tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post5456695378306578624..comments2023-10-22T09:18:16.885-04:00Comments on Far and Wide: Out-Flanked?Steve Vhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-50696821657576836192008-02-10T16:25:00.000-05:002008-02-10T16:25:00.000-05:00Tomm,At the risk of keeping this going on too much...Tomm,<BR/>At the risk of keeping this going on too much, but with respect, I find your last post somewhat odd.<BR/>a). Gayle hit it on the head, & BTW the crime bill would be the law of the land by now if Steve Harper & the Ditto heads had the sand not to have prorogued the House. <BR/>b). Not a question of splitting hairs, (see my post) we end the mission in 2009 or 2011 - if that two years means one fewer brave Canadians killed, MOST Canadians want that.<BR/>c). I got nothing - that's just an odd statement dude.<BR/><BR/>Bully? um, I think what you're describing is ahh, what's it called again? you know, when one takes a position and defends it with facts & conviction? - Oh yeah, Leadership!<BR/><BR/>What is not fair to Canadians is to have Steve Harper & the Ditto heads stamp their feet and pout and cry confidence all the time when they can't get anything done. I think there might even be a term for this tactic, something like a blustering browbeating person or one who is habitually cruel to others wait! wait! don't tell me! something like ruffian, or antagonist, no, harrier? nope, nuisance? nahh, thug? Oh wait! that's right you already used the word - bully!<BR/><BR/>Just a gentle reminder, Canadians didn't vote for a majority government, that means the government must compromise or face the electorate. Just so you know, them's the rules. I mean just ask the Dippers, they were happy to tell Canadians a minority government was in Canadians best interest because of the compromises they could squeeze out of Steve Harper & the Ditto heads. I think it might be better for you to save your pathos for all Canadians who got fooled into voting for the Dippers 'cause I don't think whatever they were for, they are not so very happy with all the movement towards the great Socialistic nirvana since 2006.JimmEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03703715618040666970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-25804805853709019302008-02-10T15:13:00.000-05:002008-02-10T15:13:00.000-05:00Steve,I tried to be helpful. It looks like I stir...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I tried to be helpful. It looks like I stirred up a little debate.<BR/><BR/>Gayle & Ottlib,<BR/><BR/>It looks like we're going to be into an election because <BR/>a) the LPC either doesn't have the cojones to control their senators, or <BR/>b) they would prefer to split hairs and split the country rather than support the Manley Report, or<BR/>c) defeat a budget they haven't seen yet.<BR/><BR/>That is just pathetic and not fair to Canadians. <BR/><BR/>I wish the media had the guts to report the truth about all this. At least Tabor today tried to show Dion that his policies are nonsence and he was acting like a bully; he must be taking lessons from Coderre.<BR/><BR/>Liberals have got to show some leadership and stand up FOR something; and not just against something else. <BR/><BR/>TommTommhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072854015300215347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-9798705505044642402008-02-09T23:33:00.000-05:002008-02-09T23:33:00.000-05:00Great posts!! From my perch 1. The Afghan issue is...Great posts!! <BR/>From my perch <BR/>1. The Afghan issue is simple 2009 or 2011?<BR/>- 2011 means accepting Steve Harper and the Ditto Heads view that 2011 will become the McCain view of Iraq: 100 years if necessary.<BR/>- 2009 means we've done our duty to God & the Queen.<BR/>2. Fineness by Dion on Afghanistan means Dion sez uncle - result: Steve Harper and the Ditto Heads forever tape the "kick me" sign to Dion's back in the minds of the Tim & Tina Horton's of Canada.<BR/>3. Steve Harper and the Ditto Heads see they have no traction in the polls so they ask: "What would Chrétien do?" <BR/>4. If in this position (he wouldn't be) Chrétien would see his best option would be to go to the polls sooner rather than later against an untested opponent on an issue he thinks he can win.<BR/>5. Steve Harper and the Ditto Heads are cocky on this issue, when Steve Harper is cocky, he slips out of the bubble & he shows his real mean nasty wicked horrible, & true nature - that lost his first national campaign.<BR/>Let's review the lay-O-the-land shall we?<BR/>- A national campaign kick-off is selling an unpopular war - a war where even many supporters think we've done our bit.<BR/>- The bubble Steve will try to campaign in will be popped at any and all opportunities by a national press who feel they have been treated like crap <BR/>- The specter of a Mulldoon inquiry (even if no inquiry Karl Heinz, Norm Spector & Robin Sears & even the great man himself ain't going to shut up)<BR/>- Global Warming, Steve Harper and the Ditto Heads will be hounded by a circus of all manner of folks in all manner of costumes reminding us of Bali<BR/>- Income Trusts a chunk of Steve Harper and the Ditto Heads' base will be reminded of this by Ralph Goodale & will sit on their hands or vote Green or independent in protest<BR/>- Not one of the Goomery recommendations implemented - how does this play? ('member why Steve Harper and the Ditto Heads got their hands on the keys to the car?)<BR/>- No secondary tour 'cause there are no "Stars" amongst the Ditto Heads, & the press will be all over any minor off-message slip<BR/>- Given how they've been treated, the civil service will see this as open season on leaks, there will be a Chalk River every week<BR/>- The votes "lent" to the Dippers in 2006 will be returned - with interest - in the context of: "The NDP - proudly electing Tories since 1964!" Say good-bye to Olivia-do-nothing-Chow.<BR/>- Oh, and let's don't forget Alberta. A Tory free Alberta may only happen in my fondest dreams, but look at what is happening on the ground. From what my pals, my SoCred Mother-in-Law, Preston Manning, Ralph Klien, Rod Wood, & Peter F-ing Lougheed & the Calgary & Edmonton media(!), the "time for a change" sentiment is THE ISSUE - & folks may actually mean it. An Alberta without a Tory majority is a real possibility. (BTW Ron Wood has a Freaking LIBERAL Sign on his front lawn!) What does an Alberta wild card do to the resolve of Steve Harper and the Ditto Heads? <BR/><BR/>Me? Given these cards I think I could run Bubbles and some of his kitties and beat Steve Harper and the Ditto Heads this time out.JimmEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03703715618040666970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-56910650311269678072008-02-09T22:21:00.000-05:002008-02-09T22:21:00.000-05:00By the way, my idea of development includes using ...<I>By the way, my idea of development includes using Canadian army personal to protect themselves and Canadian development projects</I><BR/><BR/>I really dont get this notion of "protecting yourself" while being attacked. So, Taliban fighters attack, and then retreat and regroup knowing that Canadian forces will not come and seek them out?? Repeat the process?<BR/><BR/>And this is supposedly to happen in Kandahar, according to Dion?<BR/><BR/>In that case, I would rather Canadian forces completely withdraw, rather than have such ludicrous rules of engagement that would put soldiers lives at stake. It’s as stupid as having UN peacekeepers in Rwanda without a mandate to kill, or sending them into Darfur without permission from Russia and China that they can’t fire at the Janjaweed. (Which the NDP conveniently forgets to mention when saying “we should be in Darfur and not Afghanistan)<BR/><BR/>Sorry guys, nation state peacekeeping died in the 90’s.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-73311500761473443392008-02-09T22:10:00.000-05:002008-02-09T22:10:00.000-05:00Were you even old enough to read in 2001 or are yo...<I>Were you even old enough to read in 2001 or are you exhibiting some form of dementia.</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry, if you can’t get a basic fact right, and revert to idiotic terms such as "bush's war" (or for that matter, rely on wikipedia)....Ill stop at that and keep this civil<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm<BR/><BR/><BR/>UN resolution 1368 passed on September 12, 2001 by all in the Security Council<BR/><BR/>“3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>“4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999;<BR/><BR/><BR/>“5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>“6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>How do you interpret such a thing? Please let me know<BR/><BR/><I>By the way, my idea of development DOES NOT include aggressively seeking and eliminating the Taliban in a combative manner.</I><BR/><BR/>And that’s where we disagree. You don’t eliminate them, they come at your forces and construction workers and destroy every symbol of progress. Schools, hospitals, government facilities. It’s very simple. Read an insurgency strategy book. <BR/><BR/>What are their long term goals? To re take control of the government. <BR/><BR/>Of course, you allow reconciliation to those that want to take it and give fighters a way out. But until the ANA is actually ready, western forces need to provide security WHILE development occurs<BR/><BR/>Defense, Diplomacy, Development. We have been sorely lacking in all three.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-4856117467336133392008-02-09T20:59:00.000-05:002008-02-09T20:59:00.000-05:00"By the way, my idea of development includes using..."By the way, my idea of development includes using Canadian army personal to protect themselves and Canadian development projects.