The Shotgun Blog
Friday, May 05, 2006
I love you, Monte SolbergI've met Monte a few times. Shared a few laughs. Gave him a quilt (long story). But now, I love the guy. Love love love him. Here's why:
His [Jack Layton's] comments followed an Ottawa visit by Cindy Sheehan, who has become an outspoken anti-war campaigner after the death of her son Casey in Iraq. She used a Parliament Hill news conference yesterday to urge Canada to offer sanctuary to U.S. deserters.
When Casey expressed his misgivings about fighting in Iraq before his deployment, Sheehan offered to drive him to Canada. He was in Iraq five days before being killed in April 2004.
Responding to Sheehan's pitch yesterday, Immigration Minister Monte Solberg told reporters: "If Mrs. Sheehan has a bone to pick with the U.S. administration about the war in Iraq she should take that to Washington. It'll be Canadians who decide Canadian immigration policy."
Posted by RightGirl on May 5, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I love you, Monte Solberg:
Participation in the Iraq war is not a pre-requisite for automatically allowing someone to Canada. They should apply (and qualify) for the landed immigrant status, pay relevant money and have the proof of required funds (about 15 K for a family of three, if I remember correctly), they should wait for their file to be processed, attend an interview (if required) and land - like everybody else. I don't think the refugee status should be applicable to them either.
I also hope Solberg will not only share his comments re certain issues, but will clean the mess which Canada's immigration system has become.
Posted by: Acer | 2006-05-05 4:53:47 PM
Careful - Monte is a married man.
Way to go Monte - call them as you see them. No doubt he'll draw flak from the usual critics, but he's wise to just ignore them - as usual.
Sheehan is a very deceptive person, dragging her son's memory through the mud just to score a few cheap political points.
Read this link: http://tinyurl.com/euelj
She's being lying about how her son came home. She alleges that the military treated the body with disrespect - which they adamantly deny. The funeral home is also not happy with her for lying about how they did not pay for his burial plot.
When will the NDP and other leftists come up with something that is credible. Socialism just doesn't work anymore.
Posted by: Scott | 2006-05-05 5:02:02 PM
Cindy Shithead is in Show Biz ... nothing more nothing less.
Posted by: Duke McGoo | 2006-05-05 5:13:28 PM
OMG, this from Jack Layton:
"It makes a lot of sense to welcome these young people [Americans who don't want to fight in Iraq]...We're glad they've chosen our country."
Yeah, Jack. These kids have YOUR Dipper view of the world but there's been a change of government in Canada: Remember?
While I might feel some personal sympathy for these young people and their families, I sure as heck don't want Canada to become a haven for dippy, fuzzy, left-leaning young people who, next thing you know, will be demanding to vote even though they're actually draft dodgers.
Is that what you have in mind, Jack? For the next election? Right here? In Canada?
WAY TO GO, MONTE!
Posted by: new kid on the block | 2006-05-05 5:29:56 PM
I might have felt sorry for draft dodgers when they were actually dodging a draft. But now they're all volunteers. They CHOSE the army. That should not be a "get into Canada" pass.
Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-05-05 5:35:58 PM
Give the dodgers a few years in Canada and they will be tenured spewing lefty university profs and radio talking heads on CBC and affiliates - a la Andy Barrie.
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2006-05-05 5:54:02 PM
- I sure as heck don't want Canada to become a haven for dippy, fuzzy, left-leaning young people who, next thing you know, will be demanding to vote even though they're actually draft dodgers. -
You don't have to be an American war dodger to be the aforementioned, check out the results in Toronto and our other large cities last election. I would say we have a good many of these people already in Canada,
The Libs and Dippers not only want them, they require them to regain power and maintain it. Lets hope the common sense revolution takes hold in these bastions of socialism before it is to late.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-05-05 5:56:00 PM
A word stronger than love. In this case, wisdom.
But, RightGirl don't be deterred by this faint hearted "married man" stuff spouted by Scott.
I sent so many marriage proposals to Ann Coulter (via Binyamin @ Jewish World Review) with no response until my wife (of 35 years) just gloated as she told me of Ann's MARRIAGE !!! to some other guy.
I didn't read her column for a couple of days but now I've decided to work things out with her.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-05-05 6:50:41 PM
Another "celebrity" is also criticizing CPC policy.
Bono, of U2 fame, says the new budget doesn't give enough money to foreign aid.
Gee, when did this guy suddenly become the world's conscience?
David Spade said it best on SNL about 10 years ago: "Whatever happened to Bono? Last year he was the biggest rock star in the world, and now he's like Potsie (Anson Williams from "Happy Days" who now works behind the camera.)"
There are economists, scientists and many other knowledgeable, articulate people in the world whose contribution to humanity will never be known, but someone with a little more than 15 minutes of fame suddenly has more credibility than all of them put together. What a world!
Posted by: Scott | 2006-05-05 7:21:52 PM
It works like this.
Look, Dick, look. The pictures are moving.
Run, Sally, run. Wow.
That must be real, what they put up on the screen.
Especially the stuff Michael Moore makes up.
I’m still with you.
You know, those movie stars are bigger than I am. They really must be something.
Bigger than us. Smarter, too.
Hurray for Hollywood!
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-05 7:37:23 PM
set you free: since I am immune to the deranged rantings of the CBC, Michael Moore has no effect on me. I have not seen any of his crap and never will. It is a total waste of my time. But I am appalled at how many people buy into his and other Hollywood stuff. People will believe what they want to believe.
Posted by: Scott | 2006-05-05 8:25:52 PM
As recruits who have refused to take responsibility for their decisions they will make perfect dippers. No wonder Jack welcomes them with open arms.
Posted by: potato | 2006-05-05 8:43:21 PM
Perhaps these deserters should be allowed in - but only within the boundaries of Toronto. After a few hours there, Fallujah, Baghdad and Ramadi will seem relaxing and hospitable by comparison.
Posted by: Scott | 2006-05-05 9:09:41 PM
Just f88king amazing!Jack has shown us his vision of Canada. No wonder they are so against forestry,he is afraid of running out of trees to hug.
Posted by: wallyj | 2006-05-05 9:31:34 PM
Just had an awful thought.
If Monte Solberg became prime minister, would he be know in thread-speak at PMS?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-05 9:45:03 PM
I'm surprised Solberg wasn't kicked out of caucus for not sticking to the script.
Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-05-05 11:21:04 PM
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-05 11:25:07 PM
The NDP (Nutty Delusional Pinheads) get more irrational every day. As wallyj says, Jack's just shown us another version of his vision for Canada which now includes Cindy Sheehan's wacky and irrational mind ramblings.
I just don't get the guy. When you watch him on TV, he looks like a military man, trained and bred, or an old-time private school teacher, but when he opens his mouth out pour the ravings of a pot-smoking, addle-brained throw-back to the Trudeaupian '60s--or any-other-era Utopia.
Jack, have you not been able to figure out that socialist Utopias, which break the bank and ensure equality of misery for every citizen, go down the drain after their first blush with "success"--a success (sic) which is just a figment of the deeply delusional imaginations of lying and adolescent North American journalists, viz. Walter Duranty and Anna Louise Strong (a cousin of Maurice Strong, I kid you not: Read the latest edition of WS, page 32)?
Grow up, Jack. Plug into the real world, man. Have a few kids with Olivia so both of you can begin to understand what it takes to bring up children to be respectful, polite, contributing members of society--which, in my vernacular, means not being on the dole or a government gravy train. You think strangers can do the job, paid for by every Canadian--there you go again, breaking the bank and ensuring servitude of the Canadian tax payer--but real life doesn't work that way.
But, Jack, be my guest: Keep encouraging wackos like Cindy Sheehan to stick their noses into Canadian politics and show Canadians your true colours. The more you reveal the Nutty Delusional Pinhead philosophy the less chance there is that Canadians will buy into it: The best you can do is pull the wool over the eyes of 20%.
