A diplomatic incident

How do you denounce an e-mail anyway?

I wonder if Gerard Kennedy condemned Hezbollah and terrorism as strongly as he's 'condemned' a political fundraising e-mail.

I think there's a thin line that Harper's crossed now in terms of actually doing things that will cost him many votes as he acts in ways he think will help earn him his majority.

Harper needed to be openly and loudly called out on this one. Good on Kennedy for once again showing he's a strong fighter who can react to the PM with both speed and substance.

Now that I think of it, I suppose you could go as far as to call this partisan war profiteering

Findrasing Tactics ???

Wow, more non-news masquerading as something important!

When in Government, the Liberals made regular appeals to members and prospective donors by e-mail and on their website. They always used the Prime Minister, and the current issues to emphasize 'the importance of making your donation today'.

Of course, their e-mails dealt with earth-shatteringg issues like gun registries and stopping evil Conservatives, not petty things like taking a principled stand in support of democratic nations over terrorist thugs.

Now the Conservatives are in Government, and the standard 'support our Prime Minister' fundraising e-mail becomes a dark and sinister tool for evil.

Perhaps Mr. Kennedy would like a little cheese with his whine?

This is inthe globe and mail today. Nice work exposing this scandal PublicEye.

Denouncer, you make a rather specious comparison. Hezbollah is not our governing party... Harper's Conservatives are. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense for someone running to become opposition leader (and eventually Prime Minister) to strongly denounce our governing party sending out fundraising letters to raise money on the backs of those enduring the tragic conflict in the Middle East. In fact, any Canadian should feel comfortable questioning the Prime Minister and the governing party on its judgement in this respect. Frankly I think the person(s) responsible for the e-mail needs to step back from the partisan political context and get some perspective.

Paul I also see a difference between referring to a government's central agenda and its policies in a fundraising e-mail, and exploiting a conflict in which hundreds of civilians are dying (including Canadian citizens and peacekeepers).

And this is not an issue of whether one supports Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, or the USA. We can all debate about the merits of each position. The issue is whether the tragedies befalling thousands of people should have been used to leverage money out of supporters. No matter where you stand in the debate...

Folks, the CPC is short on cash. See their accounting statements to Canada Elections. The CPC is in the red. And, the CPC will not get any election money back until they hand in all their accounting records, which the CPC is now shy to do (see Convention-Donation-Gate).

Further, understand that Steve Harper has sacrificed every political associate he ever worked with... his boss as a Progressive Conservative (who he ran against), his bosses as a Reformer (both Gray and Manning), his Reform roots (by joining with Mulroney as his advisor), his social-conservative roots via his parents missionary alliance backgroudn(Harper is an atheists), his country's non-partisan position on the world stage (see current discussion). Canada to the US on Lumber... etc.

Donison is just fresh-meat for Steve Harper. His party needs money and getting a lacky to use another country's war to get him political money is Harper's political way.

"Folks, the CPC is short on cash."

This surprises me, Eugene, I was totally unaware that the Tories were short of money. Surely though, you're not suggesting that the Conservatives face anything like the kind of cash and debt problems that the Liberals are up against?

According to elections cdn site: Libs are in the black a few hundreds thousand the and CPC in the red the same. That is not the story.

More importantly, the Liberals will get their election money back as soon as their elections returns are processed...likely within 90 days. In contrast, the CPC will need to hand in about 160ish EDA returns still outstanding *plus* convention accounting before getting their election money.

i.e. it may be a long while before the CPC has enough money to fight an election!

Further, with the cheque-swapping investigation in the works, the CPC may have significant trouble raising money as the consquences of that $2 million undeclared donations may hit a lot of the CPC's regular donars...

i.e. the CPC may have long-term money issues.

Eugene, the overall picture you're painting here is totally contrary to everything else reported. The Liberals were believed by January to be facing a post election debt in the range of over $30 million. I will have to check the Elections Canada website, but importantly the year end 2005 reports won't probably show the real picture. It will take till the 2006 figures are in, sometime in early 2007.

