belinda emerson

I too am glad that fellow citizens will put their lives at risk to maintain Canadian values. What does that have to do with Afghanistan? The current Islamic Republic of Afghanistan recognizes the Koran as being supreme over any other legislation and for this reason it's perfectly legal for them to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity. What Canadian values are being protected by Canadians dying for an Islamic theocracy? The fact that the Harper Conservatives and a handful of Liberals voted to extend the mission doesn't make it right.

I can't get worked up about MacKay calling Stronach a dog. His betrayal of David Orchard revealed far more about his ethics and integrity.

Given how incredibly unpopular the Liberals were in January, 2006, the Conservatives should have campaigned without a leader then. They might have won a majority. Now they're stuck with Stephen Harper, a man so weak and ineffectual that Canadians, in a recent poll to choose who they believe is the best leader for Canada, chose him over Jack Layton, and all Liberal leadership canadidates. In fact, chose him FAR above any of the others. Although Mr. Harper is seen as the best prime minister when put up against any of the four leading contenders for the Liberal mantle, it is Mr. Rae who would make the greatest mark against him, according to the survey by The Strategic Counsel for the Globe and Mail-CTV News. When Mr. Rae is figured into a race against Mr. Harper, the NDP's Jack Layton and the Bloc Québécois' Gilles Duceppe, 26 per cent say Mr. Rae would be the best prime minister of the four, while 36 per cent picked Mr. Harper. Mr. Layton was picked by 15 per cent and Mr. Duceppe by six per cent. By comparison, the front-running Michael Ignatieff, was chosen by 23 per cent in a battle against Mr. Harper, who was picked by 37 per cent in such a contest. Mr. Layton is favoured by 17 per cent and Mr. Duceppe by seven per cent. Globe and Mail Do you have anything else you'd like to say? Yes, in 2005 Paul Martin was chosen as the best leader for Canada.

Given how incredibly unpopular the Liberals were in January, 2006, the Conservatives should have campaigned without a leader then. They might have won a majority. Now they're stuck with Stephen Harper, a man so weak and ineffectual that Canadians, in a recent poll to choose who they believe is the best leader for Canada, chose him over Jack Layton, and all Liberal leadership canadidates. In fact, chose him FAR above any of the others. Although Mr. Harper is seen as the best prime minister when put up against any of the four leading contenders for the Liberal mantle, it is Mr. Rae who would make the greatest mark against him, according to the survey by The Strategic Counsel for the Globe and Mail-CTV News. When Mr. Rae is figured into a race against Mr. Harper, the NDP's Jack Layton and the Bloc Québécois' Gilles Duceppe, 26 per cent say Mr. Rae would be the best prime minister of the four, while 36 per cent picked Mr. Harper. Mr. Layton was picked by 15 per cent and Mr. Duceppe by six per cent. By comparison, the front-running Michael Ignatieff, was chosen by 23 per cent in a battle against Mr. Harper, who was picked by 37 per cent in such a contest. Mr. Layton is favoured by 17 per cent and Mr. Duceppe by seven per cent. Globe and Mail Do you have anything else you'd like to say?

Please pay close attention to the second paragraph but more importantly I must ask you exactly whose side are you actually on? http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0423 I'm on Canada's side. The second paragraph states that the US entered Iraq for the oil. That's not what Bush said. Are you saying Bush lied? I thought the US entered Iraq to find WMD and to topple Saddam.

The story that Emerson turned down the deal in 2005 appeared in the April 28th, 2006, issue of the Vancouver Sun. It's in the A section. I have the hard copy in front of me but unfortunately no link. As far as the export tax goes, the price of lumber has already dropped to the point that the 15% tax has now kicked in. That's why the softwood lumber industry is unhappy. You can read more about how Emerson and Harper betrayed the industry here: http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/10/13/Softwood/

As I recall, the US had no interest in overthrowing the Taliban until after 9/11. They entered Afghanistan mainly for the purpose of capturing Bin Laden, certainly a worthy purpose and one which I applauded. Mistreatment of women under the Taliban was not why the US entered Afghanistan. Moreover, if the Taliban of Afghanistan are indeed a world threat, why is the US deploying so much more of their resources to Iraq, a country which they now acknowledge had no weapons of mass destruction, and relatively little to Afghanistan?

