Harper is in Kandahar

[America1]

You lose all credibility when you make asinine claims like this.

Bush knew. And the whole thing has most certainly been a financial windfall for his family and their contemporaries.

And since you haven't given any proof what-so-ever for either of your claims, I suppose we'll just have to take your word for it?

[Wilber]

For the first time in our country's history a Prime Minister has actually gone to a war zone to visit our troops. Good on him. The usual Canadian practice is to send them to some god awful place and forget them until someone gets killed. The usual platitudes are expressed from the safety of Ottawa and it's back to the business of politics in Canada. No wonder some Canadians are having a problem with him going there. The behavior is completely out of character for a Canadian politician.

[yorkman]

Mr. Harper had better not follow the Bush (and Frum) line too closely though.......

Why is David Frum being dragged into this? Are you suggesting there is some kind of nefarious deep-integration plan afoot and David Frum is the go-between for Bush and Harper? Huh?

It certainly seems plausible doesn't it. The rhetoric is getting mighty close to that of Bush's at his most militaristic. When he talks about the axis of evil, we will know for sure! I'm sure Frum isn't on the payroll as yet and probably doesn't have to be as Harper has the script down pat. Like Bush too, Harper seems to be only truly comfortable when in a tightly controlled military setting with the forces cheering him on, with the media being used as pawns and with little or no opposition or serious questions being asked. Talk about deja vu! It's like we have gone back three years in time to the good ol' days when Bush was top of the polls and the invasion of Iraq was going swimmingly. We haven't have we??!! Of course not, this is Afghanistan and we are just being really good guys, bringing civilization and democracy to Afghans! It would have been nice if we had seen an Afghan official (say Karzai) with Harper to give some indication that we were COOPERATING with the Afghans with their FULL support. But then it's not really safe - even with all his American bodyguards - for Karzai to venture far from Kabul.

[margrace]

This is nothing but propaganda and PR - the selling of our mission in Afghanistan. As the days go by Mr. Harper is looking more and more like the Bush mini-me most of us thought he was. His rhetoric is identical. Obviously, some people are buying it. But then again, propaganda is nothing new whether or not it is coming from the occupiers trying to impose their values on another society (Canada in Afghanistan) and meddling in their internal affairs. Or whether it's coming from an invader such as America in Iraq. Don't think we would take too kindly to that if it were in reverse. Some of us even get a bit testy when the Americans start telling us what we should do.

Mr. Harper had better not follow the Bush (and Frum) line too closely though.......based on the latest opinion polls south of the border. Hopefully Canadians won't take five years to wake up to what is going on in their name. Though it appears the media have all gone to sleep on the issue. Guess they see a good story line that is going to last for 10 years or so - longer then the first and second world wars together.

HI MARGRACE!!!

Hi Yorkman where ya been??

[geoffrey]

It certainly seems plausible doesn't it. The rhetoric is getting mighty close to that of Bush's at his most militaristic. When he talks about the axis of evil, we will know for sure! I'm sure Frum isn't on the payroll as yet and probably doesn't have to be as Harper has the script down pat. Like Bush too, Harper seems to be only truly comfortable when in a tightly controlled military setting with the forces cheering him on, with the media being used as pawns and with little or no opposition or serious questions being asked. Talk about deja vu! It's like we have gone back three years in time to the good ol' days when Bush was top of the polls and the invasion of Iraq was going swimmingly. We haven't have we??!! Of course not, this is Afghanistan and we are just being really good guys, bringing civilization and democracy to Afghans! It would have been nice if we had seen an Afghan official (say Karzai) with Harper to give some indication that we were COOPERATING with the Afghans with their FULL support. But then it's not really safe - even with all his American bodyguards - for Karzai to venture far from Kabul.

I knew it. All people that talk the same must have the same values!

When Jack Layton speaks of social equity, we will all know the communist revolution is just around the corner!!

You guys are freakin halarious. Keep it coming!

[Montgomery Burns]

Isn't it great to actually have a Prime Minister who actually displays leadership?

What message do you think Harper sent to the Islamic radicals?

What message do you think Harper sent to the USA, UK, Australia, Italy, Poland, and the rest of the coalition?

As for Jack Layton, after seeing this CTV report...

NDP Leader Jack Layton called for a debate on Canada's mission in Afghanistan as Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a surprise visit to troops in the region.

"A debate in Parliament really should take place regarding the role that Canada is playing in Kandahar, and what the future holds for Canadian involvement in that part of the world," Layton told CTV Newsnet on Sunday. He added that "all of the issues" should be discussed regarding the mission, including the role of Canadian troops, their relationship to American operations in Afghanistan, the length of the mission and its cost. Layton also argued that a vote on the mission should naturally follow such a debate, possibly giving critics a chance to decide whether troops should remain in Afghanistan.

