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.