108 Replies to “149 – 145”

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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?

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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!

  15. 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

  16. “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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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,

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. 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?

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

  24. 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.

  25. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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.

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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.

  32. 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!

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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

  37. 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?

  38. 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

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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

  42. “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?

  43. 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.

  44. “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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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…

  47. Translation of Ted’s repetitive postings, in a nutshell: “No fair, no fair…we Libs make the rules around here!”

  48. 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

  49. 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?

  50. 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?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation