2007/04/25

WTF is up with the NDP?

After lunch, on the way back to my cubicle I was informed by my main news provider, the Elevator News Network (ENN), that the Conservatives had defeated a Liberal motion that Canada withdraw from Afghanistan by 2009.

They accomplished this through the support of the NDP. What is that all about?

If the NDP is up to their old trick (infuriatingly obvious during the Harris years, here in Ontario) of supporting the Tories for short-term political advantage, I am going to have some sharp words to share with 'J-Lay' the next time I happen upon him relentlessly glad-handing hapless passers-by.

If the bill had gone through, it would quite possibly have made our part in the occupation of Afghanistan the big issue in the next election.

And what sort of "progressive" entity wouldn't want that? The mind boggles...

The NDP, apparently.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

5 comments:

Blogging Horse said...

Don't believe the elevator-hype.

The Liberal motion was all politics and . . . well, that's all it was.

Check out military analyist Steve Staples' blog. He had an interesting seat in all this.

It turns out that he and others in the peace movement acted as go-betweens between the Liberals and NDP to craft a better motion, but the Liberals wouldn’t play ball. They were more interested in politics than having their motion pass. Staples writes:

“The Liberal motion was uncritical of the military mission and supported its continuance unchanged . . . We urged the Liberals to make a small amendment to their motion in order to win NDP support, and Former UN Ambassador for Disarmament Peggy Mason actually suggested specific changes to the language that would likely have been palatable to both Liberals and the NDP. We sent the suggestions to every Liberal and NDP Member of Parliament. The NDP even proposed an amendment during the debate, but the Liberals rejected it.”

http://ceasefireinsider.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/what-was-stephane-dion-thinking/

25 April, 2007 14:01
Anonymous said...

We should never have taken part in the Afghan issue. Firstly we don't need to be there because we want to be in bed with the Americans. Secondly Afghans can give you very itchy skin.

25 April, 2007 16:51
PALGOLAK said...

Thank you, blogging horse, for your interesting and informative comment and link. Although it is cut off (in my browser, at least), going to ceasefireinsider.wordpress.com and scrolling down does the job, for the nonce.

And is the second commenter referring to the rug? The pooch? The chesterfield?

Inquiring minds need to know!

25 April, 2007 23:36
Anonymous said...

The blankets are horribly itchy. I like to lie in the buff with my husband but I find the afghan that he adores is intolerable and detracts from our "experience".

26 April, 2007 09:55
PALGOLAK said...

Well, that is a relief!

I had mentally entertained the image of a naked guy trying to sleep draped over an afghan hound.

26 April, 2007 22:20

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)