Maybe it's that serious-looking chick underneath the picture of the dead gopher. I know she popped the poor lil' guy- she proudly said so... :-)

Random: You do not understand the definition of "isolationist"!

From _The Christian Science Monitor_:

Isolationists…

* Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
* Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
* Believe the US should not act as a global cop
* Support trade practices that protect American workers
* Oppose liberal immigration
* Oppose American imperialism
* Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character

I don't have access to the books I'd like to just right now, and a web search came up with so much nonsense that I'm starting to think the term should be at least temporarily retired on the grounds that there's not much of a consensus on what it means in 2005 -- leaving me with no choice but to agree to disagree here. Still, apart from the "global cop" bit, it works for what I was trying to get at.

The same source lists

Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises

as a tenet of liberalism, by the by.

And WHERE'S YOUR APOLOGY...

I beg pardon for not having clarified that a weblog using cheap shots should not repeatedly expose itself to same. Damn that 'MSM' for using editors/spell-checkers, and not using anonymous waitress' tip tales as socio-political commentary! Why, thank heavens there's a place where just an ordinary Canadian can yell back and...

Anyone else wishing to take a cheap shot at me: could you make it worthwhile? I have not laid claim to being a 'professional writer,' left-winger, Liberal/NDP/Parrish booster, male, or any other of the more peculiar things that've been thrown my way. It's been figured out that Parrish does her opponents a favour by shooting her own foot; the desire to not see the same nature of self-inflicted injury does not magically confer dissent.

Oh, who am I kidding? You're obviously too shrewdy-wewdy for me. I am a young man pursuing my PhD in Women's Studies while being a stringer for the _Globe & Mail_. I have been a committed vegan for over three months now and think people who wear leather should be shot and made into shoes themselves. Jack Layton offered me a riding for the next election, but I told him I'd be too busy working on Ms Parrish's campaign. I boycott American-made products, as does the rest of my urban commune, a diverse group of six other atheists. I donate to PETA, the Green Party, and the Imams' Legal Defence Fund of Canada. Although straight (I think), I went out and married a male friend the first day it was legal just because I could (and because heterosexual marriage is a patriarchal plot worse than Sharia anything!). The only good things about the United States are the Burning Man festival and how it lets us get rid of people who only want to make money. And...

Iron Lady said:

"With Chuck Cadman gone, Carolyn scorned, Kilgour disgruntled, O'Brien disgusted, who's going to prop up PMPM? And thank you to all of you who recognize I'd rather be dead than red."

Milady, might I suggest the Honourable Stephen Harper for PM? I knew you'd like the idea. Problem is we first have to terminate those bloody fecking moonie Libranos! Grab yer shootin' irons and join me pronto! Heeyah!

Oh, my bad, Iron Lady. You asked who would prop up PMPM now? Whomever he can buy off. Right? Sure as hell ain't gonna be the terminator. Against my programming. Must terminate Liberal Party.

The "Honourable" Stephen Harper - that's debatable, given Gurmant Grewal's latest announcements, where he seems to point the finger at Harper (and I bet he has the tapes to prove it).

Random:

Well, I haven't actually made myself familiar with the Christian Science Monitor. I agree the word "isolationist" shouldn't be bandied about with impunity by anyone, except when applying to member states of the Axis of Evil, which are indubitably isolated, I'm sure you'll agree.

WRT the global cop thing, it's America's moral, ethical duty to bring the violent tyrants to justice when they threaten the world. If the US doesn't do it, no one else will. Never forget Chamberlainism and its dangers. Nip the problem in the bud before it kills you. Thus is history's lesson.

"The same source lists

Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises

as a tenet of liberalism, by the by."

That's the source's own opinion. I disagree with it. It's neither left nor right. Both leftist- and conservative- states have been failing to intervene in humanitarian crises. Though, I do recall that the left opposed NATO's strikes against the Serbs who were committing genocide against the Kosovar Muslims (Svend Robinson lent moral support in person to the Serbian butchers!). Whatever has become of "Never Again"? Why doesn't the left call for the ousting of assholes like Robert Mugabe? Of course, if Dubya went in and liberated Zimbabwe, the leftist masses would be effigizing him and burning the American flag. The MSM would cheer them on.

"I beg pardon for not having clarified that a weblog using cheap shots should not repeatedly expose itself to same. Damn that 'MSM' for using editors/spell-checkers, and not using anonymous waitress' tip tales as socio-political commentary! Why, thank heavens there's a place where just an ordinary Canadian can yell back and..."

--Hey, you also insulted this ordinary Canadian who yells back at the TV during Question Period when the nonanswers are flatulated forth from Librano lips! Anyhow, what you said above, that's not the need for the apology. The reason for an apology was you crapped all over a good, innocent person due to your failure to ensure that the badly-written passage was hers, which it wasn't. That's the faux pas you made. Well? Understand now? Conservatives apologize when they see they made a mistake. What about lefties?

BTW, are you going onto moonbat sites like Judy Rebick's "The Rabble" and saying the same stuff about being a shitty website and being unable to offer proof to back anything up? Direct me to all your anti-left comments on the moonies' sites, please.

BTW, Random, a compliment: You're actually one of the most reasonable lefties I've encountered on SDA so far. But don't let it go to your head. Leftism is still a disease of which you must now proceed to cure yourself. I and many others here would be happy to help you.

Noel M. claims, in part:

"Gurmant Grewal's latest announcements, where he seems to point the finger at Harper (and I bet he has the tapes to prove it)."

Wrong-o, Noel, old boy! You misunderstood Mr. Grewal! He was saying simply that Mr. Harper told him to stop taping when he learned Gurmant had the opportunity to tape PMPM.

As for before that, Grewal clarified against MSM obfuscations that he himself had been taping against Harper's wishes.

Here's the appropriate URL, albeit in MSM form, so you'll have to filter the fact from the verbal flatulence of an overpaid lefty writer:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1122636174071_27/?hub=Canada

Noel, don't prejudge, please. Grewal was trying to do the right thing, dammit, for his country, and catch the crooked Libranos in the criminal act of attempting to bribe a public official.

Therefore, there is no debate. Mr. Harper is the most honorable leader in Ottawa. He's the cleanest there is. He only cares about the future betterment of Canada for Canadians. I direct you to study William Johnson's "Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada". Enlighten yourself, please, and then get back to me.

BTW, Noel, do you think PMPM is honorable or not? This is no trick question. Just answer truthfully.

AdScam Martin meets the imams; no females present as there are no imamees in Mohammedanism.
Martin and the imams worked on calling in their IOU's; worth 80% of the Islamic vote= 657,890 votes for the Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$; 127& 1/2 for Jack Mohlayton; 13 spoileded for the Red-Green; all the votes 2,345 for the SHarper party were spoiled.

P.S. Hindy dared not show hisself; guess his wife was sent instead.
P.P.S. The imams have a plan for Canadar; read about it: Beware the "Plan".
>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Martin did not give details of the discussion, but did say that there is a mutual desire to improve the relationship between government and Canadian Islamic leaders. In that context, he was reportedly urged to address allegations that security officials have intimidated members of the Muslim community.

The meeting at an airport hotel in Toronto brought Mr. Martin face to face with some Canadian Muslim leaders, although others were notable by their absence. In particular, the hard-line Toronto cleric Aly Hindy was not present. Also absent were Muslim community leaders whose influence is not rooted in religion.

Mr. Saloojee, executive director of the Canadian Council of American-Islamic Relations, said that the imams came to the meeting with a plan: to educate Canadians that Muslims consider life sacred, to improve dialogue with security forces, to encourage Muslim civic participation and government consultation with Muslims on issues that affect the community.

"The imams don't have a magic wand," Mr. Saloojee said. "They can't just wave that wand and make terrorism go away."

Mr. Saloojee said the imams also brought up the issue of Iraq, praising the "moral course" charted by the government in staying out of the war there...
Glob & Pail...
http://www.rapp.org/url/?TEMM8LNK

See Worn Kay is out on the prowl. Beware.

Take Notice. The Jihadist heads turn and aim their gaze directly at Canadians.

*Ominous online notice warns about new troops* and the headline: Taliban get *heads-up* about Canadian message.

In the National Post today July 29/05. at Canada.com

Print off a copy. [It is just 2 pages long], before it gets filed behind registration process.

This message was translated by SITE Institute, formed in 2002, to monitor and report on Islamic Terrorist information.

The message exaggerates the number to 250 when actually only 110 men left Edmonton.
Next week 100 more leave so I guess the number is not too far off.

Most troop numbers I have seen up to now have usually been in the thousands. What the heck is this 100 by 100 count supposed to do ?

I could see it if they each had an F18, night vision and rockets, but knowing Libscammers, I suspect they have not much more than FNs and Jeeps.

This is war, not a forest fire mop-up.

Ugly word *war*, but pretending otherwise is always painfully expensive.

Mark Steyn is absolutely correct and we better shift into *Serious* now to cut our losses.
73s TonyGuitar at BendGovt.blog.ca

PS.. I just noticed. They mention good ways to hit oil refineries.

Mentioned many times in my comments. I can't spell, but my ESP is working just fine. 73s TG

Grewal is running again and says his constituents know spin from the truth. They might. Not a loth of meth labs in his neck of the woods.

Here's something to take your mind off the old hosebag (I'm a broad - I can say that and MEAN it).

www.oracleofottawa.org/PimpMyImage.swf

It's how folks want to makeover our PM in waiting's wardrobe.. (I'm talking about Sexy Stephen, of course. What a hottie.)

That was funny, Iron Lady.

Is there one with Rona Ambrose? Whooooah, I'd love that one!

BTW, how do you like my new identity? I did terminate "Don" after all, didn't I? Sure had fun at it!

Thought you sounded familiar. Yes, you did get rid of Don/Scott Reid/Warren Kinsella - or, who knows - Carolyn Parrish! Just like her to get in drag and blog. I'm starting to think CP and Screechin' Annie were separated at birth.

Just a little slightly-related humour ...

http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/warship.shtml

Late to the show, but couldn't resist adding my two cents here -

Random Bytowner, please know that as an American who has spent a quarter of my adult life teaching American History at the collegiate level, your definition of Isolationism is completely off-base regarding how that term is used and understood below the 49th Parallel.

It is most often applied to American sentiments and foreign policy formulations in the period between 1920 and 1941, when government and people alike were reluctant to get involved in European political squabbles, in part because of lingering disillusionment over the First World War.

President Bush's foreign policy is anything but reluctant to engage in affairs outside America's borders, as surely even you would admit. It may well be that in employing the term "isolationist," you meant "unilateralist," which would be an erroneous description of the nature of the current efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, but would at least be in keeping with the point you were trying to make.

Isolationist currents in American foreign policy are periodic occurrences, reinforced and bolstered in the past by the buffer of the Atlantic and Pacific or our own internal political preoccupations. Other, opposing strains of thought in this matter are sometimes labelled Wilsonian Idealism and Hamiltonian Realism.

Parenthetically, David Frum is not exactly in exile - try looking on National Review's online edition and you'll find that he hasn't yet been banished or sentenced to one of the numerous gulags that everyone seems to think are all over the place down here.

While I disagree with the details of a number of your conjectures, Bytowner, I respect your shtick.

Hey, everyone, you know how when someone is trapped in a burning building and a bunch of people grab a blanket and stretch it out and the endangered person jumps into the blanket thus saving their life?

Government is like that blanket in the following sense.

