Follow this link to the citizen story:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1977c92a-9650-4906-a5ca-64867f1b6bef

No surprise here. I was on the Parliamentary Task Force on Government wide Procurement review that originally, under immense pressure from Public Works DM Marshall, produced these numbers. My role was to represent the views of DND on procurement matters and so I saw first hand exactly how this “target” was set.

In the fall of 2004, then PWGSC Min Scott Brison took what were in reality preliminary WAGS (bureaucratese for wild ass guesses) developed by the Task Force on the possible savings that might accrue from changes to the procurement system and high jacked them for political and personal purposes. He then trumpeted these savings as real to a meeting of the Canadian Club in Toronto. Mr. Brison was trying to ingratiate himself with his new masters and please his boss PM Martin.

The most willing partner in this fraud was I Davis Marshall, DM at PWGSC.

It is therefore most revealing and laughable that in his memo Marshall blames the government for changing tack on the procurement overhaul. Nice try at obfuscation DM!

Here are the facts: with Mr. Brison’s effective elimination of the independent nature of the Parliamentary review, the most important step in the entire renewal process was also terminated. That step was the planned consultation phase with all other government departments. However, there was extensive consultation with the private sector and the uniform worry was that small businesses would lose out to the standing offer model. How right they were.

In place of the needed government wide discussion, I David Marshall instead met very privately with a few select DMs. Recall at the time the Liberal government was desperate to find savings and the heat was on the PS to come up with the goods. So, armed with backing from the Privy Council office, Mr. Marshall’s plan to consolidate all common procurement under PWGSC control was a real trap for other DMs. They could capitulate and hand over the procurement role exclusively to PWGSC, or, they could fight back and try to find their own savings. So, they caved in virtually without a whimper and budgets were cut before the savings appeared. Neat trick but, hey, that’s leadership in Ottawa.

My DND boss at the time, Procurement ADM Alan Williams, is quoted in the article by Kathryn May as assessing the memo from Mr. Marshall this way: “It’s no surprise. We’ve known this would happen from the get-go. And I don’t think they will get what they are promising now if they don’t build a solid foundation, bringing in industry and getting the endorsement of departments and then make them accountable for results.”

The current PWGSC Minister, M Fortier in his appearance before a parliamentary committee suggested the $2.5B was pulled out of “thin air” and that the target setting process was backwards. Yes, it was, but it was backward because of the political machinations of Min Brison and his malleable henchman Mr. Marshall. I guess political diplomacy prevented him from telling us why it was done backward.

As if this failed adventure was not enough, Mr. Marshall also masterminded the contract with the gurus from AT Kearney LTD in an attempt install a ‘reverse auction’ for procurement. Several Citizen articles enlightened readers about this little gem. This contract farce saw an uncompetitive contract balloon in renewals from around a million to $24 million over the next few years. When these two $350,000 per year men missed key meetings in England, Marshall had no choice but to cut them loose. I often wonder just how much Canadian taxpayers had to fork out to end the contract.

Yet in spite of this litany of arrogant mismanagement, we are told that Min Fortier has confidence in his deputy!

Here’s my call: I David Marshall will be allowed to retire within six months. He should be terminated immediately.

This offensive article is not yet available to link from the Thursday issue of the Citizen. When it is on line, I will provide the link - stand by!

Upon reading this fatuous piece of nonsense today I decided it is time to say "enough is enough".

Our soldiers in Afghanistan deserve a strong rebuttal to the defeatist, leftist pap and I know that they are constrained from participating openly in the public dialogue. As a civilian retiree from National Defence and a member of Course 41 at the National Defence College, Fort Frontenac, Kingston, Ontario, as well as being the first civilian Director at the College, I feel it my duty and privilege to speak up against this ill informed mumble.

So, here we go. This article has as well been submitted to the Ottawa Citizen for consideration as an op ed piece.

After his disastrous handling of both the William Sampson case and the Maher Arar affair while head of Canadian consular matters, Mr. Pardy is in no position to tell anybody anything. His failure of responsibility and judgment and that of his colleague Mr. Franco Pillarella (in the M. Arar case) are now well known and condemned by Justice O'Connor. Both Mr. Sampson and Mr. Arar suffered enormously in Saudi Arabian and Syrian prisons because of this incompetent bureaucrat.

