Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Hand it to Layton, at least he's linguistically consistent when he betrays his internationalism.

Watch the second and third questions in this press conference and then ask yourself whether Jack Layton's internationalism has ever meant a thing.

UPDATE: J Kay says everything I wanted to here.

UPDATE2: If you want to see the heroes who were killed today, go here. You can go here if you want to see people who don't understand for a minute why these heroes served - probably with chests full of pride.

UPDATE3: I am reminded of this hilarious post.


Mel T said...

Like all Canadians I was terribly saddened by the loss of six soldiers in a single day, and I particularly feel for their families they leave behind.

What bothers me is that some Canadians buy the idea that this mission cannot be criticised out of respect for the military or for fear of losing to terrorists. These ideas just don't square with reality. Like what Layton says or not, that he's able to say it is democracy in action. Isn't that one of the reasons, at least theoretically, why we're asking Canadian soldiers to fight in Afghanistan?

No one suggests that domestic criminals receive a "propaganda victory" when RCMP actions are scrutinised. Terrorists don't either, and they probably don't give two cents what a columnist for the National Post has to say.

Peter Loewen said...

Oh, I think Layton is entirely within his rights to call for our soldiers to return. And he is also within his rights to argue that the cost of lives is not worth the mission, and/or to cast aspersion on the success of the mission. I don't argue with that a bit, and I don't want to be one of those folks who argues that the military cannot be criticized. It can and should when it is warranted.

No, my objection with Layton is that, first, his policies do not square with the rationale he gives for them. And, second, that his position is isolationist, rather selfish, and in keeping with the worst historical instincts of the NDP.