Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Hillary Vs. Bill | Main | R.I.P - Gordon B. Hinckley (June 23, 1910 – January 27, 2008) »

Monday, January 28, 2008

Layton: We can't win, and the lies supporting why we shouldn't try . . .

When it comes to the Afghanistan mission, Jack Layton lets us all know what he's against. What's far less clear is what he's for. Then again, Jack plays it loose with the facts when describing even the Manley Report, which gets a lot more specific than a defeatist like Jack ever dares. . .

In an interview with Don Newman on CBC Newsworld's Politics today, Jack said at one point that there was no mention of "Peace" by Manley.

This isn't quite true.  It's mentioned more than forty (40) times in the Manley Report, on pages  8, 12, 14, 20, 21, 24, 25. 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 49, 57, 66. 71, 72, 73, 78, 79, 81,  and 89. 

When Don pressed him to explain what good could possibly come from doing as the NDP wants and withdrawing the troops that are protecting the people of Afghanistan and the people working to rebuild that country, Jack sputtered out some dodgy nothingness about getting the UN involved . . . .

Get the U.N. involved?  OK. Done. The mission in Afghanistan is sanctioned and by the United Nations.  In fact, Jack, the UN wants to bring these Taliban SOBs to justice just like the rest of us - It just called for a redoubling of efforts ten days ago after a recent bombing. I guess Layton isn't above trying to capitalize on the 'information deficit.' He'd prefer to spread the lie that the UN isn't involved or that the UN's prescription would be some magic solution that didn't involve fighting the bad guys.

Jack's not above a lot of stuff. He uses Afghanistan's Human Rights Commission as a source of information on civilian casualties, but is silent on the fact that the head of that same Human Rights Commission disagrees completely with Jack's pro-pullout Afghanistan policy.

So despite what Jack claims, all the supposed bogey men in this coalition want peace - they're just willing to be honest about what it will take to get there;

So the UN is involved and looking for precisely the opposite of what Jack claims;

So the Human Rights Commission in Afghanistan that Jack considers reliable wants Canada's troops to stay in their current role.

What's left for Jack to suggest?

Give up.

Jack's final words in the Newman interview:

". . . it's as though we're gonna charge off with a few more troops and win a war that clearly can't be won. "

Whether or not he's intending to serve in the role, Jack Layton is a great asset to the anti-democratic, anti-women, anti-freedom and anti-peace cause of the Taliban. What's lost on him and his supporters is the fact that even if every NATO soldier packed it in today, there'd be nothing "peaceful" about the re-establishment of a country-sized thug ghetto and a torturous regime.

Posted by Liam O'Brien on January 28, 2008 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Layton: We can't win, and the lies supporting why we shouldn't try . . . :


Jack Layton is one of the meanest and nastiest public figures in Canada today. It's sad that there are Canadians who support that vile man.

Posted by: philanthropist | 2008-01-28 8:11:35 PM

Layton is not referred to as "Taliban Jack" just for the fun of it.
He has earned it as an appeaser of Taliban beheaders.
I suspect the Taliban in Afghanistan are Jack's favourite Canadian, next to Denis Coderre.

Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2008-01-28 8:29:21 PM

I don't know the reasons that Jack Layton cites for pulling out but I support this stand for the same reason that the US has to pullout out of Iraq. The reason Taliban came to power is because of previous US meddling in Afghanistan and their support of the Mujahedeenn. Today's policy is a continuation of a previous fiasco and will likely give birth to another monster. If NATO pulls out the Afghani government will have to find a way to stand on its feet or perish.

Here is a question: Most of the 9/11 terrorists originated from Saudi Arabia as well all know: so why not take down the Saudi government.

Posted by: Seyitbek Usmanov | 2008-01-28 10:44:44 PM

The 'US meddling' argument is pretty lame - does any grown up really believe that if the US had no foreign policy the world be all peaceful?

Would the Muslims stop killing each other if the US didn't exist? would there somehow be no conflict in Kenya if the US or Britain had never existed? would Japan and China be the best of friends somehow if there were no United States? - All completely ridiculous assertions.

Unless you can make yourself believe that other nations or peoples of the world aren't like humans everywhere, that's quite a condescending view of other people though.

Posted by: philanthropist | 2008-01-28 11:25:26 PM

"The 'US meddling' argument is pretty lame - does any grown up really believe that if the US had no foreign policy the world be all peaceful?"

I don't know anyone who believes this, philanthropist. Seems to me your battling a strawman.

The argument is that a) the U.S. would be better off getting out of Iraq, and b) the world would be better off as well. None of that implies peace or harmony or instant utopia.