Here is a rather telling excerpt from the testimony of Mr. Sampson to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Nov 6, 2003 :

“Certainly the handling by the Department of Foreign Affairs officials here in Canada of my family during this rather difficult situation for us was again less than adequate.

To give an example of this, it would appear that the Department of Foreign Affairs operated from the earliest stages as if I were guilty, long before I even had a trial, a trial that turned out to be nothing more than a farce, a trial at which I was brought before three judges without representation, without witnesses to the event other than those provided by the Saudi Arabian government. Even before that, I had received indications from the embassy officials that they considered me to be guilty, and my father in March 2000 had an embassy official in Riyadh actually state to him that they considered my situation to be very similar to that of the Hell's Angels in Montreal who themselves had been involved in turf wars.

To have members of the Canadian embassy making statements like that at those times was contrary to my best interests and contrary, certainly, to the best interests of my family. Subsequent to those statements my father asked for clarification on these points and received the most cursory and off-hand comments that one could imagine from Department of Foreign Affairs officials such as Gar Pardy.”

In just one of the many egregious statements in his flawed Citizen article, he says this about the US policy in Asia at the time of the Vietnamese War: “The cost of withdrawal for Vietnam and Asia – except for the people of South Vietnam (my italics) – was short lived, and today it is difficult to understand why millions of people had to die.“

Hum, those who were "short lived" were the poor South Vietnamese but no matter for Mr. Pardy. It is this warm attitude that allowed Mr. Sampson to rot in a Saudi Arabian prison for two years.

To further demonstrate his complete confusion and lack of understanding he claims, “Unlike Korea, the geography of Indochina allowed the North to initiate and sustain a war in the South…” This absurdity comes after he first tells us that the North Vietnamese had the will (my italics) to achieve their objective of a united Vietnam . I wonder if he is even aware of the critical role played by China in the Korean conflict. And by the way, last I looked, the North Koreans  have about a million soldiers massed  at or near the North/South demarcation line established in 1953.

His biggest whopper is to cite none other than William Jefferson Clinton to support his whine that we get out of Afghanistan .

Here is the reference in full. “Although Iraq is not Vietnam and 2006 is not 1968, the public policy issue is the same. As Bill Clinton recently reminded us, when you are in a hole stop digging”

Coming from a disgraced President whose best defence against his accusers was to ask, “that depends on what your definition of is is”, Mr. Pardy’s choice of references to bolster his viewpoint is priceless and pathetic.

However, there is some truth in his view that determined national liberation movements cannot be defeated by a foreign state at a price the foreign state is prepared to pay. This is particularly true when the foreign state is a democracy, but the ‘price to pay’ argument also applied to the USSR in its Afghan campaign.

Of course to complete the picture fairly, Mr. Pardy should have noted that the motivation of the USSR was the control and subjugation of the Afghan state; conversely our Canadian objective in Afghanistan is to create conditions in which the Afghan people can freely determine what government will lead them. Those opposing our Canadian and NATO objective there are warlords protecting their lucrative poppy trade and the misogynist, religious fanatics of the Taliban. Not what you would normally call ‘national liberators’.

Unfortunately as well for Mr. Pardy’s thesis, those currently causing the horrific situation in Iraq are as far from ‘national liberators’ as you can get. They are rather a mix of Islamic jihadists, sectarian extremists and those hoping to return to the power they held under the murderous reign of Mr. Saddam Hussein.

I am sure that Mr. Pardy believes the Islamic cry that it is all about chasing the US ‘occupiers’ away. Yea, right. Then tell me how come Iraqi’s ‘national liberators’ are killing each other in huge numbers rather than focusing on the occupiers?

In another unsupported take on world history as he sees it, he posits this: “In Iraq there are at least three such ‘national’ liberation movements trying to emerge from the callous decisions made in Paris in 1919”. No, wrong. Any fair reading of the recent Iraqi elections and constitutional agreement would conclude that it is the voters who are the true national liberators trying to rid themselves of the religious zealots and back to power seeking Baathists.

