It took Conservative talking points to make the CBC look again at what Liberal and former Defense Minister Liberal MP John McCallum said about Canadian troops committing war crimes during a CBC interview with Suhana Meharchand?
McCallum:
“the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime”
How is that possible that the CBC missed something so inflammatory in their own interview even when the interviewer acknowledged it? She does quickly gloss it over and change the subject though.
Meharchand:
“You know, we could digress here and talk about who’s handing over, is it the Canadian soldiers who you’re accusing of war crimes, is it the government, I don’t want to go there in this interview.”
This is what passes as their excuse on the CBC’s website for “missing” it:
A Conservative source first tipped us off to the latest talking points being sent out, which sent us scrambling to check the tape and see just what Liberal MP John McCallum may or may not have said on CBC News Network earlier this afternoon. (I’ll be honest with you: we were listening, but sometimes the phone rings or the Twitter feed whirs or… OK, go ahead and beat us up in the comments field.)
see full CBC written excuse and video of McCallum interview here
BC Blue: One BC Conservative's view on it all... 
January 12, 2010 at 7:46 PM
if the opposition support Colvin’s allegation than they have jumped the shark!
I have been saying this for months, only the internuts try to dance around this issue.
A) Colvin is correct!
B) Colvin is wrong!
If you choose A than the war crimes, torture BS lines stick!
If you choose B wild allegations are empty and require evidence!
Clearly the nutters want to attack Harper and the troops are fair game in this quest,
January 12, 2010 at 8:20 PM
So if I’m a soldier in the field and I follow the Minister’s instructions and when the minister is no longer the minister he says I am a war criminal then what exactly does that make him???
I know alcohol does funny things to memory but I wonder if (slur) John (hic) McCallum (belch) remembers being the Minister of National Defense who established the policy that resulted in the alleged torture?
January 12, 2010 at 8:25 PM
I believe if Iggy does not fire McCallum over this he has no choice but to put forward a non confidence motion when Parliament reconvenes.
January 12, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Gee the CBC missing the boat again? Who is surprised? McCallum will have to pull his head out of his ass for this one. He will soon be hoping for a senate seat anyways… err that is if Harper doesn’t reform the senate first.
January 12, 2010 at 9:16 PM
Iffy can put all the non-confidence motions he wants Jack and Gilles would have to support him or else Iffy looks even more like an idiot than he does proposing parliament sitting during prorogation.
As a wise man once said if your enemy is destroying himself, don’t stop him.
January 12, 2010 at 9:41 PM
If Parliament is padlocked, how are all those conservative ministers and staff getting in, to go to work.
Rosemarie Barton ( I think) was reporting on the cbc, how she contacted the Minister of Foreign Affairs re the Haitii, and got a response of what the govt is doing.
Also, someone talked to Baird re the security alert at airports. And of course Peter mentions that the security report/orders is so secret it is against the law. Then he asks the gal from the 5th estate, what can you tell us about it.
January 12, 2010 at 11:25 PM
My friends, courtesy of The Torch, I present to you the following:
“The Liberals were in the know
Canadian diplomats stationed in Kabul warned the former Liberal government in 2003, 2004 and 2005 that torture was commonplace in Afghan prisons. In spite of these warnings, the Martin government signed an agreement with the Karzai government in December 2005 to hand over all Canadian-captured prisoners to Afghan authorities, Foreign Affairs documents obtained by La Presse reveal.
It’s from the April 28, 2007 edition of La Presse.
Things are about to become very uncomfortable for the Liberal Party.
January 12, 2010 at 11:50 PM
Ignatieff has an excuse. He was living out of the country at the time and might not realize that John McCallum was the Minister of Defense when some of the detainee policies were developed.
McCallum and the rest of them though, have no excuse.
Bring on an inquiry!
January 13, 2010 at 4:49 AM
[…] Ardvark, Dr. Roy, and BC Blue have the story well covered, and Ezra Levant just put up a barn burner of a post – The […]
January 13, 2010 at 4:59 AM
Why does McCallum get a free pass from the MSM? I suspect that it is because a lot of them have the same “problem” that McCallum has.
If a tory had the same “problem”, the media and LPC would have their butt for bookends!
January 13, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Mary
Parliament / Government operations = two different things. One has checks and balances. The other operates within existing rules with no oversight.
January 13, 2010 at 9:47 AM
It is the USA that has checks and balances. I, and many intelligent canadians know that just because parliament is prorogued it doesn’t mean the govt stops working. That is a liberal/media story. Goodale saying because parliament is shut down the govt can’t make decisions re Haitii. How wrong he is.
To think all those lib mps have been there since Cretain, and still don’t know how it works makes me have serious doubts about their voters.
January 13, 2010 at 5:45 PM
Okay.
Scrutiny and opposition by the majority in a minority parliament has been suspended. Committees that did this have been suspended, committees that would do that on issues arising now will not created. (To me these are checks and balances but obviously not those who claim to be intelligent.)
So any policies acted upon and any decisions made by the government are part of government not parliament. That is why one can be locked and the other can do as it wishes.
Democracy has been suspended, because the minority government is operating without scrutiny or question.
All democracies are supposed to have checks and balances and all do, this government doesn’t think we need them.
January 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM
cbc has already edited the clip and has taken out the reporter’s “lifeline” to mcallum.
January 13, 2010 at 9:36 AM
Yes, I noticed that…
January 13, 2010 at 9:38 AM
Is the CBC taking tips from the Russian broadcasters?
January 13, 2010 at 9:41 AM
Dude, I’m not sure what the problem is. If you hand over people to an outfit that tortures, you’re committing a war crime, full stop. Oh, and McCallum gets a pass because it started when we went to Kandahar, which means it happened under Harper’s government, not Chretien’s or Martin’s.
You’re having problems because he’s telling the truth. Deal.
January 13, 2010 at 9:50 AM
Who sent the troops to; Khandahar, get your facts straight. McCallum is lying re war crimes, what kind of car he drives, and probably would deny he was kicked of a plane for being drunk and disorderly.