Unless the people holding the blanket are pulling in different directions, the whole plan falls apart. You can't just stand around under the endangered person's flight path hugging and singing Kumbaya, because then one or more of you is going to be smacked topside the head by a non-trivial amount of gram meters per second, resulting in the endangered person plus others (possibly you) being hurt, rather than the endangered person being helped.

That is less than optimal.

It is human nature to want to help the endangered (except in self defense, of course). But the problem is, we can't blanket the world with blankets, because: (1) there would be no room left for people to stretch them out any more, (2) the energy required to stretch them out would overwhelm our resources, (3) you would quickly find a proliferation of people who are pretending to hold up their corner of the blanket but who in reality are simply jumping into it just for fun, thus actually further endangering the endangered person and you, and (4) the insidious greed of the Department of Blanket Licensing would destroy the whole exercise.

So, me, I'm just pulling on my corner of the blanket design problem. Well, someone's got to pull on that particular corner, and we may as well have an optimistic skeptic take that job. Or as my friends sometimes call me, a Sagacious Iconoclast ;-)

If anyone thinks they have a simple solution to a big problem, they're probably wrong, otherwise it wouldn't be a big problem any more. Humans are more complicated critters than that.

I was recently at a local rural fair, and I saw a city guy holding court, in front of the farmers and their wives and their children, on the latin names of the various vegetables on display, and where they came from, and blah blah blah. One could almost sense the unseen hand of his mother, smoothing his hair and telling him what a clever boy he was. His self-considered wisdom seemed to please him greatly, and his station in life, relative to the farmers, was secure in his mind. At one point, a rather burly fellow made as if to relay-throw to him a really hefty bag of potatoes that he had been carrying from his truck, and everyone laughed -- a friendly point had been made about the difference between words, and deeds. The fellow, of course, kept talking.

Most people's sense of right and wrong comes from an instinct, but is based on reality. When something important is at stake, that sense of right and wrong is acted upon. It is evident that for many in this country, simple right and wrong has been replaced by equivocation, and by mulling for amusement, in a self-congratulatory way, the fine details of the petty politics of the day.

Bytowner makes his mark here with not so subtle asides that he finds the pickings easy here, and that conservatives are ready for instruction and patient correction. Yet for all the time he has spent here fine-tasting various moral/political considerations, it is not apparent what it is that he himself is growing. "I have not laid claim to being a...left winger, Liberal, NDP/Parrish booster, or any other of the more peculiar things that have been thrown my way."

Yeah, we noticed, Bytowner. You haven't laid claim to anything, except to having superior judgements and thought processes compared to others who post here. I mean, after reading your posts, and your stereotyping of Conservatives, I don't have the first clue about where you stand on LPC malfeasance, for example. Your opinions seem only to exists as responses to others who have posted here.

Maybe you should tell us what you think. How do you feel about Murphy and Dosanjh's behaviour on tape? Is it okay with you that they offered government perks in exchange for a vote? And just for the record, how do you feel about the RCMP's treatment of Gurmant Grewal, or Beaudoin of the BDC, for example, after they blew the proverbial whistle against the Liberals?

Does the RCMP's behaviour in the last few years bother you?

How do you feel about the Liberal's funding their last winning campaign with taxpayer money illegally funelled back to themselves? Here, catch...

I agree with RS. The funny thing is, although in general I consider myself be more half Jeffersonian and half Jacksonian, I think the administration's current half Wilsonian and half Hamiltonian experiment is probably a good idea at this time. Perhaps I'm just appreciating the wisdom of Franklin's empiricism.

In a pike position.

@The Terminator

"BTW, Noel, do you think PMPM is honorable or not? This is no trick question. Just answer truthfully."

Paul Martin is probably the MOST dishonourable, despicable and dishonest person to ever sit in the House of Commons, which makes Gurmants actions all the more idiotic and/or unbelievable.

What was he hoping to do?

Prove PM was sleazy? Hardly necessary, he was already pegged with the Adscam crap. The CPC had the perfect issue to carry them through the election campaign, regardless of the timeframe.

Catch him contravening the law? While I admit PM is a sleazy politician, he's not stupid when it comes to covering his ass, so this was a poor reason.

So what has Gurmant accomplished? He's given the Grits one more "non issue" on which to focus everyone's attention and Grewal just keeps on feedin' them in his attempts to save his own hide. He's implicated Harper in the hasty "editing" of the tapes and shown him to have no control over his MPs. And his continuing to say one thing one day, only to "correct" it when it comes under scrutiny the next day, has undermined his credibility to point that he's a major liability to a party that's trying to get the message out that they're better than the morally corrupt Liberals.

PM couldn't have asked for a better scenario... watch for an early election.

The RCMP's behaviour over the last few years bothers me too, EBD. As I wrote in my web log on 2004-02-12:

Section 91 of the Constitution Act of 1867 states, in regard to the "Powers of the Parliament", that "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada."

Auditor General Sheila Fraser's report shows conclusively that the Government of Canada, consisting primarily of the Liberal Party and the Permanent Civil Service, has deliberately and with malice aforethought corrupted the reputation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

There is no way in which is it good government to have the party in power and the trough bureaucrats corrupting the state police. By every lesson of history, such behaviour is the standard of bad government.

The RCMP were once the pride of this nation; they were a standard by which the modern world judged the quality of a national police force. Anyone who was within a ten-foot pole's distance from this egregious violation of our trust should resign in disgrace, and hang their head in shame.

Anyone who was complicit should go to jail, per section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada: "Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars."

Before I close, my heart goes out to those honest hard-working police officers who are simply trying to do their very best at a very hard public-service job. The mess in the bureaucracy is not your fault.

Hey, Random, you heard the professor:

"It is most often applied to American sentiments and foreign policy formulations in the period between 1920 and 1941, when government and people alike were reluctant to get involved in European political squabbles, in part because of lingering disillusionment over the First World War."

Not to be smug, but, there you go!

A fair pike beats a good belly flop, EBD. It's not just the perfection of the result that matters, it's the degree of difficulty too. Putting out a difficult fire imperfectly is better than putting out a trivial fire perfectly.

If you have to get into a pike position to put out a difficult fire, that's one peculiar fire.

Exactly.

EBD: "Does the RCMP's behaviour in the last few years bother you?" Beyond the political aspects, consider Mr Loeppky's economy with the truth in his testimony during the Arar enquiry.

Mark
Ottawaq

Collection from www.news.google.ca tonight:

Parrish not welcome back in caucus, PMO says
CTV, Canada - 7 hours ago
TORONTO — The federal Liberals slammed the door shut Friday on any notion that Independent MP Carolyn Parrish would be welcomed back into the party fold. ...

Parrish, Liberals still on outs
Globe and Mail, Canada - 7 hours ago
By TIM LAI. A maverick MP will not be returning to the Liberal caucus, an aide to the Prime Minister said Friday. “He's not even ...

EDITORIAL: Parrish the thought
Edmonton Sun, Canada - 16 hours ago
The Martin Liberals' path of moral degeneration appears to have come full circle with reports that maverick Grit Carolyn Parrish is in negotiations to get back ...

Parrish continues attack on Hillier
Globe and Mail, Canada - 28 Jul 2005
By OLIVER MOORE. Amid rumoured talks about rejoining the government, Independent MP Carolyn Parrish has released a letter calling ...

'Muzzle the beast,' says MP Parrish
Edmonton Sun, Canada - 28 Jul 2005
Outspoken Independent MP Carolyn Parrish issued an open letter to Defence Minister Bill Graham yesterday, blasting his chief of defence staff as "truly barbaric ...

Liberals Don't Want Parrish
580 CFRA Radio, Canada - 8 hours ago
It appears outspoken independent MP Carolyn Parrish is is not welcome back in the Liberal caucus. An aide to the prime minister ...

Parrish calls Hillier 'truly barbaric'
24 Hours Vancouver, Canada - 27 Jul 2005
By 24 hours news services. Outspoken independent MP Carolyn Parrish issued an open letter to Defence Minister Bill Graham yesterday ...

Canadian Government Pondering Reinstating MP Canned for Anti ...
Lifesite, Canada - 27 Jul 2005
OTTAWA, July 27, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Liberal Party of Canada may be reconsidering their decision to throw out Carolyn Parrish, the MP for Mississauga ...

Anti-American MP slams Defence Chief
Canada Free Press, Canada - 27 Jul 2005
By Arthur Weinreb, Associate Editor,. Well, not officially, but if Mississauga MP Carolyn Parrish wants to get back into the Liberal ...

Top Canuck general rebuffs MP's criticisms
Ottawa Sun, Canada - 26 Jul 2005
By CP. EDMONTON -- Canada's top general is brushing off criticism from Independent MP Carolyn Parrish over his blunt language. The ...

What a Good thread! lol
You people make me proud!

Looks like there is a vacant seat up for grabs in Missisaga...

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=25ed93dc-9ccf-4ba3-be94-9f2936ea868d

...your definition of Isolationism is completely off-base regarding how that term is used and understood below the 49th Parallel.
It is most often applied to American sentiments and foreign policy formulations in the period between 1920 and 1941...

Ah, okay. I'm now sitting here with 'A Dictionary of Politics' ('Penguin Reference Books,' c. 1957), my bible for these sorts of things. You're spot on, of course...

...but that's for 1957, and it wasn't my definition of isolationism. I still think -- given what a Google search turns up -- that the term no longer means what it used to, to too many people. I ran into a slushpile of write-ups arguing that the US was or was not ~ , too many of which were 'correct' because they'd mushed the term to fit.

(Not entirely unlike what I did with the reference I used, I know.)

So long as I've got the book out, I note that the definition of 'western democracy' seems to have slipped in the US somewhat since 1957; post-11-Sept problems are enough to give me pause over whether or not "democracy," as defined by the US in the first part of this century, is beyond reproach. Which may sound a bit radicalised, but who here has never looked towards the Hill and thought: a benevolent dictator would be better than this -- ?

Though if I'm going to seek new definitions, I might want to pitch the 1957 book: terrorists are not necessarily suicidal, homicidal, lithium-deficient examples of the worst humanity has to offer, but, possibly, 'resistance workers.' (Yes, it did hit me to wonder if the CBC's library and trusted doctrine is as dated as mine.)

President Bush's foreign policy is anything but reluctant to engage in affairs outside America's borders, as surely even you would admit.

Yes. Though it can be a bit...odd. Making too much noise about 'moral obligations' to intervene given the evil of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban makes a lack of intervention in Zimbabwe, among other hell-holes, look amoral rather than simply uninvolved. Viz:

Putting out a difficult fire imperfectly is better than putting out a trivial fire perfectly.

Yes. Yet Israel... Darfur... And... Oh, dear!

I am commenting on a weblog on a Friday evening because I'm polishing off a cold and it's busy polishing me off, so I'm going to -- for the moment -- avoid trying to answer reasonable questions above right now since they're unlikely to come out reasonably, if that follows. But:

...Government of Canada, consisting primarily of the Liberal Party and the Permanent Civil Service...

This makes it sounds like everyone who sneezes at the PCO is a capital-l Liberal. Bah! I live with a senior civil servant whose (fiscal, primarily) conservatism makes me seem quite the little Trotskyite. Civil servant friends manage to separate their politics from their jobs, too; perhaps they're the exceptions.

A stint in DC did not offer similarly positive experiences with gov't employees.

