I'm not if I heard this correctly, but is it true that Paul Martin did not attend to vote? If this is true, what a slackard! How unpatriotic! He should be drummed out of the Commons. Better yet, Harper should ask in Question Period, where was Paul Martin? After all, Martin and the Sleazy Liberals sent the troops to Afghanistan in the first place.

So only 30 of the Libs voted for the extension of the deployment they authorized when in power.

What complete trash they are. They're playing cheap politics (along with the dippers) with the live of not only our troops but the people of Afghanistan that will DIE if we leave.

What in hell is the point of running away from Afghan and going to Darfur if the jackasses in the Libs/NDP will just demand we cut and run from there too?

They are people with no redeeming qualities at all.

Ignatief voting for was no surprise, his positions are very good on the foreign policy front (and horrid domestically and economically.)

Brison was a big surprise. I didn't think he had it in him to vote with principles.

What Harper did was disgusting. Period. He is playing fool politics with our troops.

You don't give Parliament less than 48 hours to vote on something so significant with such a significant lack of detail. There was no pressing need for a sudden surprise vote. There was no pressing need to deliberately try to divide Canadians - not just divide Liberals, but Canadians - to score political points.

As a citizen, I support the Afghanistan efforts and applaud Ignatieff (who was particularly unequivocal and clear), Brison and Graham and the Liberals for supporting it. But how do citizens even get the chance to inform their MPs about their choice? There is no comarison even to Bush here because Bush at least gave the citizens of his nation a chance to participate, for Congress to deliberate and vote when he put the Iraq mission to a vote.

It is one thing to play brinkmanship politics over nominations, gun registries, audits, etc. If Harper wants to put politics over policy on domestic issues like that, well so be it. I don't fault him for wanting to do everything in his power to get a majority. Chretien was the master of that, holding elections whenever he chose. Martin played shameful politics in the way he treated opponents of equal marriage just to get re-elected. And I have been critical of both for such things, but recognize that that is politics.

But it is entirely another thing to play such blatant disgusting politics over the lives of our soldiers.

As Coyne said today:

"It wasn't pretty, and it didn't show a whole lot of respect for Parliament"

"It was brinksmanship of the highest -- and lowest -- order"

Shameful and disgusting use of the lives of our troops for political gain.

I'm glad the motion passed, but Harper has shown he is willing to do anything - even divide Canadians - if it has some political gain for himself.

Ted
Cerberus

After demanding a vote, the opposition parties got a vote...and they complain they don't have enough time to think about it. Hmmm...hasn't everyone been debating Afghanistan for weeks now? What is left to consider? The only question was the duration...one year or two years? Oh, my! The agony of decision-making! The feeble-minded, I guess, need weeks to consider that question.

And it's a shame that the world doesn't stop so the opposition parties in Canada can think. How rude! Maybe the universe DOESN'T revolve around the Liberals after all!

Ted,

If the opposition parties were unprepared for a vote, purhaps they should not have spent the last month demanding one...

Politics of the lowest order indeed.

People, including Ted above, have become so used to the Lieberal method of doing things in parlament, that is a lot of grandstanding and wasting time that they think efficiency is a bad thing.

The dippers and other wanks wanted a vote and they got it. End of story. I am actually glad to see something done in parlament without checking a week or two of "polls", waiting for the MSM to spin the issue and basically screwing the pooch.

Ted said and gets it right: "Chretien was the master of that, holding elections whenever he chose. Martin played shameful politics in the way he treated opponents of equal marriage just to get re-elected. And I have been critical of both for such things, butAfghanistan ..."

Where was ex-PM Paul Martin, Jr., M.P., Lasalle-Emard?

Yeas
...
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Maloney
Manning
Mark
Mayes
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
...

Nays
...
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
...

Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today Parliament will debate and vote on extending our mission in Afghanistan. With that in mind, I am pleased to congratulate a Calgary constituent on the release of his heroic documentary highlighting the value of Canada's efforts in Afghanistan and the progress that is being made every day. After nearly three decades of reporting on Afghanistan, journalist Arthur Kent has returned to document Canada's military mission in the war-ravaged country.

Recently I was fortunate to attend a screening of his new film, Afghanistan: Peacemaking In Progress. The documentary, independently financed and produced by this Emmy award winning filmmaker, takes audiences on patrol with Canadian General David Fraser and his troops. Kent also reunites with Afghans he filmed during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, including two inspiring individuals now serving in President Hamid Karzai's cabinet.

The film serves as a testament to Canadians deployed in Afghanistan and a tribute and inspiration to the people of Afghanistan and those brave Canadians who serve to restore their freedom.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/025_2006-05-17/HAN025-E.htm

The only thing Harper divided was the Liberal Party! He's made it impossible for them to fight an election on Afghanistan, seeing as the Libs are now completely muddled and befuddled. If they go with Iggy as leader, they will be seen as Conservative Lite; if they go with an anti-war candidate like Dryden or Dion, they will be seen as too left-wing for the average Canadian voter. This was political genius at its finest; Harper is sticking a fork in the Liberal Party for a decade to come.

Good for Harper. And, it din't show any lack of respect for parliament. It showed a rejection of partisan politics and a promotion of responsibility. It's about time Canada stopped pontificating about its superior morality from the sidelines and actually stepped in, responsibly, to help nations struggling to develop democracy in their own lands.

Troop deployment in Canada, unlike in the US, doesn't require an elected vote (The US Senate had to approve Iraq in the US). Troop deployment is done by the PM alone in Canada. But, the Liberals/NDP screamed for a discussion and a vote - and they got it. As has been pointed out, if they had had a month to debate, they wouldn't have done so; they would have rabble-roused - an action that stops debate and reason in its tracks.

Yes, indeed, I saw Traver's article in the Star; it was trash-journalism. His focus was on the 'Bush-led war' in Afghanistan. I asked Travers why he is reducing this war against terrorism to the individual agenda of one person, Bush. And, ignoring the fact that the west has been attacked by Islamofascists; that their imams and political leaders talk about their agenda of destroying democracy all over the world, about the bombings of 9/11, London, Madrid, Bali, in hotels, restaurants etc. I asked him why he ignores the killings of politicians, of film-makers - all in the name of Islamism. The cartoon riots - against politically questioning the gap between Islamic bombings and Islamic assertions of 'a peaceful religion'. His reply? That my questioning his focus on the war as the private agenda of Bush - was completely 'in my mind' and not in his column.

Sudan? Kindly remember that Sudan won't permit anyone into their country to help stop the massacres in Darfur. So, the chants of 'We should go to Darfur'!!! are utterly specious. And why are we picking one versus the other? Don't the Afghan people matter to Canada?

And remember, Canadian soldiers might be killed IF the Sudanese gov't even let them in. Would we pull out immediately then? Is that The Canadian Way? "We'll only help you if no harm comes our way. Only you must be harmed. Not us. If we get even one scratch - we're out of here. We're Canadians."

Note also that Martin didn't attend the vote. And, as noted, only 30 Liberals voted in favour of what their gov't had done - sending the troops to Afghanistan.
The Bloc? Well, Afghans don't speak French; that ends it for them.
The NDP? For them, Canadians ought to resolve all conflicts via the well known socialist tactic of: Hug-A-Thug. And, if the hugs aren't succeeding in one place, and we are getting harmed (Afghanistan) then we should cut and run to Darfur, where we aren't allowed in anyway, so we are safe and can talk BiG, from the outside.

Ted - what significant lack of detail? You don't provide a public body with the operational details of a war. And you don't provide the citizens of a country with the operational details of a war. That's bad, bad tactics. Do you think that, in WWII, the military should have provided parl't with the operational details of their tactical plans? How many men, how many tanks, what roads to use and so on? ????? What details are you talking about?

Harper wasn't scoring political points. He was preventing a necessary international mission, to aid democracy in Afghanistan, from being transformed by the Liberals/NDP into a political agenda. Remember how Chretien turned the four soldiers killed in Afghanistan during the Taliban war - into a political act of anti-Americanism? He broke with tradition to lower the PT flag. Harper reverted to tradition to prevent the military being used for political partisan politics. And, this current mission, would have been turned into a hysteric rabble by the Liberal/NDP for political purposes only. Harper prevented that. Thank him.

You applaud the Liberals who supported the mission extension? There were only 30/103. That's some support. How about applauding the CPC who initiated the extension, and Harper, who spoke so eloquently in its favour? Hmmm? Or are you just playing partisan politics?

Ted asks "how do citizens even get the chance to inform their MPs about their choice?"

Simple. Part of their taxed-to-death taxes go to fund the greatly unloved CBC. The CBC commissions Allan Gregg to conduct a poll with leading questions. The dubious results are brought up time and time again by various lefties. And then the Liberals test which way the wind blows and go with it.