After the 2004 election, the quarterly Elections Canada reports showed revenue flowing the Conservatives over the Liberals in a roughly 2 to 1 margin. The NDP was in about the same boat as the Liberals, a bit further behind.

Hi Budd,

With the CPC remember, 1) Convention-Donation-Gate when calculating conservative donations and "cheque-swaping". Donations are apparently matched by expenses. 2) The CPC had to pay $7 million in PCPC debt. 3) Election Canada can withhold election funding until satisfied EC has all the records they need to answer all the questions asked. -> Thus, the net negative current debt of the CPC, the current fundraising problems due to the financial scandel, and the current crash cruch within the CPC.

As for the Liberals, I don't need to pump or punish them... just note partisan reporting when you see it. The numbers at elections Canada are what they are.

Believed by who, Budd? You? Conservatives? The NDP?

Elections Canada posts the financial statements for everyone to see.

Eugene,

The Conservatives didn't hand over their convention-gate books so we don't really know if they have millions in cash socked away in those accounts.

Jim writes, "Eugene, The Conservatives didn't hand over their convention-gate books so we don't really know if they have millions in cash socked away in those accounts."

If they do have such accounts, then there are serious issues ahead for the CPC. No such donations to a political party can go undeclared in Canada. No use of such funds for political purposes can go undeclared in Canada. And, such accounts would be directly subject to tax laws and income tax laws.

Just for interest... ask yourself (and the CPC): why is it that the CPC head office declared $2 million in office expenses in 2005 and almost nothing in the previous year for the same??? What's with that?

Convention-donation-gate will come back to the forefront in about 60 days when any extentions for filling are legislatively beyond their limits. At that time, I think Elections Canada can simply refuse to hand over any elelction money due to lack of compliance... which I think would be a lot of money gone for good from the CPC. And, EC can ask for a judical order... and EC can turn the matter over to rev cdn and the RCMP. Currently about 160 CPC EDA are in this reporting limbo land and nationally EC questions have not been answered nor have the books been turned over to them.

"Convention-donation-gate will come back to the forefront in about 60 days when any extentions for filling are legislatively beyond their limits. At that time, I think Elections Canada can simply refuse to hand over any elelction money due to lack of compliance... which I think would be a lot of money gone for good from the CPC. And, EC can ask for a judical order... and EC can turn the matter over to rev cdn and the RCMP. Currently about 160 CPC EDA are in this reporting limbo land and nationally EC questions have not been answered nor have the books been turned over to them."

This is a sad example of someone hoping for a specific outcome to occur, which won't.

Is this the kind of thinking we want from a new
Liberal Party, a return to the old days of telling the voters that "you see folks this is what's wrong with that party"? compared to coming out with something such like "we will ensure that the provinces receive fuel tax money owed to them so that they can get on with the job of fixing Canada's highways and roads"

Either old thinking or new thinking. The choice is yours.

Talk to your leadership candidate about it.

Published from coast to coast and at the Hill Times:

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/july/31/let1/&c=1

* Two weeks into the bombings in Lebanon and the internet's blogsphere erupted angrily over the weekend when the Conservative Party's internet media wing called Steve Harper a hero. The PM called Israel's bombings in Lebanon a "measured response" to Hezbollah's kidnapping of two soldiers and Mr. Harper used his government plane to pick up 100 evacuees.

In contrast to calling the PM a hero, the evacuees on the plane asked him, to his face, to tell Israel to stop bombing civilians. A measured military response in any war zone does not include bombing civilians.

As Canada's Prime Minister, Mr. Harper should have spoken up for the Canadian civilians killed in Lebanon.

This is the second time in six months that Steve Harper has failed to grasp that his first duty as Prime Minister of Canada is to defend Canadians under fire. Previously, he would not speak up for our diplomats in Baghdad when U.S. troops opened fire on our embassy's convoy.

The Lebanese government does not want either of the current combatants in their country–neither the Hezbollah nor Israel. And, the Lebanese government understands that innocent civilians are not a legitimate part of Israel and Hezbollah's conflict.

Steve Harper should understand that his loyalties must include the innocent–regardless of whose country they come from. Why has our PM failed to grasp this?

Eugene Parks
Victoria, B.C.

