Dingwall Audit Results In:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051026.wding1026/BNStory/Front

National Gum Registry - Canada : Only $1.29/chewalldingwall. TM: LibPartyCan.

Exhibit # 4,888,789 : >>>

Ballots meet bullets
Suddenly, it seems, politicians are waking up to what the rest of us have been telling them for years: Guns, violence, public safety have become foremost in the minds of everyone in Toronto. >>>
http://www.rapp.org/url/?Q2LV55N5 toronto sun
Christina Blizzard

Why is it that people who oppose U.S. involvement in the War in Iraq are automatically assumed to be in bed with the terrorists? It makes no sense to me.

And Norm Coleman is an idiot. If he had proof, charge Galloway with perjury as Galloway suggests. It would be fun to see Galloway rip Coleman another a-hole once again.

The Dingwall Audit is nothing but a whitewash. It's the EXPENSE POLICY of the Canadian Mint that's at question here. The Board is made up of Lie-beral's for one thing and did Dingwall have a hand in formulating this EXPENSE POLICY? This also does NOT get him off the hook for illegal lobbying, which is worse, is it not? Furthermore, one has to look at the donation pattern to individual candidates and the LPC by the two firms hired to do these audits. These audits in no way exonerate Dingwall or the rest of the LPC from wrongdoing. This is the Lie-beral way to try to justify paying Dingwall severance, entitlements ,hush money to keep Dingwall from exposing what he has on PMPM and rest of the corrupt current regime.

Having a little trouble dealing with reality Peter?

Just like a true believer of the "reality" based community.

Here's a dose of REALITY.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Watch our defence dollars get frittered away in the name of regional development--and votes:

"Critics say DND asks too much of shipbuilders: At least 28 new vessels: Feast-or-famine plans may result in cost overruns", National Post, Oct. 26
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/051026/npt/051026aq.htm

Excerpts:

'The Canadian navy and Coast Guard are laying plans for a shipbuilding spree the likes of which our shipyards have not seen since the Second World War -- nearly 30 warships and patrol boats are required over the next two decades, including potentially some of the largest ships ever built in Canada.

But it is not clear whether the Canadian shipbuilding industry can handle the job, and experts say building that many ships in Canada could cost the military billions in cost overruns and years of delays before it gets badly needed new vessels.

"Can we build all these ships in Canada? No question we can, given enough time and money," said Bernie Grover, a retired naval officer who is now a consultant for the Department of National Defence.

"Given enough time and money, if we really wanted to we could grow bananas in Canada. But why would we want to?"...

Military spokesmen say the navy has three major shipbuilding programs in the works, with construction scheduled to begin as early as 2012 on the first of 20 planned warships. The Canadian Coast Guard is acquiring another eight patrol ships at about the same time.

Analysts say the bill for the shipbuilding binge could easily run to more than $10-billion and see construction of 28 major vessels by 2020...

Mr. Grover questions whether Canada's relatively small number of shipyards could handle so much work without incurring cost overruns and missed deadlines. "We can't do it economically and we can't do it in a timely fashion," he said.

"If they're built in Canada the timetable will slip a minimum of 24 months.... It's going to be a long, drawn-out project and it's all because they're insisting on building it in Canada."..

Mr. Grover said at least some of the proposed new ships should be built by larger, more experienced shipbuilders in the United States or Europe, particularly three promised joint support ships and a planned amphibious assault vessel.

"These aren't row boats," he said. "We don't have the design teams and we don't have the experience at building anything as large and complex as these ships."

"We'd save at least a third of the cost by going off-shore. Plus, you know you're going to get the ship more or less on time and it's going to work the way it's supposed to work." ...

The last federal budget allocated $2.1-billion for three joint support ships, large supply and transport vessels that will be able to both refuel other warships and carry supplies and heavy equipment for ground forces.

The Canadian navy is also drafting a plan to acquire one or more even larger "Amphibious Capable Ships," huge vessels that will be combination helicopter carriers and troop transports [I had missed this so far: "San Antonio" class LPD?].
[http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-lpd.html]

The Amphibious Capable Ship was mentioned in the government's defence policy statement last spring, but Cmdr. Agnew said the project is still in "the conceptual stage" and is tentatively slated to be ready by about 2015...