Amazingly, Mr. Pardy tries to rewrite a near universal concept about war and policy. In the minds of most experts, war is simply the last stop in a linear expression of vital and strategic national interests. In other words, war is the next step after “jaw, jaw” fails. For Mr. Pardy however, war is not part of the policy continuum – “it is a world unto itself”. He says that its support is not to be measured in the same way as other policies on say, clean air or taxes. That’s fine, it should not be considered in the same way but it must nevertheless be considered. That consideration is generally expressed by reference to our highest sense of national consciousness. Simply put, at the end of the day, what is it that we stand for?

He is simply wrong to postulate that war is isolated and separated from all other decisions made by governments. But just how he imagines it does work in this isolated bubble he fails to say. The position is logically indefensible.

War decisions are at the top of the hierarchy because they embody a determination of the vital national and strategic interests of the country. He may disagree with the decision - that is his right in our democratic system - but to argue as he does that the Afghan war is as a result of “the hubris of some politicians” exposes why the best thing Mr. Pardy has done recently is to retire from the Foreign Service. At least his ability to cause harm is now limited.

cn 

Here is the link http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=b240d93d-2216-496d-a100-7a13234ade04

The following is the email I sent to Mr. Radwanski that does not likely require further explanation.

Hello Mr. Radwanski.

Thanks for your article that shows the beginning of your reality check on our friend Mr. Layton. However, you let him off the hook so easily that I fear you are likely a bit of an NDP partisan.

Way back, I was a lifeguard at our yacht club pool in Hudson and Jack was an energetic 11/12 year old swimming like a fish and constantly on the move. I liked him and all the kids enjoying summer! So, I knew him well.

That said, as a reporter you should do a little more work on your subject before expressing your opinions. For example, you note that 'for whatever reason', the leader is 'obsessed' with breaking through in Quebec .

You should read what he says about his grandfather in rebuttal to charges he is a typical no-war NDPer - a charge laid when the first Afghan debate was about to get underway, to get a sense of what is behind this passion.

Second, he is Quebecer like me and he fancies himself as understanding what Quebecers want and need. Third, his dad Robert was a conservative cabinet member, elected in Quebec and there are many other family members who distinguished themselves provincially and nationally. I think you get the point as to why he is obsessed.

You dismiss his outrageous suggestion that we begin negotiations with the Taliban and oh, yes, "cut and run" by February as simply a "complete betrayal of his party's usual commitment to human rights and women's rights in particular".

It is well beyond a mere change in party policy. It is a betrayal of our men and women in the CF, a betrayal of our commitment to NATO and a betrayal of Canada 's history.

You have to be living in a very thick, opaque bubble to even imagine that this position is acceptable to anyone beyond the extreme fringe of the NDP party. Sorry I should qualify this as the over 90% endorsement of the 'pull out' resolution shows, however it also proves my point. The entire party is fringe on foreign policy issues

Further, his declaration (as if his statement of something makes it true) that we are a nation of peacekeepers is so utterly at odds with Canada's proud military history and a misreading of that bedrock liberal and NDP delusion about "peacekeeping" itself. Again read any reputable assessment of the peacekeeping missions undertaken since Mr. Pearson's initial foray and you will be hard pressed to find kind words from anyone about the value, effectiveness or utility of any of these missions.

I worked at DND (civilian) for years and on many occasions debated this issue with the most senior military and civilian cadre possible. To bring the peacekeeping issue and missions up to current times (vice say Cyprus ) and you will find nothing but failure - see General Delaire, see Bosnia , see anything that General Mackenzie has to say - again you probably get the point.

Other that that, your article was, shallow at best.

Sincerely

Colin Nelson
Ottawa

Recalling these terrible moments is for me to relive the feelings of falling into the abyss of fear, of the unknown and the unknowable.

Yet in spite of the facts that we know, it is the distortions and myths that poison the soul of our nation.

