"Morally weak" -- the timeline

Peter MacKay and John Baird are attacking the Liberals in Question Period for describing the generals' committee testimony on Afghan detainees last week as "morally weak and legally flimsy."

Actually, that phrase belongs to the Star's Jim Travers, from his Saturday column.

For all its sound and fury, the counter-attack that politicians, bureaucrats and generals mounted this week was morally weak and legally flimsy. In struggling to sway public opinion, finely parsed denials skidded around the looming conclusion that Canada transferred prisoners into probable torture after being warned by the pre-eminent and most credible victims-of-violence organization, the International Committee of the Red Cross.

And then, on Sunday, from Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh, this utterance:

Well this committee is having an impact. I believe the situation now is the issue is not about who knew what and when. I think they all admit that they knew, and the
generals' defence, as someone said, was morally weak and legally flimsy,

and David Mulroney essentially said they knew, they were concerned.

 Knowing Jim as I do, I can assure you he's not happy when other get credit for his prose.

Comments

[Wascally Wabbit]

And he started an avalanche - followed by Tom Walkom - articles by former diplomats - and some deep inside background from Eric Margolis...
This is going to sink the Harper ship I think!