Posted by: new kid on the block | 2006-05-06 5:24:51 AM
Unlike draft dogers who may retain a modicum of principled justification for their actions ( involuntary servitude in a war they may disagree with), deserters from an all volunteer US force (read: uncoersed, voluntary contractual military obligation with their government) have no principle to fall back on. The time for pacifist reflection was before they contracted to take military pay for military service and accepted the stated risks involved.
Although no threat to society, these deserter-defectors ARE guilty of capital crimes in their own nation and we do not allow escaping criminals sancuary in Canada....unless they are directly connected to the Liberal party. ;-)
Posted by: Wlyonmackenzie | 2006-05-06 8:12:57 AM
You guys are fantastic - absolutely hilarious - keep it up.
Just keep the quality control - no posters (other than us horrid "Liberal trolls") with IQ's over 90.
No, wait, you're doing a great job.
Posted by: torywatcher | 2006-05-06 9:51:53 AM
"Just keep the quality control - no posters (other than us horrid "Liberal trolls") with IQ's over 90."
Was that inane remark an example of your superior I.Q.?
Posted by: potato | 2006-05-06 11:43:54 AM
And what, exactly, is your point? (Other than the one on your head)
Posted by: Zog | 2006-05-06 11:43:55 AM
Heard the news today 10 US soldiers died in a helicopter crash in Iraq.
So torywatcher, I guess it's a good thing Jean Chretien cancelled the helicopter deal in 1993.
That means our troops can't die in a US-style helicopter crash because WE DON'T HAVE ANY FREAKING HELICOPTERS.
BTW: My IQ is 126, my son's is 135. Did your mother have any kids that lived?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-06 11:59:53 AM
Wow, he (Torywatcher) just proved the point we've been trying to make for years: they just don't have the brains to run the country.
Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-05-06 12:01:26 PM
What does yours actually check out at Torywatcher?
Go ahead if you want to lie about, no one will know but you!
Posted by: Kevin | 2006-05-06 12:25:05 PM
Right girl, Monte Solberg is a very intellegent man and he is a just man. I share your enthusiam for his comments on wacko jacko's comments. Why would Canada cater to American soldiers (male or female) who chose to join the armed forces so they could gain access to the 'perks' offered to soldiers only to want to bail out when they are asked to do the job they signed up to do? Cindy Screaman wanted to be the mom of a educated -by - the -state Doctor or lawyer! Things didn't pan out that way and scindy is in a snit. You would think she would have more respect for her dead son. Schindy is a disgraceful person IMO and Jacko is proving to be just as disgraceful by welcoming her ilk to Canada.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-05-06 12:27:38 PM
Wanna have a battle of wits? Even though it's unfair fighting against an unarmed man, bring it on.
I'm dancin' right now, waiting for your first punch.
Hang on now ... I think I'm hearin' some chicken sounds.
Bawk, bawk, bawk.
Oops, time to go hide behind Big Brother. Help, big brother, help.
What do I do now? I can't make decisions for myself, big brother, Help!
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-06 12:28:15 PM
It seems unreasonable to expect Jack and Olivia to have a child.
They'd have to have sex first, wouldn't they?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-06 12:34:29 PM
120? 130? :-)
Posted by: Kevin | 2006-05-06 12:34:37 PM
You're obviously headed in the wrong direction.
Let's start the opening bid on Torywatch at slightly smarter than an average house plant and work our way down.
Do I hear 50? 49? ...
Psst: Torywatch. Where are you? Still consulting with the Central Committee?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-06 2:31:23 PM
Actually, in my late teens about 164, but I don't know any more.
Idiots abound on the left and right.
Me, I spend my time actually doing business, making money in a responsible fashion, starting companies, buildings companies, sellign companies - that sort of thing - the sort of thing you guys seem to tlka bout, but not apparently ever do.
Good luck to you.
Posted by: torywatcher | 2006-05-06 2:44:43 PM
Is that your waist size or are you just boasting?
Are you afflicted by aspergers? Much are they among us.
Highly-intelligent, yet unwise in the ways of life.