Today’s National Post story on a Can-west News poll is chilling: 20% of Canadians believe that the events were orchestrated not by al-Qaeda but by Americans looking for a pretext for war in Iraq . As a measure of how lost our schools and public institutions have become in their anti-Americanism and political correctness, more that 26% of youths aged 18-34 believe in this conspiracy madness. Worse still is that 53% of those polled believe the attacks were “a very specific violent reaction to foreign policies of the US government.

We can thank N. Chomsky and his running dogs for this intellectual inversion. As I have said many times before our Canadian political correctness and ability to see and embrace all views no matter how antithetical they are to our own values and interests will be our downfall. Ultimately, to stand for everyone’s ‘values’ is to stand for none.

For proof of the source and fuel for this kind of uber political correctness and self-loathing look no further than the NDP party as a whole and its leader specifically.

Breathtakingly, he believes we can begin negotiations with the Taliban. Following his twisted mindset, evidently 92% of the 1500 delegates at the Quebec City convention this weekend endorsed what will be one of five platform points for the NDP – pull Canadian Forces out of Afghanistan by February 2007.

One of the tragic outcomes of 9/11/06 that is emerging into view is this: even at the highest levels of political leadership (and we see this globally), reasoned debate using a more or less agreed set of facts, has disappeared in favour of emotion and opinion. It is I think evidence of the searing and personal nature of the events of this date and the aftermath that has brought us to this dark place.

Last night my wife printed out a couple of pages of images from the Twin Towers attack – images that were beautiful, tragic, heroic and inspiring – done as she said to remember that amongst the dead were at least 24 Canadians. She did them for our son (he is ten) to take to school to share with his teacher and classmates.

<a href=http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sep11/cdncasualties.html”target”=_blank”> This link</a> provides the names of those who perished.

He was reluctant. I suggested he could just give them to the teacher saying that perhaps they could be put up on the class bulletin board. He was still clearly uneasy. When, after a few more tries I asked what was bothering him, he replied,” I don’t think our teacher likes Mr. Bush”.

I could have cried.

cn 

On 11 Aug 2006, with echoes of the unimplemented Security Council (SC) Resolution 1559 still ringing in their ears the diplomats at the UN agreed to the following wording for SC 1701:

Let’s look at the relevant portions of the pap that passes for action at the UN.

Paragraph 8 of the resolution, “Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

-- security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11,” and further,

-- full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State;

Why am I not convinced that a single AK 47 or rocket launcher will ever be taken from the Hezbollah terrorists?

Here’s why.

First the French who brokered the ceasefire with the USA made a big to-do about the 7,000 troops it would commit to the UN effort alongside the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). But wait, next Chirac through his Foreign Minister postures that without “minimum guarantees” (Chirac – Times article) they will only muster up an additional 200 troops to augment the French UNIFIL contingent.

Could the memories of the murder of the 58 French paratroopers at the hands of Hezbollah while in their barracks in Beruit have been on Jacques mind? That’s right this attack was done at the same time as Hezbollah hit the US Marine barracks killing some 250 US soldiers.

Nevertheless, and no matter how valid the concern of repetition, scorn, derision and other kinds of abuse from all sides was heaped on the heads of the French.

Yet, even then I maintained some hope that the real intent was as stated – that this was a French attempt to get tough ROE for the force, up to and including agreement to add the ‘robust’ Chapter 7 – meaning UNIFIL is authorized to apply deadly force to implement the resolution.

Although the evident need for such capability must have been in the minds of the French leadership, the possibility that it would come into force was dashed from the first days following the resolution: first the Lebanese Defence Minister Mur said he would never even dream of disarming Hezbollah and Nazrallah flatly proclaimed it would never be considered as long as the IDF was still in South Lebanon.

Spin forward to when the Italians step up to the plate and pledge 3000 troops to the force as well as offering to take the leadership of the force should the UN so wish. At the time of the Italian pledge there was no word one way or another as to the detail of the ROE.

Feeling the international heat over its decision the French scrambled. In a brief comment that could not have passed unnoticed by President Chirac, President Bush in effect quite simply said - that’s the French for you. 

As befitted their self-image as the keepers of “La Gloire” and in the name of France, Chirac, in a display of Grand Arrogance then called on the other Europeans to belly up to the bar. A meeting was held in Brussels with Kofi Anan and the Foreign Ministers to arm twist for more troops.

