Author: tribe34

One of our Prog Blog affiliates, Matthew Good, has been hosting some bloggers  from both Beirut, Lebanon and Haifa, Israel the last day or so. Both comment on the daily terror they face… and it seems both view each other as victims in this war. Its heartbreaking.. but maybe also hopeful that these 2 bloggers in the 2 affected countries express sympathy for each other.
First came the reports from Beirut by Samar Mazloum, an Environmental Engineer. She currently lectures at a Lebanese University and oversees a bottled water plant project.

In her first report from Beirut, she criticizes the Israeli strategy:

Israel war planes have been dropping leaflets depicting Hizbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah as a snake. They then dropped leaflets saying things like Hizbollah was supposed to defend you but look what they caused, all this in an attempt to have the Lebanese turn against Hizbollah. People on the streets would grab the leaflets and tear them up. Lots of people here don’t support Hizbollah, I being one of them, however they all realise that the Israeli response is not even close to what Hizbollah did. The Lebanese army has not been shooting at the Israelis and the only ones defending the attack are Hizbollah so naturally the Lebanese people who are being attacked by Israel all day will side with Hizbollah over Israel.

She goes on to sadly report about the villagers killed in a bombing attack.

Her next blogging comes the next day, where she says the general Lebanese population was stunned at the Hezbollah missile attack on Haifa:

The bombing of Haifa even shocked the Lebanese public. Not too many people believed that Hizbollah would have something that could reach Haifa. Now that this has happened I’m expecting things to get even worse. Violence only breeds violence… I wish someone could step up and tell both sides to stop and negotiate but no one like that seems to be around.

Later, she takes Bush to task for his inaction on this front, and wonders if it might not have consequences for the “War On Terror”:

..just last week Lebanese Internal Forces arressted a man who was accused of planning to bomb New York City tunnels. Lebanon as a government was very supportive of the fight against terror. A few months ago president Bush was on Lebanese Future television discussing how proud he was of the Lebanese Democracy, and how the USA was a “friend” of Lebanon. Where is this new friend of ours in our time of need???? Oh wait they are supporting those bombing us… Oh that’s because those bombing us are better friends of theirs. Friends who the US funds to research weapons only to later pay them to buy those new ideas & inventions.

Lets stop and think for a bit. What’s the reason there are terrorists??? Is it because most of those people feel there is injustice in Palastine? Or maybe have suffered injustice in their own countries?? How can a person living in a war ridden country support those who are bombing him?? So it brings me to that old cliche.. “actions speak louder than words”. So the USA told us they were our friend then they turn against (us). So when we can help them they want to be our friends and when we need their help they throw us to the dogs. How can we trust them again? Why would we want to help them again? I just hope all of this ends before a new breed of terrorrist is out there, before more hate is created, making peace even harder to reach.

Today, we get a look at the situation in Haifa from Shiri Levy, who is 21 and just completed her 2 years of service in the IDF. She plans on beginning graphic design studies next year. Here is her perspective:

I didn’t leave my house since Friday, neither do my parents and my seventeen year old brother who are living together with me in the same house. I personally didn’t expect the rockets to reach here, I was sure it will remain a local issue, in all those smaller cities in the north that always seem to get hit. But I was wrong and for the last two days, dozens of rockets have hit Haifa, killing eight people and injuring dozens. I live in the “safe” part of the city but the “booms” of the rockets are clearly heard here.

Later, she reflects on her being casual about whats going on with her.. and also her sadness at the Lebanon situation and in general:

This is strange. People on a Matthew Good message board say they’re sorry and wonder how come I seem calm. I’ve grown up to feel indifferent to these kinds of things, I’m not sure if it’s a good or a bad thing. Not that long ago I finished serving my mandatory two years in the army and I can’t help but think what they’re going through right now. I hear airplanes all the time. I can’t stop watching the news on TV. The images from Lebanon seem like a horror movie to me. I certainly don’t envy the Lebanese people, obviously they’re in worse conditions than we are and I believe they are innocent victims in this exactly like us.

Peace in the Middle East? Something inside me can’t help but feeling that there’s no chance I’ll live to see the day.