Dr. Richard Gimblett, a research fellow with Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, said the navy may be expecting too much of Canadian shipbuilders. "Not that many, not all at once," he said. "It would be a real stretch to ask Canadian shipyards to do all this."

But Dr. Gimblett said the federal government has no one but itself to blame for the shipbuilding log jam.

"They've been putting off replacing all these classes of ships since the early '90s," he said. "We could've spaced out all this shipbuilding over a couple of decades. Instead they just kept deferring the cost -- they kept putting it off and putting it off ... and now DND is facing an incredible bill."'

Mark
Ottawa

Doug,

It's not polite to use superior firepower in mixed company. Almost like the Galloway/Hitchens "Debate" a few weeks ago. One participant showed up without his wits about him and ended up with faca a la omelette. and his name wasn't Christopher.

Besides charging an MP of an ally's government with perjury is fraught with legal entanglements. It might get your own members indicted, Oh, that's right, they're trying to do that in Vancouver to Pres. Bush. Let me know how that goes.

The left, sometimes, is beyond comprehension.

Peter: Why is it that people who oppose U.S. involvement in the War in Iraq are automatically assumed to be in bed with the terrorists?

It's all a matter of timing dear boy. If you want the coalition out now, then you are leaving Iraqis to the tender mercy of the terrorists and are effectively supporting them. I suppose it's possible to have been against the war in the first place and be honest, but once it was on, you could not oppose it without being on the side of Saddam and later, on the side of those that want to prevent a democracy.

As for Coleman: let's wait and see.

So what is the next move then if the right move is to stay in Iraq? Even ol' Rummy said a while ago that the insurgency could go on for another ten years. Will America bankrupt itself to fight this war? Will they have to inact a draft to keep up the numbers they will need to win this war?

And one other question, if you are for the war does that mean you are for the deaths of American soldiers? I mean, to be for the war you want those soldiers there and they are dying, so using your logic, this makes sense.

Just to add to my post on "Critics say DND asks too much of shipbuilders: At least 28 new vessels: Feast-or-famine plans may result in cost overruns", National Post, Oct. 26":

The headline here is misleading. It's not DND--or at least the Canadian Forces--that insist ships for the Navy and Coast Guard be built in Canada, it's the politicians, be they Liberal or CPC, in the name of "regional development" (the shipbuilding yards are in N.B., Quebec) but really in the search for votes.

This is the policy that adds singificantly to the costs for the military (thus reducing the value of the defence budget) and slows down the acquisition time. Defence needs in fact are subordinate to political needs, and the Canadian Forces continue to suffer the consequences.

Mark
Ottawa

Do I smell that same old troll shit again?

(looks up)

Yes, indeed.

Go back to DU, Kos, and Wideass Moores sites to take your dump. Better yet, go to Moveon and MOVE ON.

Peter:

Upon what basis do you oppose the war in Iraq? From a humanistic perspective, no one likes war. Hell, I know I don't and I don't wish to see anyone forced to go to war and I damn sure don't want to see innocent civilians getting killed or hurt.

But its easy to criticize from the comfort of our living rooms about how democracy in Iraq should be brought about. Unfortunately, democracy does not evolve from a dictatorship. Once you remove a dictator, for a brief period there is a political vacuum. This is when terrorists really like to make their moves - and when warfare gets ugly. You need to kill the terrorists, bring in voting and then hopefully prosperity will follow.

Let us stay focussed on the Iraqi people - they are the ones who need the help. If we pull out on them now, we will have abandoned them - that makes us cowards. Oppose the decision up front - not afterwards. That is sniping with hindsight.

Me a troll? Sorry, I didn't realize that dissenting opinions weren't allowed on this site. My apologies.

I agree that this is a catch 22. If the U.S. stays, the violence will continue. If they go, the violence will continue. The question that needs to be asked is, is the U.S. presence causing more violence than if they left?

All this talk about softwood lumber and expense audits obscures precisely what is wrong with Canada:

"Canadians watch over 20,000 TV commercials annually...The numbers are staggering and mean that the average Canadian adult spent more than 166 hours last year watching television commercials. This is equivalent to the number of hours worked in a month by the average Canadian worker!...The Television Bureau of Canada (TVB), on its website says that the average Canadian Female 18+ watched just over 25 hours a week of television in the Fall of 2004 while the average Canadian male 18+ watched just under 21 hours a week.""

http://www.digitalhomecanada.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=646&Itemid=51

Peter: The U.S. went into Iraq because it believed that if it did not, many, many would ultimately die. Likely millions.

