Meanwhile, Kelly McParland says we should be proud of our failure.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan Mission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan Mission. Show all posts
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Canada Possesses One Of The World's Tallest Midgets!
Same difference. Oh, and don't talk to the Aussies's about small armies.
Meanwhile, Kelly McParland says we should be proud of our failure.
Meanwhile, Kelly McParland says we should be proud of our failure.
Friday, December 17, 2010
A Few Year End Thoughts
But few, and brief, because I'm feeling a bit lazy this morning.
In the face of polls that are essentially stagnant, fans of the LPoC should remind themselves of the victories they've managed to salvage in 2010.
First off, the Harper Government's only real attempt at altering the fabric of Canadian society--Bill C-391 to repeal the long-gun registry--failed. And, not only did it fail, its failure seems to have taken the wind out of further Conservative efforts to destroy the registry. No assurances obviously, that the Harper gang won't campaign yet again on a repeal during some hypothetical Spring election campaign, but I sense a certain deflation of spirits among their faithful. For example, no less a personage than newly minted Conservative MP Julian Fantino suggested after the defeat of C-391 that it was time to move on.
What was particularly satisfying about the gun registry debate is that, as the tooing and fro-ing came to a head, polls showed a strong swing in favour of retaining the registry. This demonstrates that progressive values can still win out in our fair land if progressives are willing to fight for them.
Also, even though many Lib partisans are not particular happy with our new Afghan mission (me among them), and even though the party's strategy and tactics in the run-up to the vote on that mission were substandard, in the end I think you have to chock this one up as a win for Michael Ignatieff in that the defections in party ranks that everyone was predicting simply did not materialize. If one test of leadership is the ability to keep your troops in line, Iggy has passed this test on several occasions during the past year.
Now, as for next Spring:Barring a total climb-down by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on all of his major priorities, the Liberal Party will oppose the Conservative government’s budget, Michael Ignatieff says, greatly increasing the likelihood of an election call in February or March.
Well, its good to know that Iggy thinks the party is ship-shape for another campaign, and god knows they're alot more fun than watching the clown-show during question period, but I suspect this is still mostly bluster: the Libs will be able to negotiate enough out of Mr. Harper to find a means of supporting the 2011 budget. Or the NDP, who have had a rough couple of months, will. Or Mr. Harper will fly a plane over Quebec and shovel loads of English money out the side, and thus secure the Bloc's support.
No. I'm still betting on 2012.
Monday, November 22, 2010
This Argument Is Not Lost
MONTREAL — Michael Ignatieff says he's willing to go along with the idea of a vote in the Commons on Canada's decision to keep troops in Afghanistan until 2014.
Do it, Iggy.
As I hear the details of our new training mission explained, it seems to me that its a definite improvement on the old in that:
1) It gets Canadian troops out of Kandahar and into a relatively quiet part of the country--around Kabul, if I remember correctly. And if you recall the state of this debate even a year ago, it looked like our guys were going to be stuck in Kandahar forever or, if we did leave, it would be marching out without any assistance from our NATO allies.
2) It cuts Canadian troops from about 3,000 to 1,000.
Speaking personally, I could probably live with something along these lines. And I suspect there is a fair chunk of the population whose concerns are with the process by which the decision was made rather than the content of thatdecision. They too could probably be swayed. We just have to be sold on it.
So come out and sell it to us, Iggy.
What Steve V says.
Do it, Iggy.
As I hear the details of our new training mission explained, it seems to me that its a definite improvement on the old in that:
1) It gets Canadian troops out of Kandahar and into a relatively quiet part of the country--around Kabul, if I remember correctly. And if you recall the state of this debate even a year ago, it looked like our guys were going to be stuck in Kandahar forever or, if we did leave, it would be marching out without any assistance from our NATO allies.
2) It cuts Canadian troops from about 3,000 to 1,000.
Speaking personally, I could probably live with something along these lines. And I suspect there is a fair chunk of the population whose concerns are with the process by which the decision was made rather than the content of thatdecision. They too could probably be swayed. We just have to be sold on it.