Fast forward again to the article in The Times Online, 26 Aug and these current developments:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2329025,00.html

“We can now begin to put together a credible force,” Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, said after a meeting with European Union foreign ministers in Brussels.

Oh, OK, but Dear Mr. Sec-Gen, what about the resolution just passed? If the troops are not going to do the job, pray tell, who will? Or, have I missed it again and what Sec State Rice said is really true – Hezbollah will do it voluntarily? Wonder what the IDF thinks of that…

Still there is some good news too out of Brussels:

“The French President was rebuffed in his attempt to maintain his country’s leadership of the UN operation. General Alain Pellegrini, the French commander, will see out his term in charge of the existing Unifil, a force seen as toothless, but Mr. Annan asked Italy to take control of the expanded mission in February after Rome pledged up to 3,000 troops.”

“European ministers said that they had agreed to send troops only after winning a guarantee from Mr. Annan on clear rules of engagement to avoid the indecision that hampered UN peacekeeping in the Balkans. But Hezbollah’s disarmament appeared to remain unresolved, with European military planners suggesting that their role was to help the Lebanese Army to undertake the task, even though it may be ill-equipped and unwilling to do so.”

As incredible as it seems from this Times story, we learn that “European ministers said that they had agreed to send troops only after winning a guarantee (emphasis added) from Mr. Annan on clear rules of engagement…”

Well, well, well. A kiss and a promise from Kofi on the ROE issue and “voila”, the French are convinced enough to commit two battalions (up to 2,000) to the force!

One begins to wonder just when the propitious moment will come when Kofi will actually honour this guarantee and finally commit to the force ROE. For an objective observer, wasn’t the Brussels meeting the obvious moment to at a minimum put in place the required authority as seen from the European perspective? Evidently not.

Once again, the yawning gap between diplomatic realities and facts on the ground leads me to these conclusions:

- the UN never intended to implement the disarmament portion of SC 1559;

- the UN never intended to implement the disarmament portion of SC 1701.

Worse, the Blue Line (the IDF pulled back south of this line when it unilaterally withdrew from the buffer area of Southern Lebanon that it had occupied ever since chasing the PLO out of Beruit in 1982) a UN agreed and sanctioned demarcation line for the Lebanese/Israeli border is again open for ‘consideration’.

Specifically, the Shaaba Farms area at the intersection of the Syrian/Lebanese/Israeli border is to be looked at as per the ludicrous demand from Lebanese PM Siniora (the seven point plan).

Even by the dismal UN standards this is a low point and it again begs the question, when will the UN be put out of business?

Perhaps widespread knowledge of the next part of this obscene ballet will do the trick.

At this link, http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp

If true - it is all taken from public records and so is likely accurate – not only is the UN stale dated, but the very entity trusted by the world community to be scrupulously impartial and fair, the same UNIFIL that is currently bulking-up to perhaps 15,000 is aiding and abetting Hezbollah against Israel by the provision of intelligence information about IDF movements, equipment and strength.

In war time those who provide such help to the enemy are called traitors and the penalty for those caught is death.

It makes me sick.

cn 

cn 

This comment is not intended to judge what was said by the MP, I hold no brief for him or his views: rather, the critical issue here is the freedom of speech he exercised to comment on the nature of the current Supreme Court and the Head Supremo herself. More directly, his comment seems to me to be primarily directed at judicial activism long a subject for debate – thank goodness.

As often happens, the speaker did not quite have is ducks in a row and as a result he attributed words to Mme McLaughlin that she (evidently) did not utter. The occasion was the Lord Cooke Lecture in Victoria University , NSW in Dec 2005.

For those curious amongst you, here is the link to the text she evidently delivered. It looks to me as if only parts of the text are presented.

http://www.nz-lawsoc.org.nz/lawtalk/660Cooke%20lecture.htm

At the time of the lecture, an article did appear in (likely) either the National Post or the Ottawa Citizen in which the main thrust, similar to the MP’s misspeak, was the exact nature of the role of the Supremes. McLaughlin herself tackles the issue in her lecture noting that under a common law heritage such as ours, judges must apply unwritten constitutional “norms” to “trump bad laws or state action.” OK, but only sort of OK, because the outstanding uncertainty here is who decides and on what basis that something is a norm that will trump the written constitution or state action?