On the main point when Lebanese stop letting Hezbollah put rocket launchers in their back yard, they won't get bombed. Perhaps if they had supported their own govt in a purge of all foreign Hezbollah fighters out of their country, none of this would have happened.

Budd, et al - Eugene's conjectures are so riddled with incorrect statements as to be pointless, he is only striking out because of his failure to be nominated. Here's a few facts.

1. The CPC (& Libs) has submitted their financial statements as required by the Act. http://www.elections.ca/fin/rep/2005/cp_2005.pdf
The important figures for 2004 & 2005 are:

The Lib's net assets over liabilities are -1.9 mil for 2004 and +440,000 for 2005 with a -2.9 mil of revenue over expenses in 2004 and +2.3 mil in 2005.

The CPC net assets over liabilities are -1.3 mil for 2004 and -687,000 in 2005 with +5.7 mil of revenue over expenses in 2004 and +627,000 in 2005. The 2.1 million left of the PC debt is the drag factor here but the Party is doing what they should be doing spending money to elect more CPC MPs. They are not spending more than their annual revenue. At the next convention, the membership will assess on the performance of the National Council and if they don't like these numbers, will vote in new people.

2. The quarterly payments were announced on July 7th and the extensions referred to by Eugene apply to the financial statements above. There is no connection to convention donation issue which is an administrative disagreement which I believe will be settled in our favour and against the Liberal practice of claiming tax receipts for services that they purchased. As an attendee at that convention my fee paid for my share of the hall rental and my share of all the other expenses. If the CPC made a profit, that % of my fee is receiptable.

3. The cheque swapping issue is built on a false premise which is shown in filings of the EDA. As the convention form shows, an EDA had to pay a $490 delegate for all 14 of its delegates by Dec 14th, 2004. If there was a "cheque swap" $490 donations would show in the 2004 filings.

As the actual delegate selection meetings had to be conducted in January and the delegate made the donation to repay the prepaid $490, it would be recorded as a donation in January. In all of BC, one EDA shows 4 donations on the same date as their DSM. I have yet to put together the other provinces. There may be a few rogue EDA with a high level of former PCs who doing things the old PC way and their actions should be corrected but Eugene's national conspiracy theory is a pile of steaming bull dropping as is his usual M.O.

George links Lebanon, fundraising, convetion-donation-gate and "bull dropping"... in one post - well done. And, that is about right. The CPC is deep into a one big fiscal crises and using the tragic situation in the middle east to try to get out... "bull dropping" in their paints in full view of the public.

"On the main point when Lebanese stop letting Hezbollah put rocket launchers in their back yard, they won't get bombed."

George I am quite surprised, shocked in fact, that you would make such a bald and unforgiving declaration barely two days after an air raid in Qana killed nearly 60 people, most of them children. I have asked other posters this question, so now I will ask you. Are you seriously suggesting that kids of 5 or 10 or 15 years of age are responsible for historic events or today's terrorist bombings?

War is a violent business by its nature but events like this make reasonable people question who is the aggressor and who is the defender. I do not doubt that Israel is surrounded by countries that are hardly friends and must defend itself, but I don't think it's factual or reasonable to suggest that Israel is surrounded by superior, better armed adversaries. The record demonstrates the contrary.

And it is still true that Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, even if those weapons are not on the table at the moment. You should know that one of the main considerations for Britain and America to invade Iraq was their fear that if Hussein ever did acquire medium range missiles of any degree of effectiveness, and was able to put together some kind of biological weapon and fire it into Israel, that the IDF would immediately respond with an overwhelming nuclear barrage that would involve millions of fatalities. From that moment onwards any hope of saving the situation in the Mid East and beyond would be zeroed out forever. IOWs, in the backroom calculations of the US and British intelligence experts and strategic types, Hussein had to go not so much because he was himself such a total kook, but because his murderous michief, if left uncheced, might end up provoking an even greater and more devastating nuttiness on the part of the Israelis.

Returning now to the more mundane topic of Canadian political party financing, I haven't had time to check out the Elections Canada website, but your link is to the Tory report only. The year end 2004 report for the Liberals showed a very substantial bank debt, and I find it hard to understand how that has been eliminated (if it has) given low contributions and another election to pay for.

Budd - In respect to your war question, yes I think the tactic of terrorists using children as human shields which results in those deaths is wrong and in fact is a war crime. I don't see the UN et al, moving in to arrest the Hezbollah leadership. But to cancel the attempts at precision bombing to make the terrorist tactic sucessful and give them free reign to keep firing missiles at Israel thus killing their children. Millions of leaflets have been dropped advising non-combatents to move up to the north, who is stopping them from leaving? Hezbollah, of course.

http://www.elections.ca/fin/rep/2005/liberal_2005.pdf
The short answer to your question is that you can't forget the $9 million in govt subsidies or that the Libs take the election rebates from their EDAs which was $6.5 million in 2005. The media blew up the size of the debt as well.

"Budd - In respect to your war question, yes I think the tactic of terrorists using children as human shields which results in those deaths is wrong and in fact is a war crime. I don't see the UN et al, moving in to arrest the Hezbollah leadership. But to cancel the attempts at precision bombing to make the terrorist tactic sucessful and give them free reign to keep firing missiles at Israel thus killing their children. Millions of leaflets have been dropped advising non-combatents to move up to the north, who is stopping them from leaving? Hezbollah, of course."

George, please, I think you know better than this. Your use of the old "precision bombing" nostrum is really too much. The Americans were claiming precision bombing in WW2 using the Norden bombsite. It's always been a dodge, since aerial bombardment in urban areas will involve an all but unavoidable loss of civilian life, something air force types are understandably squeamish about and don't want to admit.

You're quite right that using civilians and children as human shields is a war crime. Do you suppose that attacking unarmed UN observations posts is a war crime? This isn't the first time that has happened, and no reasonable person would pretend it was an accident. These guys manning the big howitzers aren't freelancing, you know, and they're not firing in today's world with optical sights and old National Georgraphic maps. They had coordinates and orders, period.

I notice you don't deal with the fact that Israel is a nuclear power in all but name, nor with the matter of how she might use those weapons in various eventualities. Suffice it to say that the last few weeks has done little to add to the argument that she would do so hesitantly or with great restraint.

Budd,

George is using the excuse, "the devil made me do it" .... nothing more nothing less.

Profoundly inappropriately, Israel used coventional bombing to destroy civilian infrastructure, which has civilians underneath. There strategy was classic warefare... i.e. cut off supply and escape routes of combatants - tragically without regards for consequences to civilians. That is why roads, bridges, airports, sea ports etc. were bombed and why civilians there died. Of course, Hezbollah was not there... just Labaneese.

What Steve Harper seems not to understand is that the Lebaneese and its civilians are not the same as the Hezbollah and that traditional WWII style military tactics (such as bombing civilian infrastructure) is not appropriate against an enemy like Hezbollah. The ignorant and crass blanket endorsement of Harper's conservatives towards civilian bombing is appalling. To then go further and try to raise money based on it shows a level of moral corruption that needs to be called into account.

Morbid, morbid discussion of political partisanship and party funding where the question is how to get hotheads with large artillery to stop blasting innocent people into smithereens.

This discussion does indeed show a level of moral corruption which scares me silly. Stop it.

Pie-in-the-sky,

So you know, I'm not a member of any political party.

So you understand, the civilian bombing cannot stop so long as it is being endorsed.

Lasting solutions cannot be built so long as civilians, terrorists, combatants, and neighbouring bystanders are all lumped into the same category. That is truly a morbid way to address a situation.

As a nation, we have failed in this crises. We failed to speak for our own; we have failed to speak for the innocent; we have failed to speak for the cause of lasting peace; we have failed to be a nation providing vision and hope beyond the crises of the day. Canada needs to reflect deeply about the message we sent to both ourselves and the world.

"So you understand, the civilian bombing cannot stop so long as it is being endorsed."

So why not any critical comment regarding Hezbollah, Eugene?

It has been noted many times, that Hezbollah uses civilans as targets and Hezbollah wants nothing less than the destruction of Israel.

You seem to be ragging on Israel more than you have on Hezbollah.

