CanPol - The Sad Story of Stephane Dion

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do Dion's problems mean that Harper will likely stay in power?

Probably, but right now he'd likely still be in minority government territory because people don't like him much either. Not so much for anything specific he's done, but because he comes off as a smarmy, controlling douche. Plus he looks like a garden gnome.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do Dion's problems mean that Harper will likely stay in power?

Thank you DD.

It greatly increases Harper's odds. The problem as most see it is there is likely to be little change if a vote were held with positions as they now are. Harper would likely win, but he'd win a minority government yet again. The whole point of the exercise from the Con perspective would be to go from a minority to a majority.

The Cons were hoping to woo Quebec (they only won a handful of some 75 seats in that province) and have been making efforts in that direction but the Afghan mission has it's lowest support in that province and the mission is central to this government. Now that the french regiment (VanDoos) have started their rotation in Afghanistan the support for the war in Quebec is liable to drop as casualties start returning to la belle province.

It is a tough issue and predicament for Harper and the Tories.

Their saving grace is an opposition that is disarray. The Libs (as you can see) are in a world of hurt, the Bloc is unsure why they even exist, and the NDP never garner more than 10-20% support. Everyone wants an election, and no one wants one all at the same time.

[Tingkai]

I should qualify my statement: Is it likely that Harper will stay in power? No. Is it possible? Yes. It is simply too close to call at this time.

If the Conservatives were smart, they would be looking for the wedge issue that would get them votes.

I hated Mulroney and his policies were a disaster to Canada, but I have to admit that he was smart in finding the key issue to campaign on and to win elections.

Harper and the Keystone cops haven't found that fulcrum, and neither has Dion or Layton.

[Wezil]

Don't mind Tingkai. He's just starting out on being wrong again.

Tingkai - Want in on the avatar bet?

[Tingkai]

What part of "too close to call" do you not understand?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Tingkai
What part of "too close to call" do you not understand?

Oh relax my hyper friend. Your second post ("too close to call") I don't take dispute with. The first post was a little more out there. In any event I was just having some fun with you.


edit - I'm serious about the avatar bet btw. Wouldn't you just love to have Weezie wear an avatar of your choosing for six months? Think of the possibilities....

[Wezil]

CBC Radio is reporting on this now....

NDP says Canadian military wrote Afghan president's speech

By Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS





OTTAWA - Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to Parliament last year was written by the Canadian military as part of an "elaborately staged political stunt," the NDP is charging.

The claim, based on heavily censored access-to-information documents, ruffled diplomatic feathers Tuesday and prompted a strong denial from the Afghan ambassador in Ottawa.

Dawn Black, the NDP defence critic, said the documents indicate military advisers were asked to prepare an initial draft of Karzai's speech, delivered on Sept. 22, 2006.

"What Canadians heard was not the voice of the Afghan people, but the talking points of the Department of National Defence," Black said.

"I find it incredible that any foreign head of state would be handed their remarks by the host country's military. It's totally incredible to me. When our prime minister visited the Parliament in Australia, I can't imagine the remarks were prepared by the Australian government."

Black quoted a situation report from Task Force Afghanistan as saying: "Team prepared initial draft of President (Karzai's) address to Parliament 22 Sep."

And Gen. David Fraser reports in the documents that: "key statistics, messages, themes, as well as overall structure (of the speech), were adopted by the president in his remarks."

Afghan ambassador Omar Samad bristled at the allegation.

"I can say something simple and say it's laughable and I could say something a bit more serious and say it verges on being insulting."

Canadian diplomats may have been asked for input as part of the the normal planning process prior to a state visit, Samad acknowledged.

"I have no knowledge of that, but it is customary. Diplomatically, governments talk to each other at all levels."

But the ambassador said he and several other Afghan advisers, including the president's chief of staff, prepared their own versions of the remarks and the final speech went through several drafts, which Karzai edited himself.

"He personally added and took things out and we worked on it for several hours before he delivered it," said Samad.

In the speech, Karzai thanked the families of soldiers killed in combat and painted an optimistic, but not rosy picture of his country's future.

He also took direct aim at NDP Leader Jack Layton's opposition to the war, saying that those who believe the mission was weighted too heavily toward combat and not enough toward reconstruction were wrong.

The documents released by the NDP suggest the Canadian military's strategic advisory team - a 15-member group that has been helping create and train a new Afghan civil service in Kabul - was the organization that provided the draft of the speech. The unit also apparently provided a communications officer who accompanied Karzai's delegation on his trip to Ottawa and New York.

Calls to military officials went unanswered Tuesday, but a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay dismissed the claims as political sniping.

"The NDP's attempt to undermine President Karzai's integrity shows once again its willingness to say anything as it opposes Canada's commitment to the United Nations and NATO to help Afghanistan," Dan Dugas said in an e-mail note.

"President Karzai's speech to Parliament was an eloquent and heartfelt thank you to Canada for the sacrifices of its soldiers in helping Afganistan live in freedom. That a visiting dignitary's office would want facts and figures to deliver a speech to Parliament is neither a precedent, nor a surprise."

Black said she plans to call for an emergency debate on the issue in the House of Commons when Parliament resumes next month.

