Testimony re. April 2007 NDP-CPC Alliance To Extend Afghan Mission

All Totters should thank one "ADHR" for inspiring me to write yet another educational post about the April 24 2007 NDP-CPC alliance which ensured the Afghan mission would be extended beyond 2009. I remind Totters of my long-held principled position against the Afghan folly, in which I have long been critical of Liberal faults, so as to forestall their usual nonsense. Liberals are capable of openly criticising their own party. Totters, being zombies, are not, it seems. As I cannot abide self-indulgent BS that cost(s) Canadian lives and treasure, and also, out of the goodness of my heart, I always try to cut the zombies like ADHR a break, and try to educate them. Educating zombies? A lost cause, you say? Perhaps. But that's the kind of idealist I am. So below, please find a series of educational links and quotes about the April 24 2007 CPC-NDP alliance that prevented 2009 being our Afghan mission end date.

Thomas Walkom, The Star - MPs Losing Faith in Mission
Thanks to Jack Layton's anti-war New Democrats – who, for their own baffling reasons, chose to vote with the governing Conservatives – the Liberal motion lost.But the apparent victory of this bizarre Conservative-NDP alliance masks a new reality in the Commons. The NDP wants the 2,500 troops out today (OSTENSIBLY that's why they voted against the idea of a 2009 withdrawal; it wasn't fast enough). As for the NDP, what is there to say? The party that was first out of the blocks in its opposition to the Afghan deployment chose to support Harper on this vote. The reason, presumably, is that Layton's New Democrats don't want to be subsumed by the Liberals. To stay alive politically, they figure, they have to distinguish themselves from Dion – by demanding not just an end to Canada's combat deployment in Afghanistan, but an immediate end. This is similar to the strategy the New Democrats employed in 1988, when they chose not to join the Liberals in their all-out opposition to the Canada-U.S. free-trade deal. But, as with free trade in 1988, this logic may be hard to explain to voters. If the New Democrats want Canada's troops to leave the Kandahar danger zone, why would they oppose a motion that in effect proposes just that? Isn't a 2009 pullout date better than no pullout date?
I suspect a good many NDP voters will be horrified to find their party voting with Stephen Harper on Afghanistan.

Carol Goar, The Star - Layton Baffles and Mystifies
And it (the NDP) has allowed its rivalry with the Liberals to skew its priorities and blunt its message. The most recent example was last week's vote on a Liberal motion to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan by February of 2009. The New Democrats joined the Conservatives to defeat the resolution. Layton said he wanted to end the military mission immediately, not in two years. So rather than vote in favour of a clear deadline, he and his NDP colleagues voted in favour of an open-ended engagement. In the hothouse atmosphere of Parliament, this might seem logical. In the rest of the country, people either scratched their heads or shrugged cynically. To be fair to Layton, he is in a difficult position. HE HAS TO DISTINGUISH HIS PARTY FROM THE LIBERALS to prevent Stéphane Dion from marshalling the anti-Tory vote in the next election.

Regina Peace Council, Leader-Post - Layton's approach erred
Recently, the NDP motion to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan was defeated in the House of Commons -- a result that was to be expected, but came about because of a tactic by federal NDP leader Jack Layton that did not serve the cause of peace.

The Regina Peace Council believes this defeat for the NDP leaves the Harper government just where it wants to be -- with no curbs to continuing to expand Canada's war in Afghanistan.

At the NDP convention last year, it was inspiring to hear Layton emphatically declare a prime task of the NDP would be to take Canada out of Afghanistan. Delegates rose in a body to show their approval as they chanted "Bring our troops home! Bring our troops home!" Now, by not voting for the Liberal motion to withdraw in two years, Layton has aided Harper in avoiding setting a date for withdrawal.

Spokespersons for the NDP's MPs have declared they voted with Harper in defeating the Liberal motion because the NDP wants the troops brought home now.

This sounds very well, but in the current situation, and the manner in which this scenario played out, Layton ended up as Harper's ally, supporting a position of keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan indefinitely.

It is true it was a Liberal government that got Canada into Afghanistan in the first place, but the Liberal motion to set a specific date for bringing the Canadian troops home was an opportunity for the parties to oppose the Harper government on this question. Would it not have been better to vote for an end to the war in two years rather than, in effect, supporting the Harper vision of staying there indefinitely? Harper's defence minister has estimated at least 15 years. The NDP could still have continued to work to bring the troops home immediately.

We in the Regina Peace Council support the NDP in calling for immediate withdrawal. However, the Liberal motion would have imposed a deadline of two years. By not supporting that motion, Layton left Harper to enjoy a war without any deadline at all. This will make it that much harder for the people of Canada to bring our troops home.

