No he didn't say they will all leave Afghanistan, and McKay said some of them will be still there doing something.

But I think that Harper in saying what he did has effectively neutered the issue for the rest of Canada- don't know about Quebec.

When this begins to get seriously discussed in 2009 and 2010 about what withdrawal means, I still think Harpers commitment can be effectively pressed.

point is that it took the libs what 3 years to bring this up. seems to me that they should have used it in 04 or 06 campaign.

This is desperate times especially since a new angus reid poll shows the ndp only 2 seats behind the libs in seat projections.

quote:

---

Originally posted by miles:
Writer I just hope that no liberal has ever used someone elses words. Cause then this will be moot

point is that it took the libs what 3 years to bring this up. seems to me that they should have used it in 04 or 06 campaign.

This is desperate times especially since a new angus reid poll shows the ndp only 2 seats behind the libs in seat projections.

Go Jack Go

---

Rae is practicing gotcha politics and makes him look like a little man - rat packish.

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Again good for you cueball, for coming clean, at least now we know for sure where you stand and that you support Harper's brand of politics, though in hindisght, I guess always knew that you were a Harper supporter.

---

Jack YESTERDAY With the Toronto Star editorial board....

quote:

---

Green Peeps... why oh why.....

from Jacks meeting YESTERDAY with Toronto Star editorial board....(sigh)

Q: You take comfort from being on the same page as Obama on cap-and-trade. You heard him on the debate talk about Afghanistan and the need to reinforce their presence there. Are you still talking about ... taking (Canadian troops) out immediately?

J.L.: Yes, I do. And I think Obama is wrong on Afghanistan. And I hope I can talk to him about it, leader to leader. Because I think all of the evidence shows that the direction that has been pursued is not working. I could go on at some length about that, if you want to get into that. ... Key indicators – the deaths of our soldiers, civilian deaths, poppy production, levels of corruption. A senior officer... a Canadian officer–he's retired now–What he sees there, the PRT, he says it's just headed dramatically in the wrong direction. And if you look at half of Afghanistan now and you hear it's designated too dangerous to do aid development in – they've grown dramatically. So it's pretty hard to find an indicator that says we're headed in the right direction. Some say, well, you just got to go in there and win the war. I don't actually hear many people saying that this is something that's, at the end of the day, winnable, when you have 35 million Pashtuns on either side of two borders (with one country) in an unstable nuclear state. But I do hear people suggesting that, if you begin to break down what is all too often portrayed as a monolithic conflict into component parts and begin to use the many tools that we created at the United Nations ... for trying to intervene (in) conflict situations, and have the United Nations play that kind of leadership role – that you've got a much better chance of moving things in the right direction. And I don't believe that Canada can really get us started in that process and use its diplomatic capacities, with credibility and effectiveness, while we're still, at the same time, a portion of a very large NATO, largely American, effort. That's one of the reasons I'm so pleased that Michael Byers has become a part of our team. Here's a very thoughtful Canadian who's got a very good understanding of some of these issues. He's somebody that lots of Canadians were turning to for wisdom on these matters – one of the new bright, new generation of leaders and thinkers in our country, not just on the law of war, on which he's written, but also sovereignty issues in the north and climate change – and he's chosen to be our candidate. And I believe he's going to win in Vancouver Centre and I believe he's going to make a contribution to Canadian politics for a very long period of time.

---

The way I read Cueball's comment was that he said that the Conservatives have a "superior" position because they're clear about it. I didn't interpret that to mean he supported their position. It's not necessary to put words in someone's mouth.

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]

He came up with this idea all by himself, no one in the US even asked for such a specific dispensation.

Can you believe that? Changing Canadian law so that we can try one guy? Should we make up a new law eveytime the police catch someone they don't like and the crown can't find a code to charge them under?

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Byers is the guy who though it would be cool to change Canadian law so that we could appease US interests and put one teen suspect on trial, here instead of there. I'd call that prejudicial lawmaking.

Can you believe that? Changing Canadian law so that we can try one guy? Should we make up a new law eveytime the police catch someone they don't like and the crown can't find a code to charge them under?

---

quote:

---

Some people might think it's a little weasely, but other weasels might not have a problem with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mojoroad1:

Wow. Cueball you really are a Conservative... you do belong in the Green party. I'm not going to even bother with that one. P.S enjoy 3rd place in Central Nova.