<BR/><BR/>DOES NOT include aggressively seeking and eliminating the Taliban in a combative manner."<BR/><BR/>Would you support the use of special operations to rescue foreign aid workers kidnapped by the Taliban, warlords etc?<BR/><BR/>Something that could be justified under the UN peacekeeping banner, given the sad lessons learned from Srebrenica and Rwanda. Layton would agree with this point, but not sure on a post-2009 Afghanistan peacekeeping mission.<BR/><BR/>BTW Steve, Huckabee won Kansas today. The bass player is still bouncing around like the Energizer bunny.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-10708212982904190662008-02-09T20:51:00.000-05:002008-02-09T20:51:00.000-05:00Steve, perhaps for different reasons, we agree. I...Steve, perhaps for different reasons, we agree. I wish I'd seen your post earlier.<BR/><BR/>I confess, I haven't read all the comments, but this caught my eye:<BR/><BR/><I>Harper wants to govern Canada.</I><BR/><BR/>Tomm I think wrote that. I'd replace govern with rule, but hey that's me.<BR/><BR/>I think I understand it. If 2/3 of the country is against your ideas, you must <I>fight</I>.<BR/><BR/>Sad that they don't recognise where they are.Karenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04291881352139075405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-46290411791827155672008-02-09T20:35:00.000-05:002008-02-09T20:35:00.000-05:00By the way, my idea of development includes traini...By the way, my idea of development includes training Afghanistan police forces and army personnel.<BR/><BR/>By the way, my idea of development includes using Canadian army personal to protect themselves and Canadian development projects.<BR/><BR/>By the way, my idea of development DOES NOT include aggressively seeking and eliminating the Taliban in a combative manner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-52977306787617789732008-02-09T20:25:00.000-05:002008-02-09T20:25:00.000-05:00Anonymous,You claim:Iraq is Bush's war. Afghanista...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>You claim:<BR/><BR/>Iraq is Bush's war. Afghanistan is a NATO/UN authorized mission.<BR/><BR/>Please vote for the NDP in the next election. You're on the fringe. Thank you.<BR/><BR/>I say:<BR/><BR/>Were you even old enough to read in 2001 or are you exhibiting some form of dementia.<BR/><BR/>Wikipedia has it right:<BR/><BR/>"Following the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom, a military campaign to destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan. The US military also threatened to overthrow the Taliban government for refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden and several al-Qaida members."<BR/><BR/>That's right, it was the United States and Great Britain that attacked Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, not the United Nations.<BR/><BR/>Way back in 2001, almost all people agreed with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to eliminate Al Qaeda. The United Nations did not authorize the October 7, 2001, invasion.<BR/><BR/>Two months later, on December 20, 2001, after the United States and Britain took control of most of Afghanistan, the International Security Assistance Force (10) (ISAF) was established by the United Nations Security Council. ISAF was established for the security and development of Afghanistan.<BR/><BR/>I agree with, and I believe that the majority of Canadians agree with me, with the Liberal preposition that Canada should be more involved in the development of Afghanistan and less in the security (combat) of Afghanistan.<BR/><BR/>I do not agree with the NDP preposition that we totally withdraw out of Afghanistan.<BR/><BR/>To end, I AM NOT ON THE FRINGE of the Liberal Party, YOU ARE (but I will not be an idiot and recommend you vote Conservative or NDP).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-63063356340902084262008-02-09T20:07:00.000-05:002008-02-09T20:07:00.000-05:00"Harper wants to govern Canada."Tomm, thank you fo..."Harper wants to govern Canada."<BR/><BR/>Tomm, thank you for the laugh. I still have tears in my eyes from that gem.ottlibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12695135535019042279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-56207549958972755902008-02-09T19:32:00.000-05:002008-02-09T19:32:00.000-05:00See Tomm, this is what bothers me about your post....See Tomm, this is what bothers me about your post. This:<BR/><BR/>"But to vote "for" the Crime Bill and then allow it to languish in the Senate and defend the ridiculous delays..."<BR/><BR/>is a lie. It is not languishing in the Senate. In fact the Senate has agreed to sit extra days, and for extra hours to try to get the bill through. That, despite the fact this is a huge bill with a lot of material to cover.