Now, the MP has resigned because of pressure from within the committee – partisan criticism according to Vellacott – even though, at the time of the lecture in Dec 2005, virtually the same questions were raised about what she said in the lecture or perhaps she said in an impromptu interview. In fact, the newspaper article I read about her lecture included immediately crisp denials from the PR flack traveling with Mme Supremo, excoriating anyone who could imagine such as thing as judges having really supreme powers.

My brief archives search failed to turn up the comments that I thought I had written on this event – perhaps they were only done as a comment in Little Green Footballs (lgf) but no matter. My clear memory is that the denial was too quick and too strident, a sure sign of damage control on full alert. Funny too I also remember that at the end of the denial, what exactly was said and in what context, was still rather opaque.

All of this a by way of preamble since the crux of the situation is this: both the NP and the Citizen report that the Canadian Bar Association called for the resignation of Mr. Vellacott! Neither story provided the rationale from the Bar for the decision to adopt this breathtaking viewpoint.

Just what role does the CBA think it holds with respect to the Supreme Court? Does it imagine itself as some sort of umbrella protector of the faith? To be precise, just who decided for the Association as a whole to call for the resignation and what “fine principle” is it posturing for in the call?

Last I looked, the Supreme Court and its members are not exempted from criticism or critique by any Canadian law or statute. Specifically, MPs have a duty to speak to these and other challenging issues of the day – that is part of the job.

Fact is however, there has been precious little questioning of the Supremes views and rulings, although the “activist court” that we have had in Canada ever since the passing of the vaunted Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has arguable extended the scope and intent of the Charter on several, perhaps many occasions. This is no secret.

Again what is no secret is that this bench has had a distinct left lean for decades. In my humble opinion, a left lean that is tantamount to “flavour of the month” in that it reflects not time honoured (and different) positions but rather, denies these opposing views as somehow – and to use the deconstructionist approach – lacking in validity deriving as they do from “dead white European men”.

Too bad the Bar did not do the right thing and praise Vellacott for, however imperfectly, making a public statement on the very public issue of court activism.

Just another nail in the coffin of our democracy.

cn

For those who do not have the opportunity to read the Ottawa Citizen, the joy of not having to put up with the ultra leftist views of columnist Susan Riley must be immense. For those of us who believe in “know thy enemy”, to have to read her diatribes against anything that does not fit her leftist view of the world and what Canada is all about, is necessary, but no fun.

On Wed, 12 Apr she was at pains to tell us just how ‘woefully irrelevant” Parliament is because the much touted “take note” debate on the Canadian role in Afghanistan was in her words, “a propaganda exercise”. Curiously enough, I do not recall her saying how woefully irrelevant Parliament was when the Liberals were in power, but what do I know.

To bolster her view she cites a recent Ipsos Reid poll that she claims shows that 48% of those polled want the troops home now. Oh, really? Now I could rag on about polls but will only say, that this firm is as card carrying liberal/NDP as you are likely to find in the country. So, as the first act of due diligence, check for the date(s) of the poll, check for the exact poll questions including the lead in ones as well as the caveats and the assertion she makes will lose its effect. Nevertheless, she uses this poll as justification for her view that the ‘elites’ (she means the Conservatives and anyone else who supports the Canadian position in Afghanistan) are out of touch with what the people really want.

All I can say is that we elect MPs not pollsters to govern our country.

On a positive note, she does seem to skewer all opposition parties who badgered the government into holding this airing of views but who morally and physically failed to show. For this lack of spine, she of course blames the Conservative government and particularly, Gordon O’Connor (BGen ret) Minister of National Defence, for his “bullying” by suggesting that historically the NDP, “don’t want the military involved in anything”.

This WW II reference somehow spun the leftist mind of NDP leader Mr. Layton to wrap himself in the act of his grandfather who resigned his seat in the Quebec legislature when the government of the day, “would not support going to war against the fascists.” Sorry Jack, but that was your grandfather, not you and in any event, you should well remember that the war/no war issue of the day was one that was completely split along French – English lines. No great act of anything here to vote your heritage.