The Cons, on the other hand, LEAD.

Exactly NCF TO: Harper brought the motion - a motion affecting the lives of Afghanis and our troops - for partisan gain.

When it comes to the matter of war, our leaders should strive to rise above politics, especially partisan politics.

Bush showed Americans more respect than Harper did yesterday. I don't like him but admit that he is a good American leader. Harper is a indeed a political genious NCF, but love/like or hate the rest of his politics, that is not the kind of leadership we want.

Shameful.

And no amount of Liberal or Dipper good deeds or misdeeds changes in any way whether this was more or less shameful.

It makes war and our troops just another political football, just another political tool for re-election. And it is much more significant and serious than that.

Ted
Cerberus

Ted: the only people Harper's tactic brought shame to was the Liberal hypocrites who voted no (and Paul Martin, who didn't show up). The troops and the military leaders are thrilled - they wanted the extension; Conservative partisans love it for sticking it to the Libs; and the average voter could care less right now, and will be impressed when Harper explains in the next election that he did what the Libs never did in 13 years - allow Parliament to have a voice in the decision. Ted, your claim of shame does not hold up to scrutiny, unless you too are a Liberal hack.

NCF TO:

"military leaders are thrilled - they wanted the extension" - I've been following the news on this. Haven't seen one single quotation from any military leaders. Do you have information the rest of Canada doesn't? Military leaders, IMHO, generally don't want war, but do want are the tools and support necessary when called upon. They are content to leave the political direction and timeline to the politicians.

"Conservative partisans love it for sticking it to the Libs" - Exactly, and my point is that when it comes to war we should not be playing this kind of partisan politics. I didn't support a general discussion of this in Parliament, frankly, but the surprise and sudden nature of the motion - which was neither necessary nor urgent - smacks of, as Andrew Coyne called it, disrespect of Parliament and the lowest order of brinkmanship.

"the average voter could care less right now" - Really? Seems to me that there are a lot of liberal and conservative minded Canadians who in fact do care about our troops and our mission in Afghanistan.

"and will be impressed when Harper explains in the next election that he did what the Libs never did in 13 years - allow Parliament to have a voice in the decision." - Funny. I thought the Afghanistan missions only started a couple of years ago, not 13 years ago. It is an important perogative of the Prime Minister to be able to decide when and where to place troops. Obviously, that shouldn't be done in a complete vacuum from the public or on a whim, so there is no fault in either Martin or Chretien in acting like leaders on this issue (an admitted rarity for Martin).

It wasn't necessary to bring this to Parliament. Harper did. It wasn't necessary to bring such an important issue up suddenly. Harper did.

As you said, he's a political genious.

Only trouble is, war and our troops shouldn't be the place where he demonstrates he's all politician all the time.

Ted
Cerberus

Ted, how much notice do you think should have been given for the motion to show the proper respect for Parliament. Had he given 2 weeks notice would you have been ok with it? I actually think Harper if he was purely playing politics could have played this smarter by giving the 2 weeks notice. Then the Liberals wouldn't have had the weak excuse that they didn't have enough time. The party would have had to take a principled stand. Then again, maybe they would have come up with an excuse like it's too early to be deciding on such an extension etc.

Aside: Did anyone else notice Cotler saying this was an abuse of Parliament. I couldn't help but notice the irony the day after the Auditor General had chastised the Liberals for abusing Parliament for bypassing Parliament on the increased spending on the gun registry. Too bad the CBC missed this opportunity for a Reality Check!

Paul:

What is usual for a motion in Parliament? Two weeks at least sounds about right. Less than 48 hours is at least way too short. That is something I think even the partisan hacks on all sides can agree on. Many members weren't even in Ottawa, being away on government-related matters.

Ted
Cerberus

"Troop deployment in Canada, unlike in the US, doesn't require an elected vote"

Wrong. As commander in chief the POTUS can deploy troops. He cannot declare war. That takes an act of congress.

ted, did the fiberals have a vote on the initial deployment? The opposition has been demanding a vote and when they got it they whine because they lost. PM Harper is the Honourable man here.

Harper didn't play politics with the troops or the Canadian public; he played politics with the LIBERALS. If you can't see that, then your Lib ideological blinders must be on.

Ret.gen Mackenzie elated to 2 key points refering to comments made in the house, Our troops are watching this debate & vote.
"our troops are not watching CPAC or newsnet they are watching the hockey game"
ON layton & his comments about the mission in Aphgan & starting one in Darfur.
"they are warring factions they do not want us there(darfur), we have had equipment sitting at the border for months waiting for approval to cross, & if jack layton thinks it will be a bed of roses he is badly mistaken.
On Martin MIA the most disrepectful action ever by a former PM & since he was the one that sent them there in the first place. John McCallum votes against HE Was the Minister Of Defence. As one writer put it HYPOCRITES,

I cannot remember the conflict, but Reform was the Opposition when the Liberals increased a mission. I phoned my MP to ask how he had voted--he told me there had not been a vote--it was decided by the Liberal Cabinet. I guess the Liberals don't like democracy in the House--they don't like to have their rhetoric questioned. Slimy all the way.
As for playing politics--it was the Liberals who played politics last night--they played with the lives of our military so they could have their arguments(?) swing both ways. Still dithering even with the absence of Martin. Guess this shows that Martin was not the only ditherer.

NCF TO: The vote was neither necessary nor urgent. He moved it to divide the Liberals, certainly. That is playing politics with war. Even you can see that. That you like the result doesn't change the partisan political nature of what he has done. I supported the Liberals for a ton of reasons in the last election, but I readily admit we lost and that Canadians voted for change from this kind of partisanship.

Roy: The NDP and the Bloc wanted a vote. I suppose some Liberal MPs did too but the Liberals did not call on a vote because the deployment of troops is an important perogative of the PM. Chretien tried to stick it to the Conservatives in almost every conceivable partisan way, but when he sent our soldiers abroad to represent Canada's interests and put their lives at stake, he did not play partisan politics.

He did not, as NCF TO points out, try to demonstrate his "political genious" by using our soldiers as a political football.

As I said, the vote was neither necessary nor urgent. The only reason he brought it, and the only reason he gave barely any notice of it to our elected representatives, was for pure political reasons.

Shameful.

Ted
Cerberus

Ted, I don't disagree with you that more notice would have been more appropriate. In the end, however, I feel that Harper acted more in accordance with principle than the Liberals. Harper has consistently been in favour of the Afghan mission and his Conservatives supported it. The Liberals, on the other hand, after authorizing the mission in the first place, refused to take a stand on this issue. How much time do you really need to make up your mind on this? I'm not sure 2 weeks would have made any difference. Once again I am left wondering whether the Liberals actually have any principles. Are they simply looking at the polls and leaving open the option in the future if the mission becomes unpopular of saying we never supported the extension. Does the party actually stand for anything other than trying to get elected?

harper used the troops as part of his strategy to extend his mission in ottawa. shameful.

Ted - you are missing the point. The Liberals/NDP were the ones who were attempting to politicize the Afghan War. Not Harper.

They have been clamoring for a discussion and a vote. So, Harper gave them both. He gave them a 'discussion only' session a few weeks back, and promised them then, that IF there would be any change (eg extension) he would bring it for a vote. He kept his promise.

Remember, as you also point out, in Canada, military actions are not subject to either discussion or vote in the House. Harper gave them both because THEY REQUESTED IT. Why do you continue to complain? If he had refused, citing PM's authority, they would have made political screeches that 'Harper says he promotes democracy' but when we request it, he rejects it"..and so on.

After all, note how they have screamed against Harper for doing things correctly. When one of his MPs accepted $150 hockey tickets, (below the limit of $500) and even, asked the Ethics Czer Shapiro if it was OK do to so- still, the Liberals and NDP chastised Harper. Why? After all, it was both legal and ethically checked. Why? Because 'Harper should be doing things differently'.
So- if Harper hadn't permitted a discussion and vote, as is his right to reject both, the Liberals and NDP would have turned that rejection into political break. He stopped them.

Why did the Liberals/NDP want what is not required - a discussion and vote? To politicize it for their own partisan purposes. He stopped them from doing that. And still, you complain that Harper was the one who politicized it. No, he was the one who stopped that shameful tactic of the Liberals/NDP.

Chretien DID play partisan politics with the military. Remember the PT flag being lowered by Chretien - as an anti-American act, breaking with all tradition and protocol about that flag?

Right, NCF TO, Harper didn't play politics with the military or the troops. But, by taking up the request of the NDP/Liberals for a debate and vote on Afghanistan, he prevented both the Liberals and NDP from playing partisan politics with the military and troops.