In the comments section of this blogentry, Samar responded:

I totally understand what you are going through. I’m on the other end of this war. So I guess we are enemies according to the countries we reside. Hizbollah bombs you and Israeli war planes & gunships bomb us. We both lose. So hey we share something…

Shiri responded with this touching reply:

Hi Samar,

I don’t see us as enemies, we just happen to live in countries that are fighting each other. Your words truly touched me and actually made me write this. It made me realize how awfully similar things are for us and yet they’re so different. I just wanted to say that I understand.

 really wish there were people on both side of the crisis who were like these 2 bloggers.. willing to talk with each other and understand one another. As Matt Good said in there, What is happenning in these comments is truly amazing.

I just wanted to share that all with you.

For the benefit of those not usually prone to following Canadian politics, a full blown controversy has blown up in Canada over a couple of the Conservative government’s new policies regarding our soldiers in Afghanistan when they are killed in action. It appears that the Conservatives are attempting to imitate Bush’s policy (and the Pentagon’s) of trying to downplay or minimize coverage of the casualty count over there.
The first policy that drew people’s attention to this was the Conservative’s decision to no longer lower the flag at the Ottawa Peace Tower to half-mast in honour of Canadian soldiers who fall in battle in Afghanistan. The justification for this was that prior to 2002, the tower’s flag was only lowered on Remembrance Day (November 11) and was a return to proper protocol. (I’ll note that the Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien changed that in 2002, ordering the flag to be flown to half-staff after 4 Canadian soldiers were killed by US “friendly-fire” bombing). The rebuttal to this came swiftly:

“Soldiers go to war because of the decision of the government and this is the seat of government of Canada,” said Liberal MP Andrew Telegdi, “and for sure the symbol, the flag, should be flying at half-mast when we lose a member of the military in combat.”

NDP defence critic Dawn Black agreed. “If its lowered for (unelected) senators, why not for fallen soldiers?”

Nevertheless, this issue alone and of itself would probably have gone away after a few days. However, this decision was followed by a decision yesterday out of the Defence Department and the Defence Minister that the media would no longer be allowed on military bases to cover the return of the fallen soldiers, a practice that seemingly mirrors the George Bush/Pentagon policy. Specifically, they would not be allowed to cover the return of 4 dead soldiers  recently killed in Afghanistan by a roadside bomb, and they called the decision “permanent” for all future Canadian solders deaths.  This decision has drawn immediate and swift criticism:

Liberals called the move (of ending the lowering of the flag) “callous.” And they said the decision to restrict viewing of soldiers’ caskets was unprecedented for a Canadian prime minister.

“He has lifted a page from the Bush book and borrowed the Bush modus operandi,” said Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh.”Dare I say President Harper (ed note: its actually Prime Minister Harper.. the President reference was obviously sarcasm) is following in the footsteps of President Bush? He wants the tragedy out of sight, so that possibly it might remain out of mind.”

The Defence Minister tried to claim this was done so the families could have some privacy; that would have been an ok argument, except he later admitted he hadnt consulted with the immediate families of these fallen soldiers or any others about this ban. And guess what, some of the soldiers families have come out and said this was a bad decision:

At least one bereaved military family believes the government has made a mistake. It should be up to the families to decide whether they want reporters present at such ceremonies, said Richard Leger, whose son Marc was killed in Afghanistan four years ago.

“I know, in 2002, it was a great thing for us to have the media there… We wanted to show all Canadians what the cost of their liberty is,” he told CBC Newsworld. “People saying, ‘Thank you for the life of Mark’ – as a parent that’s hard to hear, but knowing what’s the reason behind it helps us to move on.”

Maureen Burrowes, who is a cousin of Payne, said the government is depriving her of her chance to be part of tonight’s ceremony.

“I honestly believed I would see my cousin’s return on CBC as I could not be present today,” she wrote in an email. “I really feel that our current government has made a very bad decision and voters will remember this in the next election. The timing is absolutely horrendous and I would love to know how to get this reversed.”

Just on a personal note from someone who helps moderate our Progressive Blogger aggregate site up here.. we’ve been around the Canadian blog scene since last June.. and I have not seen an issue like this which has caused the many different progressive blogger factions of our site unite in such condemnation at such a policy.

In particular, I’d like to send a hat-tip to The Green Knight for a lot of stellar work on this topic.

