For Test Only

As expected, John Tory's stubborn insistence on bringing up that faith based school funding issue proved to be the undoing of the Progressive Conservatives in yesterday's provincial election. I can just imagine the barrage of "I told you so's" he will have to endure, particularly within his own party. His too-late softening on the issue -- allowing members a free vote if the PC's won -- only worked to question his previously much vaulted leadership as well as his political instincts. It would appear he also suffers from that common conservative trait of irrational hubris. Early in the campaign Tory polled well compared to Liberal winner Dalton McGinty. Now Tory's survival as party leader is very much in question.

It's too bad. Better the enemy that you know. Tory is still broadly respected for his integrity and decency. He's no Mike Harris. And I feel that a government lead by John Tory would not be much worse than that of the McGinty's Liberals. He seems committed to the fight of hanging on as leader. I hope he survives the "long knives".

Better the enemy you know

As expected, John Tory's stubborn insistence on bringing up that
faith based school funding issue proved to be the undoing of the
Progressive Conservatives in yesterday's provincial election. I can
just imagine the barrage of "I told you so's" he will have to endure,
particularly within his own party. His too-late softening on the
issue -- allowing members a free vote if the PC's won -- only worked
to question his previously much vaulted leadership as well as his
political instincts. It would appear he also suffers from that common
conservative trait of irrational hubris. Early in the campaign Tory
polled well compared to Liberal winner Dalton McGinty. Now Tory's
survival as party leader is very much in question.

Can you imagine George Bush visiting Iran and give public speeches and also make himself available to the local media? Well that's what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did in New York recently. I caught his full hour interview on Charlie Rose and found him, based on this interview, to be far from the loose tongued reactionary with a fanatical mindset that we are led to believe by a pathetically indoctrinated American media. Unfailingly polite and intelligent in his response to questions the Iranian leader proved to be a skillful politician deftly exhibiting the kind of spin that the likes of Ronald Reagan would have admired. He was always a step ahead of Charlie Rose who seamed unusually and surprisingly ill-prepared. Rose should know from years of interviewing American politicians that politics is all about spin. Watch the video and judge for yourself -- does this man seem like a threat to the free world? WATCH VIDEO

I accept that Saddam is a nasty tyrant. I could even accept an initiative to challenge his control in Iraq. But I feel the actions taken by the US have been heavy handed and globally divisive. A large part of the world finds this deadly war wrong. The public reasons to attack Iraq given by George and Tony are clearly false. The claim that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction as well as having active connections to terrorist groups is unproven. And an acceptable case for war has not been made. Yet they go in anyway. Much of the respect for America around the world has come into question and has been replaced by contempt. How can it be productive in the war on terrorism or the advancement of world peace or the betterment of counties like Iraq if America is so detested in so much of the world, especially in countries it claims to be liberating?

America's refusal to cooperate within the framework of the United Nations is and will, I believe, set America on a backward track. The UN is all we have for reasoned, civilized resolution of world problems. The fact that a country that is suspected of having weapons of mass destruction is willing to allow inspectors free access is a precedent that could have continued to other countries like Iran and North Korea. This is an initiative that could realistically lead toward world disarmament. True world progress. Yet the US chose to ignore the UN and significant world opinion. This certainly reveals the Bush administration's true imperialist intentions.

So how is it that so many Americans, many of them thoughtful and intelligent, believe that the war is just and worthwhile? Part of it is the concept of backing the chief commander without question, like good soldiers "ours is not to reason why - ours is but to do and die". Part of it is through control and manipulation of the media. The 'embedded' reporters; the non objective analysts; the war games generals; CNN and especially Fox. Our much more balanced CBC has, I feel, contributed to a much greater understanding by Canadians to what's happening and the reasons. Aside from the 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'terrorist ties' rhetoric there is little talk on the reasons to go to war in the American media. Many Americans just simply refuse to accept the concept that the leaders of their country could be so wrong.