Paul:

The vote was not necessary nor urgent. The only reason - the only reason - that Harper brought it now was political partisanship.

Even the NDP and Bloc calls for debate/vote were about the existing mission. I am not aware of anyone discussing the length of the mission and an additional 2 year commitment. So the idea that 'everyone would have figured this out by now, so there is no need for advance notice' is garbage.

The deployment of our troops is an important perogative of the PM. He has a general duty as a good leader to keep us citizens informed and hopefully even make an effort to rally our support. But he has no duty to bring military decisions of this sort to Parliament as the NDP demanded.

But he does anyway because he sees an opportunity for political gain. That is not leadership. That is playing partisan politics with war.

Ted
Cerberus

Ted: and the Liberal's never ever did that?

ET:

The Liberal Party of Canada did not demand a vote or discussion of the mission in Canada. That is an outright partisan lie and you know it. Certainly many many Canadians, including Canadians who voted Liberal, wanted to be somehow involved in the decision to send our troops to war. But the Liberal Party did not. In fact, the current interim leader of the party has been consistent and clear on the need for general communication with us voters but not a formal vote.

(BTW, as for the flag being lowered out of tradition, that is also a lie. It is the perogative of the PM to choose to lower it to honour someone or not, that is the tradition. When the Conservatives moved to lower the flag after the submarine fire death, i.e. having Parliament force the government to lower the flag, that was out of tradition. Are you saying you disagreed with the Conservatives when they wanted the flag lowered?

Also BTW, the opposition to Conservatives taking perks from lobbyists was not simply "because Harper should be doing things differently". It was because Harper specifically said he would do those very precise things differently. Whether the perks are permitted or not, the point was his hypocrisy.

But these BTWs are BTW and totally OT.)

Ted
Cerberus

Ted, I respect your view on this issue but I have to disagree with you on the leadership issue. After 13 years of refusing to take a stand on anything I am just happy to see our government actually take a principled stand on something. Issues such as how much notice should have been given are not as important as Harper's consistent support for the mission.

Bryan:

If you read what I wrote above, I criticized the Liberals for partisanship and admit that that kind of partisanship is one of the many reasons why we are on the other side of the floor right now.

But what I am also trying to make clear is that playing politics with war and the lives of our troops is utterly shameful. And it's not just the opposition parties that are saying so as I indicated above.

Ted
Cerberus

Paul:

We're getting completely OT here, but 13 years of refusing to take a stand on anything????

Balanced budget despite huge opposition (from both left and right).

Cut taxes despite opposition (from both left and right).

Clarity Act despite huge opposition (from both left and right).

Not going to war in Iraq (regardless of whether you think it was a good idea or not, you can't say they didn't take a position on this).

Going to war in Afghanistan.

etc. etc. etc.

Just had to respond. Now let's get back to Harper's blatant political partisanship before we get a lecture from Kate about being OT.

Ted
Cerberus

How much notice does the oppostion require to vote on this issue? Hmmm, how many YEARS has it been since the terrorists attacked? Remember that there were CANADIANS that got vaporized when the twin towers collapsed. (A little factoid sissies like Jack Layton and Paul Martin don't want to hear and the CBC will never tell you). If you need more time to decide "how you feel" after 5 years, perhaps you shouldn't be entrusted with determining public policy.

The purpose of an armed forces is to protect the citizenry from attack and to revenge attacks that have taken place. (Sometimes you simply help out other folks who were attacked) This is done by killing those on the other team. Pussy Prime Ministers like Chretien and Martin and wannabes like Layton think that passing out chocolate and bottled spring water to refugees and capitulating to third world dictators is the M.O. of the armed forces. As an ugly version of Islam is sweeping western nations in Europe, we might once again want to pay heed to President Bush's statement of who's team we're on, that of freedom or tyrany.

Sorry Ted, but pissing and moaning is hardly a virtue. Be honest. You don't like Harper nor the CPC. You were probably rooting for John Kerry during the last Presidential race. You can't govern a nation by sticking your finger out the window to see which way the wind is blowing. Evenetaully you're going to be asked to take a stand. If you have to take a poll before taking a stand, as the saying goes, "lead, follow or get the F#$% out of the way".

The left wanted a vote and got one. They didn't ask for a "study" or a "royal commission" they asked for a vote. They essentially threatened the Harper government with this blatant politically motivated gesture. When you say "let's vote on this" it's pretty much a given that you've already determined which way you're leaning.

It will eventaully be proven that with respect to the war on terror, that never before has any group (the left) been so far on the wrong side of history.

The Liberals sent our troops in the first place and now there are veiled accusations by the left and the media that this is somehow Stephen Harper's Viet Nam. What a pile of high-noon steaming horse $hit.

Ironic that we have patriotic young men and woman who consider it their DUTY to put their lives on the line for people they don't know, thousands of miles away and I have to try and not puke my dinner out when I listen to cowards like the silk tie clad Jack Layton try to pass off his cowardice as pacafism.

What would Jack Layton put his life on the line for? Is he waiting for the Taliban to sail up the Ottawa River before he will open his eyes to the fact that there's some not-so-nice folks out there? Will be grab a rifle and a grunt sack when a suicide bomber self-detonates outside his heavily subsidized co-op housing unit?

Cowardice, the new Church of the Canadian left.

It is a disgrace that so few parliamentarians had the integrity to stand up for Duty and Responsibility.

As usual the Lib /Left are showing us all that they are incapable of displaying these QUALITIES!

Ted and Andrew Coyne are offended because Conservatives showed a lack respect for Parliament?

Oh well.

There is no winning without a good offense.

Hey Kate, I saw Coyne has got BigCityLib posting there now.

I could only stay with that thread for a minute as who needs rhetorical questions? Hahaha.

The most relevant issue was the Liberal vote. It is not too big a leap to conclude that the Liberal “yes” vote equates to 1/3 of the party being blue. The rest are pink and might as well be Dippers.

Given the Globe and Mail poll today on support for Afghan being split down the middle; we therefore have in Canada the makings of a Democratic/GOP split. In other words North America is now split pretty much equally left/right. That should not surprise anyone.

But this is good news for conservatives in Canada because it means whoever has the smartest, most articulate, most politically savvy, most bilingual leader can win. A few wavering votes can tip the scales.

I think there are enough blue Liberals now to swing to CPC next time and that would mean a majority. That could set the stage for tax reform and numerous sensible policies to make Canada more competitive and economically sound enough to bring about needed improvements in Education and Health.

As Wilfred Laurier put it, “this should be Canada’s century”, as a blue Liberal he didn’t anticipate a century of quagmired red Liberal rule, so his timing was off a bit.

Just one OT response Ted. Your list does not look like much of an accomplishment for 13 years of power. Maybe I shouldn't have said the Liberals never took a stand on anything but, instead said they never took a strong stand on anything. Examples:
1. Same sex marriage: we'll let the court decide.
2. Afghan war: we'll send the troops but not talk about their new role, not give them proper equipment and then put out election ads about how the troops are going to be in our streets.
3. Cut taxes: after years of overtaxing us we get a few crumbs from the Liberals. I haven't noticed a difference in my pay cheque.
4. Iraq war: decision to stay out was a good one, but, could have been done without all of the anti-American rhetoric. Just for once do something on principle instead of bashing Bush.
5. Clarity Act: after almost blowing the referendum the Liberals strengthen separatism by Adscam. (Harper's done more to defuse this issue in 100 days than the Liberals did in 13 years)
6. GST and Free Trade. We'll tear them up, on scond thought.....
Just a few examples.

Well, if nothing else nomdenet, we can agree that Laurier was a great PM. He's certainly my number one pick. (And coincidentally, Michael Ignatieff's too!)

Ted
Cerberus

Ted:

The only thing shameful is the disrepair that the LIEberals let the military get into in the first place.

Bailing wire and binder twine to keep 40 year old Sea Kings and Hercules aloft on a wing and a prayer. Subs that leak and occasionally kill with electrical fires; and yesterday a damning report by the Auditor General.

"...but has been able to increase that number by only about 700, despite having recruited about 20,000 new members into the Regular Force since our last audit.
The recruiting and attrition problems that remain are jeopardizing the success of the Canadian Forces' planned expansion. Faced with a changing Canadian demographic profile, a low interest among Canadian youth in joining the military, and increasing military operational demands, the current recruiting system is not supporting the needs of the Canadian Forces. Further, National Defence forecasts an increase in attrition over the next 10 years. Because the Department has not measured the impacts or tracked the progress of the retention strategy it developed in 2001, it cannot demonstrate that the strategy has helped to increase the trained effective strength or resolve shortages in key military occupations."

"2.16 The Navy, Army, and Air Force occupations are experiencing uneven, persistent shortages in almost half of their 69 specific occupations. Many of the occupations that were facing shortages in 2002 are still in the same situation today.

2.17 Shortages exist in 17 of the 33 support occupations common to the Navy, Army, and the Air Force. About four percent of positions in those 17 occupations are vacant. National Defence has improved the staffing levels of some occupations such as dentist, lawyer, and chaplain. However, some support occupations such as doctors, ammunition technicians, and logistics officers, which are critical for deployments, continue to be understaffed.

The recruiting numbers in the Strategic Intake Plan barely meet needs
2.18 National Defence uses the Strategic Intake Plan to establish the number of members to recruit and train annually. Several times each year this plan is reviewed and adjusted to take staffing needs into account. We reviewed the planning process and found that it was sound. We also found that in recent years, because of personnel budget restrictions, the targets in the Strategic Intake Plan did not match the stated requirements of the Navy and Air Force. Furthermore, National Defence has estimated that it will take five years to fill all the positions required for operations.

2.19 Because of the limits of the National Defence training system to absorb new recruits, and the need to stay within the allowable size of the Regular Force, recruitment targets were reduced between 2003 and 2005. In fact, targets dropped from 7,000 new recruits in 2001 and 6,200 in 2002, to fewer than 4,500 in 2003 and in 2004.

2.20 Since 2002, National Defence has come close to achieving its recruitment targets but, in 2005, the number of recruits exceeded the number of releases by less than 200. Despite National Defence's results, we are concerned that the number of recruits is barely replacing the members leaving (Exhibit 2.3).

Attrition is expected to increase"

Yep, the LIEberals sure do support the military and maintaining their capacity to bring the fight to the terrorists. What utter bullshit!!!

High minded words are nice but the funding and recruitment allotments the LIEberals gave are appalling. How do you like the report card so far?

Considering that your valuable personnel, or as Gen. Hillier refers to them "National Treasures", continue to get blown away on occasion; the dumb bastards should have been front and centre behind extending the mission they authorized in the first place.

The Taliban are not going to sit down nicely and have a fireside chat; and when they do, they usually bring an axe to implant in the back of one's head.

Good God, does one need an axeblade in the cranium to improve the blood flow to the oxygen deprived parts of the brain?

Or perhaps we will just wait until the terror elements, courtesy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, get their hands on some nukes to "warm up the BBQ" to say 10 to the power of 7 degrees celsius.
I dare say your troops will need more than the recent two beer alotment to slake their thirst.

10 million SPF skin lotion anybody?

Given the Iranian constitution states:

An Ideological Army
In the formation and equipping of the country's defence forces, due attention must be paid to faith and ideology as the basic criteria. Accordingly, the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are to be organized in conformity with this goal, and they will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God's way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God's law throughout the world (this is in accordance with the Koranic verse "Prepare against them whatever force you are able to muster, and strings of horses, striking fear into the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them" [8:60]).

It correspondingly implies Ahmadinejad’s stated objectives of exporting revolution “throughout the world”; would appear constitutionally provided. I would not put it past Ahmadinejad to follow through on this line of “thought” whilst summoning the horsemen of the Apocolypse.

Further what stops an aggressor from putting a missile on a trajectory that is near space via perhaps a Shehab 3 missile?

As suggested on Aug. 8, 2004:

One “notes that the Shehab-3 missile’s first unveiling was accompanied by the pledge: “We will wipe Israel off the map,” a theme that recurs every Friday sermon in Iran’s mosques and its official pronouncements. In view of the Tehran hardline regime’s admitted strategic commitment to Israel’s destruction, Iran’s nuclear program combined with the development of its Shehab-3 is seen by policymakers in Jerusalem as the greatest threat to Israel’s existence since 1948.

Seeing as Iran is sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan it looks like things will be warming up in the near future. Is Canada ready to "stand on guard for thee"? A realist would answer in the negative. Wonder why there are no troops for Darfur even though they may need them and are every bit a part of humanity as the Afghanis? The forgoing may be your answer.

Well if Paul Martin wanted to summon HELL and HIGHWATER in the fight on corruption, it appears that HELL is about to arrive.

But of course I am just a dumb bastard, incompetent at assessing security threats, notwithstanding the US approving a 512 Billion dollar defence budget which includes adding 30,000 troops and funding for the Joint Strike Fighter program. For the fiscal year 2007, the House of Representatives approved $512 billion worth of defense expenses. Russia’s military budget for the same period is unlikely to exceed $25 billion.

For Cdn Forces see the budget stats here:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/budget_e.asp

Yet our GDP is comparable to just behind Russia.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

But why get confused with those damn militarists, as the bad guys will just go away, like in Rwanda?

Ted: What's the fuss, the "need" for more info etc.? The mission from 2007-09 will be essentially the same as the current one the Liberals committed us to almost a year ago, and which has been underway around Kandahar for some three and a half months. Could it be that Liberal, NDP and Bloc MPS do not understand that mission? In which case they can only blame themselves, not the Conservatives.

Mark
Ottawa

Let us try a little conspiracy theory here.
Just enough Liberals voted with the government so that the questions about why we were in this conflict without parliamentary approval in the first place would not be asked.

Ted:

I usually think you are a pretty reasonable guy but I think you are missing something here. Several weeks ago a communique was issued from a Taliban leader (whose name I don't recall) commenting on the Canadian deployment and making dire threats about rivers of blood etcetcetc. And the way he phrased his remarks made it quite clear that they were very much up to date on the current politics in Canada.

If the government had announced a debate with, say, a month's notice, don't you think it plausible that the Taliban or Al Queda would have stepped up their attacks on our troops in an effort to influence the vote, similar to the Madrid attacks that were clearly designed to influence the Spanish election? Or even had time to plan an attack in Canada?

Seems to me the debate was timed on the basis of security, not politics.

Mark:

I'm not so much focused on the ambush tactics, frankly. That is just a straight-up insult to Parliament.

I'm more focused on the fact of the unnecessary vote, the one Harper said he wouldn't have because he rightfully says he doesn't need, and the suddeness of it. It is pure political partisanship and has nothing to do with support for the troops.

The only reason for this vote was to try to divide the Liberals for electoral gain purposes. The end result is an unnecessary further division of Canadians on this issue.

Shameful.

Ted
Cerberus

"It is pure political partisanship and has nothing to do with support for the troops."

Speaking of which, why do I not see the Libs sporting poppies like they were a few weeks ago?

Yes Ted, Laurier was for free trade when Conservatives were against it. The Liberals used to have a philosophy. It was classic liberalism. Conservatives wanted the status quo. The 2 parties have reversed rolls. They are now mis-named.

I like Ignatieff, heard him speak, totally agree with his foreign policy ideas. His solutions are what the left was screaming for over the decades of the Cold War, i.e. what is lately expressed in the left’s Euston Manifesto …

“holding firm to democratic principles and universal human rights, not making excuses for tyranny or terrorism, opposing anti-Americanism and not selling short the liberal tradition of freedom of ideas”.

This is classic liberalism. This is what conservatives now stand for and the left has pretty much abandoned. Interesting times.

"They are playing politics with our military"

In a word yes. Point to me a decision that is made that does not involve politics or at least how you are percived. If you can find one that political motivations cannot be ascribed to,... hmmm maybe I could put up a billion dollar prize. I'd never have to pay it of course.

All parties are guilty of posturing (yea, even the military is too)

What I find shameful... is when the vote was taken, people voted no based on the process used to get to the vote rather than on the actual issue the vote was for.

Ted: i agree playing politics with war is not a good thing, however the pm is not he was granting the wishes of parliment.
Was is not this PM that stated "We Do Not Cut & Run"
It sure sounds like to me the left that put us there in the first place want's to do that. There former leader did'nt even have the guts to show up for the vote.
And fially Ted what did PM Harper do after the vote was over "He went over to Bill Graham & shook his Hand" Oh ya Bill supported it did't he.

Ted,

You're just upset that this vote forced your side to stop posturing and make their position clear. It prevented your side from speaking with forked tongues from both faces.

If your side had a position that Canadians could be proud of this would have given them the opportunity to showcase it. That you are upset at your side being forced to show their cards and display who they are and what they stands for speaks volumes about the moral basis of your positions...

Translation of Ted's repetitive postings, in a nutshell: "No fair, no fair...we Libs make the rules around here!"

Ted: The ultimate in "playing politics" with the Canadian Forces was when Chretien (much the surprise of our military and just about everybody else) suddenly announced in early 2003 that our troops would be taking on a new mission in Kabul.

His reason for doing this was to ensure that we had no forces available for Iraq, just in case the UNSC did approve military action there--matters were very much up in the air at the time. Now that's crass.

Mark
Ottawa

If Mr.Harper wanted to divide the Liberals, for electoral gain, so what? Division is new to Liberals?

Mr. Harper gave notice there will be a vote on the Afghanistan deployment. and there was.

Clearly the Liberals are surprised that someone actually does what he says... says what he does... it is quite a change.

and getting back to ex-PMPM, he was as useful as always?

Where have all the poppies gone?
Gone from Liberal gas bags
Where have all the poppies gone?
Worn short weeks ago
Where have all the poppies gone?
Partisan Liberals every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Warwick:

What on earth do you know about the moral basis of my position? Why the personal attack?

You see: that is why I don't like Harper's partisanship here. It divides Canadians for perceived electoral gain. It is the same reason I voiced disgust with Martin's use of equal marriage to divide Canadians for electoral gain. Both of them, in my view, are right on policy and horribly wrong on tactics. Both attempt to divide and conquer for their personal political gain rather than bring Canadians together.

That is what I find disgusting. No less disgusting when the Liberals did it on important issues. No more foregiveable when the Cons do it on important issues.

Ted
Cerberus

What are the troops saying?

"And virtually no one at this base ever imagined Canada's commitment would end in February 2007, whatever the result of the debate in the House of Commons on Wednesday night. After 30 years of warfare and carnage, it will take far longer than that to stabilize this country, soldiers say. The sudden move by the Harper government to extend that commitment by two years shocked no one."

"I believe we have a job to do here," Goddard's fellow artillery officer, Capt. Bob Meade, said Thursday. "If we leave too early, we leave the job undone."

Ted,

The vote was a clarification of where the house stands. A vote demands you stop the cheap politics and put your x on the position you stand by. It's the opposite of playing politics. It stops the politics. Now this issue is decided. It's about finality.

What's that saying about only the dishonest fearing the light of day? Or cockroaches, one or the other...

I shouldn't have assumed blind partisanship in your case. You deny partisanship and I'll accept that. But the vast majority of the complaints by the left and the lefty media are crocodile tears for the reasons I mentioned.

Again, how is demanding clarification wrong? With all the attention this issue has had over the months since it stopped being a Liberal deployment and started being placed at Harper's feet (which Harper to his credit is more than comfortable with) how do you square the demand for more time? This vote is one repeatedly demanded by the opposition. Only the true hypocrites in the Lib/NDP camp can complain about it - so naturally they all are... The only reason to delay is to give the opposition time to grandstand and provide free soapbox time to lucky Jack whose position has been very clear from the start.

Quite frankly I believe that repeatedly demanding a vote was the cheap partisanship and giving them one was calling their bluff. The Lib/NDP didn't like being called to account all that much. They never do.

Please!

Don't be too hard on poor Paul Martin. After all he's now only a shadow of the spent force he once was. I think that his non-attendance at the debate and vote was simply that there hadn't been any recent prior polls in his riding to guide him to his position. Either that or he has lost his seer-like ability to know what Canadian values are. Perhaps he should consult the spirit of MacKenzie King for guidance.

Gerry

My reply got spiked by Kate's new program...

Not sure how to get it back on.

Ted - I object to your stating that I am lying. I am not.

The Liberals/NDP were asking for a debate and vote on Afghanistan. We were assaulted on the MSM by interviews of MP after MP, both Liberal and NDP, complaining that we needed a parliamentary debate and vote. Harper refused to vote on a mission that had been sent in by the previous gov't, the Liberals, but, he permitted an inhouse debate. He also promised that IF there was any change to the mission, he would bring it back for debate and vote.

He has no need to do this; the military agenda is not the prerogative of the House. But, because both Liberal and NDP MPs were posturing in the MSM about the 'need' for debate and approval of the House - he said he would do so.

Was a debate/vote an official policy of the Liberal Opposition? No. And you are bringing in a red herring if you are trying to say that the Liberals didn't want a debate and vote...if by 'Liberal' you only mean a formal policy statement. But, the MSM showed us plenty of Liberal MPs demanding both debate and vote.

So- when the mandate was to be extended, he gave them what he promised. A debate and vote. He did not permit them time to politicize the mission. We all know that both the Liberals and NDP would have grabbed the issue, ignored the needs of the Afghan democracy, and politicized the whole thing for their own agenda.

Have they ever done anything else? The clarity act was for political purposes; SSM; the gun registry; sponsorships - political purposes, for the money was diverted to fund Liberal election work in Quebec. Not going into Iraq? Chretien is involved in oil, with his buddy, Chirac, who is aligned with Hussein. Going into Afghanistan? To prevent going into Chirac's Iraq.

As for the flag lowering, again, I am not lying. The flag of the PT is NOT lowered at the whim of the PM. There are public and published protocols, and it is only a change in these protocols that are up to the PM - and these changes could not be personal and random, but only for extraordinary and special circumstances.
Chretien did it for the four friendly-fire soldiers in Afghanistant, as an anti-American act. Martin did it for the sub death, to divert attention from the fact that the Liberals had purchased a useless rusted out hulk.

Again, Ted, you are quite wrong about Harper. He refused to permit a VOTE on the current Afghan mission, and permitted a discussion-only session, which saw the House 'approving' the current mission. But, he PROMISED the House, that even though he doesn't have to, he would bring it back for a discussion and VOTE, if the mandate changed. It changed; two extra years were added. So, he did as he promised...and yet, you are complaining that his act wasn't carrying out this promise, but was instead for political purposes.

What if he hadn't kept his promise? Would he be accused of unilateral decision-making?

It's incredible how Liberals support what is unsupportable, and denigrate good decisions and good leadership.

I'm sorry Ted, but how does it divide Canadians?
Last polls I saw were that 65% of us were in favour of the mission, down from 70+% in Sept when no one really had any information on it and before casualties started.
It'll go up and down from there, as people switch between somewhat support and somehat do not support.

48 hrs was plenty enough time for Jack to tell the Dips how to vote.
48 hrs vs 2 weeks wouldn't help the Libs who can't decide who they want to lose votes to.

I am happy that this Liberal Leadership race issue is not going to become a issue for Canadians.

You want to talk about potential for dividing this country more, that's how it would have happened without this extension.

Keep this ball on your own playground please.

I definitely want a podcast of this Harper speech, too.

Shame, shame and shame on the 145 MPs who voted to cut and run!

From your Prime Minister to the troops in Afghanistan:

...There may be some who want to cut and run.

But cutting and running is not your way.

It’s not my way.

And it’s not the Canadian way.

We don’t make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble.

We don’t and we won’t.

No better epitath to the 145 MPs.

Guess the left is in a turmoil over this eh?

If I look at the vote it appears the entire CPC caucus voted yea and the NDP voted nay.

Funny how the way the liberal MP's voted reflect their constituencies?
I also note how the lib candidates in the race for Stornoway voted to reflect their platform.
Iggy was a no-brainer, his vote reflects his past comments on the need to be in Afghanistan (guess there will be a mass migration of leftwingers in the LPC if he becomes leader). Its also easy to figure out Brisons vote for the extention as he now wants to (to quote him) be the candidate of the right. Which is puzzling that Belavaqua (sp?) voted against, and he also wants this moniker of being the rightwing candidate.

It sure seems that the resulting canyon sized rift in the liberal party would sure support the accusation of "so-called" politizing of the issue by Harper. However, I'll wager even Chretien is in awe of Harper's ability to pull this off so quickly not allowing the opposition to organize effectively.
Call it a rehearsal for the next election.

If it was a liberal PM that did it the MSM and liberal shrills would be crowing that it was a crowning achievment. Remember Chretien's golf ball stunt at Gomery? The posturing didn't happen last night, its happening in the media today.

Face it you got outmanouvered by someone you thought was unelectable.

The liberal party is so pre-9/11.

ET, why do I bother responding when you don't make any sense?

The Liberal Party did not support a debate or vote in Parliament on our mission in Afghanistan. I understand that some MPs may have wanted it but the leader of the party didn't and the caucus didn't. Your favourite canard - the "MSM" - kept going to NDP MPs. You say "the MSM showed us plenty of Liberal MPs demanding both debate and vote". Please name four Liberal MPs who wanted a vote? No? How about three? I can't recall any at all but I may have missed it. I know you hate the Liberals but I would think they've given you enough already for you to hate them such that you don't need to make things up.

As for the lowering of the flag when our four soldiers died in Afghanistan, remember that they were the first soldiers to die in combat since, I believe, the Korean War. Does that not count as "extraordinary and special circumstances"?? Canadians wanted some recognition and it was supported by the Conservatives, although clearly not you.

What was also supported, no, in fact prompted by the Conservatives was a lowering of the flag after a soldier died on the submarine. This was not Martin's idea. It was a motion brought by the Conservatives (specifically, Conservative MP James Moore) and approved unanimously. In fact the Conservatives were critical of the Liberals for not immediately lowering the flag in the submarine incidient. So do you think the Conservatives were honouring a dead soldier or playing politics then too?

As for protocol, please read the facts. The protocol (described here) gives the perogative to the PM to fly the flag at half-mast "on the death of a person whom it is desired to honour". So lowering it to honour our first war dead in generations was not a breach of protocol (making a habit of lowering it for every death during a time of war was, however: as I've said on Cerberus, I think Harper was correct to stop lowering it for every death).

The point is that Harper sees an opportunity to divide and polarize Canadians which he has figured is beneficial to the Conservative Party and his chances of remaining as Prime Minister. Politicians do that all the time and Harper has shown us he is as tactically driven as Chretien or Martin before him.

I just think there are some issues where such tactics are shameful. When it comes to religion and war, it is shameful. Martin doing to so-cons over equal marriage was wrong. Harper polarizing Canadians for political gain on war is no less wrong. If fact, it is worse because a divided and polarized population is not good for our troops.

Ted
Cerberus

Ted
First,this vote has eliminated(hopefully)the continual sniping and undermining,by the LEFT,of our soldiers'valiant sacrifices for the forseeable future.The fact you do not deem this a noble accomplishment speaks for itself.

Secondly,no politician of any stripe does anything that the political fallout is not considered.To feign ignorance to that simple fact of Canadian life is disingenuous at best!

But,what I find so awe-inspiring is that you are so blissfully unaware you are doing exactly what you accuse Harper of doing.Using this historic vote to solidify support for our men and women overseas as nothing more than another chance to fling partisan BS at Harper and other honest conservatives.You disgust me,and that is not easily accomplished!HYPOCRITE!

BTW,in all fairness,this"crack Harper has exposed in the opposition"could also be interpretted as some Liberals voting for their convictions,not their party(a refreshing change).

ET, why do I bother responding when you don't make any sense?

The Liberal Party did not support a debate or vote in Parliament on our mission in Afghanistan. I understand that some MPs may have wanted it but the leader of the party didn't and the caucus didn't. Your favourite canard - the "MSM" - kept going to NDP MPs. You say "the MSM showed us plenty of Liberal MPs demanding both debate and vote". Please name four Liberal MPs who wanted a vote? No? How about three? I can't recall any at all but I may have missed it. I know you hate the Liberals but I would think they've given you enough already for you to hate them such that you don't need to make things up.

As for the lowering of the flag when our four soldiers died in Afghanistan, remember that they were the first soldiers to die in combat since, I believe, the Korean War. Does that not count as "extraordinary and special circumstances"?? Canadians wanted some recognition and it was supported by the Conservatives, although clearly not you.

What was also supported, no, in fact prompted by the Conservatives was a lowering of the flag after a soldier died on the submarine. This was not Martin's idea. It was a motion brought by the Conservatives (specifically, Conservative MP James Moore) and approved unanimously. In fact the Conservatives were critical of the Liberals for not immediately lowering the flag in the submarine incidient. So do you think the Conservatives were honouring a dead soldier or playing politics then too?

As for protocol, please read the facts. The protocol (described here: www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/etiquette/2_e.cfm) gives the perogative to the PM to fly the flag at half-mast "on the death of a person whom it is desired to honour". So lowering it to honour our first war dead in generations was not a breach of protocol (making a habit of lowering it for every death during a time of war was, however: as I've said on at Cerberus (canadiancerberus.blogspot.com/2006/04/flag-lowering.html), I think Harper was correct to stop lowering it for every death).

The point is that Harper sees an opportunity to divide and polarize Canadians which he has figured is beneficial to the Conservative Party and his chances of remaining as Prime Minister. Politicians do that all the time and Harper has shown us he is as tactically driven as Chretien or Martin before him.

I just think there are some issues where such tactics are shameful. When it comes to religion and war, it is shameful. Martin doing to so-cons over equal marriage was wrong. Harper polarizing Canadians for political gain on war is no less wrong. If fact, it is worse because a divided and polarized population is not good for our troops.

The Liberal Party was dead the day "wait for Gomery" became their mantra. What - wait for Gomery to PROVE you are crooks, to make sure voters are 100% certain they want you gone? Great strategy...now go away for a decade.

The old Liberal stand by.

Conservatives are dividing the country.

Riiiight.

While Liberal policies continuously pitch rich against poor, men against women, Christians against gays, French against English, America against Canada, black against white, Alberta against Ontario, and on and on and on.

Canadian Liberals thrive on triangulation.

Watch yer back Mr. Harper.

Yes Ted IS a Liberal hack!

Nomdenet: totally agree with you on the juxtaposition of party names.

SOMAS

Concrete:

Can't you do better than that? Can't you do better than "the Liberals were bad for this country and divisive, so we should be allowed to be bad and divisive too"?

Ted, on the issue as to whether the Liberals wanted a debate on the Afghan mission I believe that ET is correct. I remember many Liberals pushing for a debate.

Man, that's one mighty tall high-horse.

Shameful, disgusting....blah, blah

Cerberus: I would accuse you of flogging a dead horse on this issue, but I don't even think what you're flogging is a dead horse...maybe the stuff that comes out of a horse's rear end.

Whether there were "enough" or the "right" Liberals that were calling for the vote or not, the fact is that Liberals were calling for the vote, too. ET's not wrong.

The government needn't have called a vote, but heeding the call of the opposition (including the Liberals), the government allowed it. Are you suggesting that it was BAD for the government to allow a vote on something that didn't HAVE to be voted on but was REQUESTED to be voted on? That's a very odd opinion, if that is what you think...democracy must be bad in your books.

The government said a vote was upcoming and then when it was called, everyone calls foul because it "surprised" everyone...or I should use the phrase that ambulance-chasing lawyers use in mock surprise, they were "shocked"...yea, verily!

Only 48 hours to decide on something that they have been debating for weeks in the media scrums. Oh, my! The mental anguish!

The government was not "playing with lives" of our soldiers...not at all. It was within their rights to extend this mission for as long as they desired for whatever reason they choose, and they gave the opposition a chance to vote on how long it would be...one or two years. That claim is WAY too much of a stretch. If the decision was to send them or not into harms way, then you MAY have had a point...but they are already in harm's way and the question was whether it was one or two more years.

You're wrong on this one, Cerberus. Give it up.

Why didn't anyone tell me this is "Pick on Ted (Cerberus) Day"?

Seriously, Ted, you seem to be the one liberal left leaning voice that can actually carry on a discussion without resorting to cursing and insults that numerous others end up doing. I disagree as to how you interperet the whole vote thing but it is more of a half empty glass for you verses a half full one for me.

Please do us a favour and don't enter the Liberal Leadership Race. A level headed person that can make sense could actually raise the party from the grave.

per ardua

We're all arguing civilly with Ted. :D

Ted - in reply. As I said, it's a red herring to deny Liberal requests for debate/vote by saying that these requests are only valid if it was a formal request of the Liberal Party.

"New Democrats and some Liberal politicians have been calling for a debate and parliamentary vote, while Canada's chief of defence, Gen. Rick Hillier, recently suggested troops could be in Afghanistan for 10 years"

CBC March 6.

"The Liberal caucus fully supported the mission while in office, but, since then, criticism by some MPs has increased as the number of casualties rises and Canada's participation has moved from Kabul to the more dangerous Kandahar region." G&M May 17

"Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal Defense Critic called for a debate and vote on any extension."

"CTV's Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife said extending the mission eases any concerns the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) -- which is taking over the U.S.-led mission in perilous southern Afghanistan -- may have over Canada's commitment. "

"They want some certainty from Canada," he said Monday"

As for the flag, the Heritage site, which lists protocol, specifically refers to the military protocol, which states the Nov 11 flag lowering.
Yes, of course the PM has the right to lower it when he wishes, but, again, it has to be for an extraordinary circumstance, and not when he wishes.
You state that Chretien's reason for lowering it for the friendly fire incident was for 'our first war dead' in years. I disagree; it was pure propaganda; anti-Americanism. You are forgetting those lost in other missions. Or don't you consider their lives, on military duty, the same?

Thanks Texas.

(BTW, head over to any other liberal site and often the same could be said in reverse. Something about the internet and politics that gives some people of any political stripe the sense that they can be as insulting as they want when they go over to the other team's websites.)

As for the Liberal leadership race, why do you think I'm backing Ignatieff?

McCallum withdrew from the LPC race to throw his support behind Ignatieff. I'm sure Iggy appreciated McCallum's 'nay'.