The implication throughout the article is that somehow the Conservatives are to blame for the capitulation of the opposition parties when they had to literally put up or shut up. In this case they shut-up, a commendable decision given that their hand wringing over the troops in Afghanistan had nothing to do with legitimate international strategic or tactical concerns but everything to do with big P politics. That and the clear signals that those opposed are on the wrong side of history.

Interesting too isn’t it that even though this mission is both UN and NATO sanctioned the pacifist left mysteriously has decided that their normal lock step indeed slavish adherence to anything spewed out by their darling “do no wrong” UN is, well, wrong in this case. Hummm.

Speaking of history, from her own admission that she attended the House of Commons debate searching for answers to some important questions, it is also clear that she and those posing the questions are living in, at best, a pre-9/11 world. For example, she quotes Bloc MP Maria Mourani claiming that Canadians ask her, “Do we deliver democracy with weapons?” Further, she says other MPs asked how we will know we have “won” - when Afghanistan has a democracy as vigorous as ours? When all kids are in school and women are equal?

Well, yes these achievements would be an uncontested Victory. However, in today’s real world of Islamist fascism and the Taliban lunacy, victory will probably be more modest.

It will probably come as a surprise to her and Ms Mourani but the kind of wars that are the genesis of these types of questions were fought by uniformed national combatants, in set positions and maneuver along defined fronts or lines. This clean understandable (but only in hindsight) world has long gone. And, yes Susan and Maria, democracy is delivered by weapons – just ask all the European countries who were delivered out of Nazism by weapons in WW II.

But let me return to the beginning. Ms Riley starts her inept assessment by admitting that she “cut and ran” from the House well before the debate was over. OK, yes, it was language chosen to be oh so cute, ironic and dismissive of both the P.M. and President Bush.

Yet for me at least it speaks volumes. The fact is, she could not even stay in her place and listen to what was said. Best I can tell it was simply because the speakers were not saying what she wanted them to say.

Boo Hoo, woe is me.

cn

I was having lunch in the Fort Frontenac mess with the Commandant, MGen Frank Norman. It was just a typical quick break – sandwiches, soup, and coffee – before the afternoon lectures and syndicate discussions. We were deep in a policy thrash or possibly a curriculum debate that seemed to be quite important.

All of a sudden, I noticed General Norman looking over my shoulder. His face had lit up in a way I had not seen before in all the time we had spent together.

“Hello my Young Warrior!” he said in a booming welcome as a young, fit, keen-eyed officer headed towards our table.

It was of course a regular occurrence for visiting officers to stop in and say hello – the General had been Commandant at the Royal Military College (RMC), whose campus was just across the river from the Fort, where young men and women achieve both university degrees as well as commissions in the Canadian Forces (CF). He clearly had a great bond with many, a bond that could not include me as a civilian. The closest experience I had to this sense of bonding was with my Canadian Bobsled Team mates, due most definitely to the shared danger and the need to rely on one another, no matter what.

During the introductions, with great pride and respect, he again referred to this officer as “A Warrior”. I had not ever heard this term used out loud, in real life.

What was he talking about I wondered; it seemed to me to be a little over the top. It was also puzzling in that none of the approximately seventy Col/Capt (N) and general officer colleagues I had spent the last two years with had ever uttered this word.

But, hold on, there was one exception – a USAF F16 fighter pilot who was true to the bold aggressive, indeed arrogant, image of the ‘fighter jock’. He talked in war fighting terms but he was the exception.

The Oxford Shorter Dictionary provides these definitions for warrior: “one whose occupation is warfare; a fighting man, now used in a rhetorical way to apply to the fighting men and heroes of past ages and of uncivilized peoples”.

At that time, just at the end of the Cold War and the pending fall of the Berlin wall, the role of the CF had been marginalized and the missions undertaken were mainly peacekeeping. It was a time when uniformed personnel were being relegated by Canadian politicians to non-lethal activities and indeed, for Canadians generally, the CF had in the eyes on many almost ceased to be a fighting force and our proud history as fierce fighters in every theatre of combat was not talked about as a source of pride. We had become or were becoming a constabulary as several military historians and analysts had written.