9/11/2001 was the trigger that followed at least 22 years of terrorism history. Iraq was one of a number of terror sponsoring states that all need to change. There are many reasons why Iraq was a better choice than say, Iran, Korea or Syria.

Understand that 911 was a call to arms. Yes, the Iraq war had the same effect but it's better when the west is on the attack than defending within its borders.

But Iraq wasn't a threat. They had no wmd's and no ties to 9/11. The only terrorist groups in Iraq were in Kurdistan, an area that Hussein had no control over. The point is that there were other ways to go about this other than war. If being a dictator and repressing people is the only reason the U.S. needs to invade other countries, where do they go noext? Sudan? How many people here are rallying the troops to try and save those people? Don't they deserve what the Iraqi's do?

Peter: The 911 Commission Report says that Iraq was on a long term path to acquire WMD. At the time the war started they were actively and successfully fighting the sanctions so that they could continue. Given Saddam's history just since the Gulf War, there was ample legal reason to take him apart.

Yes his links to 911 were tenuous but you didn't understand what I wrote before. He was a terror-enabler and all of them have to stop. The choice to go into Iraq after Afghanistan was likely considered to be the best option. (I would have done Iraq too.)

After being attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbour, the U.S. went after Germany. In war, you benefit by not making every action painfully obvious.

Once the ME situation is more stable, still not sure about Iran, then Africa would probably come next. This would all be a lot easier if there was more support from the left for genuine human rights in the world other than socialist pablum.

Secrets of Terror
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 20, 2005

FP: What do you know about Saddam’s pre-war ties to Al-Qaeda?

Mauro: My book compiles all the evidence available that demonstrates Iraq worked with Al-Qaeda on all levels.

In the 1980s, Saddam regularly sponsored Palestinian groups and Iraqi intelligence even poisoned Israeli oranges that they exported to Europe, an obvious economic assault. After the Gulf War, Hasan al-Turabi, the spiritual leader of Sudan, helped bring all sorts of Islamic groups together--this included the Iraqis and Osama Bin Laden. It was a time of great reconciliation. Iraq and Iran began burying the hatchet, and Sudan became a base for cooperation.

The Iraqi Intelligence Service deputy director Farouq Hijazi met with Ayman al-Zawahiri, head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad who would eventually become the second-in-command and "brains" of Al-Qaeda. According to Iraqi intelligence documents, Bin Laden "also requested joint operations against foreign forces." It should also be mentioned that a group now closely tied to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi began cooperation with the Iraqis at this time.

Iraqi intelligence documents seem to identify the Somalia ambush as the first incident of cooperation between Sudan, Iraq, and Osama Bin Laden. An Iraqi document signed by Saddam's secretary shows that the regime demanded that action was made to "hunt the Americans" in Somalia using "Arabian elements, or Asian (Muslims) or friends." The Iraqi documents list a range of groups available for participation in the operation. Muhammad Farrah Aidid, who led the ambush, even met with Iraqi intelligence in Khartoum.

From then on, there are periodic meetings between the Iraqis and Al-Qaeda officials. Training of Al-Qaeda operatives began in 1995 as a result of meetings between the Iraqis and Abu Hajer al-Iraqi, known as Osama Bin Laden's "best friend." From then on, there would be a great number of meetings, participated in by many different leaders and officials of the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda. A stream of defectors would report cooperation between the two, as would many intelligence services.

Cooperation from the mid-1990s up until the war steadily increased, eventually culminating in Iraqi training of Al-Qaeda members in document forgery, bomb production, WMD development, and other activity. On more than one occasion, the Iraqis would go on alert and then an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack would be attempted. Iraq would also actively work with Al-Qaeda (and Syrian intelligence) to prepare the guerrilla war we're facing today.

I'm aware of new evidence that Iran played a direct role in 9/11 and sponsoring Al-Qaeda and this is not contradictory. In fact, documents brought to light by Ken Timmerman show that Imad Mughniyah of Hezbollah, high-level Iranian officials, high-level Iraqi intelligence officials and high-level Al-Qaeda operatives met in Iran in October 2001. So Bin Laden relied on several avenues of support, which made sense, as this meant he couldn't be held down by one state's interests.

FP: Your book also shows how Saddam moved his WMDs into other countries. Can you give us a summary of the evidence?

Mauro: Saddam passed his WMDs into other countries long before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Iraq's WMDs have long been, all the way back to the 1990s, connected to other state's WMD programs. By the late 1990s, a great part of Iraq's nuclear program was based in Libya as a joint project. Iraqi WMD would be routinely moved in and out of Syria to avoid inspections.

So the fact that Syrian defectors, Iraqi scientists and foreign intelligence sources indicate the WMD was moved to Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Iran is not surprising at all. American satellites saw traffic moving from Iraq into Syria between January 2003 and the war's beginning, and at this time the Iraqi border guards were replaced with Iraqi intelligence. Iran has even taken in some Iraqi chemical and biological weapons equipment, just like they took in Iraqi aircraft in 1991.

I detail in my book how this was not some change in policy by Iraq, it was simply an expansion of previous cooperation. UN inspectors even confirmed in the 1990s this was going on. Iraqi WMD expertise has been confirmed to be in other countries as well (and Duelfer confirmed that Qusay Hussein prepared for such expertise to go to Syria). This is not at odds with Duelfer or Kay, who both confirmed there were reports of WMD going to Syria and that trucks full of "Iraqi equipment" went to Syria but we don't know the contents. Duelfer even said there was evidence Syria offered to harbor Iraqi WMD, but he couldn't confirm that they did in fact do that because the insurgency stopped his team from completing the investigation.>>>>
http://www.rapp.org/url/?VS6XLZB4

Ode To The Gummint Man: D. Dingwall, Librano$.>>

Does your chewing gum lose its flavour
On the bedpost overnight?

If your mother says don't chew it
Do you swallow it in spite?
Can you catch it on your tonsils
Can you heave it left and right?

Does your chewing gum lose its flavour
On the bedpost overnight?

(Lonnie)
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday
Thursday, Friday, Sat'day night

On the bedpost overnight

(Man)
A dollar is a dollar and a dime is a dime

(Lonnie)
He's singin' out the chorus
But he hasn't got the time

On the bedpost overnight, yeah.
Recorded by: "Lonnie Donegan & His Skiffle Group"
http://www.rapp.org/url/?M8GT38FJ

>>>>>>

Dingwall says he's 'completely exonerated' by audit and may sue

JOAN BRYDEN Wed Oct 26,11:19 AM ET

OTTAWA (CP) - Former mint president David Dingwall says he's been cleared by an independent audit of his expenses and he may sue MPs who portrayed his spending habits as an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars. >> Yahoo!! News.

What an enraging post.

I guess U.S.A today seen all of the success China had, and decided it would be a smart corporate move.I have a unaltered picture of Condi and martini from ChinaDaily.com. As well as REAL pictures of Kim Jong Il's different palaces(two are of the highest resolution, thanks to DigitalGlobe). New images of different palaces will be posted soon(Eh, the guy has at least 10) http://ashesoftyranny.blogspot.com

When George Galloway paraded around America on his comedy tour, didn't ya love his Prophet and Peace zinger... "All George W. Bush cares about is "profits", and how he can get a "piece" of them." People genuinly laughed when he first said it on Bill Maher's show, then after the 15th media apperance without anything fresh to say, all it was gettin' was weak applause.

Eh, it's still funny to me...

Peter, why don't you tell us what the United States was supposed to do, when they had fifty thousand troops in Saudi Arabia for the express purpose of containing Iraq? Unilaterally withdraw those troops and end Iraqi containment, handing both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein huge propoganda victories, not to mention dooming the Iraqi people to at least another generation of dictatorship? Turn them around and attack Saudi Arabia instead? Convince the UN and/or EU of taking over containment (HAH!)?

This much was true: in the post 9/11 world, the policy of Iraqi containment had to end; the United States needed those troops to be active in the fight against terrorism rather than standing around, and needed them out of Saudi Arabia. As far as the United States was concerned, ending containment with Saddam Hussein remaining in power was absolutely unacceptable. The rest was inevitable, and I have yet to read any remotely plausible suggestion from the critics on what else the United States could've done given those two immutable factors.

