108 Replies to “149 – 145”

  1. 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

  2. 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.”

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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).

  12. 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: http://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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Yes Ted IS a Liberal hack!
    Nomdenet: totally agree with you on the juxtaposition of party names.
    SOMAS

  16. 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”?

  17. 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.

  18. Man, that’s one mighty tall high-horse.
    Shameful, disgusting….blah, blah

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  22. 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?

  23. 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?

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

  25. 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

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  31. 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

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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

  39. 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?

  41. 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!

  42. 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

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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”!

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

  50. 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.)

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation