newbie

One has to wonder though what Emerson's motives were. This is what he had to say during the campaign: During the recent election campaign, Emerson directed this strong attack on the Conservative leader's agenda for Canada: "It's now not just, 'Can Stephen Harper mount a credible campaign?' It's people now having to decide, 'Can we really live with what Stephen Harper will deliver?' "And I have to tell you, I have never seen a right-wing government in all of my life, and I've been in government or near government for 32 years, I have never seen a Conservative government that didn't come in, in the first year or two and slash social programs, raise taxes and create an awful lot of havoc that they did not disclose before the election." http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_emerson20060206.html Seems pretty clear to me Emerson jumped ship to further his own ambitions, violating Section 8 of the Member's code.

no it's not - parlaiment was dissolved. no MPs so there can be no scandal. I didn't say scandal. So then to you, this was an honest and morally acceptable thing for Harper to do, never mind the Senate seat he offered to Fortier?

I think what people are missing is what Harper campaigned on: honest and moral corruption-less government. Belinda is irrelavent to this discussion. Harper asked Emerson to come on board. When he did is at issue.

Good catch BD. Thanks for posting.

Democrats weren't the only ones concerned about the UAE taking on the ports. Republicans and Democrats alike have threatened to introduce legislation to block or delay the deal, citing unease over what they describe as inconsistent opposition to terrorism by the United Arab Emirates. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../w130411S12.DTL Even the coast guard had concerns. http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11891.shtml And you have to admit, the President finding out from the media? Come on. Given the current climate, of course most people would be concerned about this. And that's the ripple effect of Bush's illegal war.

I have to get my entertainment somewhere.

Is this just more spin in the no-spin zone? http://mediamatters.org/items/200602220007 Now, it's a small little thing, but I picked up on it, because here is the essential problem in Iraq. There are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them. And I don't -- we're never gonna be able to control them. So the only solution to this is to hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible. Because we just can't control these crazy people. This is all over the place. And that was the big mistake about America: They didn't -- it was the crazy-people underestimation. We did not know how to deal with them -- still don't. But they're just all over the place.

Aside from Isreal, real democracies are hard to find in that region. It's not a concept that is well understood. BINGO!

And then there's this: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=21413

This poll is interesting: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm poll

Even the coast guard has concerns. http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2...afx2557296.html

Totally bogus analogy. Koresh set those fires and intel verifies that. You still didn't the answer that Clark currently Kills people on a daily basis.

Interesting. He kills more Americans in a day than Insurgents in a month and you think he's fit to command. Where are the links that show he KILLS (kill is a present term) more in a month that insurgents.

Best check out this report. Koresh was totally responsible for this tragedy and could have averted it. http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_branc4.htm

He's not getting wiser. He's always been this way. The "Right" seem to reject anyting he has to say.

McLEAN, Va. A conference sponsored by a group that argues whites are superior to blacks is being held this weekend at the Dulles Hyatt, Isn't this how the Klan started?

We could do what the US is doing. Covening congressional studies on the matter. And how many containers are checked thru the Vancouver port. 5% like the U.S. That leaves a 95% unchecked. The terrorists only have to be successful once. We have to be successful EVERYTIME. I mention the G&M article as it points out the two foiled terrorists attacks on the west coast. All it takes is for one of these employees to look the other way.

I won't defend anybody who brokered this deal. I think the comment in today's Globe and Mail sums it up rather nicely. Vancouver's ability to safeguard against terrorism is crucial for the continent. On two significant occasions in the past, it has been the place where terrorists have plotted mass murder. In 1999, Algerian al-Qaeda member Ahmed Ressam cooked up a massive bomb in Vancouver, before being caught at the border. He later said he had been hoping to kill Americans by exploding the bomb in the Los Angeles Airport. In 1985, Sikh terrorists placed deadly bombs aboard two Air-India jets at Vancouver's airport. They exploded overseas to kill 331 people. No one has ever been convicted in the slayings. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

Seems we're also in the UAE loop. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

Safer compared to ........? pre-911

Could be, but I still don't buy the whole "USA is a safer country now" mantra coming out of Bush's administration.

Sorry BD, must have missed that.

Back to the topic at hand: Bush says Arab ports deal not a security threat. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...60223?hub=World Actually, what he means of course is that it is no worse than the dismal failure it is now. Only 5% of containers checked? Dock workers without ID's?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories Kinda reminds one of Vietnam and Somilia - that's what happens when you get involved in a country's politics. These factions have been fighting for eons. I don't think a little demockcracksy and purple fingers are gonna change this country overnite like Bush thought.

EDITED: David Gaubatz makes a great statement with "he is sure if contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons." from your own source. Debka - israel based net weekly is a bit short on actual names of "sources". For example DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence sources as having secretly disposed of Saddam Hussein’s weapons. Dr. Germ sounds like someone out of "Get Smart." David Kay was in a conflict on interest and thus totally uncredible. http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2728 As for Charles Duelfer http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...5-2004Oct6.html - Duefler I concede Monty. No more talk from me on this topic. No one is convincing anybody here. When you won't even accept Bush's actual words on another thread, I give up.