ET:

Nice evasive maneuvers. Ever think about becoming a politician. What about the Conservative motion to require the lowering of the flag because of the submarine death? The one you said Martin caused for political purposes?

I'm not sure of your point though on the flag lowering. First you lambast Chretien for lowering the flag after our first war dead in generations, which isn't sufficiently extraordinary for you, and you also lambast the Liberals for lowering it for every war dead... and then you suggest he should have done it for every other mission. I'm not sure who's more confused by your views: me or you.

On the Liberal Party demanding a debate and vote. OK, you've named a single Liberal who wanted a debate and vote. I forgot about Ujal, good old former NDP Ujal. I know there are some, I conceded that from the outset. But we're talking a handful who clearly don't speak for the party on this anymore than, say, the many many Conservative MPs opposing abortion speak for the Conservative Party on that issue. So, again, the Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal caucus in Ottawa did not ask for a debate or a vote and in fact opposed it. Don't try to change facts. The Liberal governments of past have given you lots of amunition on other issues so you don't have to make things up on this one.

Love to carry on this scintillating debate about your take on reality, ET. But the work day is winding down and I'd rather spend the rest of my evening in reality at home. But it's been fun.

G'night.

Ted
Cerberus

What Harper did was deftly avoid having the military effort bogged down further in partisan politics. Had he allowed this debate to go on ad infinitum, it would have been demoralizing for our troops at the very least. As soldiers, they need a clear mandate and to know that their country is proudly behind them. Hell, their lives are on the line.

The NDP and Bloc's position was expected and understood through what their cowardly, socialist ideologies represent.

As for the Liberals, most of them were exposed for their prejudice, not principle in making decisions. These are the very same people who put the troops in harms way in the first place, without a vote in parliament. Yet now they so easily reneg on their support because of their hate-on for Harper. And Paul Martin doesn't even show up to vote.

That Ted, is modern Liberal politics. Prejudice and smut over principle and honour. In your words, both shameful and disgusting.

Another thing was proven though - Ignatieff is too principled and intelligent for the Liberal party.

The whole point here is: the Liberal Party stands for anything, everything, and nothing, and this was brilliantly exposed by Harper through this vote. The NDP and the Bloc are leftists and at least they are consistent. The Libs try to be everything to everyone, and it's simply not working anymore.

Ted:

Don't interpret this as me joinng in ganging up on you (actually in light of your stated agreement with Harper adhering to the traditional flag protocol in your 3:59 posting, I guess I'm not disagreeing with you).

The last time that the PT flag was lowered to honour a soldier killed in Afstan was on January 28, 2004, to honour Cpl. Jamie Murphy.

In October/November 2005, then Minister of Defence Bill Graham, apparently on advice from the Legion and MOD, decided to revert back to the old tradition of restricting the PT flag honours to Nov 11th.

It was because of this policy change that the PT flag was NOT lowered to honour the November 24, 2005 death of Pte Braun Scott Woodfield. And as we all know, the Libs were still in government then, and I don't recall hearing a peep out of the media over the issue.

The blatant hypocrisy of the media and many Liberal MPs when the flag flap arose after Harper had taken office is what sickened me, because those bleating the loudest had to have known that Graham changed the policy, not Harper.
That WAS playing politics with the fallen, and it is disturbing to think that Members of Parliament, regardless of their party affiliation, would stoop so low.

And I am sure that you are correct about a number of CPC members requesting the flag lowering with respect to the sub death. Fact is, a lot of MPs and Senators aren't up to speed on the protocol, and that is not surprising...it's one reason why we employ protocol officers.

This is a comment that I recently posted on Andrew Coyne's blog. I think that it is equally pertinent here.

1. "Darfur" is an internal struggle between black and arab muslims. The international geopolitical implications are limited and do not affect Canada

2. Nobody has asked for or wants Canadian troops in Sudan.

3. The 30 year civil war between the Christian/animist south and the muslim north was far more devastating in terms of loss of life and human suffering. I don't recall anyone from the Canadian left demanding intervention in that war.

4. Afghanistan under the Taliban provided a haven to Al Quaeda where they could organize, train militants from all over the world (including Canada) and plot violent attacks on western targets. The objective of the curent military action in Afstan is to ensure that this does not happen again. As such, it is primarily a defensive operation.

As usual, too many uninformed people spouting too much crap on both sides of the discussion.

Change "MPs and Senators aren't" to "weren't"

Ted,
It seems that this vote has really got your shorts in a knot. I am not quite sure why. As you pointed out, your former leaders had political gamesmanship and dividing the opposition down to a science. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you cry foul. Too bad. I guess this exposes the deep divisions amongst the Libs right now and should provide plenty of fodder and ammo in the upcoming ad nauseum Lib debates to be held across Canada.
I don't agree that this was done strictly for partisan purposes as you keep saying. As with anything in politics, there are many sides to an issue and a decision. I suspect the sudden timing of this event had something to do with the Aussies coming to town, one of our coalition partners. Now PMSH can point to the vote and say "Were committed for a couple more years with the support of parliament.
Since you seem so well informed, perhaps you have been sitting in and taking notes at the recent cabinet meetings. Do you suppose NATO is looking for a definate commitment so that long term plans can be made, knowing that the life expectancy of a minority government is short.
There could be lots of reasons for the debate (which parliamentarians were asking for) and vote to be held. If it so happenned to smoke out the Liberals and further divide them, all the better! Get over it.
Methinks that something in the Liberal camp just "doesn't feel right" when they are not in total control of the agenda and the outcome. Get used to it.
Daniel

The Liberals are a bit like day traders in the stock market. Day traders don’t have an investment philosophy, they value the entertainment. But Liberals have been using taxpayers’ money for their entertainment.

It will be fascinating to watch Ignatieff deal with all the addictions and excesses the Liberals have picked up over the years. He’ll need bigtime backers. But the new election rules prevent Mega-Corps from funding, unless they have figured out how to do it through the back door. That’s why the Libs didn’t want Gwyn Morgan poking around; he’d know how to catch the Corporate/Liberal sleaze.

After watching Ignatieff stand up for his principles in last night's vote I am predicting that he has zero chance of winning the Liberal leadership contest.

To see how each Liberal MP voted....go down to bottom of page:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/025_2006-05-17/HAN025-E.htm

Note that Keith Martin has the naval base of Esquimalt in his constituency, and he used to be the Parliamentary Sec for Minister of Defence.

It will be of great interest to see how the military folks respond.

No, Ted, I didn't suggest that the Liberals should lower the flag for 'every other mission'. I pointed out their hypocrisy in only lowering it for the US friendly fire deaths.

Again, your insistence that the only valid requests for a debate and vote in parliament on the Afghan mission had to be a formal request by the Liberal Party is quite different from my statement that many Liberal/NDP requested such a debate and vote. And please note, that Dosanjh is the official Defense Critic of the Liberal Party. He's not a backbencher.

NCF-TO - yes, a perfect description of the NDP, Bloc and Liberals.

Bruce - many thanks for your clarification on the flag protocol.

O'Connor, the Defense Minister, was just on Duffy and Newman, stating that NATO was asking for an answer from Canada about its commitment after February. NATO is committed to Afghanistan and doesn't work on a monthly agenda; it needs to know what's happening six months in advance.

Ted, having been roundly and soundly defeated on every point, declares a victory and goes home. Typical.

Paul and Daisy, Iggy is most definitely not too principled for the Gliberal Farty, take a closer look at his coronation to his riding. He may be a little bit hawkish, but otherwise he is a perfect fit for the Fiberal Farty.

Ted, I can not help it if you get upset when the system goes against the Liberals.

I'll tell you what, if you Liberals will quit pointing fingers and get to work on your platform then I will try to "do better".

As it stands, the Conservatives have a platform on which to build and the Liberals do not.

I do not see much hope for Liberals in the near term as they have not had to work really really hard for a very very long time and so they are not used to it.

I suppose they could get lucky but I think our new PM has other ideas.

From what I hear many Canadians, even many Liberal Canadians, are very happy to have what has so far been strong and honest new leadership.

Accusing Mr. harper of using our troops to make political gain is spurious - the NDP, Bloc and Liberals asked for a debate and a vote weeks ago on any extension.

Everyone is forgeting that Jean Cretien, without any notice, committed troops to Afghanistan in the first place so he could say the cupboard was empty when forced to consider sending troops to Iraq - talk about using our troops as a political football. Then the Liberals have the gall to vote no - unbelievable.

Alex
Winnipeg

Ted - "I understand that some MPs may have wanted it but the leader of the party didn't... "

Don't we have to wait until December to determine what the leader of the Liberal Party wanted?

TED: you lose, we win. Shut up. Thank you, goodbye.