<BR/><BR/>When are you going to suggest Harper be held accountable for delaying his bills for a year? Instead you persist in sticking to this lie. <BR/><BR/>It is tiresome, and a bit hypocritical for you to lecture the liberals on partisan politics when you refuse to acknowledge the facts.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-36263622852835572702008-02-09T18:58:00.000-05:002008-02-09T18:58:00.000-05:00I'm by no means suggesting Afghanistan will be the...I'm by no means suggesting Afghanistan will be the only issue in a campaign. However, much of is discussed is largely a result of timing. If we go into an election, with this motion unresolved (the budget vote), then one of the big questions will be the direction of the mission. If the Liberals don't support the motion, and that is the non-confidence, seems fairly intuitive that it sets the tone of the debate.<BR/><BR/>mushroom<BR/><BR/>I love the rats analogy :) On last comment on Kinsella, nobody every listens to the bass player ;)Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-80252667752612652122008-02-09T18:49:00.000-05:002008-02-09T18:49:00.000-05:00Harper wants to govern Canada. If his bills are no...Harper wants to govern Canada. <BR/><BR/>If his bills are not getting through he rightly should be annoyed. If he has priorities (money bills, Afghanistan, Crime Bills) that are not being approved he has every right to call it a confidence motion.<BR/><BR/>That is all he has done. The rest of this just has to do with politics, polls, and power.<BR/><BR/>I am so tired of the LPC saying that Harper is goading them into dropping his government. If they don't like his bills, then vote against them. But to vote "for" the Crime Bill and then allow it to languish in the Senate and defend the ridiculous delays (apparently the Tories tried twice to speed it up in December and January (see CBC:The House), is something the media should be all over them for, and aren't.<BR/><BR/>Afghanistan is important to Canada, why wouldn't it be a confidence motion? Would you prefer the CPC cabinet to make the decision in camera like previous Liberal cabinets? <BR/><BR/>All of this is exasperating and not being fairly portrayed.<BR/><BR/>Why do Liberal supporters have to be so partisan and mean spirited?<BR/><BR/>Build some policies on your own and when you've got good ones, take them to the people. But to play politics with everything Harper does is just immature.<BR/><BR/>There, I gave you some material to throw around.<BR/><BR/>TommTommhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072854015300215347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-31908201284546153232008-02-09T18:41:00.000-05:002008-02-09T18:41:00.000-05:00Gayle,Harper set up three landmines, one of has fi...Gayle,<BR/><BR/>Harper set up three landmines, one of has fizzled out. Only a political novice would know that if the budget somehow passes, the only way Dion can take him out is a non-confidence motion on climate change, Mulroney-Schreiber, the economy etc. Something you can't do as PM, fight for survival like Paul Martin, rather than go on the offensive like Harper.<BR/><BR/>It is much easier for a government to fall from power, than be defeated. A maxim all politicos must consider while in Opposition.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Harper got most of his agenda through this session via Liberal abstentia. Not good for us. The longer this situation lasts, the heavier the millstone for Dion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-28511712275310670612008-02-09T18:32:00.000-05:002008-02-09T18:32:00.000-05:00"I find him to be mostly a self-absorbed blowhard"..."I find him to be mostly a self-absorbed blowhard"<BR/><BR/>How many of these people are there in the political business? They are the ones who run elections, while us in the riding associations try hard to sell party memberships. Sometimes it makes me wonder, why do we continue as rats in partisan politics, knowing full well we will be led occasionally to the river bank to be swept up in waves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-79410304421605585232008-02-09T18:27:00.000-05:002008-02-09T18:27:00.000-05:00Tom - that is fine to say, but when you post this:...Tom - that is fine to say, but when you post this:<BR/><BR/>"Good grief, this isn't a principaled position, it is lashing out when the correct position is not to dither but a hand shake."<BR/><BR/>I presume you recognize the person being unprincipled is Harper, because it is utterly hypocritical to complain about a short delay in the Senate when Harper is responsible for delaying this bill for a year in the House.<BR/><BR/>That's it. Sorry for going OT Steve.<BR/><BR/>Back to the topic...<BR/><BR/>"Ok, so why trigger it over an issue that is certainly going to be messy and most likely wont get any traction for the LPC?"<BR/><BR/>But you really do not know this. It is possible when the electorate sit down and listen to the different positions Dion's is the one they find most palatable, particularly since the polls seem to point that way.