What ever happened to diplomacy?

Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a big splash at the UN this week. They were quite blunt - no diplomatic niceties. And I'm delighted.

I'm sure Sr. Chavez is echoing the sentiments of millions of Latin Americans. His reference to Bush as a devil emanating fumes of sulfur was classic. I'm less taken with Ahmadinejad and his theocratic government, but some of what he said is worth a listen. Morales of Bolivia waved a coca leaf during his speech criticizing American drug policy. Are we seeing a significant threat to U.S. hegemony in the Americas?

The Pope puts his foot in it

Benedict XIV raised a storm by quoting a 14th century emperor to the effect that Mohammad's spreading the faith by violence was evil. In his apology he protested that he was only quoting, but that begs the question of why he was quoting in the first place if he didn't agree with the quote.

Most people would agree that violence is no way to spread faith, and the point is well taken. But Benedict should not forget that Christianity for centuries used violence for that very purpose. Think of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the endless Catholic-Protestant wars. It is true that these conflicts were really about land grabs, power struggles and such, but religion was used as a motivating factor. Surely an apology would be appropriate here.

Is the present Muslim violence in the Middle East an attempt to spread Islam? I don't think so.
Rather it is a reaction to the political/economic dominance and damage of the area and its inhabitants by the western nations for the past two hundred years. So the Pope is missing the point. Muslims could care less which god we worship; Al Quaeda and their followers don't hate us for what we are, as Bush and Harper would have us believe, but for what we have done to them. And for what we are still doing.

CANADIAN ARMY IN AFGHANISTAN

Fighting for a lost cause is a foolish thing to do. Call me stupid, but I totally fail to understand the purpose of the Afghan mission other than to please the Bushies in Washington. Our soldiers are being killed by the dozens, and why? Is it to "bring democracy"? A fantasy at best. Is it to rebuild the country? If so, we're not doing it. Democracy can only exist in a population acclimated to it and it is hopeless in a land of warlords and religious nut-cakes. So, you may ask, what is the solution, wise guy? I confess that I don't know, but withdrawing our troops would be a good start. And it would also help if we abandon the idea that we, as a "civilized" country, know what's best for other countries, especially those with a culture we don't understand.

Stephen Harper came to power as the result of a Liberal financial scandal. The Liberals fully deserved to lose but look at what it left us - a neo-con government that toes the Washington line. Canadians don't share these values so there is hope for the next election if the Liberals get their shit together and Jack Layton and his NDP direct their attacks at the Conservatives instead of trying to supplant the Liberals as official opposition, which is also a lost cause. Layton has lost my vote.

What must the world think of Canada?

Harper and Bush - Buddies

Is it possible that $450 million of Canadians' tax dollars have gone to a George Bush slush fund? The following was posted by Shakespeare's Sister - www.shakespearssister.blogspot.com - on Sept. 6. Click on Daily Round-up then on Does Bush have a $450 million slush fund?

WTF???

| posted by Shakespeare's Sister | Wednesday, September 06, 2006 | permalink |

Linkmeister, in full:

Did the Softwood Lumber deal the US just made with Canada include a $450 million slush fund channeled to the White House from the Canadians? Could be. Buried in the text of the recently-agreed softwood lumber agreement with our neighbors to the North is a clause which says that the Canadian timber industry must

... sign over $450 million to an escrow fund slated to be conveyed to the White House. The agreement does not mention Congress, and the Bush administration says that Congress will not be involved in any way with this agreement. The government of Canada thus is making a gift of $450 million to be spent by the president. That was more than a belt buckle, even more than a stetson, on July 6th. There is only one date certain in the deal: that the planned expenditure of the $450 million must be determined by September 1.

By law and by the US Constitution, all monetary gifts to the US must go into the Treasury. If this trade lawyer's analysis is correct, the Bush Administration is once again breaking the law. That's bad enough, but from a political point of view, imagine Karl Rove with $450M to spend on Congressional campaigns in this year's midterms.

There's a much more thorough analysis here. The full text of the lawyer's remarks can be found here.

I don’t even know where to begin. The thought of Bush with $450 million to spend with no Congressional oversight is absolutely mind-blowing. As Feldman (the lawyer who’s quoted, above) points out, “At the height of the Watergate scandal, focus was on an illegal slush fund available to the Committee to Re-Elect the President, that was thought to be tipping the balance of American politics. The fund never exceeded $20 million. One of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was that he received foreign campaign donations, perhaps as much as $50,000. … The entire Republican campaign war chest is less than $300 million. Canada will add to it by 150 per cent in funds to be expended for ‘meritorious initiatives.’ It does not require much imagination to foresee the strategic places where this money will be spent.”

This has been unfolding since April, and it’s the first time I’m hearing anything about it. Where is the media on this? Where are the Dems? I’d like to believe that having heard nothing about it means it’s nothing, but, unfortunately, that can be a very foolish assumption these days.

The 9/1 deadline has obviously passed, and, by email, Linkmeister tells me he heard Feldman on CBC Radio's As It Happens program, Monday, 9/4, and Feldman said that the 9/1 deadline had passed with no determination (publicly announced).

I’ve got no bloody clue where I’d even begin to look for information about whether that determination was made and just not announced, or whether it was but fell through the cracks of a Friday News Hole before a holiday weekend, or whether it just wasn’t made at all, and the Bush administration now has its hands on a $450 million slush fund that it can use however it wants.

Anyone got any ideas? The mere possibility of this situation has me all in a dither, and, well, I’d like to find out if I’m getting myself wound up unnecessarily, or if this is actually a significant issue.

This is charming. Do any of our polititians know anything about this?