Ted, having been roundly and soundly defeated on every point, declares a victory and goes home. Typical.
Posted by: Jon at May 18, 2006 06:24 PM

Jon.FYI,you are right,but actually he just went on to another thread.Don't be too hard on him though,I would cut and run too if my arguments were soundly thrashed by the masses and left me exposed as a partisan Harper-hating hypocrite.

Bruce,believe you make a critical point we all need to remember..our declared enemies are watching...Well done Harper!

Ted, you agreed with it, as you said at the top, yet you ranted, raved and engaged this thread in a shouting match.

Reminds me of the ranting, raving and flying of a bannered airplane over Parliament hill when Emerson joined Harper.

I do not recall you or any liberal making much fuss when Belinda joined Paulie and bagged a seat in the bargain?

Sometimes you are so reserved and quiet in the face of grave dishonesty. TG

Off topic, but what the hell, I see similarities.

Ju Jitsu - Ju Jitsu is formed from two ideograms Ju the various meanings of which are suppleness, flexibility, pliancy, gentleness and Jitsu meaning technique or art.

So Ju Jitsu means the art of suppleness or flexibility. What Ju is conveying is that Ju Jitsu does not use strength against strength, it uses the opponents strength and force of attack as a weapon against him, thus enabling a stronger or bigger attacker to be subdued.

Ju Jitsu is one of the most complete martial arts there is. It incorporates unarmed strikes, joint locks, chokes and throws.

Hmmm - I think it was a joint lock.

Ted,

Actually, the vote put an end to the chirping against the war by asking folks to take a stand, and vote on it.

Ahh yes, though the vote "divided" people. I guess we ought not to hold votes unless we can be assured that we're all in agreement (well the Liberal party is in agreement - after all its all about the Liberal party).

Classic liberal narcissism: what's important is not that the bulk of the Liberal party was partisan, hypocritical, and unsupportive of the troops,

whats important was how dare the CPC.......wait for it............do the unthinkable and hold a vote, which revealed the Liberals to be partisan, hypocritical, and unsupportive of the troops.

Perhaps from now on we should review all future issues, and if the requisite Liberal solidarity is not evident, the CPC should refrain from putting an issue to a vote. Particularily where that vote would expose the petty partisan hackery, which now serves as the foundation for the Liberal party today.

Fascinating debate about - what? That Parliament and the country are divided about our mission in Afghanistan? NCF TO (at 12:54 PM)defined the aim and lowpoint of the Commons debate: "Conservative partisans love it for sticking it to the Libs..."

149 to 145 certainly was a near-run-thing and will do nothing to sell the mission to the populace. I hope all goes well in A'stan.

By the way, Ted, you did well, but, as you no doubt knew, you were farting against partisan thunder.

Ted - does the name Ujal Dosangh ring a bell - Mr. "we support the troops, but we need to debate this in parliment".

Give it up Teddy - your arguments are all washed up.

Ted and agitfact,

There was 6+ months planning in my wedding (which I had nothing to do with). My daughter and wife used to started planning for daughters birthday party 3 months before the the date.

Neither of these events involved thousands of people, foreign countries, heavy equipment, aircraft and nutcases trying to kill us or our guests.

Now our military and our allies have an opportunity to plan. Our military didn't have this opportunity when we first deployed ... this is not the Libs or our allies fault - our enemies were in control.

Maybe you were hoping the principled Libs would join the rest? Or pro-democracy Layton would have more time to repeat to the NDPers members how to vote (seemed like 48 hours was enough)?

Seems to me more good be done with a month of planning than to subject the country to another month of Layton and his good Lib bud Ujal.

BTW: If you really don't want something ... don't ask for it.

Ted: When you read this tomorrow AM I just want to let you know I tried to carefully read all you comments and ......ZZZZzzzzzz. Thud! Your arguments are neither accurate nor believable. What was remarkable, however, was the number of times you managed to puff up and sneer that the actions of PMSH were "Shameful"!

I cant believe no one has brought this up.
There was all party agreement on the debate and vote. Get that?
All part agreement

Ted @ Cerebrus and all other whi-n-ers.

Remember Jean Chretien?

Remember this:

I have made clear in the days since Sept. 11 that the struggle to defeat the forces of terrorism will be a long one. We must remain strong and vigilant. We must insist on living on our terms, according to our values not on terms dictated from the shadows.

I cannot promise that the campaign against terrorism will be painless, but I can promise that it will be won.
SOURCE: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1025062429054_20471629

Remember those words when you yak about PM Harper's commitment to Afghanstan. And play some KumaWar - it'd be a good idea.

(I didn't want Kate to deal w/ the HTML code, so almost everything's in plain text. Sorry.)

to bcl: two years seems pretty modest compared to the number of years Canadian troops have stood guard in Cyprus and on the Golan Heights. I support PMSH in this vote and most of his ACTIONS so far. What a difference from the last two governments.

I have to confess that I'm a little uncomfortable with some of the comments directed at Ted from Cerebus...

From my observations, he has expressed his views in a respectful, cogent and intelligent manner. To refer to him as anything akin to being a troll is, in my view at least, incorrect.

It seems to me that just because he is putting forward a differing viewpoint should not expose him to insults...after all, isn't engaging in debate on relevant issues is what most of us are here for...

Merely making an observation...

Bruce, I second that. Thanks.

Heres some food for thought:
During the previous "take Note" debate, the attendance by those who demanded it was dismal.
During this debate, only 26 liberals were in attendance to hear the Prime Ministers speech. Is it possible that some of those who missed the speech might have been more informed?
To those who say they voted nay because of the process:
The question was not on the process, it was on the deployment (continuation)

Bruce,I understand your intent and agree there is no need for gratuitous slurs in place of common sense,but let me remind you of something.

Ted started this with the following claim;

"What Harper did was disgusting. Period. He is playing fool politics with our troops."

It was immediately followed by accusations of Harper purposely trying to divide the country.

The only one who knows if these claims are true is Harper himself.Ted's argument CANNOT be proven by anyone,unless Harper confesses,so his claims are pointless and only serve to slander a man many here respect.
I just think that before he started some completely gratuitous and slanderous attacks of the Prime Minister he should have thought out the consequences.
And again,don't blame all of us if a few can put together no more than gradeschool taunt for a comeback.There's no shortage of those twits,left or right.
Actually,considering the caustic accusations he levelled,I found many who engaged him showed some remarkable patience.

Come on Ted. Harper did not need to put this to a vote. It is well know that he could have and would have extended the mission on his own withought talking to parliament (which is his right).
But the NDP tried to score partisan points by whining about a vote. They did this ONLY because they didn't think Harper would do it and thus they could call him authoritative later (even though a vote is not required).
The only reason the opposition is pissed is because Harper out-played them by actually having a vote and going above and beyond what was necessary for this decision.
This was not abuse of parliament. It was actually an uncharacteristic (for other PMs at least) deference to parliament since they could have voted against what Harper wanted on an issue that is solely Harper's own perogative.

I believe that the main reason that the Liberals are upset is that they were forced to take a position on an issue. This really upsets most of the leadership hopefuls as the best way to win is to take no position. Some of them tried to keep their options open by saying they weren't voting on the issue but only on the process that the Conservatives used to bring the issue forward. I don't think this explanation will fly. We now have 2 camps in the leadership hopefuls: those who support Afghanistan and those who don't. You Liberal supporters should be thanking Harper for forcing the candidates to take a stand on an issue.

Paul in Vancouver, I wish I could share your optimism about the Libreranos who voted 'yes'. I think that the Doippers/Bloc/Liberanos got in a clutch, did the numbers game and designated several Liberanos to vote for the mission to save themselves from going to the poles. They have discouvered that an Adult has moved into the PM chair and they are shaking in their Birkenstocks. The LAST thing they want is an election so to make the optics look good ,a SLIM majority voted yes; they are waiting to ambush PMSH if Canada runs into trouble in Afganistan. This feigned 'outrage' was just for the MSM to trot in frount of the Canadian people so they could 'stir up the sheep' if the misson fails. Not anyone in the opposition cares about any of us - they care about themselves and their agenda driven elitist Communist masters. The bigshots like M Stong are not very happy about Canada's new backbone with intellegence, and the little 'boobie boys' like Paule and Jacko are getting their wrists slapped. Ducippe is a one trick pony , he definatly wants to run an independant nation that would resemble Cuba if he gets his wish - some Quebecers don't want to be a NA ghetto and that is why they like PMSH and the Conservatives. Hopefully they make up their minds right away about what they really want. The next provincil election in Quebec will determine the fate of those people. As for the soldiers we owe them, they have earned our support and the MPs who shamefully abandoned them and their mission, by voting 'no' deserve nothing but scorn and rejection from Canadian citizens.