Richard Wanica, The Tyee - Strange Bedfellows
Technically speaking, Jack Layton and the NDP did not cross the floor today. That’s because, technically speaking, they already sit on the government side. Thanks to the breakdown of the current minority parliament, there is no room on the opposition benches for Canada’s fourth party. So when Layton and his troops voted with the government against a Liberal motion today, they only symbolically crossed the aisle. How much any of this has to do with Canada’s actual mission in Afghanistan is an open question. Make no mistake, everyone is looking to score political points on this issue: The Conservatives by highlighting the split in the Liberal ranks, the NDP by solidifying the anti-war vote and the Liberals by doing what Liberals do best, camping out in the middle and stealing from the fringes of both sides.

Mike Wallace, ceasefireinsider, Strange Bedfellows
There’s an ancient Greek apothegm that says “the best is the enemy of the good”. This bit of classical wisdom was clearly displayed Tuesday when the NDP teamed up with the Conservatives to defeat a Liberal motion calling for the withdrawl of Canadian troops from Afghanistan by February 2009. While the NDP’s action may please its antiwar “base”, it is almost certainly a strategic and tactical error. But Tuesday’s vote suggests that the NDP seems determined to preserve the same the stubborn factionalism that led the French left to self-destruct in the 2002 Presidential elections. By rejecting the Liberal compromise the NDP retained its ideological purity, but in so doing became an unlikely drummer-boy for the Harper – O’Conner militaristic hubris. Jack Layton spoke as though he was trying out for Hamlet: “The time is out of joint: – O cursed spite, / That I was ever born to set it right!“. In the end, as we know, it didn’t turn out well for the Danish prince.

Prof Nelson Wiseman, historywire.ca, What’s up with Canadian Policy in Afghanistan?
The NDP, which in 2007 voted with the Conservatives against a Liberal motion to withdraw the troops by this past February, cannot praise Obama enough and refrains from criticizing his large increase in American soldiers.

John Knight, Green Party, What a sad alliance
Once again Jack Layton has me shaking my head in disbelief... The Layton NDP sides with Harper to defeat the Liberal motion that commits Canada to withdraw from combat in Afghanistan in 2009. Layton uses the extremely "limp" rationale that the Liberal motion didn't go far enough. Layton Logic - if we can't pull our troops out NOW, the second best choice is not a planned withdrawal, but is a "let's stay there forever, if need be." Layton is trashing honourable NDP Party values for political expediency....and delaying his now inevitable demise as Party leader for a few months longer. Shame on him...

The Militant Dipper - NDP Wrong By Doing Right Thing
This is about convincing the NDP that they must support tomorrow's motion to pull the troops out by 2009. The NDP say they will not vote for this motion because they believe and have always believed that our troops should be pulled out yesterday. This is a very principled position, however it may end up keeping troops in Afghanistan for years to come. [EFL NB: prophetic words]

CTV: MPs (CPC-NDP) Vote Down Motion Seeking Afghan Exit Date
Dion also criticized the positions of the Conservatives and the NDP leading up to the vote, categorizing both positions as irresponsible. He said Harper wants to keep Canada's soldiers involved "an open-ended war'' that could drag on for years.  The NDP's position would mean breaking a commitment to remain in Kandahar until 2009 and leaving Canada's NATO allies in the lurch, Dion said. Although the majority of Liberal MPs, including Dion, voted against extending the mission to 2009, he said: "Once a commitment is made, we are a good team player, we're part of the international community, we'll respect our commitment." Dion said the most responsible approach is to remain in Afghanistan until the current commitment ends but to give Canada's allies plenty of advance notice that the mission will not be extended beyond that. [EFL NB. To withdraw "immediately" would have meant withdrawing from NATO. The NDP, once against NATO, post-Broadbent, is now for it. So either NDP was ready to leave NATO, or was posturing for political points. Gee, I wonder which?]

Accidental Deliberations - On Cooperation (indeed AD, I found something, even from a cultist like yourself)
Unfortunately, it looks like the new motion forthcoming from the NDP will now be targeted toward leaving no doubt about the NDP's current position, rather than winning support from the Libs and the Bloc. But hopefully it isn't too late for the NDP to instead put forward on its own the compromise which presumably neither the Libs nor the Bloc would dare vote against directly - i.e. "withdrawal by or before February 2009", without any explicit approval or disapproval of the mission in the meantime. [EFL NB. And did the NDP, in good faith, put forward such a compromise? No. Hmm, I wonder why?]