La trahison des clercs, or plus ca change...

"Rule America? Liberal elites ruined Britain as a hyperpower. Could America meet the same fate?" by Jonathan V. Last, Weekly Standard, Oct. 21
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=6200&R=C74E2BFA9

Excerpts:

'n 1933, the Oxford Union - a debating society and one of the strongholds of liberal elite opinion - held a debate on the resolution "this House will in no circumstances fight for king and country." The resolution passed. Margot Asquith, one of England's leading liberal lights, wrote that same year, quite sincerely: "There is only one way of preserving peace in the world, and getting rid of your enemy, and that is to come to some sort of agreement with him. . . . The greatest enemy of mankind today is hate."

Churchill disdained the new liberalism, mocking one of his opponents as part of "that band of degenerate international intellectuals who regard the greatness of Britain and the stability and prosperity of the British Empire as a fatal obstacle. . . . " So deep was this liberal loathing of empire that even as the first shots of World War II were being fired, Churchill's private secretary, Jock Colville, witnessed at a theater "a group of bespectacled intellectuals" who, to his shock, "remain[ed] firmly seated while 'God Save the King' was played."

These elites could see evil only at home. The French intellectual Simone de Beauvoir did not believe that Germany was a "threat to peace," but instead worried that the "panic that the Right was spreading" would drag France, Britain, and the rest of Europe into war. Stafford Cripps, a liberal Labor member of Parliament, feared not Hitler, but Churchill. Cripps wrote that after Churchill became prime minister he would "then introduce fascist measures and there will be no more general elections."

In an important sense, the British Empire's strength failed because its elite liberal citizens stopped believing in it.

The parallels with 21st-century America are striking. In little more than 10 years, England went from victory in World War I to serious discussions about completely disarming herself. Talk of a "peace dividend" began with the fall of the Berlin Wall and culminated 10 years later with a major draw-down of forces and the abandonment of the two-war doctrine...

The American left, too, eerily echoes its British counterparts. Consider the "Peace is Patriotic" bumper stickers; the howls of protest against the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations, for fear that he might be too assertive of American values; the comparison - by Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) - of American soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis and Guantanamo Bay to the Soviet gulag; the protest cries of "No blood for oil" and the left-wing fringe speculation that the endgame of George W. Bush's 9/11 fear-mongering would be to cancel elections and establish a fascist police state.

The liberal opponents of the British Empire were proved wrong, but their misplaced disillusionment was enough to sap the vitality of imperial confidence. After rising one last time to fight Nazism, the sun set on the British Empire.

Likewise, it is pleasant to believe that the crisis of confidence in today's liberal elites won't affect the outcome of our war with Islamist extremism. The greater worry concerns what happens next. Will protestations of liberal elites become mainstream diffidence about America's place in the world? Will we, too, stop believing that America stands firm, as a great force for good - and then see our place in the world diminish?'

Mark
Ottawa

it is pleasant to believe that the crisis of confidence in today's liberal elites won't affect the outcome of our war with Islamist extremism

I'm sure it already has Mark. E.g. I doubt Iran would be speaking the way it is were it not for the enormous opposition Bush has faced.

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred's reference to progressive opponent's irrelevant "precious beliefs" are more correctly termed "porous beliefs". That is, beliefs so thin and weakly based that anything of value cannot be contained in them.

I've been reading Peter's anti-U.S. coalition comments and have really only seen a collection of "what-if" questions and criticisms. His comments contain nothing of substance...no description of a go forward plan, no real acknowledgement of the current situation or how the past history of terrorism in the middle east has blown up into the Al Qaeda driven mess it is today. It's as if these progressive opponents are incapable of any reasoned thought that contains a real life solution with a non-geological timetable.

Peter should try to get into the UN were he can make a real difference doing what all the other progressive opponents do at the UN so well - NOTHING!!! Maybe he can relax in the lounge at the UN watching violent smurf movies and play with Kofi's "My Little Ponies" collection while dreaming of the chocolate covered streets in Sudan lined with cherry trees and dancing children.

