Benazir Bhutto blames Musharraf in pre-death email but did she follow security precautions?

After reading the article, Bhutto blames Musharraf in pre-death email, on the ctv news website, I am a bit confused. Apparently former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, said in an email to Washington lobbyist, Mark Siegel that if she was assassinated, that Musharraf should be held complicit in her death due to his refusal to meet safety requests she had made.

Below are some excerpts from that article:

Siegel said she had been stopped from taking private cars with tinted windows and had not received radio jammers or four police escorts -- as she had requested.

On Newsnet, Siegel read the email, saying, "There is no way what is happening -- in terms of stopping me from taking private cars or using tinted window, or giving jammers or four police mobiles to cover all sides -- could happen without (Musharraf)."

Siegel said her request for four police escorts -- one on each side of her vehicle -- could have saved her life

Having more than four police escorts did not save assassinated US President John F. Kennedy's life on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas or prevent former US President, Ronald Reagan, from being shot and wounded on March 30th, 1981. And you can bet they had the best security detail possible.

In terms of protecting someone, there is only so much that can be done in the best of circumstances against a determined assassin, and Bhutto has dozens of very experienced bodyguards, so I am not sure if Siegel's statement about the police escorts is a fair one.

But, after looking back on a previous article, 2 blasts strike crowd celebrating Bhutto's return, on the MSNBC website, it seems to indicate that Benazir Bhutto deliberately refused to take precautions and advise by security officers dating back to the first assassination attempt in October.

Below are some excerpts from that article:

An estimated 20,000 security officers had been deployed to protect Bhutto and her cavalcade of motorized rickshaws, colorful buses, cars and motorcycles in the streets of Pakistan's largest city.

Authorities had urged Bhutto to use a helicopter to reduce the risk of attack amid threats from extremists sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qaida, but she brushed off the concerns.

"I am not scared. I am thinking of my mission," she had told reporters on the plane from Dubai. "This is a movement for democracy because we are under threat from extremists and militants."

Last month, Bhutto told CNN she realized she was a target. Islamic militants, she said, "don't believe in women governing nations, so they will try to plot against me, but these are risks that must be taken. I'm prepared to take them."

Bhutto refuses to use protective cubicle
Leaving the airport, Bhutto refused to use a bulletproof glass cubicle that had been built atop the truck taking her to the tomb of Pakistan's founding father, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, to give a speech. She squeezed between other party officials along a railing at the front.

What surprised me the most was that moments before she was assassinated, she stood with her head exposed in the sun-roof of her vehicle as it moved slowly through the crowds estimated in the thousands. Why did her security detail allow her to do this, knowing the threats and the previous assassination attempt on her life?

I am not assigning any blame for Bhutto's death, as whichever group is responsible committed a morally reprehensible act clearly designed to destabilize Pakistan and throw it into chaos barely 2 weeks before parliamentary elections. But I also think that one should not jump to conclusions and blame Pakistani President Musharraf before taking into account all the facts surrounding Bhutto’s assassination.

It is clear for one thing that the Taliban and al-Qaeda wanted her dead because she was a secular woman who had close ties to the United States administration that was involved in overthrowing the Taliban regime. They also viewed Pakistan’s involvement in the “war against terror” as an assault against Islam and Bhutto had vowed to continue this co-operation if elected as Prime Minister.

Did the Tories do us a favour by reducing the GST, or was it just opportunistic politics?

I came across an interesting article in the Edmonton Sun, written by Lorrie Goldstein and Rob Granatstein that discussed the reduction of the GST to 5%, effective Jan 1st 2008. In the article, Lorrie makes arguments in support of the GST cut, while Rob opposes it, using the same arguments put forward by the Liberals and the NDP.

It makes me wonder why those on the left of the political spectrum are so vehemously opposed to tax cuts. Everyone benefits from tax cuts, both rich and poor. Whenever a tax reduction is made, we get to keep more of our money and that extra money in our hands helps to drive our economy creating more jobs and opportunities for everyone.

This exchange between Lorrie and Rob intrigued me the most:

Granatstein: What ordinary Canadians know is they have to spend money to get any benefit out of the GST cut. And it helps the rich more than the poor. The more you spend, the more pennies you save. A GST cut doesn't help me pay my mortgage, doesn't help me put anything into my dismal RRSP, it doesn't let me decide where I want to spend it. And resale homes are GST exempt. So I guess that's out, too.

