26 September 2006

CPC hypocrisy on Afghanistan

No. No.

Not the Conservative Party of Canada.

The real CPC.

The Communist Party of Canada.

Elizabeth Rowley came down to Newfoundland to explain why Canada's presence in Afghanistan is bad.

But here's the thing.

What was her position and that of her party 20 years ago when Moscow sent Soviet troops into Afghanistan in a full-blown invasion after Soviet special forces had murdered the president?




Elizabeth might want to check the talking points she was using between 1979 and 1989. I am reasonably sure she thought that a real "dirty war" was just tickety-boo back then.

Which "dirty" wars are bad and which are good usually depends on the latest version written on the barn wall.

In a related story, provincial New Democrat leader Lorraine Michael had a hard time on CBC Radio's Morning Show trying to make a coherent point on Afghanistan. She had a prime spot - right after the Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan but just couldn't deliver a simple, clear set of points.

She talked at one point about how the Taliban weren't responsible for 9/11. Sadly, Lorraine sounded like she was defending the Taliban although I find it hard to believe that was her intention.

She spent a lot of time talking about details that were either misstated or would be irrelevant to most listeners. She raised the completely irrelevent point that the defence component of current policy - defence, diplomacy and development - costs more than the development piece. That doesn't mean development is underfunded, except in the facile world of the NDP foreign policy. It just reflects the sad fact that a grenade costs more than a sack of flour. As the security portion of the equation takes hold, those expenses can and in all likelihood will decline.

It is truly a sad state of affairs for a national Canadian party - the NDP - to be in this position, but it is a result of their lame efforts on the Afghan issue.

[Updated, and revised]