<BR/><BR/>That said, I think the reason Harper would choose this issue to trigger an election is because it is the one he sees most likely to divide the liberal caucus. In the past several months the liberals have been far more united, and Harper can see the effect that has had on the polls. Like it or not, people naturally tend towards the liberals in this country. They need a reason NOT to vote for them more than they need one TO vote for them.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-63369789357168010722008-02-09T17:59:00.000-05:002008-02-09T17:59:00.000-05:00Gayle,You are certainly right about where I get my...Gayle,<BR/><BR/>You are certainly right about where I get my influences. For example I'm probably the only person on the thread here who applauds Chuckercanuck.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, it is what I think.<BR/><BR/>I'm one of those people that doesn't want endless debate only firm decision making based on principaled positions. So from a personality persepctive I UNDERSTAND Harper much better than Dion. <BR/><BR/>I come here because I enjoy the discussion and respect the opinions. I think my thoughts become better balanced after reading some of the discussion here.<BR/><BR/>TommTommhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072854015300215347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-86022165510004875042008-02-09T17:52:00.000-05:002008-02-09T17:52:00.000-05:00Big mistake, you could say that about any issue. A...<I>Big mistake, you could say that about any issue. And, if people aren't that engaged, how in the hell are they going to understand our nuanced position?? You can't have it both ways, if they aren't paying attention to Manley, then they aren't paying attention to our protracted argument, that demands some understanding.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, I don't read Kinsella, I find him to be mostly a self-absorbed blowhard, I heard his comments via someone else. I only referenced him because apparently everyone seems to care what the sage says. Cough.</I><BR/><BR/>Couldnt have said it better myself.<BR/><BR/>I would dare Dion to throw out "a couple" MP's as has been foolishly suggested by some of you and Kinsella (who, would only do such a thing to increase the prospect of returning to power, which speaks volumes in itself). You would have a Chuck Strahl vs Stockwell Day situation all over again. And of course, its Martinites in the caucus who are still supporters of the mission<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>So this motion is about triggering an election and nothing more</I><BR/><BR/>Ok, so why trigger it over an issue that is certainly going to be messy and most likely wont get any traction for the LPC? War debates tend to turn into a "pull out or stay", black and white issue. Reason gives way to passion and emotions<BR/><BR/>One only has to look at the 2006 Senate elections and 2004 Presidential elections in the US<BR/><BR/>Besides, the left will eat itself out over this debate<BR/><BR/>The LPC should have neutered this issue, and gone on to fight over the economy and environmentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-17061645489262605042008-02-09T17:17:00.000-05:002008-02-09T17:17:00.000-05:00I guess to get back to what is the topic of this p...I guess to get back to what is the topic of this post, I would say no.<BR/><BR/>First and foremost, Afghanistan is not the hot-button issue we all think it is.<BR/><BR/>The environment and the economy are still what is on the minds of Canadians and they are probably going to stay there.<BR/><BR/>Ms. May's high profile fight against Mr. McKay will give her alot of opportunities to push the green agenda and Mr. Dion will be pushing it as well.<BR/><BR/>The continued weakening of the economy will also be prominent on the radar screen. If during the course of the election the TSE suffers another one or two triple digit losses it will push much of the rest aside.<BR/><BR/>Simply speaking, Afghanistan will not be the ballot question for enough Canadians. So if the Conservatives actually do convert some of the doubters (a big if) it will probably not be enough to compensate for its shortcomings in other areas.<BR/><BR/>Which brings us back to the reason why the Conservatives want to have an election now. Their support is eroding, they are building a fine set of chains to drag them down and there is a widely held perception that the economy is headed for the ditch.