Observing all of this  from an outsider’s point of view… I see a lot of rage on a lot of the “lefty blogosphere”  about the fact that nearly half the Dem Caucus split and decided to vote for cloture today on Samuel Alito. I see terms thrown around like listing the bunch of Dems who voted for cloture and calling them “The Capitulation Caucus”, but I dont see a lot of lefty blog leaders coming out and stating what people should do about it.  Kos and John at AmericaBlog seem to be among the few putting forth the point that to avoid this, more Democrats need to be elected and thats what people should be working on.. but a lot of the readership deem that inadequate.
From my Canadian perspective,  I see 2 things the blogosphere folks who are upset at this can do:

1. They can try to coordinate an organized effort to run people they consider more likely to fight for their beliefs in the primaries against the Dems they consider to be appeasers and sellouts. This  means doing more then just Kos and Atrios and so on calling for a primary challenge to Lieberman. It means going after all the Dems who voted “no” and to go after them all in the primaries.  (A reader at Kos has listed all the Dems who voted against clture and when their bid for re-election comes up here
2. People leave the Dem Party in droves and form a third option (Call it the “Progressive” Party for arguments sake) and get candidates to run for Congress. (Forget about running someone for President for now).  This new Party would have to be smart about how it runs: For example, they could run against selected Dems they feel are sellouts, but in ridings where vote-splitting wont occur enough for the Republican candidate to go up the middle (probably in relatively safe “blue states” ridings) or to go after the “moderate” Republicans who always seem to forget they’re moderate come an important vote,  but where Dems dont seem to do well come election day. (Running against Republican crackpots where there also seems to be zero Dem resistance would also be acceptable).

Myself, I prefer the 2nd option.. probably because I live in a country where multi-party democracy is a standard thing. My opinion is you need to forget the registering as independents or withholding the money you normally donate to the Party, as protest actions, although that certainly isnt a bad thing to consider, but you’ll need drastic action to get the Beltway’s attention, and thats as good as any a tactic to do this. It would be preferable of course if you could get some former high profile Dems (either former or current elected Representatives or prominent in the Party, or even influential “progressive” bloggers) on the left of the Dem Party’s wing to support this action.. but it may have to be a grass-roots thing.

I realize some will come on here and say its virtually impossible to get a Third Party to run in the US system that appears geared towards just 2 political parties… but it seems to be getting to the point where if the Dem leadership isnt bothering to listen to its Progressive wing (and right now, it appears to be trying to ignore it), then some alternative needs to be looked at. There are many voters in the Northeast and in the West who may just vote for a party if they are so disgusted that the current Dem Party doesnt represent their views.

Basically, the goal is to try to create a Canadian version of the NDP (though it wouldnt have the socialist roots the NDP does). If the “Progressive” Party is a threat to the Dems left flank, or even by some chance can elect enough members to hold the balance of power in Congress (balance of power meaning able to decide which of the 2 Parties controls the committees), or even by some chance do better then this, I believe the Democratic Party would be forced to respond to the threat on its left flank, just as Canada’s Liberal Party has done for 60 years since the NDP and its CCF precursor was first formed (thats how we got Universal Medicare here).  I really dont think the Green Party in the US is a viable option (Nader’s leadership of it I think has more or less discredited it), hence my thesis on forming a new party instead.

Just my opinion. It appears the Republicans are trying to turn your Congress into a Parliamentary system of government, where the majority Party dictates what passes and what doesnt (and the minority Party can do little to stop it – heck…  in a Parliament setting, the opposition to the governing Party is a lot more organized then your Democratic bunch), so you might as well go with the flow and elect some people who ACT like an opposition Party. The 2 options I list are the choices I see what you will need to do. It will be up to you energetic activists to decide which is more feasible.

Ok.. so the 2nd half of that title is more a prediction right now then actual fact, but I wont be surprised if that happens.

