One could be forgiven for assuming that Conservative MPs were all raised as only-children. How else do you explain the ramming of two confidence motions down the throats of Canadians in as many days?
I want my way, and I want it now.
Contrary to the spirit of the Manley report it claims to embrace, the government wants to force an extension of the Afghan mission before having actually secured additional troops. Contrary to the constitution, the government wants to tell the Senate what to do. Contrary to the principles of sanity, we have editorialists and pundits rewarding this infantile behaviour, lauding Harper as a manly "master of strategy."
Do we have confidence in Stephen Harper? Sure. Why wouldn't we have confidence in a government which uses principles of threat and violence to manipulate us?
I want my way, and I want it now.
Contrary to the spirit of the Manley report it claims to embrace, the government wants to force an extension of the Afghan mission before having actually secured additional troops. Contrary to the constitution, the government wants to tell the Senate what to do. Contrary to the principles of sanity, we have editorialists and pundits rewarding this infantile behaviour, lauding Harper as a manly "master of strategy."
Do we have confidence in Stephen Harper? Sure. Why wouldn't we have confidence in a government which uses principles of threat and violence to manipulate us?
Labels: Afghanistan, cons, dictatorial tendencies, election
5 Comments:
They are ramming things down our throats but get the facts straight. The confidence motion on Afghanistan does include the Manley report and does include a condition that we secure more troops.
Canada's combat role should be commensurately reduced, on condition that:
(a) Canada secure a partner that will provide a battle group of approximately 1000 to arrive and be operational no later than February 2009, to expand International Security Assistance Force's security coverage in Kandahar;
So I agree that these tactics are infantile, but make sure you do your research before claiming something that is false.
Facts? Here's a fact for you: the confidence motion itself is being introduced BEFORE THE TROOPS HAVE BEEN SECURED.
Playing cheap politics and undercutting the opposition with a conditional uncertainty is unbecoming for a Canadian government, and it contradicts the non-partisan intent of the Manley report.
The intent of this motion - to extend the mission despite having actually physically secured the reinforcements - I find to be false, misleading, and presumptuous.
(i.e. if the troops happen not to materialize, that won't make the infantile tactic go away, nor any of its political repercussions.)
So thanks for the lecture, but it's the intent of the motion that i detest, not to mention that well-minded people like you will play into it.
who said I was playing into anything? Odd accusation. I do also question the intent of the motion, find it strange and petty, but your blog implied that the Manley report was not even mentioned, which it was. That is all.
I will also play devils adocate by saying that there is likely going to be an election before the 1000 troops are secured so lets make a resolution now(either yes or head to election) so that if the troops are secured, we are in position to act on that right away instead of bickering more or being mid-election.
Also, so I am not an anonymous coward.
My name is Mark, I am Brent's friend, that is how I stumbled onto the blog.
I do enjoy the writing a lot but will continue to point things out that I find misleading.
Sorry if the first response sounded accusatory.
No problem - nice to meet you, Mark.
I relish a good debate and it's always useful to know what is perceived as misleading ;) though there's usually a method to my mad statements.
So keep it comin'!
Post a Comment
<< Home