When the officer begged off after a brief chat, Gen Norman still beaming explained that this was a special one, one of the true breed who would make his mark as a leader and a fighter. One of those who will go into harms way for his mates, his regiment, his Country.

I think this was the first time I realized what the profession of arms and the call to be a professional soldier is all about. Not all who wear the uniform have the opportunity to demonstrate what they are made of, but given the chance, they selflessly rise to the occasion.

This brings me to LtGen Rick Hillier. In an earlier post I wrote that Rick was the first officer I had heard use the word “kill;” in public referring to his (then) upcoming command mission in Afghanistan .

Today he delivered a speech to the Empire Club in Toronto . He referred to his job as CF Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) as the greatest job in the world because it is all about the people he is privileged to represent. Men and women who volunteer to serve this country asking only for the support of their fellow citizens.

In yet another first (at least in my memory of watching a succession of CDS since the mid-80s) he chose to use the podium time to introduce three CF personnel who had performed outstanding feats of bravery, showing dedication and character in the face of great personal danger. One was a SAR tech, one a soldier in Afghanistan . He then noted that he had just signed the CF annual promotion list and he then personally gave effect to one promotion on the spot, by ‘making up’ a Col (by changing the shoulder rank slip on) to the rank of general officer.

Let me assure you, all ranks and officers take note of these actions that do speak louder than any words.

In highlighting these individuals, members of the CF family, Gen Hillier showed us what military leadership means – he puts it all out for those in uniform (including the Reserves and the civilian component of the Department of National Defence) and calls on all Canadians to recognize these men and women as “the credentials of our Nation”.

Coming a day after the Afghan Mission “take note” session in the House of Commons, he also took the opportunity to clearly state that the reason we are in this difficult mission is in support of the best Canadian values; providing help when needed and offering security, safety and hope to those in danger . A clear and strong message that I trust is not lost on our MPs.

Unfortunately, the CBC announcer speaking in summary after the presentation just did not get it. The best she could muster up was to suggest that, “he is a good salesman”

Sorry, wrong.

He is first and foremost a Warrior and a Leader in a military tradition that goes back to the mists of time.

LtGen Hillier was not the young officer I met that day, but he could have been. And the CF has many more like him.

cn

Her column today titled Canada in dangerous world is available here:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/index.html

The article is a bit of a ramble over a variety of issues facing world leaders as they try and deal with the reality of the Islamo-fascism in a post Sept 11 world.

While she is able to correctly observe that all of us (I guess she meant those of us lucky enough to live in Western democracies), oppose the fascism that put Canadian hostage James Loney at even greater peril because he is gay, all she can muster up is this lament, "But how do you defeat an idea with an army."

Pathetic and typical of liberals who just don't get it.

Tony Blair addressed the issue of freedom before the US Congress in the summer of 2003:

"There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values or Western values ....Ours are not western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police."

"Good Morning Ms Riley: Your article today in The Citizen exceeds even your most excessive ubër-liberal/NDP screeds. Congratulations!

That you ask the question, "But how many want the same liberties we enjoy?" is typical of the cadre of anti-democrats who think that it is only us in the West who desire freedom or, to use your word, liberties.

What colossal arrogance and what a dead giveaway as to your dead-end thinking! While the Afghans may not, as you seem to suggest, decide to embrace Western style gay rights, that specific question is really beside the point.

The reason we and others are in Afghanistan that you seem to have missed, is to help create the conditions for Afghans that will permit them to choose the freedoms and human rights that they determine are appropriate for them as expressed through a democratic process. You must recall the fierce determination of Afghans to vote when given the chance.

It is entirely possible that not all of the particular liberties we enjoy would, in the end, be acceptable to Afghans. But, that is for the Afghan people to decide, not the fundamentalist clerics or al- Sistani.

What we are trying to achieve is a political/social/religious environment that allows for the free expression of the will of the people, not the imposition of any particular Western liberty.

Perhaps you should read Nathan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy particularly, chapter I - Is freedom for Everyone?"

cn