"At some point of course there really should be some sort of a vote," Layton said.

...the phrase 'morally bankrupt wimp' comes to mind... :angry:

Layton is starting to emulate Martin even more. The rhetoric of "american" everywhere smells like the same sh*t that the hapless Martin kept spouting during the election. Ideology is everything to these people. Pathetic!

Edited March 14, 2006 by Montgomery Burns

[seabee]

..the phrase 'morally bankrupt wimp' comes to mind...

... and after hearing Harper, the phrase " genocidal anglosupremacist warmongers" comes to mind.

Name calling is not an efficient way of solving conflicts.

[stignasty]

"Canadians don't cut and run at the first sign of trouble. That's the nature of this country, and when we send troops into the field, I expect Canadians to support those troops."

– Prime Minister Stephen Harper, March 6, 2006.

Okay, this has me a bit irritated. Honestly, who has suggested that Canadians pull out of Afghanistan? I know that a debate on the issue has been proposed, but I have not heard anyone saying that we should disregard our current committment there and leave. Does anyone think there is a real movement to pull our troops? I hate to say it, but the prime minister's comments sound just like the stuff you hear on Fox news.

Off topic, speaking of Fox news. . . Montgomery Burns, I love your signature line about Betty Dawisha. I thought the conservative reaction to that story was absolutely priceless. Funny how a Fox news crew was waiting to video Adeed Dawisha's aunt as she voted (in Detroit) isn't it? I wonder how many Iraqi's who actually live in Iraq agree with Betty and why Fox news didn't air their comments.

[Shakeyhands]

Cut and Run... Cut and Run.... BRAAAAAAAAAAAAWKKKKK

[cybercoma]

Bush knew. And the whole thing has most certainly been a financial windfall for his family and their contemporaries.

And since you haven't given any proof what-so-ever for either of your claims, I suppose we'll just have to take your word for it?

I'm still waiting for a response to this. I love it when people talk out their @$$ and get called on it.

[uOttawaMan]

PLease pick up your phone.. I'm calling you..

[Montgomery Burns]

Jack Layton:

Layton also argued that a vote on the mission should naturally follow such a debate, possibly giving critics a chance to decide whether troops should remain in Afghanistan.

Those "critics" would love to cut and run, inspiring great humiliation on our troops and our country. Many, if not most, of the progressive liberals from the reality-based community are on the side of the radical Islamists. Indeed, progressive icons Michael Moore and George Galloway have admitted this.

Layton did not say if his party would support a lengthy mission in such a vote, saying there was not enough information about the mission to make a proper decision.

Who you trying to kid, Jack?

What could possibly make the NDP want to cut and run from Afghanistan?

However, he said Canadians want to know that troops in Afghanistan are not following the policies set by U.S. President George W. Bush to combat terrorism...

Bingo! There's your answer.

"We've always looked to the (United Nations) for direction."

We must ask France, China, and Russia if our foreign policy is acceptable to them.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Montgomery Burns

[geoffrey]

Jack Layton:

Layton also argued that a vote on the mission should naturally follow such a debate, possibly giving critics a chance to decide whether troops should remain in Afghanistan.

Those "critics" would love to cut and run, inspiring great humiliation on our troops and our country. Many, if not most, of the progressive liberals from the reality-based community are on the side of the radical Islamists. Indeed, progressive icons Michael Moore and George Galloway have admitted this.

Layton did not say if his party would support a lengthy mission in such a vote, saying there was not enough information about the mission to make a proper decision.

Who you trying to kid, Jack?

What could possibly make the NDP want to cut and run from Afghanistan?

However, he said Canadians want to know that troops in Afghanistan are not following the policies set by U.S. President George W. Bush to combat terrorism...

Bingo! There's your answer.

"We've always looked to the (United Nations) for direction."

We must ask France, China, and Russia if our foreign policy is acceptable to them.

Just imagine a weak-kneed person like Layton being Commander-in-Chief. *shudders*

Just a scary thought for you Monty. Michelle Jean is actually our Commander-in-Chief, not Harper. The soverigntist CBC reporter leading us into battle. It's a great image.

Layton would not support the mission. Which is typical of socialists, that believe that our extremely high standard of living should never be allowed in any other country. It's funny, those that claim to be the least nationalistic, end up being the most.

I can't imagine how anyone could claim, with a clear conscience, that Afghani's don't deserve our help.

[Black Dog]

Those "critics" would love to cut and run, inspiring great humiliation on our troops and our country. Many, if not most, of the progressive liberals from the reality-based community are on the side of the radical Islamists. Indeed, progressive icons Michael Moore and George Galloway have admitted this.

stfu.

Layton would not support the mission. Which is typical of socialists, that believe that our extremely high standard of living should never be allowed in any other country. It's funny, those that claim to be the least nationalistic, end up being the most.

I can't imagine how anyone could claim, with a clear conscience, that Afghani's don't deserve our help.

I can't imagine how you could claim, with a clear conscience, that anybody has ever said such a thing. That's a strawman.

[Montgomery Burns]

Stignasty:

Off topic, speaking of Fox news. . . Montgomery Burns, I love your signature line about Betty Dawisha. I thought the conservative reaction to that story was absolutely priceless. Funny how a Fox news crew was waiting to video Adeed Dawisha's aunt as she voted (in Detroit) isn't it? I wonder how many Iraqi's who actually live in Iraq agree with Betty and why Fox news didn't air their comments.

What's absolutely priceless is you linking to a story from March 18, 2003, a story about a university professor stating he believed that the Iraqi Army would desert.

What does that have to do with Betty Dawisha's statement?

Fox News is showing an Iraqi who is supportive of Bush and America. That ain't fair and balanced! :angry:

Doesn't Fox know that it is a quagmire, a Vietnamese quagmire, and a civil war is happening?

A truly fair and balanced news organization would've concentrated on the 30% of Iraqis who did not vote, instead of the 70% (who were obviously tortured into voting/brainwashed by Karl Rove's Mind Control ray gun, etc) who did vote.

[Montgomery Burns]

Geoffrey:

Just a scary thought for you Monty. Michelle Jean is actually our Commander-in-Chief, not Harper. The soverigntist CBC reporter leading us into battle. It's a great image.

You're right Geoffrey. Thanks for the correction.

[stignasty]

What's absolutely priceless is you linking to a story from March 18, 2003, a story about a university professor stating he believed that the Iraqi Army would desert.

What does that have to do with Betty Dawisha's statement?

Fox News is showing an Iraqi who is supportive of Bush and America. That ain't fair and balanced! : angry:

Doesn't Fox know that it is a quagmire, a Vietnamese quagmire, and a civil war is happening?

A truly fair and balanced news organization would've concentrated on the 30% of Iraqis who did not vote, instead of the 70% (who were obviously tortured into voting/brainwashed by Karl Rove's Mind Control ray gun, etc) who did vote. : (

Well, no, if you'll read my statement again you'll see that's not what I said. I think it's interesting how the right wing are justifying the war despite the lack of WMD and admittedly faulty intelligence using this quote from a woman in Detroit who is the aunt of a man (from the article) who supports it. For the record, no, Fox isn't fair and balanced. If you're going to argue that it is, I'm going to start believing in that "Mind Control ray gun."

[Nocrap]

Bush knew. And the whole thing has most certainly been a financial windfall for his family and their contemporaries.

And since you haven't given any proof what-so-ever for either of your claims, I suppose we'll just have to take your word for it?

I'm still waiting for a response to this. I love it when people talk out their @$$ and get called on it.

Can you say Halliburton? Harper has also cashed in through a Canadian subsidiary. Their CEO added $5,100.00 to his coffers on July 22, 2005. He just didn't cover his tracks vry well.

[scribblet]

Bush knew. And the whole thing has most certainly been a financial windfall for his family and their contemporaries.

And since you haven't given any proof what-so-ever for either of your claims, I suppose we'll just have to take your word for it?

I'm still waiting for a response to this. I love it when people talk out their @$$ and get called on it.

Can you say Halliburton? Harper has also cashed in through a Canadian subsidiary. Their CEO added $5,100.00 to his coffers on July 22, 2005. He just didn't cover his tracks vry well.

Could you please clarify that and provide some backup/source.

[August1991]

Can you say Halliburton? Harper has also cashed in through a Canadian subsidiary. Their CEO added $5,100.00 to his coffers on July 22, 2005. He just didn't cover his tracks vry well.

$5000? Wow! Can you buy a politician for that?

(Incidentally, $5000 is the limit of any donation. I believe the Tories intend to reduce that limit to $1000, while abolishing all corporate or union donations.)

----

Returning to the thread's title, there is no doubt that this trip has been a tremendous success for Harper. He went over the heads of the media and Canadians got the message loud and clear.

Viewing this is in a non-partisan way, there was something polite and decent in all this; something Canadian. And national defence is a federal jurisdiction.

From a partisan perspective, the carping of Canada's Left about Harper's trip and this mission, and the Left's attempts to connect this with Bush Jnr, simply show how the Left doesn't understand ordinary Canadians.

[cybercoma]

"Canadians don't cut and run at the first sign of trouble. That's the nature of this country, and when we send troops into the field, I expect Canadians to support those troops."

– Prime Minister Stephen Harper, March 6, 2006.