They both betrayed their parties for the offer of a cabinet position but David Emerson went on to betray the softwood lumber industry. In December, 2005, Emerson turned down an offer from the US, relayed through Frank McKenna, for Canada to forego a billion in illegal duties and put an export tax on Canadian lumber. Months later, this same "political whore" accepted an offer, relayed through new ambassador Wilson, to forego a billion in illegal duties and put an export tax on Canadian lumber. Today the softwood lumber industry is paying a 15% export tax which is even higher than the illegal US lumber duties. Why did Emerson flipflop? Is it conceivable that Harper, eager to please Bush, had something to do with this? Why aren't Canadian softwood lumber companies pleased with the deal imposed by Emerson/Harper?

I certainly have including reading all six volumes of the Second World War by Winston Churchill. Canada was one of the first countries in the world to enter this very just war. By contrast, the US did not enter WWII until after they were attacked by Japan. Even then, the US did not declare war on Germany until AFTER Germany, as a result of treaty obligations to Japan, declared war on the US. But Canada's current involvement in Afghanistan is far more reminiscent of US involvement in Vietnam and Iraq than it is of Canadian involvement in Germany. I am not convinced that the current government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, despite being democratically elected, is any more worthy of our support than the 1933 German NSDAP government, which was also democratically elected.

But maybe the Liberals elect a pro-Afghanistan mission leader, i.e. Iggy and the Conservatives finish second in Quebec again. We agree on that point. If I were a Conservative, I'd be praying that the Liberals choose Iggy as leader. His willingness to see Canadians die for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, a regime whose legislation allows the execution of Christians who convert to Islam, would neutralize any harm arising from Harper's stance

Yup. Harper still got elected after the Grewal affair. Guess Canadians found they preferred the party that didn't admit to steal money from Canadian taxpayers with the Sponsorship Programme. The Conservatives actually lost seats in BC including Gurmant Grewal's seat in the January, 2006 election. Gurmant Grewal wasn't forgotten then anymore than David Emerson and his unpopular softwood lumber deal will be in the next election. The main reason they squeaked into power in January was the seats they picked up in Quebec. That reflected Quebec anger over the sponsorship affair. Now, the Conservatives are once again in third place in popularity in Quebec. Perhaps we need a few more months in Afghanistan for the Conservatives to slip into fourth place in Quebec, a position they occupied in 2005.

The last Dutch killed in combat was in August. It was an aircraft crash. Two others were killed in a helicopter crash back in July. The latest...was a suicide on October 11. Hmmm, so far it does indeed sound like a largely Bush/Harper/Blair mission with very few exceptions casualty-wise. Do these three amigos really believe that they'll be any more successful than the Russians in imposing their will on the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan? The best that they can hope for is that the Taliban will keep a low profile until they withdraw. What a waste of Canadian and other lives.

Yes, Garth Turner. The ultimate example of loyalty and running a tight government. Yeah, good for the Conservatives for turfing him but not that paragon of Conservative ethics, Gurmant Grewal

The Liberals didn't cut the income tax you are referring to so Harper didn't raise it. Harper felt that Montreal deserved representation at the cabinet table. So he appointed Fortier. Chretien and Martin never recognized the important role Calgary plays in our country. The capital gains tax you are attacking him on what he might do. i.e. he *might not* fulfill his promise before the next election. Pretty weak. If that's all you can come up with bring on the election. Oh I'm sure that none of this Harper sleaziness will have the impact of his extending our mission in Afghanistan. As long as the Liberals don't shoot themselves in the foot by picking someone like Ignatieff, I too say bring on the election.

Attack him on what he might do, Actually if you read my post you would see that I attacked him on not only what he might do but also on what he has done such as raising income tax, appointing an unelected man to cabinet and failing to deliver on his capital gains tax promise.

Given how incredibly unpopular the Liberals were in January, 2006, the Conservatives should have campaigned without a leader then. They might have won a majority. Now they're stuck with Stephen Harper, a man so weak and ineffectual that he tolerated that sleazy Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal while condoning the ouster of Garth Turner. With Garth Turner as leader, the Conservatives actually would have a shot at a majority but with Stephen Harper, probably never.

You should identify the priorities he's working on. We all know where he stands on gay marriage so is taking away that legislated right one of the two priorities he's working on? And we all know that Harper and most of his caucus voted against including gay bashing in hate crimes legislation. Is he working on taking sexual orientation out of hate crimes legislation or will he wait until he wins a majority? In July, 2006, the rate of income taxes increased on income in the lowest tax bracket. Was that one of his priorities? For some reason that didn't get as much press as the 1% drop in GST. And what about his election promise to remove the capital gains tax if the money is re-invested within a fixed time period? Is he working on that or has he completed abandoned that promise? And am I mistaken or did Harper appoint a man from Quebec to the Senate then promptly put this unelected man into his Cabinet? If my recollection is correct, this man had previously chaired Harper's leadership campaign. Where did this fit into Harper's promises and priorities? Did it fall under Accountability?

As I said, if you have evidence to support your point, present it.

It seems that only Canadians, Americans and Brits are dying in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, inadvertently defending the right of the Karzai government to execute Christians who convert to Islam. Why do you suppose that Harper has thrown in his lot with Bush and Blair rather than the vast majority of NATO countries whose leaders have shown more foresight? Surely the quagmire that is Iraq should be a lesson to Canadians. At one time, most Americans supported the war in Iraq. Now they don't. Likewise, Canadians now support involvement in Afghanistan. Soon they won't. There have been Dutch casualties and I am sure there have been German and French as well. Once again you are wrong. What I said is that it SEEMS that only Canadians, Americans and Brits are DYING in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Since when is a casualty synonymous with death? Since when are all casualties fatal? If you have evidence of Dutch, German and French military people dying on this NATO mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, please present it.

Well, people who believed in loyalty, who had a certain vision, a set of beliefs based on their desires for what kind of Canada they wanted to live in. Yes, people of loyalty like David Emerson... He was given a Cabinet position by Stephen Harper and was warmly welcomed by the other Harpercrites, Garth Turner excluded. Last year when Stronach crossed the floor, outraged Harpercrites were calling Stronach a whore and proposing legislation requiring a byelection before an MP could switch parties. What utter hypocrisy!

It seems that only Canadians, Americans and Brits are dying in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, inadvertently defending the right of the Karzai government to execute Christians who convert to Islam. Why do you suppose that Harper has thrown in his lot with Bush and Blair rather than the vast majority of NATO countries whose leaders have shown more foresight? Surely the quagmire that is Iraq should be a lesson to Canadians. At one time, most Americans supported the war in Iraq. Now they don't. Likewise, Canadians now support involvement in Afghanistan. Soon they won't.

Well that probably guarantees Harper won't win a majority unless the Liberals shoot themselves and pick Ignatieff who also wants Canadians to die for an Islamic theocracy whose constitution permits the execution of converts to Christianity.

Certainly Afghanistan is better off without the brutal Taliban but has anyone in the new Government of Canada actually looked online at the latest constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the country Canadians are now dying for? Article 3 of the constitution states "In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and priorities of the sacred religion of Islam." What this means is that no matter what legislated human rights are in place, the Koran takes priority over those rights. In other words, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a theocracy and a far cry from democracy. This is why in March, 2006, an Afghan man who converted to Christianity faced the death penalty. See: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004796.htm Paul Martin was a fool for getting us into Afghanistan and Stephen Harper has now extended this mission. One can only hope that the Liberals have the wisdom to chose as leader someone other than Ignatieff who seems to share Harper's "vision" of Canadians dying for a theocracy. Other than pandering to U.S. foreign policy interests, why do Ignatieff and Harper want us there, and at what point will they conclude that we're merely repeating the Russian experience in Afghanistan and creating more terrorists?

As in Stephen Harper's attachment to U.S. foreign policy interests, U.S. softwood lumber interests, Republican social conservative interests...? Heck, he likes dogs too. Hitler liked dogs! Did you know that! Harper must be Hitler!!! Agghhh! Brilliant logic! It certainly refutes the notion of Stephen Harper's attachment to U.S. foreign policy interests, U.S. softwood lumber interests, Republican social conservative interests...

As in Stephen Harper's attachment to U.S. foreign policy interests, U.S. softwood lumber interests, Republican social conservative interests...?