Finally -- as far as Paul Martin Liberals go -- I think he's dealt reasonably well with a raw deal. There's something to be said for 'adscam' $ being something he should have been aware of at the time, though I doubt anybody was whistleblowing around the Dept of Finance. Anybody waiting for his downfall won't have to wait long; post-Gomery seems a fair electoral shake for citizenry and gov't alike. Currying favour with Stronach et al is hardly laudable, but he could have clung to power (i) via obscure parliamentary procedural rules that would have been even worse, and (ii) done nothing by way of calling for an inquiry and an election to follow.

Bleary-eyed but:

Hey, you also insulted this ordinary Canadian who yells back at the TV during Question Period...

Beg pardon. Though televised politics and alcohol are almost always a bad mix.

The reason for an apology was you crapped all over a good, innocent person due to your failure to ensure that the badly-written passage was hers, which it wasn't. That's the faux pas you made.

I answer only in case you're confusing others along with yourself: I "crapped all over" a weblog, not a person, and did so because the regular linguistic "faux pas" made it open for cheap shots, while it was taking the piss out of somebody for a poor tip, an extremely cheap shot. The objection, again: if you make cheap shots, don't leave yourself open to same. Which had no reference to the "badly written passage" other than that it was a cheap shot, in a weblog with more than a couple of spelling errors &c. Does that follow, finally?

Oh: David Frum --> "exile" --> well, perhaps not entirely, but he's awfully Americanised. Dramatically so for the son of a famous Canuck, really.

A comment on The Terminater:
"Make the bad man with a gopher in his head go away!"

Random Bytowner: If I take it right, you're making an interesting proposition - that a new meme is developing regarding the usage and meaning of the term "Isolationism." Certainly such things can and do happen; for example, the manner in which media here in the States have altered the meaning of the term "Populist" over time to something far different from its original connotation.

In my own narrow reach of historical specialization, I can only assert that "Isolationism" still continues to retain the meaning I alluded to above, reflected in everything from the name of academic conferences and symposia to titles of books and dissertations. Media usage here tends to reflect this as well, in the general sense of an American reluctance to seek involvement in the affairs of other nations, especially in regard to the attitudes and sentiments displayed in the interwar years of the early twentieth century.

The meaning is so circumscribed in academic and popular usage, in other words, that your reference above to "Bush's isolationist foreign policy" set off several alarm bells. The data you cite later form the Chrisitan Science Monitor could be said to be accurate descriptions of the attitudes and preconceptions of Isolationist thinking at various points in our nation's history, but you're missing the central point nonetheless:

Isolationism as a philosophy, an ideology, or a foreign policy, depends first and foremost upon remaining isolated from foreign entanglements. Bush's foreign policy, whether you love it or hate it, is manifestly not isolationist either in its actions or its guiding principles.

I see Don's back. He want a sequel? Shit, I thought I could take a vacation. The tranny just can't take a hint.

Don, or Warren or Michael Moore, you spelled "Terminator" wrong. This is not even up to the standard of either Kinsella or Moore.

I'm starting to think that you're really nobody. Probably a fat, white, unwashed-bum preop shemale. Your words bounce off of our shields of truth and honor (ok, except for our calling you names, admittedly, but beside the big point, that you're a poohead).

Note: have switched back from being Terminator to being Steve Mc. as I see that cockroach really isn't squished.

"Beg pardon. Though televised politics and alcohol are almost always a bad mix."

Ah, a cheap shot. You open yourself to being shat upon, Random.

Lighten up, dude/dudette. Why so afraid to divulge your gender? Perhaps confused, like "Don"?

"who here has never looked towards the Hill and thought: a benevolent dictator would be better than this -- ?"

I take it you were saying PMPM is better than Dubya? Now, THAT'S delusional. How many have you had to drink?

Random wrote:

"Yes. Yet Israel... Darfur... And... Oh, dear!"

Are you anti-Israel? Go ahead, make my day. I would love to debate an anti-semite anytime! Moonies are so predictable. Always against Israel and favoring "Palestine". 'Cause they're indoctrinated thusly, after all.

"Civil servant friends manage to separate their politics from their jobs, too; perhaps they're the exceptions."

Nonsense. I have been a fed before. I can say that most civil servants are lefties. Their pcness is always apparent. There are admittedly exceptions, yes, like myself and some others. I felt persecuted as my political beliefs obviosly weren't going to be tolerated. I could sense it as I began to express myself on issues, so I naturally shut my yap.

"he could have clung to power (i) via obscure parliamentary procedural rules that would have been even worse"

It was worse. He clung to power illegally. Simply said "bah" and "kiss my billionaire bum" and continued to impose his own values on the country. This behavior historically led to revolutions. The '93 thing? Small potatoes compared to the incipient firestorm. I anxiously await such.

Still can't admit you made a mistake, eh? You crapped on a blog, yes, but also by extension, automatically, upon its owner. Typical lefty. Guess we won't get an apology after all. No big deal, as I believe Kate can handle harmless little trolls as well as anyone. Yes, Kate kicks ass!

RS writes:

"Isolationism as a philosophy, an ideology, or a foreign policy, depends first and foremost upon remaining isolated from foreign entanglements. Bush's foreign policy, whether you love it or hate it, is manifestly not isolationist either in its actions or its guiding principles."

There you go again, Random. From someone who understands this sort of thing. Understand?

Ann, That was a nice package you put together there. For a minute it lets you think there is something correct happening in the world. Thank you Ann, and please Carolyn, don't say another word. 73s TG

Random Bytowner! LOL! Isolationism!??

If only we had the luxury of isolationism! We would love it! My god, think of it, a United States without the entire world at us to do something for them 24 hours a day! What a utopian ideal!

Well try being an isolationist when you have the massive responsibility of being the world's only remaining superpower, whose largest city has been viciously attacked by some insane murder-suicide cult with staging areas all over the world. What on earth are we supposed to do? Let Carolyn Parrish take care of it?