---

Your so hopelessly lost in this charade you actually think that I vote. I don't. And I will not.

Give me a reason too.

Beyer's is the "wise" (Jack's word) guy who wants to change Canadian law so we can try Omar Khadr here. Changing laws so that you can try one person is not having a policy position, it is called engaging in prejudicial prosecution.

I associate prejudicial politicized prosecutions with the right. You don't?

In short: I don't like Jack's advisors, and I am begining to understand where the NDP's policy shift on Afghanistan is coming from. And I don't like that either.

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Yeah, I think that's a little weasely the NDP campaign inserting the words "from the combat mission". I'll also fess up that I don't think its a huge and position determining deal. Or even close to risking that.

Its called insulating yourself from attack during a campaign. Is it admirable no. Would it upset most members of the NDP, icluding those who pushed the resolution? No.

And by the way, anyone who ever thought that there is an interventionist military solution in Afghanistan has been proven wrong. Even Harper & O'Connor backed off from that public position even if Obama claims to believe it.

I like Layton's position that the only way Canada can play a constructive role in bringing peace and reconstruction to Afghanistan, is to extricate ourselves from the military mission. It's not the first time it's been said, but I think it was very well articulated to the Star editorial board.

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Polunatic2 ]

The NDP should define the position simply and clearly: Out.

quote:

---

In short: I don't like Jack's advisors, and I am begining to understand where the NDP's policy shift on Afghanistan is coming from. And I don't like that either.

---

You have no idea who Layton's policy advisors are [and Black and Myers are not included on Afghanistan]. And based on some weaseling words you allege there is a policy shift.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Again good for you cueball, for coming clean, at least now we know for sure where you stand and that you support Harper's brand of politics, though in hindisght, I guess always knew that you were a Harper supporter.

---

So I guess that means Jeff was wrong about cueball being a Communist. I was never sure...

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

You have no idea who Layton's policy advisors are [and Black and Myers are not included on Afghanistan]. And based on some weaseling words you allege there is a policy shift.

And like you said, you don't vote. Which is a position I respect- but one with a lot of distance about the parameters most of us work within.

---

I thought Black was the Foreign Policy critic? So, the NDP foreign policy critic is not and advisor on the NDP policy on Afghanistan?

Talk about absurd.

Sorry there is a policy shift:

Layton, Sat 9 Sep 2006: "the safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan"

NDP platform 2008: "Withdraw all Canadian forces from the Afghanistan combat mission, with reasonable advance notice and in consultation with our allies."

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:

So I guess that means Jeff was wrong about cueball being a Communist. I was never sure...

Anyway, if we're going to throw accusations at each other, can they at least not be absurd?

---

quote:

---

Meanwhile, Byers argued that even if Khadr could not be tried under current Canadian law, the Conservative government cannot stand behind what he termed the "flimsy" excuse of an absence of legislation to warrant keeping Khadr in U.S. military custody.

"If there was a legislative impediment or an absence of legislative basis for doing anything with regards to Khadr, that could very easily be fixed," he said.

"I don't anticipate that there would be any problem if the government wanted to ask for special legislation to accommodate his circumstances."

---

Special legislation to accomodate the circumstances of one individual, sounds pretty much like a politicized prosecution to me. And remember, this is Beyers responding to an request that was not even made.

What if the Tories actually took him up on this, and then forced through some ugly business in the all party committee that Beyers suggests. He'd be in the doo doo then.

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

I thought Black was the Foreign Policy critic? So, the NDP foreign policy critic is not and advisor on the NDP policy on Afghanistan?

Talk about absurd.

---

It might be absurd. But its not unusual to the internal politics of opposition caucuses.

Black certainly has here say in deliberations, and as critic her say carries more weight.

But on some issues all leaders pretty much keep their own counsel, and this is one for Layton.

As oppossed to say the climate change file which is equally important to Layton but where I'm sure Cullen plays a strong advisory role as well as being critic.

As for his advisors, all I can say is that jack is talking up Beyers like he is Benjamin Franklin here, in what Mojodude just posted:

quote:

---

That's one of the reasons I'm so pleased that Michael Byers has become a part of our team. Here's a very thoughtful Canadian who's got a very good understanding of some of these issues. He's somebody that lots of Canadians were turning to for wisdom on these matters – one of the new bright, new generation of leaders and thinkers in our country, not just on the law of war,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
The Conservative position on Afghanistan, is clearly superior to any of the positions stated by the other parties, which amount to saying we want to be in this war but call it something else.

---

I disagree.
If the contention is that Harper's position on Afghanistan is "superior" because it is more honest than Jack's it is not the case. The Con position is a big lie starting from the reasons given for why Canada is there, and why we must be there, and the effect of Canada's military being there is. If Harper does not find a situational reason to scrap his election-inspired Afghan withdrawal schedule, it will be because Washington has another role for Canada's beefed up military.

Layton's current position is different from, and superior to, Harper's position.
Layton has shown a recent perceptible shift towards reality, moving a little from the somewhat untenable notion of advocating a change from an active combat role to a military support presence for peaceful rebuilding (as if defence is possible without offense in a country in which there are now no safe haven areas from guerrilla war). In recent statements he has largely acknowledged that reality of an impossible level of instability, and is no longer talking about an alternative military role within this US-ATO war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
So I guess that means Jeff was wrong about cueball being a Communist. I was never sure...

Anyway, if we're going to throw accusations at each other, can they at least not be absurd?

---

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

You have no idea who Layton's policy advisors are [and Black and Myers are not included on Afghanistan]. And based on some weaseling words you allege there is a policy shift.

---

Are you joking? Black and Myers are not advisors on Afghanistan?

How can the Defence critic not be part of the advisory group? They are supposed experts on the subject; it is stated on several websites.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

The Conservatives are playing the game correctly in my view

---

I'm afraid our current lap dogs in power just follow orders from Warshington, same as the Liberals before them. Our fearless leaders have no real plan of their own. It's all been scripted to them, from deep-deep economic disintegration by way of neoliberal mumbo jumbo for the last quarter century to the current U.S. military agenda in Kandahar Afghanistan. Canada's two old line parties simply ask, "How high?" when Uncle Sam tells them to go take a flying leap. It's the ugly truth.

Webgear, have you signed the NDP's petition to bring the troops home from Crazy Jorge de la Yayo's quagmire in the Stan? If you were leading the country, would you trust Crazy George and his Republican-Conservative cronies? Paul Martin and the Liberals did, and now Steve Harper is doing the same. Don't you think it's time our own leaders started thinking for themselves for a change?

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I will not trust any politician. They are all the same, backed by unseen organizations and committees. To me, Governments and countries are just another form of slavery.

[ 30 September 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

I will not trust any politician. They are all the same, backed by unseen organizations and committees.

---

But Canadians are there in the Stan to fight a phony war on terror. Newt Gringrich admitted it. How do you feel about the phony war on terror, webgear?

We send billions of dollars in aid to other countries outside our hemisphere while people back in Canada live in poverty and without medical care, what is your point?

Yes, there are courses in democracy.

quote:

---

How can the Defence critic not be part of the advisory group?

---

quote:

---

Does the NDP allow its Defence Critic to advise Jack Layton on defence matters such as Afghanistan?

---

Of course the Defence critic plays a strong role, and is at the very least "part of the advisory group".

I said as much already. [IE, that Blacks voice counts for more than others in Caucus.]

But I was answering to Cueballs original context. The word advisor was used, but the context is clearly about what and who drives the shifts in NDP policy on the issue.

I answered that this is one issue where ultimately Layton keeps his own counsel. Which doesn't mean that you don't listen to other people and you expect them to fall in line [a la Harper]. But most leaders have some select issues where they simply are not going to deferr to a critic, and the critic is just one voice among others.

Like I already said, the Leader, or the Caucus in general, is not always going to be like minded with the critic for an issue. I know Layton was more like minded with Alexa, the previous critic. But I'm pretty sure that Alexa did not want to do it any more [may never have really wanted to do it]. Who becomes critic is a balancing act where complex internal Caucus politics has a lot to do with who it is.

And while I don't know this at all, just from observation I would say that Black was substantially influnced by her early trips to Afghanistan. If so, that wouldn't make her the first critic to shift what they thought about the issues after they became critic. Rarely do people get dumped when that happens, you figure out on an ongoing basis how to roll with it.

So as to the intent of the original and follow-up questions: obviously Black plays a pretty strong advisory role. But this is one issue where Layton has pretty strong opinions, and similar to the majority Caucus, so thats naturally going to limit how much influence Black has in the final analysis.

Thanks for the reply, I must have misread your reply to Cueball.