In a move sure to renew pronouncements from the American Religious Right that Canada is the modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah of the world, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled 7-2 today that group sex among consenting adults is legal.
Some more details about the background behind the ruling:

In a ruling that changes the way Canadian courts determine what poses a threat to the population, the top court threw out the conviction of a Montreal man who ran a club where members could have group sex in a private room behind locked doors. “Consensual conduct behind code-locked doors can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society,” said the opinion of the seven-to-two majority, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

The decision does not affect laws against prostitution because no money changed hands among the adults having sex

Of course.. our social conservatives immediately jumped on this as the start of a lax in morality and hinting that this was the work of “activist judges” – obviously using talking points of their southern cousins:

“The court is essentially saying that fairly public sexual acts can be tolerated in commercial establishments,” said Janet Epp Buckingham of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.”We found it a disappointing judgment… You wonder if the court is an appropriate place for these kinds of decisions to be taking place because they don’t have broad public hearings with a lot of public input,”

The court seems to have anticipated this however, by stating that public opiunion should not effect the rule of law:

The judges said that just because most Canadians might disapprove of swingers’ clubs, this did not necessarily mean the establishments were socially dangerous.

“The causal link between images of sexuality and anti-social behavior cannot be assumed. Attitudes in themselves are not crimes, however deviant they may be or disgusting they may appear,” the judges said, noting no one had been pressured to have sex or had paid for sex in the cases before the court.

“The autonomy and liberty of members of the public was not affected by unwanted confrontation with the sexual activity in question,” they said.

Wow.. liberal judges or libertarian judges?

Anyhow, I certainly expect Ralph Reed and James Dobson and others of the US religious right to make more forays into Canadian public affairs by condemning this and repeating their calls for the Conservative Party of Canada to be elected to prevent the disintegration of Canadian society and the threat of such “deviant ideas” spilling south.

Just to give you all a break from countless talking about illegal wiretaps that threaten the very Constitution of the United States, comes this snippet from Paul Wells of Macleans magazine (a Canadian national newsmag similar to Time or Newsweek) at his blog. Why does Paul get into a tizzy over Conrad Burns when he could have better things to cover (like the Canadian Election Campaign)?

Here’s Paul’s reason:

The moronic twit, who disgraces the great state of Montana by traipsing around claiming to speak for it in the Senate, seems to be the last person on Earth who still believes “the terrorists who hit us on 9/11 crossed the border from Canada.” The CBC just played the clip.

Paul then links in his entry to a story about Burns being rated one of the most corrupt in the Senate… and proceeds to call him a loser.

Consider that Mr Wells is considered a moderate writer not unwilling to take on any comers in the political spectrum.

He doesnt often dabble in American politics, so it takes a special act of sillyness to get him to turn his wrath southward at a political figure.

Well.. I suppose this isnt much of a shocker, but the main conservative and religious-right groups in the US have decided they’re going to try to stick their noses in the Jan 23/06 Canada federal election in order to gain a Conservative Party victory.

There is a history of this of course: The first instance of this happenning was in the interim period between the June 2004 election and now. Stories and editorials appeared in Canada’s major centrist newspaper The Globe and Mail talking about how several Conservative Party nominations in certain ridings had been taken over by Canadian members of Focus On The Family.
The Globe and Mail – as detailed by Progressive Blogger member Cerebrus – explained how this and Defend Marriage (another religious-right conservative group) attempted to influence the debate on allowing Gay-Marriage in Canada:

In the past 17 months, a stunning amount of money and machinery was put to use in an effort to stop the Liberal government from cramming through a redefinition of marriage. One coalition group, called Defend Marriage [US-Canada], hosted 320 rallies (including one of more than 15,000 people on Parliament Hill), made a million protest phone calls to MPs, distributed 1.4 million brochures in five different languages, posted 50 billboards, 11 full-page ads, and united over 200 multifaith organizations.

Supporters of another organization, Focus on the Family, paid for even more full-page ads, protest e-mails and radio broadcasts, and they’ve now sponsored a policy institute in Ottawa and have a goal of raising millions of dollars to be spent for TV.

Their fight to repeal Gay-Marriage rights in Canada is ongoing, in otherwards. But now, this has escalated recently, with one of the major religious-right figures visiting Canada and urging action be taken to elect a conservative movement to Canada’s government:

Yes…Ralph Reed is in the fray sticking his nose in where it doesnt belong:

The man known to have blazed the trail for the religious-conservative movement in the United States rallied Canadian faith leaders yesterday, urging them to get behind the vote.Ralph Reed, who led hundreds of thousands of members of the religious right to get the vote out during the era of former U.S. presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, told delegates to a Christian conference last night to put on their work boots and tennis shoes and knock on doors.