Brilliant. This guy could never succeed PMPM . ..way to much common sense.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=95b4acf7-47bd-436b-b854-6355e7a5ae74

"Liberals [in the American sense] can't bring themselves to support freedom in Iraq lest they seem to collude with neoconservative bombast," Ignatieff wrote in The New York Times Magazine on the occasion of the recent Iraqi election. "All this makes you wonder when the left forgot the proper name for people who bomb polling stations, kill election workers and assassinate candidates. The right name for such people is fascists."

"When democracies fight terrorism, they are defending the proposition that their political life should be free of violence. But defeating terror requires violence. It may also require coercion, deception, secrecy and violation of rights."

"Liberal societies cannot be defended by herbivores," he adds. "We need carnivores to save us."

Kashechewan? Where is Kashechewan?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Aboriginal veterans begin pilgrimage with G.G.
OTTAWA (CP) - A delegation of aboriginal veterans, elders and young people began a pilgrimage to the battlefields of Europe on Wednesday with a lunch at Rideau Hall.

..............

Prime Minister Paul Martin also paid a tribute:

"There is no doubt of the tremendous contribution that you have made in the unfortunate great wars of the last century.

That you are embarking upon this journey tonight, calling back the spirits is . . . not only incredibly touching to any Canadian, but must mean so much to you children and to your grandchildren.>>
http://www.rapp.org/url/?TCLNE5VQ
cnews

I wonder if the telomeres are extra long or in some way unique in those few lucky people who find new teeth growing in where they have just lost their adult teeth. TG

I don't watch TV so I guess I miss all the CBC-biased pessimism regarding Iraq. What I have read is encouraging. For example, real estate prices in Iraq have risen significantly and the currency is doing well. This means Iraqis, who are there and have something tangible directly at stake (unlike commentators), are optimistic, have confidence in the democratization process and, most importantly, are investing their capital on the basis of this confidence rather than keeping it offshore. It seems to me this is what the smart money is doing and I find it more convincing then the arguments proferred by the anti-war-no-matter-whom-it-benefits crowd.

This is much more than can be said for pessimistic commentators outside Iraq. Indeed, I find the comparisons between French anti-war left-wingers in the 1930s eerily resonant with today's left-wing sympathy for the Islamo-Leninists (as Thomas Friedman calls them) or Islamo-fascists (as Mark Steyn calls them).

Thanks for the Ignatieff quotes. Not sure about him as PM, but this sort of realism is warming me up to the guy.

Re: Canadian Ship building - Feast or Famine?

While politicians waste millions trying to give regional handouts disguised as federal contracts, the taxpayer takes it in the ear, again. If the shipyards cannot handle all those ships at once then why force them to? The world is full of competitive shipbuilders who can probably save Canada billions in the long run. Give "value added" contracts to Canadian shipbuilders. Buy the basics and upgrade at home. Specialize so to speak. As a world leader in shipbuilding, Canada is not even in the running.

Hey, even better idea... ask PMPM where he gets HIS ships built. Maybe he can swing a deal with his old pals.

Telomers are old news. The news is that they are heritable paternally. The big news will bewhen nanotechnology allows us to go in and lengthen them.

"The two big scams of the Bush administration. The big scam and the little scam. The big scam was to take the country to war after 9/11 and go to Iraq instead of going after Osama which is going to haunt us for generations and the little scam was to smear anyone who, who got on to their ginned up intelligence and tried to tell the public about ..." M. Dowd

Maybe Bushies just like the killing and maiming of brown people in other countries more than they love fixing their own country. And torture, they fight for the right to torture.

It's weird seeing Canadians still supporting this B.S. This war has lost the support of the Iraqis and the American People...why do they hate freedom?

Reader tips:
We could make a map of SDA readers

Why will the Canadian Mint not release or publish on their website the itemised list of Dingbat's expenses? I don't give a bucket of road apples what those two auditor's reports contain, period. I bet that a stack of pasture pies is worth more than the paper that the Mint's "Expenses Policy" is written on and the minds that contributed to it's creation.
Is the illegal lobbying not a criminal offence? Where's the investigation? Dingwall doesn't deserve even week old viscera for "entitlements".

Whoa Steve!