Making money? How 'bout 100 grand in the stock market since early November? Dat me.
Did it with the help of a stockbroker, but have done some online.
I believe you're a closet Tory, making it on your own and all.
I believe you're in denial with your inner feelings, since you are incapable of feeling and since you believe idiots are all around you.
Wisdom is not just a high IQ score. It's about getting along with people, helping those less fortunate than you ... in other words, Conservative values.
Much have you to learn.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-06 4:28:27 PM
He still has much to learn about his previous influences have poisoned his outlook.
His detoxification period does not have to include being dragged through the streets on a meathook ... that seems so jihadist and intolerant.
He has expressed his observation that he's surrounded by idiots. So be it.
He has been challenged to a battle of wits, but has not yet accepted. Instead, with his autobiographical vulnerability, he has demonstrated he is willing to learn.
It takes much courage to do this. I would never wish anybody die of AIDS.
I only wish nobody dies inside because of ignorance and hatred.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-06 5:14:16 PM
Well I congratulate you Torywatcher on your impressive score. If it's the truth you've got me beat by twenty points, good on ya.
I always assumed though it really didn't relate to much in any practical sense. I often find Leftists dismissing it as a racially &
socio-economically biased exam. You contend otherwise?
Should be selecting our leaders on the basis of the test? Should we decide the lives of those that score 90 or less because they're unfit to make informed decisions? Perhaps raise the bar to 163? Please tell us wise Liberal sage!
Yes, I'm certain there's not a competent businessperson among the Conservatives or anyone that visits this site!You must be psychic as well as wise, lucky you!
Adscam gave us a taste of how at least some Liberal businesspeople succeed. Perhaps the Auditor General's report on the Gun Registry, and getting the significant funds that currently fall outside of the department's supervision within it will, provide further illumination on this.
How'd you an impressive intellect like you wind up here anyway, fall down a rabbit hole?
... and if you are exaggerating about your IQ you're the only one that knows it, and that's all that counts! :-)
Posted by: Kevin | 2006-05-06 6:24:51 PM
Since you are an individual of superior intelligence by anyone's measure, please enlighten us. So far you have been condescending without substance. Address the issue.
Posted by: potato | 2006-05-06 8:32:05 PM
You ask: Is there a word stronger than love?
In the English language, there are plenty, It is such a vague word because of the myriad of its meanings.
I can love a beer.
I can love a dog.
I can love a beer and hot dog.
I can love the sunset.
I can love my mayday tree.
I can love my neighbour.
I can love my country.
I can love my children.
I can love my life so far.
I can love my wife.
You can love Monte Solberg.
They're all different, but they're the same word.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-06 10:48:00 PM
But--and I'm sure you'd admit this, Set You Free--that sometimes when we use the word "love" we trivialize it or water it down, though I agree it's in the vernacular to stay.
Like, when we use it to say "I love hot dogs" when we could have said "Hot dogs are FANTASTIC!" "Or hot dogs are THE BEST!", etc.
"Love" is best used for noble purposes, as in I love my neighbour, my country, my children, my wife, my dog, my cat, and even Monte Solberg.
But who better, Right Girl, to help you express your emotions to Monte Solberg than the immortal words of Cole Porter, with a an added sweep around the ballroom?:
You're the top! you're the Colisseum,
You're the top! you're the Louvre Museum,
You're the melody from a symphony by Strauss,
You're a Bendel bonnet,
A Shakespeare Sonnet,
You're Mickey Mouse!
You're the Nile! You're the Tower of Pisa,
You're the smile of the Mona Lisa!...
You're the top, you're Mahatma Gandhi,
You're the top! you're Napoleon brandy,
You're the purple light, of a summer night in Spain,
You're the National Gallery, you're Garbo's salary,
You're sublime, you're a turkey dinner,
You're the time of the Derby Winner,...
You're the top, you're a Waldorf salad
You're the top, you're a Berlin ballad
You're the nimble tread of the feet of Fred Astaire
You're an O'Neill drama, you're Whistler's mama, you're Camembert!
