O'Connor's Future

[jdobbin]

It has been a heck of couple of weeks for O'Connor. It is now starting to involve Hillier, MacKay, Day and Harper. Is the performance of the Defence minister starting to endanger the government's performance? Should he resign? Should he be fired?

[Charles Anthony]

Strategically, he should stay right where he is -- that is what I recommend for the government's sake.

The vast majority of the population does not pay attention to the details but a cabinet shuffle looks like an admission of guilt.

[jdobbin]

Strategically, he should stay right where he is -- that is what I recommend for the government's sake.

The vast majority of the population does not pay attention to the details but a cabinet shuffle looks like an admission of guilt.

If he keeps bungling the file, he does more damage long term.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...29b8fcd&k=74376

Had O’Connor merely accepted and admitted what he must’ve known to be true — that the Afghans have an internationally recognized reputation as severely inhospitable hosts — and vowed to obtain access to detention centres for Canadian monitors, there would’ve been no messy talk of his political demise.

But as always with many governments, the bungled reaction was worse than the original problem.

After giving the surprising and perhaps unscripted revelation that Canada had negotiated a detainee inspection deal, O’Connor engaged in a runaway commentary followed by news release clarifications, document denials and more changed stories — all the while leaving confused cabinet colleagues in the dark.

[jdobbin]

On Mike Duffy Live, Ignatieff said that O'Connor has lost the confidence of the prime minister.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Deputy Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has called for the resignation of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, over the alleged mismanagement of Taliban detainees.

"He should be fired because he no longer has the confidence of the prime minister," Ignatieff told CTV's Mike Duffy Live on Friday.

"We've got troops in the field and the prime minister is leaving this man to twist slowly in the wind. At a time when we've got soldiers in combat, you have to have civilian leadership that's working together, and they're clearly not. They muzzled him in the House on Thursday."

During question period on Thursday, opposition MPs repeatedly asked whether the government had finalized a deal with local Afghan authorities to monitor the safety of detainees. But O'Connor was never the one to answer.

O'Connor can't even stand and answer questions in Parliament anymore.

[geoffrey]

Get ready for a cabinet suffle.

[Michael Bluth]

Get ready for a cabinet suffle.

I agree. I really believe it will be sold as O'Connor stepping aside for health reasons.

Who gets bumped up?

I like the looks of Laurie Hawn in the job...

[jdobbin]

The editorials are coming in for O'Connor's removal.

This from the Sudbury Star.

http://www.thesudburystar.com/webapp/sitep...torial&classif=

To be fair, O'Connor is one of the most earnest and hardworking figures in the Harper government. No opposition MP has ever questioned his integrity - at least not privately. For a former defence industry lobbyist, that's no mean feat. And more than a few observers have noted that O'Connor has sometimes borne the brunt of blunders made in the PMO. Because of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's tendency to micro-manage every important file, O'Connor hasn't really been a defence minister at all. He is Stephen Harper's defence spokesman.

And that's one reason why he has failed. Because, though he was by all accounts a solid armoured officer, O'Connor is an inept spokesman. He thinks poorly on his feet. He doesn't master the details. He repeatedly says things that later turn out to be incomplete, partly false, or completely false. His retorts to detailed, devastating opposition critiques in Question Period, are typically ham-fisted and ineffectual.

Could the next opinion polls put the Liberals ahead because of this bad week of Conservative politics in Ottawa?

[geoffrey]

Laurie Hawn? Nah, why Laurie? I understand that he's a military man, but I think that was the problem in having O'Connor... military men are good in the military, not so hot in the HoC. Laurie has very little experience in the House and you want him to take the most under fire Ministerial post? That's suicide for the guy. Peter MacKay is the guy your looking for to take this portfolio, and Madame Verner will take MacKay's spot. Geurgis will move into the International co-op role, she's already sec. state for international trade.

[Topaz]

Laurie Hawn? Nah, why Laurie? I understand that he's a military man, but I think that was the problem in having O'Connor... military men are good in the military, not so hot in the HoC. Laurie has very little experience in the House and you want him to take the most under fire Ministerial post? That's suicide for the guy. Peter MacKay is the guy your looking for to take this portfolio, and Madame Verner will take MacKay's spot. Geurgis will move into the International co-op role, she's already sec. state for international trade.

Duffy mentioned Jay Hill and I think it will be a man rather than a woman. Would Harper put Baird in the spotlight??

[Figleaf]

Now that he has arranged to have himself cleared in HartGate by his pet police force, Stockwell Day would probably liked to be removed from further contact with the RCMP pension debacle. Look for Stock to be defence minister.

[Argus]

Of all the idiocy, this just takes the cake. By all accounts O'Connor is doing a great job in actually managing the very difficult defense portfolio. But he's not a good performer in the House and can't bandy insults properly with the opposition, so he should go? This was the same justification which put Baird in the Environment portfolio. Is that what we want from our cabinet, a collection of people who can sneer at the opposition and walk around difficult questions?

