• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Jack Layton Dinged for Supporting Troops TOO Much

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,947
Points
1,260
True, it's only one (repeatedly) failed NDP Communist candidate1 out there complaining, but it did catch my eye.  Highlights, from Pacific Free Press (.zip of .pdf version attached in case link doesn't work):
"Where's Layton and the NDP on Afghanistan?"  This is an urgent question for the anti-war movement, regardless of our various political affiliations. I'm sure we're all interested to hear what Jack Layton has to say on this issue, either tomorrow or whenever. The unfortunate problem is that it has been many months since he explicitly called for bringing the troops home.

My combing through the federal NDP news releases finds nothing like this since October 2008, and even then it was very qualified. If somebody else can find information to the contrary, I would appreciate receiving it. I should also point out that among these dozens of news releases and statements, some are quite positive from our perspective, such as those in support of the war resisters, or Layton's position for a negotiated political settlement of the war. Reading this material is a useful way to spend a couple of hours.

But there is also much which falls short. Layton's most recent detailed statement is from March 16, 2009, in which he said (among much more): "Our skills and reputation as a peacemaker give Canada the basis for an active role after our troops withdraw in 2011." In the same statement, praising President Obama's new Afghanistan troop surge strategy, he said, "We’ve come a long way since the first voices in our country called for a new role for Canada in Afghanistan. Internationally and in Canada, we are seeing a new will emerging to turn the page and begin a more balanced policy toward Afghanistan. Gone are the name calling and the overheated rhetoric. Gone is the questioning of support for our troops."

I could be wrong, but it appears to me that Layton is putting a very high priority on being seen in the media as "supportive of the troops". That impression is strengthened by his regular statements expressing condolences to the families of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. These statements always refer to these members of the Armed Forces as having "died in the service of their country" or a similar sentiment.

(....)

I don't know what Jack Layton tells the troops when he spends time with them. If he tells them this war is a disaster for both Canada and Afghanistan, and that their sacrifices are a complete waste of blood and courage and tears and dollars, more power to him. But that's not what the NDP media releases are saying these days. And that weakness hurts the entire anti-war movement, since we are effectively left with very few strong voices in Parliament. 

The further I go through Layton's statements and speeches over the past year, the more it becomes clear that he is distancing himself from the activist core of the anti-war movement. He remains good on such issues as the war resisters, the cost of the war, the need for negotiations rather than endless war. But in his major statements, during and after the election last fall, Afghanistan has been simply absent, with two exceptions - his regular expressions of condolences on the death of Canadian troops, and his March 16 article (which was reprinted in the National Post). That piece, of course, did not include a straightforward call to bring the troops home - now or later.

(....)

Some of this goes back further, to the Liberal motion in Parliament to set a February 2009 deadline to end the military mission. As I am sure you recall, the NDP voted with the Tories against the motion to defeat it, before putting forward their own motion to end the mission immediately (also defeated, of course).

Many of us saw this as a self-serving political manoeuvre designed to present the NDP as the only "real" anti-war party in Parliament. If the only problem was that they disagreed with the dates in the Liberal motion, they could have simply abstained. The motion as worded would have very effectively tied Harper's hands, making it extremely difficult to extend the mission.

Layton gave him this victory on a platter. And now we face increasing NATO pressure to extend the mission beyond 2011. From that point, when the NDP leader was loudly demanding "troops home now", he has shifted to his current weak stand. It is truly dismaying.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD Socialist.....  :tsktsk:

- Edited thanks to the sharper eye of Old Sweat.  Thanks! -
 
Tony, first a bit of nit-pickery. From the candiate profile you linked to, he never has been a candidate for the NDP. He ran once as unaffiliated and then stood in several elections for the Communist Party of Canada.

Anyway, he is on the fringe and seems destined to stay there, tilting at capitalist windmills and rooting out giant right wing conspiracies where none exist. Hmm, maybe he should work for the CBC.
 
Old Sweat said:
Tony, first a bit of nit-pickery. From the candiate profile you linked to, he never has been a candidate for the NDP. He ran once as unaffiliated and then stood in several elections for the Communist Party of Canada.
I stand corrected - thank you.

Old Sweat said:
Anyway, he is on the fringe and seems destined to stay there, tilting at capitalist windmills and rooting out giant right wing conspiracies where none exist. Hmm, maybe he should work for the CBC.
Good idea!
 