A BCer in Toronto - Troops Home By February, 2009: Why, That's Now!
Imagine what the world would be like today if the NDP had exercised a dose of pragmatism (which they were willing to do during the coalition talks, if it meant they got seats in cabinet) and had voted with the Liberals on this motion two years ago: "A Liberal motion to end Canadian combat operations in southern Afghanistan by February 2009 was defeated in the House of Commons on Tuesday. "The NDP joined the Conservatives in defeating the motion, which lost by a close vote of 150-134. NDP Leader Jack Layton said the vote was nothing more than a green light for an extension to the mission. The NDP wants the troops out immediately." Yes, that's right. If the NDP had given an inch and voted with the Liberals on this motion, the last of our troops would be home from Afghanistan by now. Something to ponder, I think, as some of my friends on the left take glee today writing about Conservative and Liberal war mongers, and Jack Layton's prescient leadership. [EFL NB. Just to highlight the tragedy (def.: pride leading to fall)]

Kady O'Malley, Macleans - Canadians on Afghanistan: Turns out they may have been right all along.
"At the time, the NDP argued that two more years was too years too long — a position that was, to be fair, consistent with the party’s longstanding position on Afghanistan. BUT HOW, ONE CAN’T HELP BUT WONDER, MIGHT SUBSEQUENT EVENTS HAVE UNFOLDED HAD THEY DECIDED TO VOTE WITH THE OTHER OPPOSITION PARTIES, AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED BY THE HOUSE?...As far as I'm concerned, no party is without blame. The Canadian public, on the other hand, can at least comfort themselves on their collective common sense, although it's not like anyone listened to them." [EFL NB. Please read and reread carefully, ADHR]

EFL - Totters Kill Cdn Troops
TOT no longer favours withdrawal from NATO, as it once did (though Broadbent said that was BS and he never believed in it himself, and only kept it on the books to keep crazies happy). NATO members are required to give 6 month MINIMUM notice of withdrawal. At time of vote, the earliest the mission could have been effectively ended, given the Govt of Canada commitment, with support of HoC, however misguided, was Feb 2009. Unless Canada was to simply withdraw "immediately", however impossible that was in fact, logistically, and were the Govt of Canada to do so, it would have quit NATO. So even under the "immediate withdrawal" BS argument, it would have required a Govt that was willing to quit NATO, which, as I repeat, is not TOT position nowadays. And TOT was not about to become Govt. And even in the most optimistic scenario you can imagine, an immediate election, somehow, which is two months, and then new government in place, and in effect, a withdrawal ASAP, which would really have taken more than six months, one still ends very close to Feb 2009, if not Feb 2009. Unless TOT could a) form government, and b) willing to lead Canada out of NATO, on the spot, the former impossible, the latter contrary to current TOT doctrine.

And what irritates me about having to write this is that I know, for a fact, like everyone who was paying attention, that TOT caucus was divided on question, many wanted to be responsible and vote with Bloc & Libs to stop mission in 2009. But leadership and others put Cdn lives behind their perceived political interest in trying to differentiate themselves from Libs, always their overriding obsession. And so every death after Feb 2009 is as much on TOT hands as anyone's.

I have criticised the Libs all the way through. But for a brief moment, when Dion had most control over his caucus, he was able to whip them to support a Feb 2009 withdrawal. And Bloc agreed. And TOT voted with Cons, and condemned our soldiers to death, post Feb 2009. And their supporters seem incapable of coming to terms with this knavery. But they did, it's right there, and every clued-in Canadian knew it then and knows it now.

Every TOT insider knows this. That's why they mumble and shuffle their feet and run away when you try to pin them down on it. It was absolutely shameful, like all the parties' behaviour. But if you are incapable of coming to terms with this, if you are so partisan that you can't bring yourself to criticise your own party, even in matters of life and death, then there's really no point in trying to converse with you, since you too are a Totter zombie. You are too emotionally invested in the TOT to be capable of decent discourse. But ask yourself, why did Bloc vote in favour? Did they love Dion? The Libs? Are they evil triangulating war-mongers? Don't be such a fool. Wake and smell the coffee. TOT, like all parties, has blood on its hands. And for what? Domestic political considerations. Sick.

If, after having been confronted with this info, and links, anti-war Totters still won't criticise TOT, and stick to blind partisanship, then I have to admit I'll probably delete their comments, as they won't be worth the time spent in response. Pity.

And remember, I have been consistent in my position, and criticised Libs. Can Totters say the same about their own behaviour, re. their party? So far, I have only further confirmation that they are all zombies.