“Come Jan. 23, there’s going to be a new Canada of conservative traditional values,” he told a cheering crowd of 400 people who greeted his remarks with a standing ovation.

As you might note, 400 people would seem like peanuts… but nevertheless, these are 400 faith leaders of organizations across Canada, and their influence cant be underestimated.

Today.. we find out yet another US organization is trying to rally its compatriots in Canada:

The National Rifle Association, arguably the most powerful lobby group in the United States, has been enlisted to help shore up the influence of the Canadian gun lobby during the federal election campaign — something opponents say smacks of foreign interference and is indicative of the NRA’s widening influence around the globe.

Glen Caroline, director of the NRA’s grassroots division, is a keynote speaker and is giving a seminar today in Scarborough at the general meeting of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, an umbrella organization of recreational firearms groups…

While the association hasn’t officially endorsed a party, it likely will this weekend.

You can bet they will be endorsing the Conservative Party, who wishes to weaken gun laws. As for the NRA, the NRA is up here because they’ve never liked the fact we have stricter gun laws to begin with, and they especially hate the National Gun Registry, which is used to track firearm registration and who owns the guns across Canada. It has come under criticism (justified) that it is costing way more money then it should to operate, but all the police organizations will tell you that the Registry has helped them immensely. The Registry should be reformed so that it doesnt cost as much.. but Canadian Gun-Owners groups want it killed outright. They have never had the influence or the power their NRA cousins have (Canadians look dimly on guns), which is why they look to the NRA to help them campaign against this.

Finally, George Bush and his administration may not be directly involved in all these US conservative groups campaigning up here.. but it appears they hold an interest in the election and are hoping the Conservatives prevail. The reason why comes from the Washington Times:

“Why does President Bush hope Christmas comes a little late this year? Because on Jan. 23, Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the Western world. Free-market economist Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, is pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative. Move over Tony Blair: If elected, Mr. Harper will quickly become Mr. Bush’s new best friend internationally and the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader.”

To quote one of our Progressive Blogger members, Blue Grit:

Why thank you. It’s nice to have an outside observer – and a right-wing one at that! – remind us that the Conservative Party wants Canada to bow down and kiss American boot.

I’m reposting this here from Daily Kos.. only because we have a fair bit of Canadian readers here.

 I want to start off by saying I’m being half-sarcastic with this title, as you’ll soon find out. The gist of the story is that 1 of our members 4 months ago decided to add Progressive Bloggers to the Wikipedia describing the fairly new affiliation and also about the Canadian blogosphere in general and the liberal left side of the blogospher specifically.

A fierce fight ensued from some members about how relevant this was to be added.. plus there seemed to be some background noise because of it being a Canadian entry not being important in the large scope of things (I didnt realize Wikipedia was US-centric.. but no matter).
From some research some of our intrepid Progressive Bloggers did.. a couple of the main people trying to get this entry deleted were shown to be conservative ideologues… It was also shown that there was already a biography of a “well known Conservative blogger in Canada” who apparently got voted in without nary a complaint… and since then, its been shown that the Blogging Tories – for the most part our ideological conterparts up here – is also a recorded entry, and it is NOT facing a request for deletion.

I almost feel like we’re at PBS or something. 🙂

These folks must have really got rubbed the wrong way from losing the vote the last time to allow us on, because I guess the instant the moratorium was up on asking for things to be deleted (every 4 months I believe) these same folks are again filing for deleting our entry.

I will state categorically that I and my boss at Prog Blog didnt really care at the time of our group being nominated whether we were voted on or not. I mean, it was flattering.. but it wouldnt have crushed us if we didnt make it.

This effort however of re-asking for deletion, with its obvious attempts at right-wing ideological purity, and hints of snobbishness and elitism, kinda burns me up a bit.

Either take both us and the Blogging Tories and the Canadian conservative blogger’s biography off (how THAT is relevant when a left wing association of blogs in Canada isnt is a tad puzzling to me) or leave everything on.

