Pity. And when’s the last time you heard our prime minister support an extension of privately provided and insured health care?
Pity. And when’s the last time you heard our prime minister support an extension of privately provided and insured health care?
This is the same President that accused the US Military of killing civilians, denouncing the surge and called the wars a “strategic blunders” as a candidate. Now the “Torch” thinks he’s a hero because he finally showed up in Afghanistan – something that Harper has already done…
Harper has supported the troops and our mission there from the start – and frankly had nothing to do with implementing our so-called “health care”.
Given a choice between a pragmatic Harper and a dogmatic Obama – I’ll take Harper every time.
The difference is that for Obama it’s a photo op and a distraction from his failed domestic policies – for Harper it’s a matter of values and beliefs.
RE:PMSH
If he, like me, thinks BO is paying lip service to the Afghanistan file, then I support PMSH’s stance on this issue. Like putting-down an old friend(a dog), sooner is usually better than later. Lets not rely on hindsight to learn this.
OT
While considering BO’s trip to Afghanistan I’ve concluded the following:
I believe that it’s a well calculated move to throw the “left” under the bus on this file. By doing so, BO creates some goodwill from moderates and the Right, possibly opening a lane for the rest of the progressive agenda. From BO’s perspective(IMO) Afghanistan is temporary; whereas, progress on Progressive issues such as “Cap’n Trade” and “Amnesty” have long-term political and societal implications. That’s the calculus.
In a nutshell, BO is throwing us a bone, to hopefully pacify us while he moves his Progressive agenda forward.
From the conservative perspective, the extended healthcare debate has shortened the window for BO to accomplish the aforementioned agenda. A small silver lining, but it counts for nothing without large GOP gains in November.
Fowler: “The bottom line is: We will not prevail in Afghanistan,” Fowler said. “We are simply not prepared to foot the massive price in blood and treasure, which it would take to effectively colonize Afghanistan — the least fortunate country in the world —**** and replace their culture with ours,**** for that seems to be what we seek, and with the Taliban share that view.”
And just what is this dingbat talking about? This is something we are not prepared to do in Canada let alone Afghanistan.
Our army is exhausted. Just what or who will we send over there? How many times can we expect a soldier to put her/himself on the line? Will we be able to find anyone not suffering PTSS?
Sorry Mistake. PTSS should have read Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Mr. Harper is pragmatic as Mark W correctly pointed out at 5:18 PM. Will the blood of the brave Canadian women and men who have served with the Canadian military in Afghanistan lead to the end of the brutal and degrading treatment of muslim women in Afghanistan? Do Afghani muslim women reject completely their second class status as muslim women? Will having Canadian troops in Canada increase the safety of Canadian citizens in Canada? If the answer to at least two of these three questions is not an overwhelming “yes” the pragmatic Mr. Harper is well justified in bringing home our troops when the current mandate has expired. To the point of this posting, I trust Prime Minster Harper’s judgment based on pragmatic considerations infinitely more than Obama’s position du jour which is a construct solely contrived to garner more votes in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
ps/ I wish all the short foreskinned Swedes out there a happy and Kosher passover!
Obama likes to snub his friends, ask the Brits, and placate his enemies. So far his efforts in Iran, remember the 2009 year end deadline or we’ll take serious action, have been less than fruitful. Seems to me even Brazil gave the U. S. the finger over Iran, something that Obama is well known for.
Wonder how Israel looks at Obama?
Stephen Harper isn’t the big BO and for that we should all be thankful.
What Homez said.
One caveat though. Don’t expect a sea change in November. Most of the senators are from “safe seat” districts. Better to look forward to 2012 when the crap hits the fan for the Dems.
My source? Ann Coulter in her comments made at UWO
on March 22,2010.
Given that Afghanistan is a mess and our troops are unlikely to fix it, I have no appetite for extension beyond 2011. I’m glad we’re leaving.
Mark you are way off-base on this one. Obama would have bugged-out of afstan and Iraq a long time ago if he could survive it politically.
He is the enemy and you are a chump for falling for the rhetoric.