What exactly are O'Connor's crimes? From all reasonable accounts, he probably was told by someone in the office "Oh, human rights people keep an eye on prisoners. They'll let us know if anything is up there", and having a lot more on his plate he took that and repeated it in the House. Of course, as we now know, human rights groups DO monitor prisoners, but they didn't tell anyone, at least, didn't tell Canadian military people. And so all the opposition got to jump up and down and scream that he was misleading the House. Big F'ing deal.

All of the criticism really boils down to "well, he's not a really great spokesperson". Is that all that matters?

[jdobbin]

All of the criticism really boils down to "well, he's not a really great spokesperson". Is that all that matters?

If that was all that mattered, it wouldn't be a big deal.

O'Connor has been consistently been wrong on the detainee file since the beginning. He mislead the House and still doesn't have a policy in place. This week wasn't all about bumbling. It was about not doing the job properly.

[Argus]

All of the criticism really boils down to "well, he's not a really great spokesperson". Is that all that matters?

If that was all that mattered, it wouldn't be a big deal.

O'Connor has been consistently been wrong on the detainee file since the beginning. He mislead the House and still doesn't have a policy in place. This week wasn't all about bumbling. It was about not doing the job properly.

Apparently, you don't read. Or think. Again, how has he bumbled? Because this relatively unimportant side issue was not front and centre on his or anyone's plate? Nobody cared about it and almost nobody cares about it now but the squishy, bleeding-heart liberal set.

BTW, one of the things you people on the Left don't seem to be paying any attention to is that we've been giving prisoners to the Afghans for years despite the fact the Liberals knew full well what the Afghan prisons were like. How come, if you all cared so deeply, you didn't speak up then?

[jdobbin]

Apparently, you don't read. Or think. Again, how has he bumbled? Because this relatively unimportant side issue was not front and centre on his or anyone's plate? Nobody cared about it and almost nobody cares about it now but the squishy, bleeding-heart liberal set.

BTW, one of the things you people on the Left don't seem to be paying any attention to is that we've been giving prisoners to the Afghans for years despite the fact the Liberals knew full well what the Afghan prisons were like. How come, if you all cared so deeply, you didn't speak up then?

It seems you people on the right didn't pay attention at all this week. O'Connor announced policy in committee that even his own cabinet was not aware of. He has had to apologize already for misleading the House and continues to have an inconsistent or non-existent policy.

Did you hear the latest Tory policy? Torture is not happening. If it is not happening now, how could it be happening under the Liberals?

[geoffrey]

Laurie Hawn? Nah, why Laurie? I understand that he's a military man, but I think that was the problem in having O'Connor... military men are good in the military, not so hot in the HoC. Laurie has very little experience in the House and you want him to take the most under fire Ministerial post? That's suicide for the guy. Peter MacKay is the guy your looking for to take this portfolio, and Madame Verner will take MacKay's spot. Geurgis will move into the International co-op role, she's already sec. state for international trade.

Duffy mentioned Jay Hill and I think it will be a man rather than a woman. Would Harper put Baird in the spotlight??

Laurie Hawn is a man. And Jay Hill has limited ministerial experience as well. Go with someone that has done well enough as a minister, has public profile and deal with a little controversy. MacKay stands out by that criteria as the favourite.

[Michael Bluth]

Laurie Hawn is a man. And Jay Hill has limited ministerial experience as well. Go with someone that has done well enough as a minister, has public profile and deal with a little controversy. MacKay stands out by that criteria as the favourite.

The MacKay - Verner - Guergis shuffle makes sense. Add Hawn as Parl. Sec to MacKay or make him a secretary of state.

[scribblet]

I don't doubt there will be a cabinet shuffle soon, but O'Connor is not a bad Minister of Defence and after all he was not put in that position to be a Prison Warden. I am sure he just took it for granted that the Liberal's set-up for prisoners would be compassionate and a system for overseeing it place. Guess he should have known better huh !

Why is no one telling the Liberals that they set up the system that they are blaming him for? It made sense to think that the Int. Red Cross was monitoring - no - so then then he goes to the Afghan Human Rights commissioner, that falls through so he sets up a completely new deal with the Afghan Gov't. Sounds like it is a bit of a muddle but how fast he is working to make things better - he's getting things sorted out quickly from a mess left by the Liberals.

[jdobbin]

I don't doubt there will be a cabinet shuffle soon, but O'Connor is not a bad Minister of Defence and after all he was not put in that position to be a Prison Warden. I am sure he just took it for granted that the Liberal's set-up for prisoners would be compassionate and a system for overseeing it place. Guess he should have known better huh !

Why is no one telling the Liberals that they set up the system that they are blaming him for? It made sense to think that the Int. Red Cross was monitoring - no - so then then he goes to the Afghan Human Rights commissioner, that falls through so he sets up a completely new deal with the Afghan Gov't. Sounds like it is a bit of a muddle but how fast he is working to make things better - he's getting things sorted out quickly from a mess left by the Liberals.