Goldstein: You also have to earn money to get any benefit from an income tax cut. What's your point? Whenever provincial and federal governments cut income tax rates, people who are opposed make exactly your argument -- that the cuts amount to only a few dollars a week. Fact is, most of them don't believe in making one tax cut over another cut, they just don't believe in any tax cuts. I do. I believe people know how to spend their own money better than government.

Did the Tories do us a favour by reducing the GST, or was it just opportunistic politics? (Edmonton Sun)

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto assassinated

Former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated today after attending a rally in the city of Rawalpindi. This could not have happened at a worst time, as it is bound to have a destabilizing effect on that country. Especially since it has played a key role in the Afghan war against the Taliban. What will be interesting to see is the effect that this development will have on the Afghan mission.

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto assassinated

Merry Christmas!

To everyone, I just want to take the opportunity to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope you all have a wonderful time with your families and friends and best wishes for 2008!

I would also like to wish all of our troops serving abroad a Merry Christmas as well and thank all of them for serving our country with great dignity and for the personal sacrifices that many have made. Many of us appreciate your efforts abroad to make life better for the people in those countries that you are serving in.

To everyone, have a safe, peaceful and joyous holiday.

Regards,

Tony

Is Schreiber Lying To Us?

It looks like Karlheinz Schreiber once again has changed his story. This time, it happened within a span of just 2 days. I am at a loss to see why are we wasting taxpayers’ money on his appearance before the ethics committee if he cannot keep his story streight for 2 days.

On Tuesday, Schreiber testified that former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney did not receive any money in connection with the Airbus affair. He was actually laughing off suggestions of Mr. Mulroney’s involvement in the Airbus affair.

CTV link: Mulroney didn't receive Airbus kickbacks: Schreiber

Karlheinz Schreiber told a parliamentary ethics committee on Tuesday that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney did not receive any money in connection with the Airbus affair.

He said that allegations of Mulroney's involvement in securing an Air Canada contract for the purchase of planes from the European company were laughable.

Today, just 2 days after saying that former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney did not receive any airbus money, Schreiber has changed his story. Today Schreiber testified that Mulroney’s former adviser, Fred Doucet, told him to transfer some proceeds from the sale of Airbus jets to Air Canada into a bank account for former Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney. Mr. Doucet has denied this.

CTV link: Schreiber testimony ties Mulroney to Airbus deal

Karlheinz Schreiber testified today that he was told to transfer some proceeds from the sale of Airbus jets to Air Canada into a bank account for former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
...
"(I said) 'Why the hell would one send money to a lawyer in Geneva for Mr. Mulroney? What for?'" said Schreiber. "Now came this unbelievable answer, he said: 'For Airbus.'"

My question for Mr. Schreiber would be if what you are telling us today is true, then why did you say that Mr. Mulroney was not involved in the Airbus affair on Tuesday? It just does not add up. What I also found disturbing is that only a few MSM outlets are questioning Schreiber's latest statement. Many were content with taking Schreiber's word and reporting his latest revelation a major political bombshell.

If the testimony about Schreiber being told to transfer money from the Airbus sale to Mulroney’s account were true, then it would indicate that Schreiber lied to the ethics committee on Tuesday when he said that allegations of Mulroney’s involvement in securing an Air Canada contract for the purchase of planes were laughable.

Even today, Schreiber said that he was so desperate to stay in Canada that he would sign anything or say anything. This happened when he was questioned about inconsistencies in what he wrote in a letter in May or June of 2006 and what he said in his testimony.

What I found funny was that Schreiber admitted to being a judge in Germany, but he was afraid to go back there to face tax evasion charges, as, according to him, they regularly violated human rights. This is coming from a person who did not find anything wrong with the same judicial system when he was a judge. The constant theme I kept on hearing was about how bad Schreiber wanted to stay in Canada. I did not hear anything about him wanting Canadians to know the truth. Even in the letter that he sent, it sounded like an attempt by him to blackmail others in his quest to stay in Canada.

