The NDP draft policy resolutions appeared briefly on the party Web site last week before being taken down. However, Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor obtained a copy and posted them on his Web site yesterday.
Well actually, he's done several postings, but that isn't the point. I love it when MSM picks up on blogging coups such as this one.
The front-page article (Troops Acting 'Like Terrorists?') is well worth the read.
Canada's troops in Afghanistan have been "acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people", according to a resolution that will be voted on by New Democrats at the party's convention in Quebec City this weekend.
I can't imagine how the parents of those brave men and women would feel reading that statement.
Lorrie Goldstein also has an excellent editorial in today's Toronto Sun (Guess What, War is Hell).
He asks Jack Layton the following question regarding his desire to pull our troops out of Afghanistan and 'negotiate' with the Taliban:
Uh, negotiate what with the Taliban, Jack? The separation of mosque and state? Women's and children's rights? Union contracts with mandatory bathroom breaks for suicide bombers? C'mon!
Obviously, Jack is trying to score political points at the expense of our troops. In the Post article, Darrell Bricker of pollster Ipsos Reid is quoted as saying:
"If this issue drives the next vote, Layton could pull enough anti-war votes from the Liberals to help elect Tories," he said. He said the Liberals are in a difficult position on Afghanistan because they launched the mission, and at least two of the leadership candidates -- Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison -- are in favour of its extension to 2009."
Politics or integrity? What a conundrum for the Grits.
* * * *
Bloggers in the News - RootlewebLooks like I'm not the only Blogging Tory who is outraged by some of these NDP draft policy resolutions:
Canadian Troops Accused of Terrorism - DMB
Canadian Troops Accused of Terrorism - DMB
NDP Resolution calls Canadian Troops 'Terrorists' - Doing it Wrong
Support Our Terrorists! - UT
We All Believe in What We Are Doing Here - Doing It Wrong
21 comments:
Wow, two of those things you mentioned are so unbelieveable they nearly made me choke on my breakfast! The fact that any Canadian would have the nerve to imply that Canadian troops are "acting like terrorists" is appalling.
Layton suggesting negotiating with the Taliban is equally shocking. How can the leader of a federal political party be so out of touch with reality?
How can the leader of a federal political party be so out of touch with reality?
Good question. Maybe he's starting to actually believe some of his own propaganda.
Vicki, isn't it ironic? I used to have a bit of respect for Jack Layton, but no more. Not a shred.
Does Jack Layton really believe this stuff? I can't imagine that the NDP, the New DEMOCRATIC Party really believes that our troops are "maiming" innocents. Does it make sense that this party would support the withdrawl of our troops so that the Taliban could regain control and further oppress the Afghans in an autocratic regime?
This is just hot air from a buffoon, desperate for attention in an age when their social and economic policy is proving to be less relevant than ever.
If you actually read the quote in its context, you will see it says that since the Taliban are nearly indistinguishable from the civilians (they don't wear uniforms), that Canadians end up acting like terrorists, killing and maiming civilians.
Only in the out of context quotes, would you conclude the drafters of that particular resolution think our forces *are* terrorists. "End up acting like" is a big difference, and is trying to blame the situation.
These are draft resolutions. Each one is submitted by the riding associations, most of which do not have a sitting member. The NDP has tried to promote grassroots input, something the Reform precursor of the CPC tried to do, and the CPC has since abandoned in favour of top down rule and gags on MPs.
It seems the NDP has fundamentalist religious people in its midst. They take "Thou shalt not kill" to include war, just as other fundamentalists take it to include abortion.
Somehow this is being spun as a problem for the Liberals, and you even see the laughable attempts to tar the Liberals with the same "disloyalty" brush.
Most of these NDP resolutions have very little chance of becoming party policy. I'm glad they're allowed to express their views, both within Canada, and within their party.
From the Globe: "Mr. Dosanjh did not criticize Mr. Layton for wanting talks with the Taliban. He said Afghan President Hamid Karzai has recently urged foreign troops to treat insurgents as Afghan citizens and diminish the focus on killing."
It's easy to just demonize anyone that you declare to be Taliban so you can kill them, apparently with no religious opposition.
If you don't talk with them, how do you propose to tell them "surrender your weapons and we won't kill you" ? How do you propose to find out which are Taliban and which are not? How do you propose to tell them one day, "Mullah Omar and his top commanders are dead. Your family is no longer in danger. You can join the rest of the nation now."
Talking is not surrender. Talking is not weakness. We probably will have to kill most of the Taliban, but many are themselves being terrorized by their leaders.
News flash for Liberal supporter:
First stage of five stage grass roots review of current CPC policy declaration is to be completed by Sept 15, 2006.
Can anybody add any names to the following lists:
a.Taliban leaders objecting to the Taliban policy against basic education for girls.
1.
2.
3.
b.Taliban leaders complaining about the complete lack of women in the Taliban leadership.
1.
2.
3.
c.NDP party officials complaining about Taliban discrimination against women.
1.
2.
3.
d.NDP party officials not complaining of discrimination against women in Canada.
1.
2.
3.
Politics or Integrity?
The Grits will always fall into politics. How many times have you seen the party or any individual within that party take a principled stand and stick with it? That is, a postition based on a recognizable principle that a sane person could agree with!
The NDP question seems only ......"How stupid can we be?"
I can remember one. But Mr. Nunziata was kicked out of the party because he didn't fit in with the rest of the crowd.
A conundrum for the Grits? I rather think not. If you viewed the “debate” between Kennedy and Brison on CTV’s Question Period this weekend, I think you’ll find there’s more consensus that difference of opinion on the matter. At least within the Liberal Party there is some sensible discussion about the issue. Far more than can be said of the Conservatives, I might add. Jack Layton and the NDP are simply playing exploitative politics with the issue and doing so in a way that, quite frankly, is shameful.
I’m opposed to the mission in Afghanistan for a number of reasons, but not the ones that Layton has outlined. I think the “nation building” exercise has become a fool’s errand given the way this war is being prosecuted. As the laws of unintended consequences would have it, there is a considerable amount of hostility and enmity now being fostered amongst the Afghan people as a result of the failure to provide adequate security and deliver the promised aid and reconstruction. The objectives of the NATO/UN mission were noble and well-intentioned, but they are being carried out in such a hapless way, things are actually sliding back into chaos and anarchy. The Karzai government is largely impotent and riddled with corruption. Opium production has hit a record high this year, which only helps to serve the interests of fractious warlords (many of whom are in the government) and the Taliban. And so on and so forth.
If NATO and the Americans are not willing to get serious and commit the boots on the ground and resources necessary to suppress the Taliban insurgency, apply the pressure to Pakistan needed to force them from sheltering the Afghan rebels, then this will just become another hopeless quagmire and an endless cycle of chaotic violence.
Anon...Which one was that?
Do you mean his anti-abortion stand or could it be the vote against party lines on GST?
I think the many pecadilos of John the politician add up to one big case of "John Nunziata" comes first!
I think these 'principled' stands that got him in trouble were hisway of venting against the powers that controlled the party and kept him out of the cat birds seat.
Silence by those with principles only insures that those without principles win unapposed.
Seems the bloggers are all acting like MSM, just copying each other. Still not quoting the "soldiers end up acting like terrorists" line in context.
Politically of course, we see the NDP off on a tangent, and the CPC over-demonizing them.
The conundrom for the Grits, of course is which one to laugh at first.
By the way, I support the current mission in Afghanistan. A lot of what we are seeing is spin. We mourn a small number of soldiers who died in a battle that killed 200 Taliban. Little mention of that in the press, it's just routine military work.
They see Jack Layton moaning that we should leave. What does that do? It has little effect on our people, they know about our system. It's the friendly fire incident that really hurts our morale (as Worthington says). But the Taliban? They probably think they just have to attack us a bit more, and we'll leave.
Actually, we are more likely to leave if there appear to be no Taliban left. But Jack's comments are encouraging them, giving them reason to leave their hiding places to engage us on the field (mistakenly hoping we will finally cut and run), and as they do so, we are slowly wiping them out.
Thanks Jack!
Liberal Supporter –- Layton certainly isn’t advancing the discourse with his overblown rhetoric. I suppose we’ll have to go dive into the dippers’ blogs to see how this is being parsed over there.