Okay, this has me a bit irritated. Honestly, who has suggested that Canadians pull out of Afghanistan? I know that a debate on the issue has been proposed, but I have not heard anyone saying that we should disregard our current committment there and leave. Does anyone think there is a real movement to pull our troops? I hate to say it, but the prime minister's comments sound just like the stuff you hear on Fox news.

Off topic, speaking of Fox news. . . Montgomery Burns, I love your signature line about Betty Dawisha. I thought the conservative reaction to that story was absolutely priceless. Funny how a Fox news crew was waiting to video Adeed Dawisha's aunt as she voted (in Detroit) isn't it? I wonder how many Iraqi's who actually live in Iraq agree with Betty and why Fox news didn't air their comments.

To quote a post above...

Layton also argued that a vote on the mission should naturally follow such a debate, possibly giving critics a chance to decide whether troops should remain in Afghanistan.

"At some point of course there really should be some sort of a vote," Layton said.

[gerryhatrick]

It's a brilliant move politically, as Harper can easily say, look, I've seen whats going on there first hand, and its great work.

Anyways, thoughts on this people?

Oh sure, it's brilliant politically to use the Canadian troops as a backdrop as you attack your political enemies from the bully pulpit. Real smooth.

I think he needs to now explain who determines what terrorist seek and destroy missions our troops engage in. As well, he needs to now explain what happens to detainees captured on those missions and if they will ever be turned over to Americans and under what assurances.

The time for false arguments and accusations of Canadians not supporting the troops is over.

[cybercoma]

It's a brilliant move politically, as Harper can easily say, look, I've seen whats going on there first hand, and its great work.

Anyways, thoughts on this people?

Oh sure, it's brilliant politically to use the Canadian troops as a backdrop as you attack your political enemies from the bully pulpit. Real smooth.

I think he needs to now explain who determines what terrorist seek and destroy missions our troops engage in. As well, he needs to now explain what happens to detainees captured on those missions and if they will ever be turned over to Americans and under what assurances.

The time for false arguments and accusations of Canadians not supporting the troops is over.

Considering the United States is leading this "War on Terrorism," I imagine the answers are obvious. I don't see where there's a problem here though.

[gerryhatrick]

It's a brilliant move politically, as Harper can easily say, look, I've seen whats going on there first hand, and its great work.

Anyways, thoughts on this people?

Oh sure, it's brilliant politically to use the Canadian troops as a backdrop as you attack your political enemies from the bully pulpit. Real smooth.

I think he needs to now explain who determines what terrorist seek and destroy missions our troops engage in. As well, he needs to now explain what happens to detainees captured on those missions and if they will ever be turned over to Americans and under what assurances.

The time for false arguments and accusations of Canadians not supporting the troops is over.

Considering the United States is leading this "War on Terrorism," I imagine the answers are obvious. I don't see where there's a problem here though.

If the answers you imply are the real answers then it is indeed time to debate the Canadian deployment.

No amoung of mission commitment commits us to illegal acts.

[Montgomery Burns]

What's absolutely priceless is you linking to a story from March 18, 2003, a story about a university professor stating he believed that the Iraqi Army would desert.

What does that have to do with Betty Dawisha's statement?

Fox News is showing an Iraqi who is supportive of Bush and America. That ain't fair and balanced! : angry:

Doesn't Fox know that it is a quagmire, a Vietnamese quagmire, and a civil war is happening?

A truly fair and balanced news organization would've concentrated on the 30% of Iraqis who did not vote, instead of the 70% (who were obviously tortured into voting/brainwashed by Karl Rove's Mind Control ray gun, etc) who did vote. : (

Well, no, if you'll read my statement again you'll see that's not what I said. I think it's interesting how the right wing are justifying the war despite the lack of WMD and admittedly faulty intelligence using this quote from a woman in Detroit who is the aunt of a man (from the article) who supports it. For the record, no, Fox isn't fair and balanced. If you're going to argue that it is, I'm going to start believing in that "Mind Control ray gun."

I don't know what the big deal is if they are related. But I didn't see anything about her being an aunt of this Iraqi. Can you post the exact quote where it says they are blood?

As for Fox News, I contend that no other news source on TV offers the diveristy of opinion you get on the FNC. I admit it tilts to the right (more rightwing hosts than leftwing), but their panels are almost always even. It only seems staunch rightwing because all the others are so liberal. Even if you don't have the FNC, you can watch Fox News Sunday on your regular Fox channel on Sunday morning. Chris Wallace (Mike Wallace's son) hosts. He is centre-left and the 4 person panel is 2 righties and 2 lefties. What the hell is wrong with that? Same with Special Report with Brit Hume; two Dems and 2 Repubs, except this time the host [Hume] is conservative. Hannity & Colmes; one conservative and one liberal.

I think you just don't like seeing liberals getting embarrassed so often when they have to defend their views. It's not my fault that leftism is based on misinformation.