Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Liberals play politics while Kandahar burns

So the Lieberal blogosphere is having the fits the shits and the blind staggers over the failure of their party's faux Afghan withdrawal motion, claiming the NDP have joined the Tories to keep us in Afghanistan forever.

The truth, not surprisingly, turns out to be quite different. Military analyst Stephen Staples acted as a go-between between the Libs and the NDP to try to work out a bill the NDP could support. (Hat tip to Blogging a Dead Horse) The Libs were more interested in a grandstand ploy to score points off the NDP - in fact they even had a backup plan if the NDP had chosen to support the bill at the last minute; If they were so serious about this motion why wasn't it a whipped vote and why were more than a dozen Lib MPs missing?

The real vote will be debated tomorrow.


janfromthebruce said...

A Cliff, good to see you got my drift too. They didn't want their motion to pass, not when a dozen or so MPs are AWOL.
Good that the real motion will be tomorrow - separate the wheat from the chaff.

Cliff said...

It was a good call and it needed to be included.

MilitantLiberal said...

Nice journalism guy's. I hadn't even considered that the Liberals didn't want the motion to pass. You make a convincing argument. I think what's happened is that the Liberals think they have found a political winner. They can pull out without the Cons playing the old cut and run card. At the same time they can say "heh we follow through on our International commitments" It's very Canadian, It sounds like a compromise.You may have illuminated another part of the plan. Now they say "yo left-wing voters what's wrong with the Dippers, come vote for me they vote with Stephen harper. I suspect there might be more to this story. What exactly did the NDP amendment say? Did it call for immediate withdrawl? If so this would go against the whole middle of the road policy. Also it may not have been a whipped vote simply to avoid appearing divided. Dion should pull a surprise move and vote with the NDP tomorrow. That would catch Harper by surprise and best of all end this bullshit war. Alas Im afraid it wont happen. Partisans on both sides would rather fight amonst themselves then turn their guns on Harper.

Jason Cherniak said...

So your complaint is that the Liberals didn't adopt the NDP policy and say that the mission is failing? How is that any different than what Layton was saying yesterday. The NDP wants either 100% or nothing. In the end, nothing is what they got.

Steve V said...

From the link:

"By including language in the motion that directly contradicted NDP policy, such as “this House call upon the government to confirm that Canada’s existing military deployment in Afghanistan will continue until February 2009,” (the NDP wants troops out as soon as possible), the motion was doomed to failure."

Oh this is just pure and utter crap. Why wouldn't the Liberals want to include that, as a matter of principle? That's the Liberal position isn't it? Support our international obligation and after that withdraw. The NDP rejects that notion, fine, but don't cry foul when the Liberals refuse to drop their policy to curry favor. Try again, this is just rubish. The Liberals bad because they put forward their beliefs in their motion. That point is hardly up for negotiation.

Carry on.

Cliff said...

"The Liberals bad because they put forward their beliefs in their motion. That point is hardly up for negotiation."

And yet your premise is 'NDP bad' because they vote based on their beliefs.

Does the cognitive dissidence of holding two diametrically opposed concepts in your head simultaneously hurt? It looks like it would hurt.

Steve V said...


Where did you find that "premise" in my comment? Was it where I said "the NDP rejects the notion FINE". Cognitive? Apparently your partisan brain can see things that aren't even there. I'm impressed.

What I'm commenting on here is the ridiculous notion that the Liberals should abandon their PREMISE to get the NDP on board. It makes no sense and your title is pure nonsense, it just is, sorry. Whatever, you see the mirage.

Cliff said...

A comment from you steve v, at this post on your blog posted yesterday morning:

The NDP supports "cut and run", the Liberal position is a firm timetable for withdrawal.

Really classic. You've got a distortion of the actual NDP position, an implication of cowardice and an attack on New Democrat patriotism all wrapped up in one noxious passage.

'Cut and run' who writes your dialogue, Dick Cheney?

Steve V said...

You're a hoot. What else would you call it? Distortion? I'll leave you to spin the obvious. Immediate withdrawal= CUT AND RUN and the only people who don't except that equation are frankly intellectually dishonest. That's the NDP position, its not really that complicated, deal with it, instead of trying to distract. Fini.

janfromthebruce said...

No, Bush! To libs really, really want to incorporate neocon language, or are you showing just the more "unprogressive wing" of the liberal party?

Cliff said...

Well the NDP position isn't that complicated unless you're deliberately trying to distort it to distract from your own party's inconsistency and incoherence on the issue.

The NDP propose changing the nature of our mission - immediate withdrawal means immediate withdrawal from an aggressive counter-insurgency combat role and towards a more defensive, development based role. The counter-insurgency model has been a grotesque failure that hasn't improved the lives of Afghanis and offers no long term 'victory'. Only a political solution will do that.

So if you do believe our military mission is effective why do you want a firm end date in 2009 no matter what? If you don't believe it's effective why do you want our troops stuck in a useless meat-grinder for two more years?

The NDP have been clear and consistent while the Libs are still incoherent.

Steve V said...

The NDP motion:

"immediately notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan; and calls for Canada to focus its efforts to assist the people of Afghanistan on a diplomatic solution, and re-double its commitment to reconstruction and development."

You can't spin that, call it whatever you want, "cut and run" seems apt. It has nothing to do with neo-con speak, it's just an accurate interpretation of the policy. Would you prefer "failing to honor international commitment"? And what of Kyoto then? It's all so funny, when someone uses the word "consistency" with regard to others, when the party in question offers FUNDAMENTAL hypocrisy. Next time Cullen gets up and speaks of our international obligations, try to reconcile the INCOHERENCE.

Cliff said...

Once again:

If you do believe our military mission is effective why do you want a firm end date in 2009 no matter what? If you don't believe it's effective why do you want our troops stuck in a useless meat-grinder for two more years?

Are you uncomfortable with the question?

Popular Posts