Your point about the quote being taken out of context is appreciated. It reminds me of Kerry’s remark on one of the Sunday yak-shows quite a while back about “American troops terrorizing Iraqi civilians” with their late night house searches for insurgents and weapons. In fact, what he meant to say was “terrifying Iraqi civilians” – which indeed these home break-ins certainly were. But the quote got out in the MSM and the right-wing pundits jumped all over it.
Nic –- Me? Heartless? Perish the thought.
In case you did not bother to read it ..the NDP resolution that should it be adopted is to be the basis of their foreign policy and official position on the matter. the term used was Terroristic in reference to our troops and the NATO military actions in Afstan. Whether or not they outright call our troops terrorists or describe their actions as terroristic is moot!
The very fact that someone in the party thinks this is an appropriate view of our military and our committments shows clearly the utter contempt and disrespect that the party holds for our institutions and especially our military.
And, as usual all the spoiled little children on the left, having failed to achieve instant gratification are ready to whine about every perceived failure or setback.
The concept of actually finishing what one started is apparently incomprehensible to them.
A caution to liberal supporter about dismissing party policy convention resolutions as largely irrelevant: the Canadian Government had given considerable measurable signs that it would be signing on to the US-led Ballistic Missile Defense program. Quebec's Young Liberals got a resolution on the floor of the Liberals' policy convention in 2005 opposing BMD participation that ultimately became the policy of the Government of Canada. If the nutbars in the Liberal Party can influence GOVERNMENT POLICY and cause great harm to Canada-US relations in the process, surely the nutbars in the NDP can affect that party's platform.
RGM - So if you oppose BMD you're a "nutbar"?
No, but if opposition to it is based on fiction and fallacy rather than compelling "national interest"- or legitimately-defined "values"-based positions (take your pick, then, of realism or liberalism; heck even go for constructivism if it fits your fancy), it's a little nutty, i.e. the "Star Wars" argument that holds exactly no water or basis in reality.
As I was involved in the Liberal Party's debate in the role of the YLCBC's voice in support of BMD (wrote a short essay from the comfort of my apartment and sent it to the Young Liberal executive that was already in Montreal and had decided, without any consultations with the broader membership, to support the Quebec Young Liberals' position), I can tell you that the arguments being made against BMD participation relied more on rhetoric than reality. The immense frustration I felt in dealing with my then-colleagues on the issue was but the beginning of the end of my relationship with the Party. It was much more than a policy disagreement, it was trying in vain to get sense into people that truly did not understand the nature of the BMD system, its purpose, the rationale for it, or the broader implications for global security and "international law." Stressful times, I tell you.
This came only a couple months after a friend of mine and I had drafted a really great resolution on the declaration of British Columbia as a "nuclear weapons-free zone" (the GVRD is already classified as such, and we wanted to extend it to the entire province) to be introduced at the BC wing of the federal Party's AGM, only to be told that no policy resolutions were being accepted for the agenda, and find that at the AGM there were two or three policy resolutions being introduced. One of them dealt with BMD and was just absurdly off-base in calling for adherence to the ABM Treaty (this was in 2004, when the Treaty was rendered inoperative in 2001 when the US invoked its right to abandon a bilateral agreement with the Soviet Union), whereas the appropriate reference would have been to the NPT and the broader concerns involving nuclear weapons proliferation. Lots of other structural faults within it, but there was no allowance for debate or introducing resolutions from the floor.
Look what bad memories you've triggered now, hope you're happy. ;)
RGM – Well I’m sorry to have resurrected bad memories. I actually had quite a lively argument with my Liberal MP back when the government was supposedly supporting the concept. My objections were based on the hopelessness of the project based on the science involved and the systemic fraudulence of the entire undertaking. Really, it’s just another multi-billion dollar boondoggle as far as I’m concerned. Then the Liberals did a volte-face on the issue, so it all became moot. Anyway, my point is that the objections I held were based on the facts and a reasonable interpretation that BMD offered little to nothing in terms of national security. They were not based simply on knee-jerk rhetoric.
And that's totally fine to have that kind of objection.
Remember, too, it was the Americans' "multi-billion dollar boondoggle" to make, they weren't asking for any of our billions.
Post a Comment