In a refreshing, honest blog post by the Ottawa Citizen’s Kate Heartfield, she comes clean about how the editorial staff gave the Liberal Party a free ride when it came to their 32 editorials on Omar Khadr:
Around 2006 there’s a noticeable shift in tone. In July, 2006, comes our first editorial calling in no uncertain terms for him to be brought back to Canada. And the frequency of editorials gets noticeably higher around that time, too. But I’m gratified to see that our very first editorial, in 2002, called him a child soldier, and we never wavered from that. (see here)
You can almost hear her sigh of relief about the “child soldier” label. Imagine if that was added only after the Conservatives won government.
Now Heartfield needs to get an editorial run based on this anti-Conservative admission.
July 24, 2012 at 9:30 AM
A tiny snippet of honesty from a loopy leftie! *edited*
July 24, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Yes, it is refreshing. The Khadr affair should be non partisan, but the Left and their fellow travellers (MSM) made it partisan throwing national security and well being into the gutter. That is why it has everything to do with anti Harper, anti conservative and nothing to do with truly caring about Khadr.
July 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM
I think it no accident that the editorials began after the Liberals left office. Prominent Liberals have never explained why they did absolutely nothing for Khadr when they were the government. Under Jean Chretien who was badly burned by intervening on behalf of Khadr Sr., I doubt very much if the subject of Jr. was ever raised around cabinet. Paul Martin would not have that excuse, but one can see why he would not be anxious to touch the case. Irwin Cotler has not been forthcoming on the Liberal discussions, but extremely vocal afterwards.
The view of Khadr’s case has been consistent under 3 PMs and 2 Presidents, that he must face trial and accept its verdict. Only in opposition do politicians say otherwise.
July 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM
And where was Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire’s petition back then?
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/minister-toews-bring-back-omar-khadr-from-guantanamo-bay
July 24, 2012 at 5:49 PM
I don’t know much about Dallaire other than a nebulous perception that he was placed in an untenable position as a Peacekeeper and was powerless to do anything to prevent the horrors he witnessed. A position that Jack Layton wanted to ensure would happen again.
I see some parallel to what happened in Apocalypse Now, or Heart of Darkness, the story that the movie was based on.
It seems Dallaire is utterly broken and has lost the will to reason leaving him only the desire to atone for something he didn’t do.
July 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM
*edited*? No Profanity. Good riddance BC Pink.
July 24, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Personal smears about someone’s appearance are not welcome here. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
July 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Khadr was not on the agenda of the Chretien/Martin Liberals, for starters it would have risked the opposition bringing up Chretien’s big goof intervening on behalf of the Big Daddy Khadr, in fact he went to his bedside, shook his hand.
The “child soldier” moniker is another leftist farce, he wasn’t in an “army”, he was a trained terrorist.
Just like the Kyoto Accord Chretien signed with no intention of ever adhering to it’s dictates beyond sending big bucks to major polluters particularly China, he had no interest in rescuing Khadr from Gitmo.
July 24, 2012 at 6:17 PM
Why does it matter whether he was in an official army or part of a terrorist group? He was still a child, he was still forced to be there, and it’s still indoctrination of a minor. He was also still fighting in an official war and, last time I checked, combatents in war are generally soldiers.
You may disagree on whether he should be brought back to Canada or not, but I really don’t see how you can claim he was not a child soldier.
July 24, 2012 at 7:56 PM
First, a soldier is not a terrorist. War combatants wear uniforms and fight under conventions of war. Your pretence is complete BS
July 25, 2012 at 4:08 AM
Well done, you have dodged the main issue. He was a child, he was forced to be there and he was indoctrinated. Basically the exact same things that happen to child soldiers in Africa.
The difference? Ah, he wasn’t wearing a uniform. Well then clearly that changes everything, because a uniform somehow prevents him from being a child, denies him freedom to leave, and prevents him from being indoctrinated. And my pretence in complete BS?
July 25, 2012 at 8:53 AM
Tell us, were you “indoctrinated” as well?
July 25, 2012 at 9:04 AM
Of course, we all are to a greater or lesser extent. It’s like how nobody is born to a specific religion (or lack thereof), they are merely born to parents of that religion (or, again, lack thereof) who indoctrinate the child in those ways. However, as people age they are more and more able to make their own decisions and throw off the indoctrination of their childhoods – this is not really possible when you’re in the middle of a war and only 14 or 15.
July 25, 2012 at 4:51 AM
Let’s call him what he was then, a child terrorist rather than demean and defame soldiers who wear a uniform. Terrorists in the battlefield or among innocent civilians are not identifiable, they may be fighting for a cause but they don’t qualify as soldiers by our definition.
July 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM
I think we have seen this movie before, same bad actors.
The Kadhr child soldier meme, the Liberals got a pass.
Even though Chretain intervened on behalf of the elder Kadhr
The Kyoto accord signed by Chretain, the Libs did nothing.
Libs got a pass on Kyoto from friendly media.
Conservatives were colossal fossils.
Media in this Canada of ours are crooked and corrupt.
Check out SDA we are the best run Country on the planet.
July 24, 2012 at 5:02 PM
The one thing that always bothered me was how many news reports and news talk programs — particularly those by our state broadcaster — would feature the child photo of Khadr at the same time as doing segments criticizing the Harper gov’t's handling of the file. Totally misleading considering that Khadr turned 19 (legal definition of an adult) in Sept 2005, 4 months before the Harper gov’t even came to power. He was a child ONLY under Lib gov’t rule. While having no jurisdiction over the CBC, where was the Canadian Broadcast Sensors Council in disciplining the others for doing the same?