So come out and sell it to us, Iggy.
What Steve V says.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Testify, Brother
Gruending takes on the Gov., the Libs and, most importantly, the press:
The Liberal-Conservative elite accommodation extends to Canada’s corporate media as well, even though polls have shown that an overwhelming number of Canadians want the Afghan mission ended. In October, The Globe and Mail carried a series of articles regarding the future of Canada’s armed forces. The Globe admitted that the series was meant to oppose a strong public mood in favour of pulling back from overseas military interventions. The Afghan war, the paper conceded, has not gone well. But the newspaper believes that the war has been a testing ground creating a battle hardened Canadian military which can now use its muscle elsewhere.
The Globe op-ed, here, really is quite appalling: we've got a war machine, lets take it on the road.
And another good bit:
The common argument is that Canada cannot leave now because the job is not done. The same people may well be making the same argument in 2014.
The Liberal-Conservative elite accommodation extends to Canada’s corporate media as well, even though polls have shown that an overwhelming number of Canadians want the Afghan mission ended. In October, The Globe and Mail carried a series of articles regarding the future of Canada’s armed forces. The Globe admitted that the series was meant to oppose a strong public mood in favour of pulling back from overseas military interventions. The Afghan war, the paper conceded, has not gone well. But the newspaper believes that the war has been a testing ground creating a battle hardened Canadian military which can now use its muscle elsewhere.
The Globe op-ed, here, really is quite appalling: we've got a war machine, lets take it on the road.
And another good bit:
The common argument is that Canada cannot leave now because the job is not done. The same people may well be making the same argument in 2014.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Peter Kent's Brother Speaks Out On Our New Mission In Afghanistan
He's been covering fighting over there for years now:
Harper's aides indicate that 1,000 military trainers and support staff will remain in Afghanistan when Canadian troops leave their front line positions in Kandahar in the spring. To avoid unpleasant questions, Harper insists that he needn’t bother discussing his volte-face with Canada’s elected parliamentarians.
With good reason.
No doubt some enterprising MP would ponder aloud why Canadian taxpayers should tip still more treasure into the pockets of the Karzai regime’s shady ministers, not least those of the incompetent drunkard who heads the ANA, Defence Minister Rahim Wardak.
[...]
Far from helping the Afghan people, Stephen Harper’s consolation strategy will further debilitate Afghanistan’s weakest flank: the illegitimate regime that persists in enriching itself behind the walls of Kabul’s Presidential Palace.
You can tell which parties feel they can win the argument over an extension of our Afghanistan mission: the NDP and Bloc, who are calling for a resolution in the HOC. You can tell which ones don't: the Liberals and the Tories, who are willing to cut deals in the backrooms. Come on, Bob and Steve and Iggy. You want a mission extension; step into the sunlight and sell me one.
Harper's aides indicate that 1,000 military trainers and support staff will remain in Afghanistan when Canadian troops leave their front line positions in Kandahar in the spring. To avoid unpleasant questions, Harper insists that he needn’t bother discussing his volte-face with Canada’s elected parliamentarians.
With good reason.
No doubt some enterprising MP would ponder aloud why Canadian taxpayers should tip still more treasure into the pockets of the Karzai regime’s shady ministers, not least those of the incompetent drunkard who heads the ANA, Defence Minister Rahim Wardak.
[...]
Far from helping the Afghan people, Stephen Harper’s consolation strategy will further debilitate Afghanistan’s weakest flank: the illegitimate regime that persists in enriching itself behind the walls of Kabul’s Presidential Palace.
You can tell which parties feel they can win the argument over an extension of our Afghanistan mission: the NDP and Bloc, who are calling for a resolution in the HOC. You can tell which ones don't: the Liberals and the Tories, who are willing to cut deals in the backrooms. Come on, Bob and Steve and Iggy. You want a mission extension; step into the sunlight and sell me one.
Friday, November 12, 2010
A Backroom Deal
...between the Tories and Liberals, to extend the Afghanistan mission. What else can you call it? A deal that, frankly, excludes a good portion of the Liberal Party's MPs as well as the nation's citizenry, from a meaningful role in the decision.
And what astounds me, after so many years of his "Liberal Hawk" instincts proving so utterly disastrous, after humping a University degree in basket-weaving courses into a career as a TV talking head (in some little island country across the ocean that was relevant a century ago)... after being installed as LPoC leader because the party was too broke to oppose him...what astounds me is that after all this, Iggy still thinks he's smarter than the people and the party that elevated him.
Frankly, I think if Iggy wants to support an extension of Canada's Afghanistan mission to 2014, he should have to get up in the HOC, hold hands with Prime Minister Harper, and explain the whys and wherefores behind this Lib./Tory coalition. Lets face it, he's been a crap leader of the opposition. If Dion couldn't explain himself in English, then with Iggy the problem is that when he explains himself it just makes you think he's an enormous dick. Nobody owes him any deference. And he owes the country a better performance.
So, lets have a debate in the HOC. And remember the debate around the Long Gun Registry; the LPoC brain trust eventually came around. This argument isn't lost. Iggy has shown that he will bend the right way when pressure is applied. It's just that he's a stubborn as an ass, and can only be convinced if you apply the political equivalent of a 2 by 4 to the side of his head.
And what astounds me, after so many years of his "Liberal Hawk" instincts proving so utterly disastrous, after humping a University degree in basket-weaving courses into a career as a TV talking head (in some little island country across the ocean that was relevant a century ago)... after being installed as LPoC leader because the party was too broke to oppose him...what astounds me is that after all this, Iggy still thinks he's smarter than the people and the party that elevated him.
Frankly, I think if Iggy wants to support an extension of Canada's Afghanistan mission to 2014, he should have to get up in the HOC, hold hands with Prime Minister Harper, and explain the whys and wherefores behind this Lib./Tory coalition. Lets face it, he's been a crap leader of the opposition. If Dion couldn't explain himself in English, then with Iggy the problem is that when he explains himself it just makes you think he's an enormous dick. Nobody owes him any deference. And he owes the country a better performance.
So, lets have a debate in the HOC. And remember the debate around the Long Gun Registry; the LPoC brain trust eventually came around. This argument isn't lost. Iggy has shown that he will bend the right way when pressure is applied. It's just that he's a stubborn as an ass, and can only be convinced if you apply the political equivalent of a 2 by 4 to the side of his head.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Our Afghan Ally
“If you and the international community pressure me more [to clean up corruption], I swear that I am going to join the Taliban,” [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai said, according to the Parliament member.
2011 and out, baby! Canada is gone! Like a dot on the far horizon!!!
2011 and out, baby! Canada is gone! Like a dot on the far horizon!!!
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Can Somebody Please Answer Him?
Thomas Walkom writes:
The opposition Liberals want Prime Minister Stephen Harper to clarify what he plans for Afghanistan. But he is clear. He says he's bringing Canada's troops home.
The real puzzle is: What would the Liberals do?
This is not an academic question. By the time Canada's scheduled troop withdrawal begins next July, we may well have had another election. Should Michael Ignatieff's Liberals win, it will be up to them to decide how to proceed.
[...]
The Prime Minister...says the entire Afghan military mission will be terminated.
If he's sincere, that means Canadian troops won't be staying on as trainers or advisors – which, to a large extent, is what they are doing now. Nor will they provide security for reconstruction.
Actually, I think Walkom's got it half backwards. In an interview last week with CBC radio, Lawrence Cannon (I think) dodged and weaved and bobbed so bad over the question of training police/troops in Kabul post 2011, that it sounded either like he hadn't been told what the talking points were or the Tory gov. as a whole doesn't yet know its own mind on the issue. In any case, the minister certainly didn't rule anything out.
