According to Monday's G&M, Michael Ignatieff was the only one of 11 Liberal leadership candidates to mention Afghanistan at this weekend's shindig in Toronto. Unfortunately, he said all the wrong things:
"We have got to be the party that stands for human rights everywhere, that does the tough lifting when it has to be done," Mr. Ignatieff told the crowd of about 1,500. "You ask us to do something hard and difficult and we can do it. We're doing it in Afghanistan. It's in the greatest tradition of our country and that's the kind of country we want."
My general reaction to hearing the words "Afghanistan" and "human rights" used together in the same paragraph is to get ready for some projectile vomiting, and I am so glad that, at least according to leadership candidate Joe Volpe, Mr. Ignatieff's comments "didn't go over well" with the Liberal delegates:
"There was a deafening silence in the room. There wasn't much of an uptake on the robustness of Canada's disposition, because the robustness of Canada's approach isn't matched by the robustness of the [public] support."
However, I think the Libs are going to have to start talking about the Afghan mission pretty soon and, crass as it seems, weigh the political pros and cons of staying the course as opposed to ending our participation in that country's occupation.
Obviously, I think Iggy's claim that the military must not be allowed to become "a symbol of the Conservative Party" is alot of baloney, a sign that he does not understand the country he wishes to lead, but how should the Libs be positioning themselves?
Since the next round of decisions re. carrying on vs. withdrawing from the mission will be made early in 2007 (February I think, but I will confirm that after a couple of coffees), the correct Liberal Party position is that these decisions will be made via a vote in Parliament. This should be a minimal consensus that the whole party can rally behind, as it is pretty clearly the majority view in the country as a whole and, I suspect, would even be supported by a fair number of Tory voters.
What ought to happen on the occasion of that vote, I am not yet prepared to say. However, the most likely scenario for Afghanistan over the course of the next year is that the situation there continues to deteriorate. Should this be the case I think there will be very little support in the country for pressing on and, if Harper wishes to extend our military commitments in the area, he should do so without Liberal assistance.
Whatever Iggy and the other candidates say for the next few weeks or even months will be lost in a tidal wave of LPC bashing that is coming out of Chucky "Mr Moneybags" Guite's trial and then the Auditor Generals report next week.
ReplyDeleteA sample from today's trial.
"Asked by Crown prosecutor Jacques Dagenais why he needed to express his concerns to Mr. Corriveau, Mr. Lambert replied: ”He was someone who was in the Liberal Party's entourage"
Ah yes, Mr. Courriveau, who became an Adscam millionaire and who is Jean Cretien's best friend. No charges yet laid on this fine upstanding Liberal.
Drip, drip, drip . . the slow acid torture routine for the LPC.
Couldn't happen to nicer people.
Everyone's forgotten this stuff already. Can't see it effecting the polls one way or another. Keep hard at it, though.
ReplyDeleteSo the correct approach, (in the liberal mind?), is to ignore the human rights abuses in Afghanistan unless they can be somehow used to the liberal party's advantage.
ReplyDeleteKind of reminds me of last spring when Darfour was one of Martin's arm flappingest top priorities when he thought it could be used to buy Kilgour's vote to extend his time at the top. Of course, the people of Darfour continued being murdered and raped with no help from Canada because Martin and co determined that there was no political advantage to be had from helping them. I guess they were just collateral damage in the Liberal Party's struggle to stay in power.
The whole human rights angle is complete BS and typical for lazy and stupid Canadians. It's OK if soldiers are going to country X to die for freedom, but heaven forbid that we should shop somewhere besides Wal-Mart that does business in the neighbourhood of $18 Billion USD/year with China AKA The Worst Country For Human Rights Ever. It's absolutely sickening that anyone would play that card and completely ignore other blatant and far worse violations ie Sudan.
ReplyDelete