July 25, 2012 at 7:27 AM
I didn’t see any of the reporters run to GITMO to be at Khadr’s side like they did to Brenda Martin who was an adult at the time. La FLAMME etc Paul Martin went to Mexico.
July 24, 2012 at 6:32 PM
Yes, and of course this was the one and only time they were EVER biased.
July 24, 2012 at 6:41 PM
For the past decade at least and in particular the 6+years that the Conservative Party has regained an earned respect from it stepping back and reassessing our values, the media has been in a tizzy. I know of no one that watches or supports any MS network dilligently. I guess they do in Ontario and Quebec but not out west.
Having said that, EVERYONE knows about the wee terrorist, the poor baby and what they think of him. Unfortunately these media morons are not listening. WE DON’T want him back! WE do not consider him a child soldier as some of us are actually related to real soldiers. Some of us know people who have rescued REAL child soldiers from the African nations. So to this moronic stance that this wee wimp who joyously killed an American was doing it under duress, well just do your homework!
However for these people who defend this murderer, they have concrete settling in their brains. Nothing else makes sense.
July 24, 2012 at 9:24 PM
Bec, who’s driving this bus?
The Media Party doesn’t listen to the will of the people.
They think they Are the will of the people.
And they’re just using it score points.
I wouldn’t have minded Milgaard sleeping on my couch.
But a Khadr wouldn’t get in my front door.
July 25, 2012 at 4:56 AM
Please don’t presume to speak for all Canadians, because you clearly do not. Otherwise the Conservatives would get 90% of the vote, instead of 40%.
Also, as you suggest, please do your homework.
He was 15 when he was captured by the Yanks, which makes him a child. The only eyewitness said that he was “Khadr crouched on his knees facing away from the action”, at which point the eyewitness shot him twice in the back. That doesn’t sound like he was very joyous about the whole thing. Note as well that there was another enemy combatant who was shot (before Khadr but after the grenade was thrown) who could easily have thrown the grenade, instead of Khadr.
Indeed, the one eyewitness report was “initially written . . . the day after the firefight that ‘the person who threw a grenade that killed Sgt. 1st Class Christopher J. Speer also died in the firefight’, implying that the grenade had indeed been thrown by the surviving Mujahideen, and not by Khadr. The report was rewritten months later to say that the grenade thrower had been “engaged”, rather than “killed”, changing the wording that exonerated Khadr”.
Does that not seem kind of suspect? They changed the report months later in order to have evidence against Khadr, because there was *NONE* before. So while you rage about his actions, you have clearly not done your research (or ignored what you disagreed with) because there is no evidence that Khadr threw it other than his coerced confession.
And it was indeed coerced. While at Bagram he was tortured. You don’t believe that, of course, but the lead ‘interrogator’ later plead guilty to “abusing detainees to extract confessions following the in-custody death of wrongly accused Dilawar that same year”. Note the plural word ‘detainees’. Now a little bit of knowledge, or experience, will tell you that torture is a useless technique for getting information. The person being tortured will tell you exactly what they think you want to hear, not the truth. This is why confessions gained through torture are not admissible in real courts. However, Khadr did not face a real court, he faced a kangaroo court.
He also signed a plea agreement saying he did it. Why? Well I assume he feared that he would end up spending the rest of his life in jail, in the US, for something he did not do, whereas if he signed this agreement he would be released in 8 more years. His fears would have been justified, the kangaroo court found him guilty and sentenced him to 40 years. So a choice between 8 or 40, obviously anyone would choose 8. Even if it was for a crime they did not commit.
So now that I’ve helped you do your homework, what will your response be? Probably some racist bullshit, because that’s all the Khadr frenzy has been.
July 25, 2012 at 8:56 AM
The lunatic Left never let the truth get in the way of their ‘factual’ talking points.
July 25, 2012 at 9:11 AM
Oh yes, I love how you counter my “‘factual’ talkings points” by explain the “truth” through your usage of ad hominem attacks.
Well done, you have completely changed my mind on everything! You sir are clearly a scholar of the highest order. Have you been knighted yet? Let me write to the Queen, you are clearly deserving of the highest honours available. Maybe the pope will make you a saint? I guess you’d need a miracle, but wait! You managed to convince someone of your side of an argument merely by attempting to shut them up! Wow, if that’s not a miracle, I don’t know what is.
Ahem. The ignorant Right never let reasoned arguments prevent them from taking up an opportunity to insult, denigrate or verbally abuse an opponent.
July 25, 2012 at 9:21 AM
“Arguments with furniture are rarely productive”
July 25, 2012 at 9:12 AM
I wonder how you can look at yourself in the mirror after spouting such blatant lies. The facts have been well documented. By the way where were you and your great concern for Khadr the terrorist when the Liberals formed the government? After all your claims would have taken place under their watch. I also suggest for your own benefit to drop the race card, for race has nothing to do with it and is rather silly and immature.
July 25, 2012 at 1:00 AM
The media opposition narrative that Khadr was a child soldier has always been a preposterous, deceitful claim. Liberals, NDP, and their media are a disgrace, misleading Canadians just to score points against the Government… absolutely shameful.
July 25, 2012 at 5:54 AM
If the MSM would like to demonstrate their lack of bias, they can start by using the picture of smirking Omar carrying the human hands.