Let's not let the facts influence our decision

| 6 Comments | No TrackBacks

According to this CTV piece, a group of big shots got together over the weekend and decided that Canada should sign on to Bush's missile defence boondoggle. Unfortunately it looks like a realistic assessment of the effectiveness of the plan, and the threat against which it's supposed to defend, didn't enter into their deliberations. Instead we get propaganda.

A majority of government officials, academics, diplomats and others from both sides of the border said the missile project has been wrongly linked to "science fiction scenarios" of weapons in space and that there would be ample opportunity for Canada to get out if the U.S. ever moves in that direction.

Stephen over at No BMD, eh? has already blogged this story but he takes a particularly good run at this paragraph in a thread at the babble discussion board.
What these people term "science fiction scenarios," of course, are currently contemplated in any number of publicly available documents. Indeed, prototype experiments are planned for within the next 18 months. If space weaponization were pure "science fiction," why would we see Philip Coyle, former US Assistant Secretary of Defense arguing so strongly against it?

Why would we see Theresa Hitchens of the mainstream Center for Defense Information say that the USAF Space Command ought to re-think its policy of shooting down other nations' satellites in the event of military conflict.

If it were mere "science fiction," why would we read an article in the Fall issue of International Security, co-authored by a member of the 1998 Rumsfeld report on the BMD threat, arguing that the US should not cross the "Rubicon" of weaponizing space, as it plans to do.

These are just a few examples.

It's become standard practice for BMD-proponents to marginalize by insult and ridicule opponents who claim the US wants to weaponize space. They do so at volume, in the hopes people won't look at the evidence. (Thus they replicate the conduct of Liberal and Conservative MPs who shouted down Jack Layton when he tried to ask a serious BMD-related question in the house after Bush's visit.)

In my view, no "academic" worthy of the name could have signed on to the view that space weaponization and BMD's role in it are "science fiction scenarios."

Their conduct is nothing short of shameful.

But later on in the CTV article we're presented with what may be the worst reason I've seen yet for signing on to missile defence.
"We are witnessing something new in the relationship - the emergence on the American right of a troubling anti-Canadianism, albeit confined to strident voices in the media," said the draft report.

So now we're supposed to sign on to this piece of corporate welfare because of the ravings of blowhards and media whores like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, who lie as naturally they breathe?

And then we get this:

"Nonetheless, this misguided impulse pales beside the disturbing and persistent currents of anti-Americanism in Canada," it said.

Yo! Dufuses! Opposition to George Bush is not anti-American. It's a sentiment shared by nearly half of Americans. And most of the rest of the world.

Bookmark and Share                                

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.pogge.ca/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/692


This all has the odor of Charlottetown. The political class has convinced itself that this is the right way (for completely stupid reasons) to go and can't stand the fact that the rest of us don't agree.

We're being slimed.

It's now a time tested M.O......start with the cableTV/Radio screamers saying ridiculous things to push out the envelope....come back a little towards the center edge of the lunatic fringe with the Scaife/Coors Inst. funded fundie papers....bring on the waygone right thinktanks....circle back to the cables, but now invoke the talking heads and headline readers....and then voila....it's conventional wisdom and in the New Pravda (NYT).

Seem far fetched?....google Coulter, Tucker Carlson and O'Leilly together with Canada and you'll see what I mean...it's also cached at MediaMatters.

Actually, Ross, when I wrote "Sean Hannity" in the post I think it was Tucker Carlson I actually had in mind. It would probably disappoint Carlson to no end to know that I don't own a dog-sled.

Ya....and don't forget Mr., or is that Master, Carlson is looking for a new gig on the Cables....and what's worse, now that they have control of half of our beer production the Coors family is probably looking for a way to merge PBS (which the right pretty much has a stranglehold on these days thanks to the efforts of the little Dick's Dad, big Dick Carlson) with the CBC.

In that CTV squib, I see three Canadian names: Joe Clark, Rudyard Griffiths, and Pamela Wallin.

That is the Canadian political class?!? I might give Joe a bit of respect, but Griffiths and Wallin are public pipsqeaks! Pipsqueaks, I say.

Ye gods. The smarms like Griffiths and Wallin worry me even more than the screaming American media cartoons like O'Reilly and Carlson, who are just comic relief in Canada. Griffiths and Wallin are just as superficial, but they come with a patina of respectability that seems to have convinced some people that they have something more than wind-tunnels for brains.

God, but the government draws on a shallow talent-pool for its representatives to these conflabs.

Good point skadadl....there appears to be a real dirth of folks stompin' on the terra north of the border these days.


Tip Jar

Total donations to date: $115.00

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by pogge published on February 7, 2005 9:53 AM.

All for want of a Shift key was the previous entry in this blog.

Why am I not surprised? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Blogging Change

Progressive Bloggers

      Canadian Blogosphere  

      Blogging Canadians  

NO Deep integration!

Creative Commons License
This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by Movable Type 4.37