Jan. 23 - Elizabeth Nickson
observes:

What if we had a real press? One that was actually competitive, and free-thinking, not skewed by the need to suck up to bureaucrats and MPs? And be honest now, hundreds of millions of dollars can trigger extreme amounts of sucking up. If the press were free here, it would mean actual stories would be told, that you wouldn't have to force yourself to buy a Canadian magazine out of patriotism, you'd actually want to because, strange new concept, it was interesting.

It was a great shame for journalists all across the country, for instance, that the Bloc Quebecois, not our so-called media, had to break the story about the revolting 40% increase in federal government spending over the past five years. There was a 90% increase in the Justice Department budget, 129% in legal services alone. What on God's green earth would they be doing with that money?

Why don't we know more about the connection between the Desmarais family, TotalFinaElf, the Bank Paribas, Jacques Chirac, and the UN's Oil for Food program? Given the relationship between the Desmarais family and Chretien, did that have anything to do with our refusal to join the war in Iraq? If this were the States, that story would be front and centre for months. Why do we not know more about the $250,000 the Canadian government gave to Human Concern International, an Ottawa-based organization headed by Ahmed Khadr who is reputed to have links with Osama bin Laden. Khadr used the money to open refugee camps in Pakistan that CSIS now says were used to aid Islamic fighters waging holy war in Afghanistan.

Let me tell you why we don't have a free press. If we did, things would change for our plushy elites pretty fast. As economist Roger Cass observed in his December newsletter, the C-Wave, the free and vibrant discussion of ideas in the States has meant that the Democratic party is shrinking. From over 50% of registered voters identifying as Democrats in the late 70s, they now stand at 34%. Conversely, the number of registered Republicans has risen, from 20% in the late '70s to 33% today. Even-steven. A free and vital exchange of ideas. A close observation of government operations, actual reporting on what works and what doesn't.

Posted by: Debbye at 12:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

Jan 1 - A Dec. 30 article in the LA Times on how Banned Arms Flowed Into Iraq Through Syrian Firm is full of surprises, and most gratifyingly, specifics.

These are representative of how adept the Saddam regime was at circumventing UN sanctions:

- Russia's Millenium Company Ltd. signed an $8.8-million contract in September 2002 to supply mostly American-made communications and surveillance gear to Iraq's intelligence service. The company's general manager in Moscow later wrote to suggest "the preparation of a sham contract" to deceive U.N. weapons inspectors, documents show.

- Slovenia's STO Ravne company, then a state-owned entity, shipped 20 large battle tank barrels identified as "steel tubes" to SES in February 2002. The next month, Slovenia's Defense Ministry blocked the company from exporting 50 more tank barrels to Syria. Overall, STO Ravne's secret contract called for delivering 175 tank barrels to Iraq.

I don't mean offense when I say that Simon's response was predictable (he's been a steady champion of the need to investigate that program) but the source of the story is interesting:

One of my favorite new website/blogs THE AMERICAN THINKER has an interesting article on the LA Times scoop regarding Syria's funneling arms to Saddam.Evidently this expose originated with a reporter for the German news magazine Stern. The reporter, for reasons we can only guess at, turned his information over to the LAT who then spent three months corroborating it.

Further surprises are in the comments, and the (unfortunately unverifiable) reports from people who have experience working with the UN.

One of the commenters supplied a link to an Opinion Journal Sept. 2002 piece about the program by Claudia Rosett. She puts things into perspective with her first sentence:

Who is Saddam Hussein's biggest business partner?

The United Nations. The same U.N. whose secretary-general, Kofi Annan, stands as one of the chief ditherers over removing Saddam. Here are the ingredients of a conflict of interest.

UPDATE: The Globe and Mail here reports on the Canadian connection.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.