So, it would be nice if Iggy laid down a few markers indicating that, no, any involvement in the Afghan issue after 2011 will not involve the Canadian military. There is clarity needed on this issue; Harper and co. are not providing it, and if the official opposition doesn't step up and say what is acceptable from its POV, our guys will be getting shot at and blown up from 2011 until god knows.
The opposition Liberals want Prime Minister Stephen Harper to clarify what he plans for Afghanistan. But he is clear. He says he's bringing Canada's troops home.
The real puzzle is: What would the Liberals do?
This is not an academic question. By the time Canada's scheduled troop withdrawal begins next July, we may well have had another election. Should Michael Ignatieff's Liberals win, it will be up to them to decide how to proceed.
[...]
The Prime Minister...says the entire Afghan military mission will be terminated.
If he's sincere, that means Canadian troops won't be staying on as trainers or advisors – which, to a large extent, is what they are doing now. Nor will they provide security for reconstruction.
Actually, I think Walkom's got it half backwards. In an interview last week with CBC radio, Lawrence Cannon (I think) dodged and weaved and bobbed so bad over the question of training police/troops in Kabul post 2011, that it sounded either like he hadn't been told what the talking points were or the Tory gov. as a whole doesn't yet know its own mind on the issue. In any case, the minister certainly didn't rule anything out.
So, it would be nice if Iggy laid down a few markers indicating that, no, any involvement in the Afghan issue after 2011 will not involve the Canadian military. There is clarity needed on this issue; Harper and co. are not providing it, and if the official opposition doesn't step up and say what is acceptable from its POV, our guys will be getting shot at and blown up from 2011 until god knows.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Tory Dilemma
...illustrated nicely by Brian Lilley, who argues:
The fact of the matter is that if Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Peter MacKay or General Rick Hillier are guilty of war crimes, then so are the soldiers that carried out those orders.
Here we see the Tory strategy in a nutshell, which is to hide behind the troops: if the PM is guilty, soldier boy gets it. I'll leave aside Mr. Lilley's interpretation of article 33, other than to say that it has been challenged.
He goes on:
If the members of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition were so confident in their assertions that war crimes occurred, they would be joining Professor Michael Byers from UBC in asking the ICC to investigate Canada. They don’t for two reasons, firstly to do so would rob them of a weapon to beat the government over head with during question period, secondly, the Liberals are smart enough to realize that the Canadian public would not take kindly to our own politicians accusing our own soldiers of war crimes.
I agree with Mr. Lilley that the Liberals are indeed smart enough, which is why they are leaving this kind of accusation to Conservative partisans like Mr. Lilley and Mr. Levant. I would also note that, should any parliamentary inquiry into the detainee scandal be launched, it will be up to those Tory MPs involved in the investigation to make suggestions along the lines of "Hey! lets arrest some soldiers!" The Liberals certainly won't be.
Good luck with that, fellas.
The fact of the matter is that if Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Peter MacKay or General Rick Hillier are guilty of war crimes, then so are the soldiers that carried out those orders.
Here we see the Tory strategy in a nutshell, which is to hide behind the troops: if the PM is guilty, soldier boy gets it. I'll leave aside Mr. Lilley's interpretation of article 33, other than to say that it has been challenged.
He goes on:
If the members of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition were so confident in their assertions that war crimes occurred, they would be joining Professor Michael Byers from UBC in asking the ICC to investigate Canada. They don’t for two reasons, firstly to do so would rob them of a weapon to beat the government over head with during question period, secondly, the Liberals are smart enough to realize that the Canadian public would not take kindly to our own politicians accusing our own soldiers of war crimes.
I agree with Mr. Lilley that the Liberals are indeed smart enough, which is why they are leaving this kind of accusation to Conservative partisans like Mr. Lilley and Mr. Levant. I would also note that, should any parliamentary inquiry into the detainee scandal be launched, it will be up to those Tory MPs involved in the investigation to make suggestions along the lines of "Hey! lets arrest some soldiers!" The Liberals certainly won't be.