Are lefites in Canada so disassociated that they regard attempts to blow up their 2 greatest friends as an abstraction simply because no one's blown up a Canadian city... yet?

Lefties are big on trying to fix the "root of the problem." Well that's exactly what we're trying to do. We have a systemic problem of terrorism for which police action is insuffcient. Like going after low-level drug dealers doesn't shut down a powerful organized crime syndicate that replaces drug dealers a dime a dozen. As a Canadian, you should particularly realize that.

What we're about is changing hearts and minds. We change them by sentiment when we can and we change them permanently when we must.

Right you are, Greg(outside Dallas), with no pun intended.

Patrick Buchanan is one so-called paleo-con (don't you love them labels) who is arguably the most high profile "isolationist conservative" in the U.S. at the moment.

Among other things, he accuses the Bush administration of Wilsonian interventionism.

What many Canadians don't realize is that there is both reasoned and passionate debate on all sides of this and other issues in the U.S., a societal attribute that some of us think Canada could use a little more of.

An afterthought...

Here's a link to Patrick Buchanan's columns:

http://www.wnd.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=185

Just as an example of his "paleo-con" isolationist thinking, read his columns of July 4 and 13.

"Are lefites in Canada so disassociated that they regard attempts to blow up their 2 greatest friends as an abstraction simply because no one's blown up a Canadian city... yet?"

Greg, the answer is "yes".

Random Bytowner: If I take it right, you're making an interesting proposition - that a new meme is developing regarding the usage and meaning of the term "Isolationism." Certainly such things can and do happen; for example, the manner in which media here in the States have altered the meaning of the term "Populist" over time to something far different from its original connotation.

Sort of... I mean, it does seem to have shifted in some public spheres. The posted definition above from RS is, again, spot on -- though not everybody sits around in poli sci classes indefinitely (probably wise), so the original/correct meaning might not have the clarity it used to (again, a web search made it weirdly clear that there really is a lot of confusion). My 1957 Penguin Dictionary of Politics makes a wee suggestion of things to come in its definition of 'isolationists' --

"...They were succeeded by those who felt that the prime object of American economic and military commitments should be Asia, but admitted the necessity for European commitments."

(following a definition which matches RS' so closely that it's not worth repeating)

(And I did say wee.)

Comparatively, 'federalism' jumps to mind, if only given how much trouble I had when I moved to the States and encountered US definitions of, and affiliations with, same. Admittedly fairly consistent, but my problem was with not finding a cogent explanation of why and how it had changed from its historical meaning -- at least in the circles I encountered it.

Though I think 'inflammable' may be the better analogy. Means: can't catch fire, but sounds like can catch fire, and -- wait, I can't believe I found this so easily. From dictionary.com:

Usage Note: Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means “not flammable” or “noncombustible.” The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.

I do think there's something to the notion that people look at "the coalition of the willing" and "the axis of evil" and think "isolationist," because of their exclusionary nature. Same with "the world's only superpower." Oh, okay; they're "isolated." So...

Does that follow? I don't hold up the 'Christian Science Monitor' bit as gospel; just as an example that -- well, new-meme-developing, perhaps. Gov't is filled with often deliberately obfuscatory terminology, so even though this is somewhat pedantic, I think it's useful to take note of shifts in meaning. I don't think people are being wilfully ignorant; I think it's a response to shifts in international politicking -- as per the previous paragraph. The cover of today's 'Globe and Mail' features a scorched victim of "ground zero." New York City? No -- Hiroshima.

"...survivors of the first nuclear attack on civilians, hope to reassert the site of the blast as the true ground zero."

I doubt that's out of malice or ignorance, though also sort of doubt it will be a success; these things, for better or worse, rarely remain static.

One other thing that does beg a response, the rest having been bizarrely misinterpreted or answered elsewhere:

"Beg pardon. Though televised politics and alcohol are almost always a bad mix."
Ah, a cheap shot...

That was, and I apologise if it wasn't taken as such by the original poster, a friendly jest. Pubs might consider putting CPAC on in lieu of sports, given how much the former is likely to lead one to drink. Though it would make for one hell of a rowdy crowd. Swilling a beer while swearing at politicians is quite the Canadian pastime. Viz:

Until this moment
I have been forced
to listen while media
and politicians alike
have told me
"what Canadians think".
In all that time they
never once asked.

This is just the voice
of an ordinary Canadian
yelling back at the radio -
"You don't speak for me."

Okay, so she yells at the radio, not the teevee, but you see what I mean. A friend of mine at the Dept of Finance, who, best I can tell, spends 9-5 writing "Dear Mr Goodale: Do not give $75m to bad idea X," has a beer fridge in his office (and a window ledge littered with whisky). I don't think many people have questioned the need/desire for the booze there.

Which reminds me of, well, the subject of this thread. I don't find Parrish all that heinous if only because she doesn't strike me as any great threat compared to MPs doing extremely stupid things extremely quietly. Ken Dryden, for one. Wealthy people tend to have dreadful judgement when it comes to funding charitable what-not, never having been on the other end.