Some US hatred coming out? First off, please know that this is not a war per se to the people of Iraq. It was initially, but now it is a group of terrorists who hate every one and anything they stand for if they don't agree with the terrorists perspective. (Sound familiar?)

I agree that there were nebulous connections between Iraq and Osama, but there is a general "get the christians" attitude among the more militant countries. Sooner or later this was going to come to a head EVEN IF 911 had not occurred. That is the connection that Mikey missed in his 911 kampf.

"Killing brown people" is not the objective of the US, killing terrorists is. Killing brown people, white people, women, children and anyone else - that's the property of the people you support. Thanks for the vitriolic hatred of a country that will need to defend Canada's collective butts because we sit in our livings rooms and whine. The US deserves our thanks, not our random, illogical musings.

Oh I get it now. If the US leaves, goes away, withers and dies, then we will have peace on the planet. Maybe your planet, but definitely not earth.

God - I wanted to be polite and rational - but now I'm pissed!

Forgive SDA readers, for I have crossed the boundary of rationalism and moved towards emotionalism. God, I'm becoming a liberal.

Steve in B.C

That's a Good idea.

Let me give you my distinct GooglEarth coordinates... 56d05'52N 113d20'17W

It is of the FINEST resolution... Thanks to,

http://www.digitalglobe.com/

jim c.
"Some US hatred coming out?"
No...just for this lost-the-vote administration.

I like Americans. Hell, my grandaughter is an American girl.

Knight of Good Mr. Iron Man:

The Frappr map is a suggestion for Kate, as she would have to admin it.

And to think that some on the left accuse me from time to time of "censoring" their comments.

Why on earth would I do such a thing? The stuff they post here is solid gold!

Ain't that the truth!

Lots of people exhibit a real detachment from reality. Lots.

JimC, getting emotional on issues isn't becoming liberal...it's just shows where the heart is. A major problem liberal's have is they get into a lather "what if'ing" on issues all the time and never really put in the real effort to fix the problems that plague those issues.

Case in point...the liberal government spent $200 million to rebuild a native reserve thinking that all those new flashy buildings would solve the reserve's social problems. Looks like it only fixed the buildings. To fix the other problems will take REAL EFFORT and not from the government. The liberal controlled government totally struck out on this one...not much of a surprise.

Canada hopes to open embassy in war-torn Baghdad by mid-2006

ALEXANDER PANETTA Wed Oct 26, 6:11 PM ET
http://www.rapp.org/url/?9FQSC3Z2 >>>>>>>

Baghdad is in Iraq. Berlin is in war-torn Germany. Tokyo is in Nuked Japan.

Q: Where is Kashechewan?

A: Third-World Canada. Q: Who is the Prime Minister of Kashechewan, Canada? Answer: ___ ____.

"So what is the next move then if the right move is to stay in Iraq? "

The right thing to do would be to train Iraqi policemen to be able to police their own country and that appears to be what's happening. The U.N. might want to suck it up and become involved but that's not likely after the Food for Oil fiasco. If Iraqis didn't support this process, why did they show up in force to vote for the constitution? Obviously the wrong thing would be to give up on Iraqis simply because the going is tough.

BTW, I don't quite understand the concept that telomeres are only inherited from fathers. Telomeres exist at the end of chromosomes inherited from both father and mother. Perhaps the paternal effect is in the expression of Telomerase, an enzyme that works to rebuild the repetitive ends of chromosomes and allow for repeated cell divisions.

'Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew today [Oct.26] made the following statement regarding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments about Israel:

“On behalf of all Canadians, I want to vigorously condemn the remarks made by Iran’s President. We are in the 21st century. Canada will never accept such hatred, intolerance and anti-Semitism. Never.

“We believe that this extreme view does not reflect the opinion of the Iranian people.'
http://w01.international.gc.ca/minpub/Publication.asp?publication_id=383274&language=E

Once again the Iranian government will be quaking in their slippers at Canada's continuing refusal to accept their behaviour (Kazemi). My goodness but our government is giving it to them.

And how does M. Pettigrew know what the Iranian people think, one way or the other? Just wondering what polling firm has been surveying them.

Mark
Ottawa

Mark, would you rather have Pettigrew say nothing? Or better yet, if you were in Pettigrews shoes, what would you say, as a diplomatic response, to those utterances of Irans gov'?