And not engaging in war on foreign soil can hardly be equated with not having a foreign policy. Do all the countries who are currently not engaged in a war outside of their own borders count as countries without a foreign policy? Uhm, no.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-28 11:44:31 PM

Seyitbek, the "meddling" to which you refer was involvement in a fight after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and did some very terrible things to the people there, not to mention deny them the option of freedom. The fallout from the Mujahedeenn's victory was as much or more the result of insufficient follow up work as anything else. I won't pretend as if there aren't serious problems and issues that need to be addressed in places like Afghanistan. The existence of these problems and challenges should not, by itself, logically lead one to assume that any and all intervention is wrong. It's just overly simplistic to approach this in this way. But if you insist on simpler comparisons, lets put it another way - if a gang of criminals promised less crime and more "order" in the city on the condition that they get to lord over and rule a few neighborhoods worth of people, would it be "meddling" to say no and take on the criminals in those neighborhoods?

Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 2008-01-29 8:09:48 AM

SU: At least the Saudis didn't train the 9/11 terrorists on their own soil. They merely financed the Taliban so they could train them in Afghanistan. The Taliban deserve every bit of force they have received.

Of course I wouldn't argue against the Saudis deserving some also, but sometimes you have to think about what's best for you, and it would not be in the U.S. best interests to attack the Saudis. Maybe get them to crack down more on their crazy Wahabbis..but not attack them.

Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-29 9:56:21 AM

The Manley report recommends abandoning Kandahar unless we get 1,000 NATO (not Afghan) reinforcements and some helicopters. It admits things aren't going well and most analysts predict 2008 will get worse. Since Harper is prepared to withdraw all of our troops unless the magical 1,000 NATO troops arrive it's obvious the government of Canada doesn't actually feel the mission is important unless you believe, as I do, that the entire commission report and the coming vote are a trap laid to catch Dion by forcing him to vote against a seemingly compromise resolution carefully crafted to allow the continuation of the battle group deployment (i.e. the "combat mission") indefinitely.

I'd rather Harper ditch the chicanery and have a straight up vote: "Canada will maintain at least one battle group of at least 1200 troops plus special operations and support troops in Kandahar". The Liberals, Bloc & NDP would vote against it and we could have an election where the voters could have a clear cut choice on the future of the mission.

Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2008-01-29 12:17:34 PM

Jack Layton is a clueless fool leading a bunch of clueless fools. Thank God for the NDP, otherwise all Jack's fools would all vote Liberal. There are a number of decent Liberals, surrounded by thieves, scoundrels and slimes.

Posted by: Paul | 2008-01-29 12:41:58 PM

Phrenology is the real reason for Jack Layton's crazy actions.

Call it pseudo-science, but I firmly believe certain facial structures indicate personality traits. Come on, think back. Who else knows someone who looks like Jack Layton that you always felt like slapping. How about Howard Dean? He could never be president because of the shape of his face.

Many have tried to use this as a form of racism, which isn't my intention. But don't we form opinions by checking out how close together someones eyes are? Some faces just indicate a mean personality.

Posted by: dp | 2008-01-29 2:10:16 PM

Layton's mug has always reminded me of Lenin.

Posted by: bocanut | 2008-01-29 2:26:15 PM

Harper should just make Afghanistan an election issue. make them bring down the government on this issue. I cannot believe that Canadians, even brain dead lifelong Libwerals would support that clown Dion. He and the rest of the opposition are more worried about Afghan prisoners than our troops.

Take no prisoners!

Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-29 3:37:53 PM

Liam: "Follow up work"? Please clarify what you mean following up? Following up on Osama Bin Laden and Taliban?

Soviet's went the "follow up" policy with consequences we all know of- that ended with their withdrawal in 1988.

Afghanistan was a very decent, modern country by Central Asian/Middle Eastern standards until Soviet involvement in the country that resulted in the overthrow of the Afghani president by the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan in 1976. The Politburo was unhappy with their performance, therefore, Red Army invaded in 1979.

Posted by: Seyitbek Usmanov | 2008-01-30 11:50:19 PM

If you really want to ensure Afghanistan's prosperity maybe do what the British did with Hong Kong.

Posted by: Seyitbek Usmanov | 2008-01-30 11:51:48 PM

"do what the British did with Hong Kong."

No can do.
Afghanistan is landlocked and doesn't have any Chinese living there.

Plus, Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-01-31 12:03:34 AM

"Layton's mug has always reminded me of Lenin."

bocanut, you're clearly not the only one:

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-01-31 1:38:20 AM

Speller: LOL, take a bow. That was my first laugh today!

Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-31 9:22:05 AM

SU - Follow Up work means aid, trade, and care to take care of extremists. As far as I can tell your view is to give up on Afghanistan and its people and hope it'll all work out in the end. Accepting that we had to deal with the Taliban in 2001 (and should have much sooner), we now need to pay Afghanistan the attention it deserves. To simply dismiss any and all work to fight the Taliban as "meddling" is sheer foolishness. Lets at least give these people a shot at democracy. If the Taliban are left to their own devices, all such rights will be squashed.

If your view is that it's ok to have country-sized ghettos where maplines protect torturous regimes and worse, then come out and spell it out. Better still, hop on a plane to Afghanistan during the next election, take the ballot from the hand of a young woman there and explain to her how you're opposed to doing what it takes to put the ballot in her hand in the first place. Thank God people like you weren't in charge in the 1940s., the axis would own most of Europe.

Posted by: Liam O'Brien | 2008-01-31 10:39:45 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.