O'Connor has not gotten the issue right since he became minister. He could try the tact the the Liberals are to blame but Harper asked him to look into it a long time ago and he mislead the House and had to apologize for it. This week he gave several accounts that had the entire government scrambling.

There is still no deal in place and now he won't even answer questions in the House on the subject.

[geoffrey]

Whether or not O'Connor is responsible for the situation, he's terrible at taking questions and he's actually just not answering anymore. He's a very poor minister at presenting his department as accountable and competent.

[Michael Bluth]

Whether or not O'Connor is responsible for the situation, he's terrible at taking questions and he's actually just not answering anymore. He's a very poor minister at presenting his department as accountable and competent.

No doubt. There is a reason it has been so long since a former military man was Minister of Defence.

Harper is a loyal guy, but clearly doesn't trust O'Connor's ability to let him speak in the House.

Time to go.

[weaponeer]

O'Connor has gotten it right for the Military. He is an excellent MND. Detainees, seems that Libs and of course NDP care more about the enemy then our own, no surprise there. At least O'Connor did not say something stupide like "lets fly all the talibs to Canada" so I can pay for their welfare etc....

He is concerned with the military, and doing a great job. That's all that matters to me....

[jdobbin]

He is concerned with the military, and doing a great job. That's all that matters to me....

Sadly, his performance in the House left his own government scrambling.

The Tories have tried the tact that the Opposition supports terrorism. The public doesn't buy it. Support for the mission depends on transparency and the belief that the Afghan government is better than what came before it. News of corruption and torture and the slide backward into oppressive behavior can't be brushed aside.

O'Connor was tasked with the job of finding out about the detainees and mislead the House. The story changed so many times this week that even the government was unaware of what was happening.

Quite simply it was not what a good performance for the minister of Defence no matter what anything thinks of him. When NATO has to initiate an investigation, it isn't a good thing.

[weaponeer]

He is concerned with the military, and doing a great job. That's all that matters to me....

Sadly, his performance in the House left his own government scrambling.

The Tories have tried the tact that the Opposition supports terrorism. The public doesn't buy it. Support for the mission depends on transparency and the belief that the Afghan government is better than what came before it. News of corruption and torture and the slide backward into oppressive behavior can't be brushed aside.

O'Connor was tasked with the job of finding out about the detainees and mislead the House. The story changed so many times this week that even the government was unaware of what was happening.

Quite simply it was not what a good performance for the minister of Defence no matter what anything thinks of him. When NATO has to initiate an investigation, it isn't a good thing.

Being over here right now I can tell you the NATO and their credibility are non existant. NATO is doing very little here, Canada, the USA, Britian and the Aussies are doing the real work with some help from the Dutch. The locals know who is helping them and who is not, and they could care less about the handling of prisoners. That's the way things are here, and thought the rest of the world sadly. Canada is a very very sheltered" country. Most Canadians could not handle the "reality" of the real world.

The fact these folks are still alive to even talk to the G&M is something. Most ANA units don't like to take prisoners. Canadians are not new to this, my grandfather fought the Waffen SS in WW2, and the Canuck did not take too many of them POW...

[Michael Bluth]

O'Connor has gotten it right for the Military. He is an excellent MND. Detainees, seems that Libs and of course NDP care more about the enemy then our own, no surprise there. At least O'Connor did not say something stupide like "lets fly all the talibs to Canada" so I can pay for their welfare etc....

He is concerned with the military, and doing a great job. That's all that matters to me....

I completely agree that his concern for the military and ability to secure additional funding has been outstanding.

Unfortunately, that's not all there is to the job.

He is still a cabinet minister and responsible to the House of Commons. He has made a few huge blunders that really hurt the Government and have made him look very bad.

If he knew about detainees he should have just said so. The stories he and Harper gave in the House are very different. Was O'Connor trying to be deceptive? I personally don't think so but it came across as much.

Hopefully the next Minister of Defence maintainst the same commitment to our military as O'Connor has.

[jdobbin]

Being over here right now I can tell you the NATO and their credibility are non existant. NATO is doing very little here, Canada, the USA, Britian and the Aussies are doing the real work with some help from the Dutch. The locals know who is helping them and who is not, and they could care less about the handling of prisoners. That's the way things are here, and thought the rest of the world sadly. Canada is a very very sheltered" country. Most Canadians could not handle the "reality" of the real world.

The fact these folks are still alive to even talk to the G&M is something. Most ANA units don't like to take prisoners. Canadians are not new to this, my grandfather fought the Waffen SS in WW2, and the Canuck did not take too many of them POW...

The largest poll taken of Afghan opinion showed a dramatic fall in support for the Afghan government over the corruption and torture issue. Not everyone detained is a Taliban fighter.

Realities of the war over there will probably be never known but if the fight is ever to be won, the people over there will have to trust that they won't be shaken down by the government or tortured just because they've been detained.