"uncivil buffoonery and blindly stupid rage"

I'm starting to think that you're really nobody. Probably a fat, white, unwashed-bum preop shemale. Your words bounce off of our shields of truth and honor (ok, except for our calling you names, admittedly, but beside the big point, that you're a poohead).
that cockroach really isn't squished.
Moonies are so predictable.
illegally. Simply said "bah" andI "kiss my billionaire bum"
harmless little trolls
Problem is we first have to terminate those bloody fecking moonie Libranos! Grab yer shootin' irons and join me pronto!
a dangerous example of what happens when estrogen and marijuana are mixed
you leftist moonies are soooooo predictable!
that piece of weasel dung
Another stupid error
the bastard Mikey Mooreon's piss-poor
have they been proven soooo wrong!
the guy in his pretty white panties
Get your head out of your ass you scared pathetic chickenshit.
By Allahs grace let the next terrorist strike happen on the very point of your muddled cowardly head.
Here's to hoping that the next fuse lit by a terrorist is hanging out of her keester at the time...
Your post is probably the most moonbatty awkward piece of garbage I've ever read
Bulldoze them off the road; road-kill they are.
Why don't you just send your house keys over to the Jihaddis right now.
Thirtythree Canadians were killed on Sept. 11 you numbskull.Here's a news flash for you,... they've already noticed your feet sticking out from under your racing car bed in your parents basement.
Is there any question any more of the lefty moonbats willingness to fall on their sword.
Your black belaclava you hide behind like a child behind your mothers dress is a burka in the new globalized world you so despise.
I hate grubby liberal cowards masquarading as intellects!
And an anti-semetic beeatch
maybe we should think of burning Canada's now infamous ghetto of Mississauga.
just a drug-peddling nation that doesn't deserve our attention anymore.
has made herself the nation's number one international buffoon
is,and will remain,a piece of crap in the real world.
speak the truth,she is a traitor,a commie slut,and I defy any Liberal asshole to come and refute that.But guess what,Liberal asshole,you can't and won't.Piece of crud!

Does anyone here really object to a plea for a higher level of discussion? Not after-you-Alphonse sugary stuff; I realise this isn't a forum for organic gardening chit-chat, but...

All I can think of is the recent 'The Economist' with its cover illustration of a human head with 'hate' written all through it. It's not somehow noble just because you don't have a bomb strapped to you.

Random Bytowner, you have no perspective, nor a sense of humor. You do not understand us. You provided passages without context, Michael Moore style, and made no argument whatsoever. Yet you accuse us of a low level of debate. You apparently focus on the asides, the humor, the expressions of disgust at leftist extremism, etc.

"It's not somehow noble just because you don't have a bomb strapped to you."

What the feck is so damn noble about having a bomb on your person and detonating it in a public place, taking innocent lives along with one's own, including men, women, the elderly, handicapped, and babies? What will that accomplish? What is there to recommend it? What makes it necessary?

If you don't like it around here, Random Bytowner, as Kate has indicated before, you're free to leave. No one's forcing you to stay. Perhaps you'd find yourself more at home at Judy Rebick's or Robert McClelland's sites.

It's a free country (at least in theory).

Noel M.: If, as you believe, Mr. Grewal is allegedly a liability to the CPC, then isn't Paul Martin a liability to the Libranos?

He should be, but, you see, the MSM is protecting PMPM. The MSM is trying to chop down Good Mr. Iron Man, on the other hand. I don't see how you cannot see that Gurmant was just trying to get the evasive "smoking gun" that Canada needs to convince Canadians to erase the Liberal Party of Canada from existence to save the country. Without the smoking gun, we'll continue to be dictated to by those billionaire elitist bastards.

I agree with Bytowner on the matter of the generally poor level of dialectics, rhetoric, and wit shown by all sides in most politically oriented web discussions. I'd rather talk to him, even if we disagree, than to the authors of the quotes he extracted, even if we agree.

It's sort of like citizens band radio. Much as I defend the rights of citizens to speak freely as long as they're paying for their own radio, it turns out in practice to sometimes be a difficult place to carry out a carefully considered conversation.

My general suggestion is to simply avoid interacting with people you don't want to interact with: skip messages that are below your standards, and interact only with those you find interesting. Since the invention of web log comments, I've found that my mouse wheel finger now has some of my strongest muscles, other than the one between my ears of course ;-)

Finally, don't forget that, unlike CB radio, SDA is the private property of K. McMillan, so her rules trump.

What about a discussion on this?

As far as I can see there is not one story in the major Canadian media today on the sending of surplus aroured vehicles and Canadian troops to Senegal, for the benefit of African Union troops who will eventually use the vehicles in Darfur.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1706

Yet in the middle of May the issue of Canadian military aid for Darfur was all over the media.

CTV News May 14:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115906977933_111316177/?hub=Canada

'Canadian military personnel and equipment are headed to the war-torn Darfur region of Sudan, as part of a $170-milllion military and humanitarian assistance package announced today...

As part of his government's two-year, $170-million pledge, the prime minister said Canada will provide airlift capabilities, humanitarian aid and diplomatic support.

Up to 100 military personnel will also be dispatched to train local forces, he said...'

Yet now Canada is sending no personnel or airlift capacity to Darfur. And the vehicles (and training on them) are going via Senegal--hardly what was promised by the PM in May.

I would think in most other countries these glaring discrepancies would be the subject of considerable media comment. I would also think that at the very least the announcement of the Senegal operation itself would be widely reported.

What's up? Why are Canadian troops not going to Darfur? I guess the Sudanese goverment refused its permission. Then on what basis, other than trying to get the vote of David Kilgour, M.P, did Martin make the pledge in the first place?

Why do the media in Canada only pay attention to an issue when it is politcally hot, and rarely deal with the substance of things? I have some suggested answers. What are yours?

Mark
Ottawa

The media's job is to sell advertisements (with the exception of state media like the CBC, whose job it is to kow-tow to the state).

The principal devices they have to do that are variations of the deadly sins: pride, greed, jealousy, avarice, fear-mongering, fraud, and other forms of irresponsibility.

Remember, every day, the ink must run to the bottom of the page.

Random,
You make me cry...tears of pity....hate....you plead...it's all you see...except at the mirror...the reflection is pale...but it is true to form...blurry....puzzled...and surreal....

Random Bytowner, Looks like you would like to combine debate with a barroom brawl.