I read the title of this thread and thought immediately "damn, when did I start smoking crack??????????????????????????"
 
Eye In The Sky said:
I read the title of this thread and thought immediately "damn, when did I start smoking crack??????????????????????????"

"Man Bites Dog" indeed ....
 
I wonder if Kimball Cariou would also advocate that we bring the "war" home to Canadian soil.  It would be a cost saving measure.  We wouldn't have to transport our Troops and supplies halfway around the world.  ::)
 
Jack Layton and his back room crew, like their peers in all other political parties, take the temper of the time and sense the wind. Realizing that his earlier stance on Afghanistan was a moral and political deathtrap, he has trimmed his sail to the wind. Canadians may not be warmongers but lots of them (including it seems more than a few NDP types) aren't comfortable with attacks on Canadian soldiers when those same soldiers are risking their lives. As well, the NDP fought so hard against Bush and his view of the world that, perforce, they had to align themselves with Obama and his Dems. Now that (SURPRIIIIIISE!!)  the POTUS is doing his job by pursuing US foreign policy interests, not the NDP agenda (funny that, eh?) they are caught again.

Of course none of this "realpolitik" manoeuvring for NDP political survival washes with the crowd that instinctively sees a US devil behind every tree and condemns military force unless it is used by their pet terrorist group. Hence the angst of our friends. The NDP is maturing as a political party (or vanishing into obscurity...not quite clear which it is just yet) and this will alienate the torch-wavers and mouth breathers on the Left end of things.

Cheers
 
I read a recent oped piece that opined that Layton made a major strategic error last fall in involving himself and his party in the coalition movement. The writer suggested that the Liberal party was in dire straits and that the NDP, by supporting (or proposing - Sweatie adds) the two plus one party coaltion, resulted in the dumping of Dion and the early ascendancy of Ignatieff to power. If the NDP had supported the financial update including the elimination of public support to Federal parties, it would have still survived, unlike the Liberals and the Bloc. This could have led to a centre-right party - the CPC with a sizeable slice of the Liberals - and another on the left - the NDP and the left wing of the Liberals. I have my doubts, as the NDP has tended to follow its doctrinal leanings and not practice the art of compromise.

While the NDP has sensed the public mood, they probably are not happy doing so. Layton has also shown himself to be impulsive and emotional. This may make great sound bites, but it does little to position the party in a politically advantageous posture. It remaiins to be seen if the party can discipline itself to at least give the impression of a shift towards the centre. The left of the party's bell curve can erupt at any time, and the main body prides itself on its adherence to principles, not pragmatism. Thus, from my inexpert position, I suggest that the NDP has neither the philospohical basis nor a desire to really take the steps necessary to become a viable political option.
 
And I bet we see a leadership review before too long....

 
Old Sweat said:
The left of the party's bell curve can erupt at any time, and the main body prides itself on its adherence to principles, not pragmatism. Thus, from my inexpert position, I suggest that the NDP has neither the philospohical basis nor a desire to really take the steps necessary to become a viable political option.

This is very true. I worked in politics at the national and provincial level (Ontario) for 5 years and my experience was that the NDP supporters were the most partisan, least pragmatic, least professional and generally, the least interested in compromising. There are some notable exceptions to this (Peter Tabuns in Ontario for example) but on the whole, I wouldn't want to be in a coalition with them. I assume the situation must be better in provinces where the NDP has formed governments recently (BC, N.S., etc.).
 
jeffb said:
This is very true. I worked in politics at the national and provincial level (Ontario) for 5 years and my experience was that the NDP supporters were the most partisan, least pragmatic, least professional and generally, the least interested in compromising. There are some notable exceptions to this (Peter Tabuns in Ontario for example) but on the whole, I wouldn't want to be in a coalition with them. I assume the situation must be better in provinces where the NDP has formed governments recently (BC, N.S., etc.).


I think one of the deeper divisions the recent NDP national convention exposed was just that: provincial wings, some of which are accustomed to forming government and, therefore, compromising, came up against the "true believers" of the national party.

That's the divide Layton appears to be trying and failing to bridge. He and his supporters may have manipulated the convention timetable enough to delay the "great debate" but it is bound to come. We've had or have NDP governments, of varying degrees of competency, in BC, Sask, Man, Ont and now NS. That has to frustrate some federal NDippers and make them and others question the philosophical underpinnings of the Party.
 