Good luck with that, fellas.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Arthur Kent Spills
Arthur Kent, brother of Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Peter Kent, lays on a pounding on the Harper government over an Afghanistan story you may know nothing about--Hamid Karzai renaming Zarar Muqbul to his cabinet after the disgraced former minister presided over the embezzlement of up to one-third of Canadian aid dollars donated under the U.N.’s Law and Order Trust Fund (LOTFA):
In naming Zarar Muqbul as his new counter-narcotics minister, Karzai delivers a forehand smash into the court of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is already under fire for proroguing Canada’s House of Commons - in part to avoid a parliamentary committee’s probe into the Afghan government’s mistreatment of battlefield detainees.
The siphoning off of Canada’s LOTFA contributions is arguably a more flagrant abuse of trust than the issue of prisoner abuse. The financial support is intended to strengthen the National Police and kick-start Afghanistan's rule of law.
[...]
Zarar Muqbul’s story was broken here on Skyreporter in May of 2007, and in greater length in an article for the July/August 2007 edition of Policy Options, the journal of Canada’s Institute for Research on Public Policy.
Stephen Harper’s PMO refused any comment at the time, and duly muzzled Foreign Affairs, the RCMP and Canada’s embassy in Kabul. Two of the same officials who censored diplomat Richard Colvin’s reports on detainee abuse similarly blocked Skyreporter’s queries about Zarar Muqbul: Afghan Task Force chief David Mulroney and former ambassador to Kabul Arif Lalani.
See, when you're young and your younger brother is smaller and weaker than you, you beat them up repeatedly until they learn not to cross you. Peter Kent obviously didn't do that, and now look what's happened?
In naming Zarar Muqbul as his new counter-narcotics minister, Karzai delivers a forehand smash into the court of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is already under fire for proroguing Canada’s House of Commons - in part to avoid a parliamentary committee’s probe into the Afghan government’s mistreatment of battlefield detainees.
The siphoning off of Canada’s LOTFA contributions is arguably a more flagrant abuse of trust than the issue of prisoner abuse. The financial support is intended to strengthen the National Police and kick-start Afghanistan's rule of law.
[...]
Zarar Muqbul’s story was broken here on Skyreporter in May of 2007, and in greater length in an article for the July/August 2007 edition of Policy Options, the journal of Canada’s Institute for Research on Public Policy.
Stephen Harper’s PMO refused any comment at the time, and duly muzzled Foreign Affairs, the RCMP and Canada’s embassy in Kabul. Two of the same officials who censored diplomat Richard Colvin’s reports on detainee abuse similarly blocked Skyreporter’s queries about Zarar Muqbul: Afghan Task Force chief David Mulroney and former ambassador to Kabul Arif Lalani.
See, when you're young and your younger brother is smaller and weaker than you, you beat them up repeatedly until they learn not to cross you. Peter Kent obviously didn't do that, and now look what's happened?
Monday, February 01, 2010
Biblical Pasages On Canadian Rifles
A Canadian military spokesperson admits that Ottawa-based Joint Task Force 2 and a special operations unit from nearby Petawawa use the Trijicon rifle sights in Afghanistan, but Major Don MacNair cites national security reasons in refusing to say how many of the sights are employed. The activities of the joint task force are shrouded in secrecy, but the unit often works behind enemy lines and its members are trained to kill with cold efficiency. MacNair told the Ottawa Citizen that the inscriptions are inappropriate and should be removed.
Gruending with another terrific piece on coded biblical inscriptions found on Trijicon rifle sites, some of which are being used by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. The inscriptions have recently been ordered removed.
Gruending with another terrific piece on coded biblical inscriptions found on Trijicon rifle sites, some of which are being used by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. The inscriptions have recently been ordered removed.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Kent On Fire
MP Peter Kent's brudder on Afghanistan:
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has delivered a scathing rebuke to Canadian soldiers and taxpayers by nominating to his cabinet a disgraced former minister who presided over the embezzlement of up to one-third of Canadian aid dollars donated under the U.N.’s Law and Order Trust Fund (LOTFA).