Why is that?

"What Steve Harper seems not to understand is that the Lebaneese and its civilians are not the same as the Hezbollah and that traditional WWII style military tactics (such as bombing civilian infrastructure) is not appropriate against an enemy like Hezbollah."

So what is your workable solution? Do you have one or is this another sad case of using an issue like this to rag on Harper again. What if
Martin or Chretien took the same position? Remember it was the federal Liberals that sent the Canadian Forces to Afganistan in the first place and they did vote in majority to keep them there.

There are 3 issues for me in this debate:

1) While I vehmently disagree with Harper's position and believe that Canada should take a neutral position to be able to play the role of honest broker--Canada does not have the ability to enforce any agreement and that is why both sides are asking the U.S. to step in.

2) Israel has killed more civilians than Hezbollah soldiers, and after 20 days still has not been able to make a significant impact on Hezbollah's military capabilities. So they should stop bombing and ask an international force to come in and push Hezbollah away from the border.

3) While Israeli jets have killed civilians, its worse that the Conservatives are fundraising on the deaths of Israelis and Lebanese. At least Israel can defend its actions as vital to its national interests, whereas the Conservatives can't justify why they are sending out emails asking for money-other than their debt.

Maybe the latest poll is just an indication of how wrong Canadians think Harper is on this issue.

Addressing GritGuy

He writes, "So why not any critical comment regarding Hezbollah, Eugene?"

Eugene responds: That's a factually false statement above GritGuy.

Gritguy further writes, "It has been noted many times, that Hezbollah uses civilians as targets and Hezbollah wants nothing less than the destruction of Israel. You seem to be ragging on Israel more than you have on Hezbollah... Why is that?

The above is factually false. I've been ragging on Steve Harper and Israel for not distinguishing between Hezbollah, the Lebanese, and civilians - Canadian and Lebanese civilians in particular.

Previously Eugene wrote: "What Steve Harper seems not to understand is that the Lebanese and its civilians are not the same as the Hezbollah and that traditional WWII style military tactics (such as bombing civilian infrastructure) is not appropriate against an enemy like Hezbollah."

Gritguy writes: "So what is your workable solution? Do you have one or is this another sad case of using an issue like this to rag on Harper again."

Eugene responds: I support a full DMZ between Lebanon, Syria, Israel that is occupied by a full UN force capable of keeping the peace. I also support a connected Palestine that has access to the sea.

What if Martin or Chretien took the same position? Remember it was the federal Liberals that sent the Canadian Forces to Afganistan in the first place and they did vote in majority to keep them there.

Eugene responds: That's a dumb hypothetical question. Steve Harper is the one that gave a blanket endorsement of civilan bombing. Martin and Chretien are gone and history now so who cares about a hypothetical about them???

Pie in the Sky - in your statement "the question is how to get hotheads with large artillery to stop blasting innocent people into smithereens" you mispelled Katyusha as artillery. Once the Hezbollah religious hotheads agree that their plan to kill every jew in the middle east is wrong and stop firing rockets at Israel, we will have peace.

Budd - the whole Hezbollah army is just over 3000 soldiers, if the Lebanese population had rose up and evicted them as they did to the Syrian army - they would not be being bombed now.

Hezbollah put military assets next to the UN post, the anti-Israeli UN under corrupt old Kofi kept them there when they should have been pulled out. Hezbollah and the UN are responsible for these deaths.

As to your question on nuclear weapons, actually I believe that the Syrian govt should be told flat out that if they don't stop funding Hezbollah and allowing Iran to send weapons through their territory, Damascus will glow. Likewise with Iran, if they persist in trying to build nuclear weapons - their reactor will be nuked.

The Western world has always made the mistake of assuming that if we gave into the Muslim world when they engage in military action against us, their response will be engage in diplomacy and develop a compremise. The Muslim culture thinks we're showing weakness and increases their aggression. Knowing that Israel understands this they are purposely killing their own civilians in order to turn world opinion against Israel. So in my opinion, those who do not support the eradication of the various Muslim terrorist organizations is responsible for those civilian deaths. Every single whiny left wing anti American one of you.

