"It's important, right up until the part where I have to win an election..."
...or at least that seems like what Harper's saying.
Wells has quotes:
And if you liked that one, you'll really like this one (from Wells' comments):
That's Harper speaking to the troops at KAF in May of 2007. To the frickin' troops. In Kandahar, where they are literally spilling their blood in the pursuit of a noble cause. A cause that is imperiled by the astoundingly cynical way it is being handled by our political leadership.
I expect this from Dion, Layton (are you kidding me?), Duceppe, May, and the chattering classes, but perhaps naively, I expect more from the Conservatives who talk such an encouraging game. Throwing principled leadership and direction under the bus of political expediency is not impressive, Mr. Harper.
Not impressive at all.
Wells has quotes:
”My hope would be that in the next year and a half, rather than just debating a date, we would talk about what the objectives of policy are,” Mr. Harper said at a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. “Canada went into Afghanistan because of very real reasons of national security and international security, and I believe that since we’ve been there, particularly in Kandahar, we’ve undertaken obligations.”
...
“I don’t see the United Nations telling Canada to leave on a certain date, or the Canadian military urging me to pull out on certain date, or the military families to do that,” he said. “I don’t see our allies urging us to do that. In fact I see allies like Australia that are increasing their commitment.”
And if you liked that one, you'll really like this one (from Wells' comments):
"You know that your work is not complete," Harper told the assembled troops at a ball-hockey rink at the Kandahar airfield on Wednesday.
"You know we just can't put down our weapons and hope for peace. You know that we can't set arbitrary deadlines and simply wish for the best," he said.
That's Harper speaking to the troops at KAF in May of 2007. To the frickin' troops. In Kandahar, where they are literally spilling their blood in the pursuit of a noble cause. A cause that is imperiled by the astoundingly cynical way it is being handled by our political leadership.
I expect this from Dion, Layton (are you kidding me?), Duceppe, May, and the chattering classes, but perhaps naively, I expect more from the Conservatives who talk such an encouraging game. Throwing principled leadership and direction under the bus of political expediency is not impressive, Mr. Harper.
Not impressive at all.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 11:18 a.m.
10 Comments:
Losing an election and putting the Libs back in power won't help the Army either. I would bet you $100 that if the Libs win, we're out or massivelly reduced long before 2011. I would like Harper to be firmer too, but he and the Torys have a platform and an agenda that goes far beyond Afstan - and they would be irresponsible to sacrifice it all. If by 2011 the situation is much improved and the Torys are secure, then I am sure that they will end the current deployment and begin a "new" one that is something like the logistics and reconstruction mission discussed below.
Holdfast, I'm no fan of the Libs or any of the rest of them either. The Conservatives still seem the most military-friendly of the parties.
But here's my question: when do we get the leadership we're voting for? When do the Conservatives stop trying to play the popularity game and start actually LEADING?
Because I'm getting sick and tired of every cynical, insulting, flip-flopping, how-the-hell-is-that-different-than-the-Liberals move I get from the Harper government being justified as a "we have to do it in order to maintain our electability and/or get a majority" move. I'm tired of them betraying their own supposed principles in order to possibly make some sort of electoral gains.
How about this for an idea: believe in something, and govern on that basis. Lead, and people will follow.
This "ear to the ground" shit reminds me too much of Chretien. And we all know how well that turned out for the CF.
Or, put another way, what would it take for the average Conservative voter to say "enough is enough?" What if Harper embraced the long-gun registry, or liberalized abortion laws, or pushed his own carbon tax program, or jacked taxes to pay for new social programs, or went all soft and mushy on crime - all in the name of becoming more electable. It's one hell of a convenient excuse, once you get used to using it.
Sacrificing principles on the altar of popularity at the polls - last I heard, that's what the Liberal Party was for.
wrong wrong wrong Mr.Harpers comments are brilliant, they take Afghanistan right out of the picture, at least as a political weapon of the left.
This comment has been removed by the author.
A lot can happen in three years.
wrong wrong wrong Mr.Harpers comments are brilliant, they take Afghanistan right out of the picture, at least as a political weapon of the left.
Right, Darcy, because that's all the Afghan mission is: a political weapon for the parties to wield against each other.
Nothing to do with Canada's long-term national interests, just superficial short-term domestic politics.
It's enough to make me ill.
"How about this for an idea: believe in something, and govern on that basis. Lead, and people will follow."
-How about winning an election so you CAN govern instead of being at the whim of your opponents in a minority?
"Right, Darcy, because that's all the Afghan mission is: a political weapon for the parties to wield against each other."
-No, the Tories cannot wield it - but all the others can. I too have friends over there right now - some are kids that I trained. One of my old squadron-mates had his APC blown up under him - his second (you can read about it in Blatchford's book). I don't like these games any more than you do, but the Canadian public is seeing coffins and no results. That is partly a failure of the government to communicate, but in large part is the result of a very detirmined effort by the Canadian Media to help their political buddies by making this Harper's Iraq. Most Canadians don't give a sh*t about Canada's long term interests - a lot of "Canadians" weren't born in Canada and even more were educated in post-Trudeau schools - they don't even know how to be real patriots even if they want to. If Canada really wanted to take control of Khandahar instead of this "clear-and-retreat" crap we would need 10,000 troops, choppers, fast air, proper UAVs, etc - well we don't have that. Unless and until we get some major help we can't win - we can not lose, but we sure as hell aren't winning. People sense that and they are getting restless.
holdfast: Quite. But I still cannot see why a different CF mission has not been--publicly--discussed. Why all or (basically) nothing at all (very rough thoughts)? Other than pure politics?
Mark
Ottawa
Of course it is pure politic - I would never claim otherwise. Remember "politics is the art of the possible". If the Govt't/CF wants to convince voters to stay in for another round, they will have to show them some success. I hope that is possible - if they can within the next year, then we can begin to discuss a new commitment. At present, if the Torys try to extend, the Libs and others will play it as a flip flow, which will be more or less true - true enough for the media, anyway. This is simply not the time - I know it is frustrating, but life and politics is like that. That's why I never fall in love with politicians or parties - I just try to choose the least worst one on the way into the polling booth.
Post a Comment
<< Home