So.. why I am diarying this is I am asking you for your support. I know you all have issues down here much more … important then this minor spat. But, if any of you have active Wikipedia accounts, (particularly our Canadian brethren who read here) perhaps you could stop around Wikipedia and send a comment and vote in support of keeping our entry, and halt this obvious ideologically-based driven attack by a self confessed conservative supporter, who is campaigning for the removal of a website antithetical to his ideology.

[Promoted by susanhu. Too funny. ‘cept it’s sad.] Condi Rice was in Ottawa for a couple of days on a state visit, but she had to rush off this morning back to Washington, abruptly cancelling some interviews and raising speculation what exactly was going on.

Before doing this, the aforementioned Ms. Rice got very peeved at some pesky Canadian media questioning her about the US’s committment to treaties and signed agreements. I guess she isnt used to such media scrutiny from the Beltway Press Club back in D.C.

You see, Ms Rice feels the softwood lumber dispute is a rather trivial trade dispute compared to other great issues, and when the media took her to task over it, she didnt like it…

As background for those unfamiliar, Canada has won a series of NAFTA trade panel rulings that have ruled that Canada is not illegally dumping softwood lumber on the US market, and that 5 billion $ of duties the Americans have collected in tariffs should be repaid to Canada (I’ll also mention these rulings were done with a majority of US judges on the panel listening to this case – the verdicts have been a unanimous 5-0 in Canada’s favour).

The US in effect then told Canada it was ignoring the rulings and insisted on continued negotiations to break the impasse. Canada’s government has withdrawn from talks and said there’s nothing to negotiate over – we’ve won a ruling fair and square, and the ruling is part of a panel to a treaty that the US’s signature is attached to. This led to the following testy exchange…

Continued BELOW:
This led to the following testy exchange between the Canadian media and Rice at an interview:

…she dismissed the contentious softwood lumber issue as “a trade dispute,” insisting that it should be settled through further negotiations.

Rice bristled when asked how the U.S. could be trusted when it doesn’t live up to its international agreements.

“Well, I think the word of the United States has been as good as gold in its international dealings and its agreements,” she snapped.

Rather touchy, Ms Rice.. and a lot of gall to saying you respect international agreements when you have several examples from your own press this morning which state otherwise.

Maybe its better that the US currently isnt a signatory to the International Criminal Court or Kyoto, or the effort to reduce landmines…. there sure isnt any indication they’d be able to stick to the treaties if they were signed on, when they cant even do it over a “petty trade dispute”.

Reaction in Canada to Ms Rice’s comments was rather swift, by the way. The centrist Globe and Mail paper – one usually read by a lot of those in the business community = immediately put up an online poll asking its readers whether they agreed with the Secretary’s assertion that the “word of the US is as good as gold”.

As of this morning, 12460 people have voted, and a resounding 91% of respondents have said that Condi and the Bush Admin is full of it

Okay, so its ‘unscientific’, but the readership of the G&M arent exactly known to be wild-eyed radicals.. nor do the G&M’s polls get freeped.

Heck, even Cabinet Ministers, normally very diplomatic when guests are here, couldnt resist scoffing at this:

International Trade Minister Jim Peterson responded with sarcasm to Rice’s “good as gold” pledge on respecting international agreements.

“We’ve been off the gold standard for an awfully long time in this country,” he said

Editorials in Canadas major dailes also agree that Rice is up the creek on this “good as gold” assertion.. from the Toronto Star this morning:

Ah, if only it were so. The sad truth is, U.S. President George Bush’s credibility is in tatters. And not just on softwood. Washington’s charming chief diplomat surely knows it. Americans are coming to believe Bush led them down the garden path into a war in Iraq that has taken 2,000 U.S. lives, cost $200 billion and fanned 9/11 fanaticism. And Canadians, most of whom never considered Bush credible on Iraq, scoff at the idea that Washington has a believable case on lumber. The North American Free Trade Agreement dispute resolution panels have ruled the U.S. is cheating us of $5 billion by imposing unfair duties.

>

THe Star noted Rice came with a shopping list that the US wants Canada to do more on, while giving back nothing in return but nice words:

Bush wants Canada to do more in Iraq, beyond our $300 million in reconstruction aid. He wants our diplomatic support for his drive at the United Nations to punish Syria for meddling in Lebanon. He wants Canada to take on a bigger role in continental defence. And he is urging Ottawa to help dampen tension in the Middle East, Haiti and Sudan.