In naming Zarar Muqbul as his new counter-narcotics minister, Karzai delivers a forehand smash into the court of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is already under fire for proroguing Canada’s House of Commons - in part to avoid a parliamentary committee’s probe into the Afghan government’s mistreatment of battlefield detainees.
The siphoning off of Canada’s LOTFA contributions is arguably a more flagrant abuse of trust than the issue of prisoner abuse. The financial support is intended to strengthen the National Police and kick-start Afghanistan's rule of law.
There's more. And somewhere in Ottawa, our Prime Minister is asking: can't the military have this guy imbedded in something?
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has delivered a scathing rebuke to Canadian soldiers and taxpayers by nominating to his cabinet a disgraced former minister who presided over the embezzlement of up to one-third of Canadian aid dollars donated under the U.N.’s Law and Order Trust Fund (LOTFA).
In naming Zarar Muqbul as his new counter-narcotics minister, Karzai delivers a forehand smash into the court of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is already under fire for proroguing Canada’s House of Commons - in part to avoid a parliamentary committee’s probe into the Afghan government’s mistreatment of battlefield detainees.
The siphoning off of Canada’s LOTFA contributions is arguably a more flagrant abuse of trust than the issue of prisoner abuse. The financial support is intended to strengthen the National Police and kick-start Afghanistan's rule of law.
There's more. And somewhere in Ottawa, our Prime Minister is asking: can't the military have this guy imbedded in something?
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Iggy On Afghanistan: Perform For Me, O! Glorious Iggy!
Since this
...the journalist turned expat turned politician also urged far greater engagement with India and China than at present; [...] an honourable withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011;
And this
[Q:] How would you stand on Afghanistan?
[A:] Our brave soldiers have sought to secure a safe Afghanistan for the people. But I feel we've done our turn. It's time to end our mission in 2011.
...are from May 13th, I eagerly await His Iggyness' response to Peter Mackay's announcement today that Canada may well stay in Afghanistan beyond its 2011 military mandate.
I just spent Saturday afternoon trying to convince Ms. O'Malley that you would display political courage one day, Iggy. The clock is ticking. Don't let me down: tell 'em no.
Otherwise, not a bad article in South Asian Focus. Iggy's insightful-stuff-to-boilerplate-ratio is fairly high, and his questioners ask him a couple of fairly decent ones re Tamil/Sikh terrorism.
...the journalist turned expat turned politician also urged far greater engagement with India and China than at present; [...] an honourable withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011;
And this
[Q:] How would you stand on Afghanistan?
[A:] Our brave soldiers have sought to secure a safe Afghanistan for the people. But I feel we've done our turn. It's time to end our mission in 2011.
...are from May 13th, I eagerly await His Iggyness' response to Peter Mackay's announcement today that Canada may well stay in Afghanistan beyond its 2011 military mandate.
I just spent Saturday afternoon trying to convince Ms. O'Malley that you would display political courage one day, Iggy. The clock is ticking. Don't let me down: tell 'em no.
Otherwise, not a bad article in South Asian Focus. Iggy's insightful-stuff-to-boilerplate-ratio is fairly high, and his questioners ask him a couple of fairly decent ones re Tamil/Sikh terrorism.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Speak, Iggy, Speak
Canada should continue fighting the war in Afghanistan after the mission's scheduled end in 2011, the United States' top military official hinted today.
Peter MacKay spokesman Dan Dugas has already suggested that no extension is in the cards. Iggy should also make his position known. Let's hope this isn't one of those cases where he decides to try and outmaneuver the government on its right flank.
Peter MacKay spokesman Dan Dugas has already suggested that no extension is in the cards. Iggy should also make his position known. Let's hope this isn't one of those cases where he decides to try and outmaneuver the government on its right flank.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Dennis Gruending Asks Questions
Raised by Monks, once an MP for the New Democratic Party, Dennis Gruending writes Pulpit and Politics, a one of my favorite Canadian Political blogs. In his latest, he proposes ten questions to ask the candidates at this week's Leader debate. They're all good, but here's my favorite:
Question 7: The war in Afghanistan has now taken 100 Canadian lives with many more Afghan civilians being killed and maimed. A Liberal government sent our troops to that country and a Conservative-led government voted to keep them there. The prime minister now says our troops will come home in the year 2011 no matter what happens. The question to the prime minister is this: You used to tell Canadians that the Taliban were a direct threat to our security but now you appear to be saying that is not the case. Have 100 Canadians die for nothing?
PS. I am serving in a jury pool for at least part of this week. I don't know if they have wifi, so I don't know how much writing I will be able to do.
Cheers,
BCL
Question 7: The war in Afghanistan has now taken 100 Canadian lives with many more Afghan civilians being killed and maimed. A Liberal government sent our troops to that country and a Conservative-led government voted to keep them there. The prime minister now says our troops will come home in the year 2011 no matter what happens. The question to the prime minister is this: You used to tell Canadians that the Taliban were a direct threat to our security but now you appear to be saying that is not the case. Have 100 Canadians die for nothing?
PS. I am serving in a jury pool for at least part of this week. I don't know if they have wifi, so I don't know how much writing I will be able to do.
Cheers,
BCL
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Shorter Mike Blanchfield
We went to a NATO summit and all Canada got was this lousy document.
"...the document looks a lot like what Ottawa wanted," said a top NATO diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Maybe Ottawa chose the color of the paper.
In any case, if Canada walks out of Bucharest with less than the Manley minimum then Harper should be grilled on his promise to end the Afghanistan mission by 2009 if Canadian demands were not met. This is probably the only item before Parliament at the moment important enough to call an election over.
"...the document looks a lot like what Ottawa wanted," said a top NATO diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Maybe Ottawa chose the color of the paper.
In any case, if Canada walks out of Bucharest with less than the Manley minimum then Harper should be grilled on his promise to end the Afghanistan mission by 2009 if Canadian demands were not met. This is probably the only item before Parliament at the moment important enough to call an election over.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The French Waffle
PARIS, Feb 11 (KUNA) -- France denied here on Monday any firm decision to reinforce its military deployment in Afghanistan, saying that discussions on this were ongoing with it partners in the NATO alliance.
Their Englishy is not too superb over at Indian Muslim news, but if you read further down it sounds like the best we might expect from France is 250 troops. It also sounds like French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Pascale Andreani is calling Peter MacKay a liar.
Their Englishy is not too superb over at Indian Muslim news, but if you read further down it sounds like the best we might expect from France is 250 troops. It also sounds like French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Pascale Andreani is calling Peter MacKay a liar.
Friday, February 08, 2008
On Divas
A nice editorial from the Victoria Times Colonist re. Keith Martin and Section 13 of the Civil Rights Act. It argues that, whether or not you agree with his stand on the issue, the need is not so pressing as to justify Martin's dispute with his own party, especially in the run-up to a possible Spring election which is (according to the latest polls) starting to look quite winnable.
A similar logic applies even more urgently to the debate over our Afghanistan mission. It is good to see that Roy Cullen has decided to rejoin the team, but there are rumors now that Robert Thibault might attempt some improvised free-thinking. I would remind Mr. Thibault that the current Liberal policy is already a compromise between the greater portion of the party's MPs and your small group of "Liberal hawks". The tail, in other words, has already wagged the dog once. Why should it be allowed to do so again?
A similar logic applies even more urgently to the debate over our Afghanistan mission. It is good to see that Roy Cullen has decided to rejoin the team, but there are rumors now that Robert Thibault might attempt some improvised free-thinking. I would remind Mr. Thibault that the current Liberal policy is already a compromise between the greater portion of the party's MPs and your small group of "Liberal hawks". The tail, in other words, has already wagged the dog once. Why should it be allowed to do so again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)