In closing, I also do not agree with the statement that Canada has been neutral, until Paul Martin we were consistently anti-Israel in the UN.

George (Pringle?) writes, "... Damascus will glow. Likewise with Iran, if they persist in trying to build nuclear weapons - their reactor will be nuked."

You seem to be directly calling for nuclear war??? Or maybe you are advocating mass civilian bombing(s)? Is that what you mean to say?

Canadians might be disturbed to know that CPC party activists and (former?) executive assistants to conservative members of parliament are calling for nuclear war in the Middle East.

For whom are you speaking? Is this your personal view or is this view shared by party members and other insiders? Can you clarify what you are saying?

"Hezbollah put military assets next to the UN post, the anti-Israeli UN under corrupt old Kofi kept them there when they should have been pulled out. Hezbollah and the UN are responsible for these deaths.

As to your question on nuclear weapons, actually I believe that the Syrian govt should be told flat out that if they don't stop funding Hezbollah and allowing Iran to send weapons through their territory, Damascus will glow. Likewise with Iran, if they persist in trying to build nuclear weapons - their reactor will be nuked.

The Western world has always made the mistake of assuming that if we gave into the Muslim world when they engage in military action against us, their response will be engage in diplomacy and develop a compremise. The Muslim culture thinks we're showing weakness and increases their aggression. Knowing that Israel understands this they are purposely killing their own civilians in order to turn world opinion against Israel. So in my opinion, those who do not support the eradication of the various Muslim terrorist organizations is responsible for those civilian deaths. Every single whiny left wing anti American one of you.

In closing, I also do not agree with the statement that Canada has been neutral, until Paul Martin we were consistently anti-Israel in the UN."

Posted by George on July 31, 2006 07:32 PM

Well George, I think this post puts you squarely into a certain camp. If in your opinion an Israeli nuclear strike on Syria is a great idea, I am thankful that your are not in the Israeli Cabinet!

Let me remind you that in the case of Iraqi or Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions, in the past the IDF used conventional air attacks to disrupt those activities, something that was clearly an act of war, but which avoided breaching the nuclear threshold. One would hope that, at a minimum, the wisdom of the past would not be forgotten in future.

Your descriptions of the Muslim world, the UN and previous Canadian Govt policy taken together make you sound like just a wee bit of a conspiracy theorist, ... always looking for another grassy knoll.

Eugene, I said the threat of a nuclear attack which would be enough to convince the leadership of Iran and Syria to back down. They can easily fill young men and women with religious nonsense and send them out to be martyrs but if their own cowardly hides are put at risk, they'll back down.

Assad and the Syrian govt also has concerns the Hezbollah and a fundamentalist revolution is a threat to their rule as well and might just take the opportunity to purge them out of his country.

And actually, I'm not a member of any Party at the moment, more out of laziness on renewing but still not a member so don't do one of your silly things like claiming I'm a CPC spokesperson.

Budd - there's a good sidebar listing of Canada's votes in the UN in this week's Georgia Straight, the one with Nelly on the cover. Unless you'll claim this publication is a rabid right wing rag ...

does terrorism exists only in the arab countries? are the muslims now the terrorists of the new world?
well the muslims are the owners of the great civlizations that existed before the last two centuries .. really before the conquer of the european countries to the arab world they took it's science and left so much hatered and illetracy.. they even involved us ion worl wars although we didn't have anythind to do with it
AND FINALLY england gave our lan to israel as apiece of cake or a small birthday present.
and so the world thinks we are terrorists but the truth that we are people trying to live in piece but no one leaves us alone and when we defend our selves you come again and accuse us of terrorism
hazbollah is suffering enough and how we can blame him because the isreali army killed 60 civilians in QAUNA most of the are children..
GOD HELP LEBONON AND PALASTINE AND IRAQ AND THE NEXT COMING COUNTRIES
A NEW MIDDLE EAST WITHOUT ARED PEOPLE WITHOUT HOMES LEFT AND NEW BRAN SCHOOLS BUT SADLY NO CHILDREN ARE LEFT AFTER THE WAR AND DESTRUCTION ISRAEL IS DOING..