Rice also thanked Ottawa – a “generous, tested” ally – for sending troops to Afghanistan, for helping U.S. residents when Hurricane Katrina hit, and for co-operating on security issues. That is high praise for an ally who cannot seem to get the time of day for a trade complaint.

So, another mission accomplished for US and Bush diplomacy. Thanks for stopping by Condi. Sorry that home matters meant you had to cut your already brief visit short.

Hi folks.. just read this in the Toronto Star giving more details on the relief mission Canada is sending to the Gulf States and what we’re sending:

Yesterday, the navy dockyards were a buzz of activity as crews worked to get the destroyer HMCS Athabaskan along with frigates HMCS Toronto and Ville de Québec loaded. Joining them will be the Coast Guard ship Sir William Alexander.

Whats on those ships?

If you’re Commander Elizabeth Steele, you start with tents — enough to house 1,800 people. Then add 500 radios, 6,000 toiletry kits, 6,000 packages of diapers and baby wipes. First aid kits, cots, blankets and portable air conditioners.

She’s packing a change of clothes for several thousand people — underwear, socks, overalls and “lots of hand sanitizer.”

The ships will also be transporting almost two-dozen inflatable boats, so navy crews can deliver aid to still-flooded areas.

But Rear-Admiral Dan McNeil says the ships’ crews — almost 1,000 in all — will prove even more valuable than the supplies. “We have a lot of technical people. Each one of those ships is a small town in terms of the expertise you can find,” McNeil said. The experts include engineers and linesmen able to string new power lines.

We apparently are going to link up with an American amphibious group to help unload the supplies ashore.

I see the American Ambassador to Canada is personally going to be there (along with our Prime minister) to wish us well and see us off.. so hopefully that means if FEMA starts acting stupid and doesnt allow us to deliver supplies for whatever reason (since they seem to be doing this with certain American naval units), he can give Bush a call and tell him so.

I think maybe the US finally accepted our request for aid – or some of it anyways. We wont be there tomorrow, but we’ll be there soon

Three Canadian warships and a coast guard vessel will be sent to Louisiana on Tuesday with relief supplies for the U.S. Gulf Coast. The ships, which will also carry 1,000 personnel, are expected to arrive in the Gulf of Mexico three to four days after they leave Halifax.

Defence Minister Bill Graham made the announcement Friday from Moscow, Russia.

Organizers of the mission, dubbed Operation Union, were still compiling a list of what’s needed on Friday. They expect to provide humanitarian aid, along with divers, and engineering expertise for reconstruction.

Three Sea King helicopters will also be sent to ferry personnel into the devastated areas.

In addition, the DART (Diaster Assistance Relief Team) has been put on 48 hrs notice to leave for the US once (if) the US makes a request for it. What can DART do?:

The engineer troop produces bulk and bagged water from its Canadian-built Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit with an approximate 100,000-litres-a-day production capacity. The troop provides water for the medical aid station and for distribution to victims of the disaster. Once the DART’s austere camp is established, the engineering troop can also undertake other basic construction and engineer tasks in support of the host nation and humanitarian aid agencies, as required.

The medical platoon staffs a medical aid station of approximately 45 personnel. This tented facility is capable of providing care for 200 to 250 outpatients and 30 inpatients daily, depending on the severity of injuries. There are also laboratory, pharmacy, rehydration, obstetrics, and preventive medicine sections.

I really think that would be the best thing the US could ask Canada to send.. but the fact we’ve been allowed to send this initial help is a start.

Update [2005-9-2 19:13:18 by tribe34]: More details on some more Canadian aid that is being offered:

– The provincial government of Nova Scotia made an instant donation of 100 000$ to the Canadian Red Cross

– The provincial governent of Prince Edward Island offered to help co-ordinate an effort to provide shelter and support for the many people displaced by Katrina

– Air Canada said today it had dispatched an Airbus passenger jet from Toronto to New Orleans with a cargo of bottled water and relief supplies. As well, the airline said it would operate shuttle flights over the next several days to help in the evacuation of about 25,000 people from New Orleans to Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.