Well, Schreiber takes the stand again next Tuesday, as well as, representatives from GCI (the Ottawa lobying firm) and Mulroney may be called to testify next Thursday from 9am to 1pm. It will be interesting to hear what Mulroney has to say. What was interesting was that some Liberals actually were against having Mr. Mulroney testify. I wonder what might they be afraid of? Only time will tell.

Stephane Dion – Liberals Ready For A Spring Election

Less than a month ago, Liberal Opposition leader Stephane Dion said that his party did not want an election and neither did most Canadians and was accusing the governing Conservatives of trying to engineer one. Today Mr. Dion has completely changed his tune and is now saying that the Liberal party are ready to face the Conservatives in a spring election.

Dion says Liberals ready for a spring election

"2008 will be another ball game," he said. "You cannot keep alive forever a government who wants to die."

He said Liberal MPs have been forced to abstain from key confidence votes, allowing the Conservatives to push through key legislation, because Canadians were opposed to the idea of a third election in three years.

Now, he said, Canadians have had enough of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and are ready for a change.

Really! If Canadians were really ready for a change, you would see it in the poll results, right?

The reality is that the popular opinion polls have not moved in favour of the Liberals. In fact, the Conservatives have maintained the same level of support that they had when the defeated the governing Liberal party, and at the same time, support for the Liberals have not increased.

I am not sure on what basis Dion's party will be ready for a spring election. Lets look at the reality their party has to deal with:

• Political donations to the Liberal party are lagging and are far below the Conservatives. In addition, the Liberal finances are in bad shape, as they still millions of dollars in debt.
• The Liberals are still where they were in terms of popular support when they lost the 2006 Federal elections to the Tories. They have not been able to increase their numbers.
• Stephane Dion still has an image problem among Canadians and lags far behind Prime Minister, Stephen Harper and even NDP leader Jack Layton in terms of personal popularity.
• Approximately 20% of the Liberal caucus has either resigned or indicated that they will not be running in the next federal election. This is hardly a good sign of a party ready to fight an election.
• The Liberals under Dion’s leadership have failed to give their party the renewal that it needed to distance itself from its past problems. Dion has been mostly vague in the direction that he wants to take the party and this has resulted in many Canadians not being able to say what either he or his party stands for.

It will be interesting to see how the Liberals will run an effective election campaign against the Conservatives with Dion at the helm. If Dion conducts his election campaign in the same way in which he has performed as Liberal opposition leader, the Conservatives will be cruising to victory once again.

Rex Murphy Commentary on Prime Minister Harper’s Position on a Post-Kyoto Agreement

On last night's edition of CBC's, The National, Rex Murphy's commentry articulated Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s position on a post Kyoto agreement. It was one of his best commentaries and it added a lot of creditability to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s argument that the Canadian government will not enter into "binding agreements" that deal with climate change, unless those agreements are binding on all the world's CO2 emitters, major and minor.

In the blog, Dispatch From The Socialist Gulag in a post titled, “Rex Murphy on Canada's global warming position” there is a link to last night’s commentary on CBC that should be required viewing for those on either side of the Kyoto debate.

Below is an excerpt from the Rex Murphy's commentry on CBC's, The National last night:

If global warming is the imminent and catastrophic peril to the earth that everyone from the IPCC to David Suzuki to Al Gore and every socially-conscious celebrity on the planet have been telling us it is, then there can be no serious argument for Canada to make mandatory commitments, while exempting the giant emitters of the world such as China and India. This is like plugging a leak while ignoring a flood.
...

Everyone has a vague, soft wish to "do the right thing" for the planet - and at the level of gesture - green light bulbs, more intense recycling, hybrid SUVs, everyone more or less feels good about going along.

But what the participants at Bali will be looking for from Canada, Europe, the US, the industrialized world, are precisely those hard targets and commitments that Mr. Harper, very logically, unless equivalent cuts are made for all, has said make no sense. Cuts that would impose real restrictions on the Canadian economy, slow growth - this will not be painless regardless of what enthusiasts say - perhaps start a real conflict in this country over the oil sands - while giving a pass to much larger countries producing much greater emissions.

Are we really going to do that - while two of the largest economies of the 21st century make the leap into unregulated, unprecedented growth?

That's a two-tier solution to global warming, and unless I misread our recent history, Canadians are not fond of two-tier solutions.