In Manitoba the NDP provincially is basically a mirror image of what used to be Conservative principles....while the provincial Conservatives have become the radicals.....in an effort to generate enough interest in getting them reelected to power. People aren't buying it.

In no way am I a NDP supporter, but by and large they have swung this province to a stability that is hard not to buy.

The provincial liberals haven't been anything but background noise, and even most of that nasal whinyness was lost when Sharon Carrstares went to the Senate. (This is the one that recently wanted spanking embedded in law as a crime)
 
GAP, agree, but the Doer government spends every single nickel it can get it's hand on. Garry Doer is a very good leader. He also calmly mantains excellent relations with the federal government, and is rewarded, and thus is able to spends loads of cash.

Manitoba receives $1.8 billion in equalization payments (number two in gross amount) from the federal government.
 
I lived in Winnipeg for several years (2002-2005), during which time Doer and the NDP were in power. Although I've generally been a Tory all my life, and usually pretty dismissive of the NDP's antics, I think they did a good job running Manitoba. Although you have to be careful not to give any govt all the credit for the state of the economy (there being so many factors involved), Manitoba had very low unemployment and was in fact actively recruiting industrial workers. Winnipeg had a very diverse economy (IIRC the most diverse in Canada) and very low unemployment as compared against the  national average at the time. (Excepting probably the North End, which always tends to distort statistics in Wpg). If Doer had pursued the usual doctrinaire NDP anti-business agenda, I doubt either of these good situations would have existed for very long. The fact that Doer has now been appointed to our most vital ambassadorial position by the Tories indicates that they have some respect for his abilities.

Cheers

 
In todays London Free Press, there is an article title "MPs in Training". The article and accompanying photo's are not available online at the LFP site, but the article is on the national site of Sun Media:http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/08/29/10661831-sun.html

The LFP pictures include 2 pictures of Jack Layton fully kitted out in Naval boarding party gear, including a picture of him holding an MP5 sub machine gun for which he was being prepared to fire. There are also several pictures of other MP's wearing full army combat dress, firing weapons and crawling through the fields. This would include Justin Trudeau. Some sort of "get to know the military" program for MP's. 

I enjoyed considering the possibilities of associated with this part in the article:

"Some programs are more popular than others. "There is a waiting list for the air force, Hernandez said, adding numbers are restricted because "it's really hard to bring more than two people in a CF-18." 

- Perhaps a new type of drop tank is required.
 
whiskey601 said:
In todays London Free Press, there is an article title "MPs in Training". The article and accompanying photo's are not available online at the LFP site, but the article is on the national site of Sun Media:http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/08/29/10661831-sun.html


"There is a waiting list for the air force, Hernandez said, adding numbers are restricted because "it's really hard to bring more than two people in a CF-18." 

IDon't  know if anyone else disagrees with this and (^) his whole statement.
That Some people wait months, years even, to get into these programs to be able to this stuff while the politicans go on a waiting list to do all this stuff for ' a day out of the office, with friends.' This is probley nothing more then an office paintball party.

   
 
brandon_ said:
IDon't  know if anyone else disagrees with this and (^) his whole statement.
That Some people wait months, years even, to get into these programs to be able to this stuff while the politicans go on a waiting list to do all this stuff for ' a day out of the office, with friends.' This is probley nothing more then an office paintball party.

I don't know about anyone else, but you totally lost me. 
 
brandon_ said:
This is probley nothing more then an office paintball party.

 

brandon_

I will admit you have lost me with your comment. What is it exactly that you are complaining about ? The fact that MPs get to come out and see first hand what it is we do ?

 
Alright, well    Now reading it back a few hours later it doesn't seem as bright ( to say the least) as it did at the time.    :-[

But i guess what i meant, was That we have soldiers just waiting for long periods of time to get on to these courses. while the MP's just go out and do them as if it where an exercsion, while the CF could be training new soldiers ( more or so pilots on CF-18) instead of using fuel to take them for 'rides'.(them meaning MP's)
But CDN aviator- as you say they get to come out and see first hand what You guys do.( i guess in the Post before mine where it said the MP's where crawling through fields that would get to know what you guys do for a living.)


Alright i relize this does not make the most sense, I have sorta forgotten what i was trying to get at earlier. I was just trying to Back up what i said now. But I apoligize if this doesn't really get my point accrose either. :-[
 
Back
Top