Well, debate is welcome, but the language you use will show up in referenced searches all over the Blogosphere. Those search results can show up for years.

I noticed that you can debate and reason, but that language suggests frustration and lack of ability.

It can come back and bite. Hope you are not in too deep already. 73s TG

[...]
Yet in the middle of May the issue of Canadian military aid for Darfur was all over the media.

This might come off as a bit too flip, but the first thing that popped to mind was that that 'Live 8' business was not a great idea.

Along with a headline in a relatively flip magazine over I-don't-remember-what-humanitarian-crisis in Africa, which was, roughly, "World shrugs, says 'Who cares? It's just Africa.'"

So, the idea that Bono has somehow wrapped up the problems of a continent, crossed with compassion fatigue.

The 'compassion fatigue' might also be linked to some nascent post-colonial ideas that colonialism was a better deal. A violent-looking throng in the Ivory Coast with signs asking France to get lost vis-a-vis matters Ivorian sends -- unfortunately -- some less than positive ideas. British Somaliland might have been a fun jaunt for the nabob type, not the greatest for the area, but, distressingly, better. It's nice to wax poetic about Mandela, but when Qaddafi pops back up in the news in response to 'Live 8' to tell people that Africa is looked down upon for good reason and they should stop begging, etc, there is some temptation to throw one's hands up in despair and hope the ravages of colonialism and post-colonial corruption will eventually sort themselves out, ideally with a minimum of dreadful images in the news.

I think it might be marginally reasonable to think people figure we're doing something, which is nice, thank you, but let's not hear about it (unless some Canadians run into problems). Or...

I would think in most other countries these glaring discrepancies would be the subject of considerable media comment.

Ideally. $170m is not a great amount to begin with, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to find unpleasant changes hushed up. No network is going to interest people with "Canadians not so benevolent as previously thought; Darfur strategy in flux," never mind "Latest hell-hole in Africa: death toll/warlord update." It's also not a particularly slow news period, and a period when people want slow news.

And it's complicated, relatively speaking. "Karla Homolka: new hairstyle?" doesn't ask much of the media; explaining Senegalese anything, not so. I'm a documentary junky (not for the prisoner-of-the-month variety), and it no longer surprises me to find myself spending two hours finding out about something I should've been told about two years prior.

Compassion fatigue revisited: the worst thing about 'Live 8,' for me, was seeing a teevee advert for it -- as though the details of a possible 'Spice Girls' reunion et al were not being adequately reported -- brought to me by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Why do the media in Canada only pay attention to an issue when it is politcally hot, and rarely deal with the substance of things?

We can't possibly be all that bad, comparatively, or else 'The Economist' wouldn't cost so much, and would be more popular reading than dross like 'Time.'

Also: "World shrugs, says 'Who cares? It's just Canada.'" Our wobbling on a bit of promised aid is rarely, if ever, enough aid in the first place to attract media attention (and deserved criticism) outside the country.

Mark Collins writes:

"What's up? Why are Canadian troops not going to Darfur? I guess the Sudanese goverment refused its permission. Then on what basis, other than trying to get the vote of David Kilgour, M.P, did Martin make the pledge in the first place?"

Ah, there Paul goes again. He'll do anything, probably, to stay in power, won't he? Absent a valid explanation on his part for not carrying out his declaration, we can only assume he was trying to manipulate MP Kilgour into supporting his bloody kleptocracy.

Random Bytowner: The Canadian media have a journalistic obligation to report this significant foreign action by the government--an obligation the media have failed, with a dismal but familiar lack of professionalism, to meet. One would think the media would further note that Prime Minister Martin said in May that Canadian troops were going to Darfur, and now are ending up in Senegal--and ask why the change.

Stephen McAllister: You're not saying that the Liberals are unprincipled? Surely not.

Mark
Ottawa

Now kids. What is the lesson here. A thread count of 135... National Enquirer qualities of scandalous utterences? Immature behaviour? Offensive language? Outrageous declarations.

The making of a public spectacle of oneself seems to win pres... media attention. But, what then?

Hello sewer, here we come.

That was entertainment... now the real story. London Police Nab 7 more in Bomb Probe.
AP story, Canada.com.

Gotta love those plucky Brits! 73s TG

The Iron Lady is very fond of the Brits and wonders why, if they can nab these bastards in a matter of a week, and with such finesse, I might add, other countries who have suffered equally, have not been so lucky? Any bets there will be a Canadian link in this sorry mess somewhere?

Mark wrote: "Stephen McAllister: You're not saying that the Liberals are unprincipled? Surely not."

Hell, yes. Of course I am. You've not become suddenly daft, have you, old bean?

I confess T. Guitar makes a good point. Perhaps Kate could write up a "Guidelines for Commenting" document to help us stay more or less in line. 'Course, we don't wish some kind of PCness, but, surely, a bit more brevity isn't beyond even us prolific thinker-posters?

On the other hand, the huge participation speaks positively for the popularity of SDA, doesn't it?

I can see why Iron Lady admires the Brits. They're a hardy people, proven over many more centuries than us N. Americans. We shld learn more from them. Not sure about yellow raincoats for the police, though. Does it really rain that much over there?!

Long live the Queen!

Oh!! I just figured this one out.

Random Bytowner, Looks like you would like to combine debate with a barroom brawl.

That spew of filth was taken, at random, in no order, from a variety of posts in this thread. Including the "uncivil buffoonery and blindly stupid rage" pseudo-title to it.

I noticed that you can debate and reason, but that language suggests frustration and lack of ability.

Thank you, and yes it does, doesn't it? Hence my plea for an end to it.

Random, I agree we should lay this thread to rest. I didn't know whether to be flattered or insulted when I saw that most of the copy-and-past passages were of stuff I wrote. Just try to keep everything in context in the future, ok? You don't want to sound like a left-wing extremist, after all.