“Stephen Harper ain’t no Barack Obama”
We can all thank our lucky stars for that!!!
Incidentally, Brad Wall is no Omama either:
http://www.newstalk980.com/story/20100329/31432
Woot. 🙂
Stephen Harper at least is an economist. I might add he supports Israel while BO does not.
Obama has never had a real job in his life. Personally if we where to go to all out war against these Islamists I would say stay. Playing at war isn’t worth one Canadian or American life.
JMO
If PMSh was doing the Obama thingy, you know, bankrupting the USA, our deficit would be about $175 Billion . . . and climbing.
Barry is out to kill the golden goose under the progressive belief that spreading around other people’s wealth to poor/lazy/indigent/whatever/whomever people is fair and will make everyone equal.
Unfortunately they will all be equally poor.
November cannot come soon enough for the real America.
Gord T – not sure the rhetoric to which you refer — Obama is clearly no friend of the Canadian people, our troops or the Afghan people. Harper is.
As usual, the Canadian military has sacrificed far out of proportion to our presence and our NATO allies in theatre. If we pull out in 2011 as scheduled we can do so knowing we did more than our share (again).
I doubt either the Republicans or the Teapartiers are much impressed that the “won” went to Afghanistan. All he did was offend his strongest coonstituency—the hard left unionist/academic/media clique.
He is losing friends fast and making enemies faster…IMNSHO
November cannot come soon enough for the real America.
~Fred
Next move on the Democrat agenda is to pardon 30,000+ illegal aliens in the hope that it will be enough to make a difference for them in November.
Revnant Dream at March 29, 2010 7:11 PM
I completely agree.
Remember and never forget; anything that Obama does, and I mean anything, he does for Himself. Only Himself.
The Afghanistan trip was a photo-op to counter the anger of the centre and the right against his ramming through the Health Care Act. Got that? That’s the only reason Obama went; the only reason for his ‘we will fight them on the beaches, we will never surrender’ rabble-talk.
Remember Obama’s staged photo-op at the ‘return’ of a killed soldier? Bush went, but never, ever, had his photo taken. Obama went once, for the photo, and it was for a reason.
Obama has NO interest in the medical well-being of anyone. His health care act is an agenda of the radical left who want to insert statism into the US, and, the agenda for Obama, is that it will be a Legacy of Obama. It’s all about Him. Don’t ever, ever forget that when dealing with Obama.
The Afghan trip was All About Obama as well. He’s after the centre and right who are upset about his health care.
Remember, Obama has three tactics to deal with people. Misinformation – he’s a pathological liar. Manipulation of your emotions, and he’s good at that, isn’t he? And, if you dissent from him, accusations of bias. That’s the race card that he uses all the time, and that his Henchmen use on his behalf all the time.
Obama. He has only one agenda. Himself.
From the linked article, Obama spake thusly with forked tongue:
The United States of America does not quit once we start on something
Except that lying piece of cut-and-run garbage would have left Iraq to its own devices had Petraeus, Gates and Bush not won it before that shallow weaselly ignoramus took the reins.
Trust Comrade Zero at your own peril, Mark.
Gord T – not sure the rhetoric to which you refer
I’m pretty sure he’s talking to the other Mark, the one who put up the post here and at The Torch, the guy who drank the hopey-changey Obama-will-heal-the-world Kool-Aid, and who now appears to have overdosed on it.
So Robert Fowler, Senior retired Ottawa Mandarin and UN secret Diplomat, says we should withdraw from Afghanistan campaign as we can’t have any real long lasting influence being part of a large international security assistance Force. Rather we should go into the huge desert/jungle warfare in Northern Africa by our lonesome so as to influence the Jihadi Muslim war sweeping down on the middle African countries.
My oven light bulb is brighter than this guy.
This explains a lot about Ottawa, the federal bureaucracy and the United Nations.
BHO was in Afghanistan for only 6 hours in the dead of night … typical.
Furthermore, by now most people should know that whatever he says means nothing … “just words”.