She also said she will seek an investigation by the Commons defence committee into the military's communications campaign.

The revelation about the speech raises questions about Karzai's meeting with Canadian reporters last week and his impassioned plea for combat troops to remain beyond a self-imposed February 2009 deadline

Journalists embedded with the Canadian army in Kandahar were flown by the military to Kabul for a sit-down interview with the president.

A Foreign Affairs official said the group interview was offered by Karzai's office following individual requests from several news organizations. Those requests were passed to the Afghans through Canadian diplomats in Kabul.

"There has been speculation about the resources that the Department of National Defence is pouring into trying to sell this mission to the Canadian people," Black said.

"I never thought that the Canadian military would go this far. This raises serious concerns about the independence of the Afghan president and origin of his recent comments to Canadian media in Kabul."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/09/25/4524816-cp.html

[Ben Kenobi]

And yes, I care about civilian casualties because they're dying in our war. Surely you can't be this far into the thread without understanding my basic position Ben. You are better than that

Oh I agree they are important. The question is why are they casulties. Citing civilian deaths in Afghanistan doesn't help you unless you can say that we are responsible for those casulties, and that they died because of what we did. I don't think that's very accurate, civilians are dying not because of us, but because of the terrorists.

[Ben Kenobi]

BTW, I have never seen a listing of Canadian casulties before. You won't hear about it, and you won't see it listed. Now I know why.

"President Karzai's speech to Parliament was an eloquent and heartfelt thank you to Canada for the sacrifices of its soldiers in helping Afganistan live in freedom. That a visiting dignitary's office would want facts and figures to deliver a speech to Parliament is neither a precedent, nor a surprise."

Exactly. The NDP are just trying to spin things to fit their viewpoint.

Why did it take a year for CBC radio to report this 'news?'

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Exactly. The NDP are just trying to spin things to fit their viewpoint.

Why did it take a year for CBC radio to report this 'news?'

My guess is the ATI requests took that long. Despite Harper's promise of being "open and transparent" his government has been anything but.

I'm not prepared to take this (Karzai's speech) as truth with what I currently know (one article and one radio report) but the sad fact is I wouldn't be surprised if the report is true.


edit: You might want to point out who made that quote Ben -

a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay

No reason for him to lie. Nope.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't even like MacKay.

There's no evidence beyond bluster and spin that the speech was anything other then what it was, a genuine thank you.

We should thank CBC, because now we know that the campaign is beginning, and they are leading the charge against the Conservatives.

Maybe we will have an election in the fall.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I don't even like MacKay.

There's no evidence beyond bluster and spin that the speech was anything other then what it was, a genuine thank you.

We should thank CBC, because now we know that the campaign is beginning, and they are leading the charge against the Conservatives.

Maybe we will have an election in the fall.

No evidence? Some. There are the ATI docs apparently. But like I said, I want more. Just smoke, no fire at this point.

You know I am no fan of CBC but be fair. The story at this point is not that a Canadian wrote the speech, but that the NDP is saying a Canadian wrote the speech. Their reporting is fair and if you take a look, the link I posted was Canoe. Hardly anti-conservative.

I think we're looking at an election in the spring if the Conservatives get their way (and I see no reason why they won't). The government has pushed the Afghan decision off till April. If they want an election on the issue (the wedge Seeker(?) was musing about earlier) then this would be perfect. Of course the Opposition may screw up and get the election they're not ready for in the fall.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course the Opposition may screw up and get the election they're not ready for in the fall.

One can hope.

I still don't understand why they are being so belligerant. This is one of the issues that bring all the conservatives together, even if they don't agree with the war, they sure don't believe that the alternative will do a better job.

Maybe they want to destroy the Liberals with the wedge and split their party.

[Wezil]

Yeah, at least the Conservatives are pretty much united on the issue. You are right. The Liberals are terribly divided and as the only party in any concievable position to provide an alternative government, this does not bode well for them.

That said, how much farther can the Liberals really fall? I think they are nearing their electoral bottom and even in this sad shape will still win many seats.

The Bloc is equally disoriented from what I hear from Quebec, the "New" Democrats are now old. We've listened to them for 40 years and still say no. And the Greens, at a time they are finally gaining some public interest, have a leader determined to commit political suicide.

I'm voting Rhino.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why not? Both are a work on progress. This is a false dichotomy. Yes they are together, but that doesn't mean that they have to both be there in order for progress to be achieved. Both are a work in progress.

Reconstruction fails if people are shooting at your aid workers, or blow up your schools, or whatever. Without reconstruction, you are nothing but the evil foreign occupier. Reconstruction is important so that your propaganda can be more than just empty words. There is no dichotomy, as that would imply some sort of choice.

What mess? You have an elected government in Afghanistan, and yes you have pockets of terrorists, but for the most part Afghanistan is much better off. I'm puzzled why you suspect it is an impossible mess.

Imagine what would happen if foreign troops left tomorrow. That's why it's a mess. There's a government in Kabul that has authority over Kabul on a good day. Until the government controls most of the country, it's a mess.

I'm an optimist. I believe that the people of Afghanistan want and will establish a democracy in the region. I don't see it as an unobtainable goal, in fact I see it as already there.

Democracy is not a panacea for the world's ills.