Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:

Archives

Stuff that’s bugging me today.

A couple of things. First, this isn’t a direct quote, but if this is in general what they feel, I”m rather unimpressed:

The darkest fear for Quebec-based Conservatives is that opposition to the conflict could scotch their electoral hopes there. That sensitivity was in evidence this week when Defence Minister Peter MacKay was dispatched to Valcartier to speak to a group of soldiers departing for Afghanistan.

The darkest fear isn’t for the soldier’s lives, it’s how much it’s going to make our voter popularity go down. Nice attitude, if true; it really shows how much the Conservatives “support the troops” more then any other party 🙄

By the way, I picked up on a post by Vues D’Ici today noting that for a Cabinet Shuffle that was seen as supposedly made trying to “sell” the Afghanistan mission to Quebec, the new Cabinet Ministers have been pretty quiet about it. Maybe they know they can’t defend the indefensible.

The other thing bugging me today is Harper’s disgraceful omission of failing to bring up the Khadr case with Bush. Perhaps he felt it wasn’t necessary to bring up, since the White House preempted it last week with a warning they intend to try Khadr at Guantanamo Bay, but he still should have tried. More likely, he didn’t care to. I leave it to Haroon Siddiqui, the the Star’s editorial page editor emeritus, to finish my thought. He does it more eloquently then I could:

Whether Khadr is a good guy or bad is irrelevant. The issue is one of upholding Canadian values. Do we stand up for a fellow citizen? Do we believe in the rule of law? Do we raise our voices against cruel and unusual punishment? Knowing what a hellhole Gitmo has been, Britain, France, Germany and even Australia negotiated the release of their nationals. But Canada has been silent on the Ottawa-born Khadr… He should be brought home, as demanded by the Canadian Bar Association and many human rights groups. If there’s a case against him, he should be charged, given his day in court and, if found guilty, marched off to a Canadian jail. But Harper didn’t say a word. He is either out to curry favour with Bush or believes that the young Canadian deserves to rot in Guantanamo Bay. Either way, the prime minister brings shame on all Canadians.

UPDATE: 1 thing that isn’t bugging me today – if the BQ and the NDP are willing to bring the government down over non-compliance with the law that requires the government to meet Kyoto, then I’m with Woman At Mile 0 (a fellow Liberal) ; I think the Liberals should be ready and willing to do that as well. It’s a Liberal Private Member’s Bill after all that got passed, and if the government refuses to abide by it, we should put our money where our Bill is, declare non-Confidence with the government, bring it down, and let’s go to the people and let them judge who can best handle the Environment, Afghanistan and other issues.

17 comments to Stuff that’s bugging me today.

  • KC

    So now it makes you a "classic social liberal" to reinvent new legal principles whereby people are entitled to be tried in their country of origin for crimes allegedly committed in other countries?  Since when did you get to decide what makes one "classically socially liberal"?

  • Scarey Conservative

    So how is this Kyoto election gimmick going to play out? Looks like Pablo's grandstanding bill will come back to bite the party of crooks in the ass.
    All the opposition parties are trying to get up enough nerve to actually try to bluff Harper on their fancy save the world bill.
    Now what will happen of course is Steve will wipe his ass with the bill and throw it across the house at them and dare them to force an election. That will be pure entertainment.
    And then they will all be scrambling and double talking to avoid one, if they have any brains.
    Or do you think the liberal's record on the Kyoto file will fool anyone?
    Dion will be forced to promise to implement the bill if he gets elected, when he doesn't, his minority government will fall. Or he will actually be dumb enough to implement it and that will wipe the liberals off the electoral map and into third or fourth place.
    OR, they get elected with a majority,(fat chance), and will shit on Alberta with a huge carbon tax, and Alberta will start the separation process.
    That would be the best possible outcome.
    So as George Bush says, bring it on baby, bring it on!
    I don't see a down side!

  • Scarey Conservative

    As to bringing the government down over the Kyoto nonsense, bring it on baby, bring it on!
    If you look out in the parking lot you will see what people really think about Kyoto. The jig is up on that scam.
    This latest threat of an election isn't fooling anyone, it just makes Dion look like a bigger idiot.

  • Scarey Conservative

    What price do liberals feel would be acceptable to allow girls to go to school? What price is acceptable to stop the Taliban executing gays? SSM has the highest support in Quebec, are they willing to defend the right of homosexuals not to marry, but simply to be alive in Afganistan? Does support for women's rights stop at the border?
    It's all well and good to prattle on about human rights and helping the poor while sipping a latte, but what price are you prepared to pay to defend those rights?
    Has anyone informed the Taliban that they should quit murdering school children and teachers in '09? What if they decide to just go ahead and take over the country again and put it back into the 7th century, what then?

  • wilson61

    There was a time when Liberals thought the Afghan mission was the right thing to do.

    When Chretien sent troops to Kabul (and Iraq),  it was the right thing to do.

    When Martin sent troops from Kabul to combat in Kandahar, it was the right thing to do.

    When Parliament (Graham, Iggy, and Martin was a no-show) extended Paul Martin's combat mission to Feb 2009, it was the right thing to do.

    Afghanistan is a Liberal mission, Liberals changed it to a combat mission and Liberal votes were untimately responsible for the extension.

    PMSH has stated numerous times  ( first time was at a news conference after the extention passed) that there will be no combat mission in Afghanistan after Feb 2009, unless Parliament approves it.
    Bush and NATO have also been advised this.
    If Canadian troops stay in Afghanistan after 2009, in any way shape or form,  it will be because of Liberal support.
    Decision time Liberals.

    I agree with Scott:
    along with the NDP and Bloc  ''we (Liberals)  should put our money where our Bill is, declare non-Confidence with the government, bring it down''.
    Dion owns Kyoto and should put his job on the line to defend it. 

  • Griff

    Speaing as a conservative, I'm less worried about our electoral hopes in la belle province than I am disappointed in the lack of support for the brave quebec troops who are attempting to bring democracy and freedom to the poeple of Afghanistan, and for the mission as a whole. If politics factors in at all, then it's because the liberals are disingenuious and vacillating when it comes to their position on the mission, the NDP are out to lunch entirely and the Bloc simply wish to capitalize on the opposition on the mission for electoral gain, rather than taking any sort of principled stand. I think that Conservtaives, and Canadians in general wish to see this mission through; it seems that perhaps only the CPC is interested in doing the right thing.

  • You are right Scott there are lots of issues to focus on.   Child care, First Nations, education, income trusts….the list is long.

  • Kyle: I'm not particularly surprised to hear you disagree with what Haroon has to say – he's a classic social liberal like myself – perhaps moreso.

    I'm also not surprised you decided to pop in when I decided to quote that.

    Mushroom: Who said anything about a one issue campaign? I didn't… but if we're going to fall over AN issue, the environment and Kyoto might as well be the one.

  • mushroom

    "I’m interested to know whether you support Duceppe’s call to bring down the government unless Harper says they’re out in 2009."  

    Empty vessel.  The Dippers will say no to this.  They can't wait until 2009, the sooner the better.  In fact, Harper may even call an election over this.  Forcing the Grits and the Bloquistes hand on the prospect of "cutting and running".   Create space for Layton to eat up support from the other two Opposition parties.

    "I already stated what I want the government to go down on – non-compliance with the bill requiring the government to meet Kyoto targets.."  

    Running a one issue campaign.  Scott, if this is important this is not something to run an election on but to form a new coalition government over.  So what can we offer Jack, ah, proportional representation…:)  Maybe we should hit the phones and call…

  • KC

    …  It would be news to me that we stand trial in the country of our citizenship regardless of where our alleged crime was committed…

  • KC

    Without rehashing our tired out Omar Khadr debate I have to take general issue with something Siddiqui (someone I frequently disagree with btw) says in your quoted piece.  Canadians stand trial in other countries all the time and foreign nationals stand trials in other countries.  It would be news to me that we stand trial in the country of our citizenship regardless of where our trial is held.    
    I think the more proper demand that Siddiqui should have made is that if the US is going to charge him, charge him; if not send him back to Canada then we can charge him or release him.  There is no moral or legal principle I know of that would prevent another country from trying a foreign national.

  • Wrong again, Aaron:  if you'd bothered to  read the Star article, you'd see that three didn't sway opinion; only ONE was required:

    yesterday, a poll conducted by the CROP polling firm found that the number of people who support the mission dropped markedly after news of Longtin's death….Though it's impossible to predict the long-term political impact of the loss of Quebec-based soldiers, it seems clear "… people have stiffened with the announcement of (Longtin’s) death," CROP vice-president Claude Gauthier told La Presse

    I already stated what I want the government to go down on – non-compliance with the bill requiring the government to meet Kyoto targets.. or did you miss that too?

    You seem to be off your blogging game since you’ve come back from your hiatus or being away or whatever.. I think you need a week or so to get the rust off.. because this has been far too easy today. 😉

  • ALW

    Oh, well then. "If true." Well, while we’re musing about possibilities, I think it says a lot about Stephane Dion if he’s more concerned about his environmental record hurting his chances of winning an election, than he is about actually saving the planet. If true, of course.
    Writing the Star to complain about their laughable bias would be a full-time job. You think the Post is bad? At least in the Post the politics are limited to the news and editorials. In the Star is goes all the way into the business and arts sections.
    I really don’t think three casualties is going to sway public opinion in Quebec. I also don’t think that whatever their thoughts on the Afghanistan mission, Quebeckers would toss out the Tories based on that one issue alone.
    I’m interested to know whether you support Duceppe’s call to bring down the government unless Harper says they’re out in 2009. Interesting that your leader doesn’t seem to agree. He doesn’t seem to think it’s important to bring down the government at any cost.

  • I said "if true", Aaron.  A qualifier that you missed. (it also said electoral hopes, not majority hopes.. you got that wrong as well).
    Write the Star if you think they shouldnt have used that line. My guess is they probably felt they had good reason to use it.

    My point there on the indefensible line is, they probably know that with 3 dead soldiers from Quebec in less then a week, nothing they say will at this point make the public  change their mind on the matter of whether the soldiers should be there or not.  That's why they're leaving it up to the military, as Vue's D'ici points out.

  • ALW

    Nice smear job, Scott.  Which Conservative said that their 'greatest fear' was the scuttling of Tory majority hopes?  Nobody. Just the writer of the article.  In the Toronto Star.  But I guess what counts is what you feel, not what people actually say, right? Because you think that's what Conservatives care more about, that must make it true?

    I also wouldn't call the Afghan mission "indefensible".  That's a pretty harsh word.  You can disagree with something, that doesn't mean the opposite argument is always "indefensible".  Indefensible implies crazy and totally irrational with no possibel supporting arguments.  Even most opponents of the Afghanistan mission wouldn't go that far.

  • […] Efron Stuff thats bugging me today. » This Summary is from an article posted at Scotts DiaTribes on Thursday, August 23, 2007 […]

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.