Let’s also not forget that PM Harper also gave a stirring speech in Kandahar when he first became PM … something about not quitting; about sticking it out; about helping the Afghan people. But then, he realized that he can’t win in Quebec with a pro-Afghan War policy, so he dumped the mission. “Just Words”.
If a “progressive” changes his position, he’s a liar. If PM Harper changes his position, he’s being pragmatic.
I can’t believe I’m defending Harper (sort of), but maybe he changed his position because he changed his mind. Maybe he sees the futility of nation building over there.
Waterhouse: correct, thanks. Couldn’t have explained it any better myself.
Cyto: That may be the case and his change of direction may be entirely justified. What I’m pointing to is how political tribalism can turn most any normal person into a double-talker (I’m guilty of that often) … that whenever “progressives” change their mind, they are called out as liars, cheats, phonies, etc. by conservatives. Yet our man does the same thing; and he’s pragmatic … intellectual … a realist. I shake my head.
I know that you think Afghanistan is a waste of time … so you are inclined to give PM Harper the benefit of the doubt; so it begs the question … do you find him pragmatic in this case only because he took a position you endorse?
On the other hand, I think he changed his mind because he’s chasing Quebec votes … nothing else.
Cjunk, I completely know what you’re talking about with the tribalistic double standard. If a Liberal changes his stance for any reason, they have no principals and only care about polls. If a Con changes his stance for any reason, they’re just pragmatically dealing with ‘adverse circumstances’ (which is a euphemism for the same thing). However, I have read a part of an interview in the National Post where he talked of Afghanistan and sounded genuinely pessimistic. I’m sure there’s political calculations in here, but I don’t that’s the primary motivation. For once.
Cytotoxic: Perhaps 🙂 … especially given Afghan government corruption.
I’m thinking EyesWideShut is Norwegian – Robert Fowler spoke this nonsense at the Liberals little Thinker’s get-together. What does that tell you, except that he’s a career diplomat that did rather well under Liberal auspices. Now he wants Canadians dying in the fever-swamps of African politics.
So Robert Fowler is now teaching at the Univ. of Ottawa….he should be able to help Rock poison a few minds there!
2011 is an Act of Parliament. A parliament in which the SH Government is in a minority. Hate to rain on anyone’s parade.
“On the other hand, I think he changed his mind because he’s chasing Quebec votes … nothing else.”
Posted by: Cjunk at March 29, 2010 10:14 PM
Is that why he changed his mind in 2009 do you think when he made the decision to extend our mission in Khandahar to 2011 … chasing the votes in Quebec?
`
Elizabeth: I didn’t know that Harper was on record as wanting to be out in 2009 … his Kandahar speech certianly didn’t indicate that. He used phrases like, “Canadians don’t cut and run”.
Cjunk,
Well the speech you are referring to took place in Afghanistan during the P.M.’s first visits –yes? Now, will have to research the events leading up to the decision in 2009 to extend but, Paul. Chasing the Quebec vote. Now? For the purpose of what, a Fall election? Seems a fools errand, don’tyouthink.
`
Which is exactly why Harper would do it.
I heard Prime Minister Stephen Harper say that he had no intention to continue our mission in Afghanistan, after 2011, before the election of Obama. PMSH said that our soldiers have shouldered the most dangerous area of Afghanistan since they went over there under Crouton (Crouton chose that area for our soldiers and sent them there with run down equipment and uniforms of the wrong color!) Afganistan is a NATO mission and, so far, few of the NATO members have sent in combat troops – it is now their turn. We are not cutting and running, we have already done all of the heavy lifting, our troops deserve a break – we can send over a few ‘hearts and minds’ winners whilst some of Obama’s other pals do some combat work.
I thank the Good Lord every day that our Prime Minister is not Obama and is not a Liberano either. We should all count our Blessings and try to survive this Demo/obamo mess in USA supporting our common sense Prime Minister. My heart goes out to the people in America and I pray for them.
Well said Indiana, Gord Turk, ET and others above, I agree with your comments re PMSH/Obama.
If Ralph Peters is even remotely right, Harper is playing this the best way he can:
http://tinyurl.com/yelqc3q