You're a rose, you're Inferno's Dante
You're the nose, on the great Durante...
You're the top!
I think he'd get the picture.
Posted by: new kid on the block | 2006-05-07 5:24:33 AM
"In many ways I hope this guy really is just another whiny little adolescent faggot. Because if he really is a Liberal-friendly "businessman", then he's in a world of shit. I hope he enjoys being dragged through the street on a meathook, because we are coming after him and his kind, and they are going to be dealt with.
Whereas if he's just the snivelling little pansyass he seems to be, he'll be allowed to die of AIDS on his own time."
Hmmmm. Interesting. Do you actually think people who talk like this are the "good guys"?
Posted by: John | 2006-05-07 9:20:24 AM
Deserters should be given refugee hearings like anyone else coming to this country who has run from intolerable conditions.
America has lost its way. It is now known that the war in Iraq is being fought based on lies, or incompetance. Lies because the administration misrepresented intel to suite a decision that was already made, or incompetance because they didn't thoroughly examine all available intel before going to war.
Either way this is an abuse of the trust soldiers place in a government they have pledged to defend. In my opinion this renders their contract null and void. They owe their government nothing, so they have little choice but to run. We should be there to help.
Someday America will come to its senses again. That, or the Empire will crumble.
Posted by: John | 2006-05-07 10:04:21 AM
Grow up. There hasn't been a war at anytime in history where you couldn't find underlying lies and incompetence at some level. Hiding behind the "Bush lied" PC leftist rant is thinnly veiled moral cowardice. The reality is that Western civilization is at War with Islamic jihad. Fly-papering much of that action in Iraq is just a bonus. Taking out a Hitleresque type like Saddam needs no higher justification. As to the predictable retort that if one can justify unilateral action against one thug then why not X or Y thug, unfortunaety, as Steyn says the Anglosphere nations along with a few others are the only force in the world willing to undertake necessary actions given the uselessness and complicity of the UN. You have to pick your battles carefully.
As to US deserters, They should take their "principled" stand in Leavenworth (they don't shoot deserters anymore).
Posted by: John Chittick | 2006-05-07 11:27:51 AM
Never done one whit of business with the government. As some of you might find out, being a "friend" of the government in power costs people like me a lot of money - you give, in money and time, in support of the cause, and because you are a "friend" of the government, you can never, ever do any business with the government.
There are, of course, snakes on all sides who do the opposite and make life hell for everyone else.
Very easy to get a rise out you guys. You will need to develop a much, much higher level of resistance to criticism. Can't imagine how you would react if 100% of you were labeled criminals for the actions of a few assholes.
People like "ebt" are far too easy a target.
Re. you comments, Kevin, despite the usual gratuiitous "liberals are criminal scum" subtext, you are absolutely correct that being smart does not solve anything or equipt you to do anything in the absence of experience. It is this absence of experience that I bemoan on all sides of the HOC, and particularly on the current givernment side.
Experience coupled with intellect leads to intellectual curiosity which leads people to explore all sides of various issues, and all points of view in a debate - you know, a debate, like what used to go on in cabinet. That is why I come here form time to time and only very occasionally comment when the crass partisanship exceeds the normal high levels.
To "set you free" what you might be more reasonably asking yourself and your Tory colleagues is what is so conservative about taking an already far too high level of expenditure by the Liberals and RAISING IT BY 8%!! Particularly when the hodge-podge of highly targetted tax cuts ($.000000002 tax credit per stair to able-bodied overweight adults who climb stairs rather than use escalators) also smacks of some the previous Liberal gov't silly tinkering. Hardly a dramatic statement of a new conservative era.
You owe it to yourselves to talk about these issues and reign in nutjob idiots like ebt.
As for my own "testing" I would be highly surprised if mine hadn't dropped considerably since my youth, because the illusion of certainty has long since dwindled. The more you learn the more you realize you have to learn and the more you realize you don't know.
Hell, I even learned a couple of things here.
Posted by: torywatcher | 2006-05-07 11:55:54 AM
"There are, of course, snakes on all sides who do the opposite and make life hell for everyone"
Yes torywisher they are called liberals that was the problem and that's why they are gone. Unfortunatly, however, you are correct about this budget. Nothing conservative about it.
Posted by: WinnipegLibertarian | 2006-05-07 12:39:53 PM
I never implied that all Liberals are criminal scum Torywatcher, and I certainly don't think that's the case. The criminal scum would be a very small minority. It was in response to your assertation suggesting that either Conservatives, or at least the posters to this blog, had never accomplished anything in the business world and that you're the only one here getting things done.
Making the criminal connection may have been gratuitous, although I find that failings of the Liberals (speaking of the government, not party members) are so quickly forgotten that I often feel a need to bring them up. However if my comments about their criminal dealings are gratuitious, how would you describe your comments about IQ's & accomplishment when you likely have little to no knowledge regarding any poster here?
I suspect you are probably being honest regarding you IQ test score & your accomplishments. Instead of just dropping by & laying down a few dismissive insults why don't you offer more intelligent criticism? Like a lot of us you probably don't have the time, but don't you think it would be much more in keeping with the individual that you describe yourself to be?
Posted by: Kevin | 2006-05-07 3:55:19 PM
ebt - I don't know that though, so I don't want to assert something I don't have any substantial proof of, otherwise I'll be only making the same types of remarks. I do normally question the thought process or business practices, of a businessperson who supports the Liberals. I certainly don't think they're all crooks though, from my experience most who at are least softly supportive of the Liberals tend to be not very involved politically & uniformed. I can think of a few excellent businessmen I know that fit that description, so involved with their own firms they don't find much time for anything else.
I'm not trying to be a smartass with you, but I don't understand your harsh remarks about homosexuals. Trust me I'm an ardent heterosexual, I consider myself in debt to the women who have allowed me to punch above my weight in that area. :-)I don't understand the homosexual attraction but neither do I understand the derision given to them. Most of them surely contribute to society and don't deserve to be scorned merely because of their (consensual) sexual practices. I'd agree that they could develop a sense of discretion in their parades, I don't think many heterosexuals would support a like parade of similar content.
I read numerous posts from you that were excellent and that I learned from, I hope you'll give this some consideration. As I sometimes point out, I consider every male homosexual one less competitor for the ladies. :-)
Posted by: Kevin | 2006-05-07 7:28:06 PM
As an old VietNam vet, I think I have a good idea of what to do with American deserters who flee to Canada.
Instant deployment to Afghanistan.
I think that Canada should run some kind of ad, the gist being the following:
American deserters! You're highly trained and highly qualified! Canada welcomes you with open arms! Enjoy pay, benefits, and instant deployment to Afghanistan in the Canadian Forces, one of the finest militaries in the world.
Don't be disgruntled at home, leaving those skills to waste. Be part of the solution. Desert to Canada!
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2006-05-07 8:25:12 PM
John, I do not support the war in Iraq, however, those soldiers who skip American army can't make a case for the refugee status. It's not like they are prosecuted for their religious, political or other beliefs. They simply violated a professional contract. Nobody forced them to enlist in the army, after all, it's voluntary.
If they feel their lives are in danger, why did they even become soldiers? it's possibly lethal by default.
Posted by: Acer | 2006-05-07 9:13:24 PM
Casey Sheehan volunteered for the army when he was 20. He reinlisted when he was 24 knowing he would likely be sent to Iraq.
He was a devout Catholic, trained as a mechanic, trined to provide medical aid to fellow soldiers and certified to assist with giving ommunion in the field.
When an American partol was ambushed ans asked for help, a quick reation force (QFR) was formed to attempt a rescue. Sheehan volunteered for the QFR - which was in turn ambushed and Sheehan was killed along with Corporal Forest J. Jostes.
A secon all-volunteer QFR was formed to rescue the first. Altogether seven men were killed with Sheehan that day:
They were Spc. Robert R. Arsiaga, Spc. Ahmed Cason, Sgt. Yihjyh L. "Eddie" Chen, Spc. Stephen D. Hiller, Spc. Israel Garza, Cpl. Forest J. Jostes (mentioned above), and Sgt. Michael W. Mitchell.
Cindy Sheehan refuses to allow her son the liberty and freedoms he died to defend. He made choices, courageous, honest and honorable choices to serve his nation and his fellow soldiers as he best saw fit.
No nation or society can ask for more from a citizen than he give his life for others protecting democracy, liberty and justice.
Posted by: WestViking | 2006-05-07 9:15:06 PM
WestViking, sounds great in writing. However, it is nothing but a classic piece of demagogy - the history of the United States (and a bunch of other countries) has multiple examples of how the individual sacrifices of their citizens not only were forgotten, but clearly humiliated and degraded. Take Vietnam war veterans, for example. Now officially the war in Vietnam is a big mistake, and the veterans have had a tough time dealing with such an assessment. I am pretty sure it will be only a matter of time when the veterans of the Iraq war will face the same attitude. By the way, we are already seeing a more recent example of the state refusing to take responsibility for Iraq war veterans - I mean the condition many soldiers and officers developed after exposure to specific radioactive weapons in Iraq - now hundreds are developing multiple health problems and the refusal to officially connect their condition with their war-related activities means these soldiers will be denied a compensation and adequate treatment.
If a state does care about its citizens, then the number of war and other victims will be as minimal as possible. Or at least they and their families will be fully taken care of.
Posted by: Acer | 2006-05-07 9:40:20 PM
If Casey Sheehan were alive today, I have no doubt that he would join West Viking and Monte Solberg and George Bush and his proxies at Fox News in sneering at his mother for her lack of patriotism and her failure to adhere to the agenda as defined by the Project for the New American Century.
Really, the nerve of the woman! How dare she suggest that the death of her son wasn't a price worth paying for a military adventure based on false premises, undertaken in hubris and botched from the beginning? What right has she to impugn the reputations of fine men like Messrs Bush and Rumfeld and Perle, men who admired and respected her son more than she ever could hope to?
I will now await the reflexive death threats from ebt, the loudmouth pussy from Calgary (if we are to believe his email). I'd call him a homophobe, but despite Kevin's effor to reason with him, I suspect he spews the word "faggot" the way most teenage boys do, as an all-purpose term of abuse. Much the way so many of you folks use the term "liberal".
Posted by: truewest | 2006-05-07 10:35:31 PM
Why would Monte want to appear on FOX news?
He was merely, in a pretty consice way, stating Canada has a right to set its own immigration policy.
I agree there is a high level of immaturity displayed here and even though I enjoy a good schoolyard debate, it does get tiring.
Now, if you'd care to dig deeper on the story, it appears Gen. Tommy Franks had much to do with the failure of articulating a rebuilding plan for Iraq. Franks retired about six months after the invasion was launched.
He knew he was going to retire, so why bother making a rebuilding plan. But, in the US, criticizing the military appears to be a taboo.
Much like a boss sometimes has to take the rap for an employee's incompetence, the admiinistration that's left has to shut up and eat the mistakes of the guy they trusted.
BTW, weapons of mass destruction was one of 28 reasons originally articulated in the invasion justification.
In one of the terms original treaty Saddam signed after he was driven out of Kuwait, the United Nations agreed to let him continue in power as Iraqi president as long as he revealed where his weapons of mass destruction were hidden.
14 UN resolutions later, he still had not and in the meantime managed to make billions for himself off the UN sanctioned Food for Oil program.
So, if mammy Sheehan has gripes with anybody, it should be with the United Nations, who are too spinesless to enforce their own resolutions.
The US, as usual, was left to do all the dirty work and get no thanks for it.
Freedom is never free and that's the price that has to be paid.
Canada's previous policy of ‘being nice' went out in about 1976, when the punk rock explosion showed the youth of that day grew tired of the hippies, whose only ultimate accomplishment was creating a market for the drug trade.
I'm starting to ramble, so I've got to sign off.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-08 8:17:13 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.