<BR/><BR/>So this motion really is not about winning an election. There is no concensus amongst Canadians on how to deal with Afghanistan and no party is likely to build one based on the Manley Report or anything else. So this motion is about triggering an election and nothing more.ottlibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12695135535019042279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-74333784976228310852008-02-09T17:14:00.000-05:002008-02-09T17:14:00.000-05:00For what it is worth, I do not think the average v...For what it is worth, I do not think the average voter really pays attention to the details of each party's position on Afghanistan, nor are they prepared to allow a bunch of journalists decide this issue for them.<BR/><BR/>I think they see Harper wants to stay and keep fighting, Layton wants us out and Dion wants us to return to peacekeeping. I know this is not an accurate description of any position but that is how it is perceived.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I think most Canadians believe we are not winning, and we are not going to win. Front page photos of little babies crying because their father is going to war, like the one of the front page of today's Edmonton Journal do not help. I used to see photos like that and feel bad the kids will not see their father for 6 months - now I wonder if the kid will ever see his father again.<BR/><BR/>As far as all of us debating the finer points of each party's position, I think we will be better off waiting until we see the liberal amendments.<BR/><BR/>Tomm - for someone who likes to claim you are not a conservative, you certainly like to spout off their talking points, regardless of their accuracy. Didn't you learn anything about the age of consent issue from our last discussion on the subject?Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-72155876300341951002008-02-09T16:47:00.000-05:002008-02-09T16:47:00.000-05:00"Plus, politics aside, Manley is two more years of..."Plus, politics aside, Manley is two more years of status quo with helicopters and extra bodies."<BR/><BR/>I'm hoping one of the Liberal amendments demand some clarity on percentage of allocation. Exactly how much for re-construction, how much for training, and how much for counter-insurgency/security. If we can get a commitment there, it doesn't leave Harper free to decide on his own. That much has to be clarified, not the ambigious language of Manley.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-2736767814327749332008-02-09T16:43:00.000-05:002008-02-09T16:43:00.000-05:00I don't see how anyone can extrapolate the polling...I don't see how anyone can extrapolate the polling as some indication of the Liberals on Afghanistan, but if people want to spin it that way so be it. <BR/><BR/>Big mistake, you could say that about any issue. And, if people aren't that engaged, how in the hell are they going to understand our nuanced position?? You can't have it both ways, if they aren't paying attention to Manley, then they aren't paying attention to our protracted argument, that demands some understanding.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, I don't read Kinsella, I find him to be mostly a self-absorbed blowhard, I heard his comments via someone else. I only referenced him because apparently everyone seems to care what the sage says. Cough.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-42523234536819743752008-02-09T16:38:00.000-05:002008-02-09T16:38:00.000-05:00Mind you, Warren has no love lost for certain Libe...Mind you, Warren has no love lost for certain Liberals who have sidetracked him in the past. Throwing them overboard may bring him back to the forefront instead of being the columnist for the National Post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-86164523914497569462008-02-09T16:24:00.000-05:002008-02-09T16:24:00.000-05:00I think Warren and Steve are right on this. I see...I think Warren and Steve are right on this. I see no downside to the Lib Afghan position and I think the latest polls reflect that. Also, FWIW, my gut is fine on this. Tories have been kicking the can down the road on Afgh for a year now--that's because they know its a weakpoint. The fact is half the nation would end the mission NOW, and another 25% don't want to see it go past '09. <BR/><BR/>Plus, politics aside, Manley is two more years of status quo with helicopters and extra bodies. And, you watch, Harper will take less than the Manley report from NATO (the French are already backtracking a bit)bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-61983826281693003692008-02-09T16:21:00.000-05:002008-02-09T16:21:00.000-05:00Scott,I agree with you. In fact, you highlighted ...Scott,<BR/><BR/>I agree with you. In fact, you highlighted the key points.<BR/><BR/>Throw Manley and those MPs overboard first and above all, ASAP. Better have a bloodbath this weekend then on the eve of the election campaign.<BR/><BR/>Kinsella learned this from Chretien, the great Grit party boss. What he is talking about is the whole concept of leadership, something that Dion needs to convey soon as the election rolls around. He has thrown Wajid and Comuzzi overboard in the past, so he may need to do it again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com