Thursday, October 19, 2006

The continuing adventures of Peter MacKay, whiny pantywaist

So in one day, Peter MacKay says two incredibly stupid things.

Exhibit A:
OTTAWA -- Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay is accusing the New Democrats of demoralizing Canadian troops in Afghanistan with talk of withdrawing them from combat.

MacKay says in a speech to the Canadian International Centre that calling for peace talks with the Taliban -- a suggestion made by NDP Leader Jack Layton -- only makes insurgents bolder.
Exhibit B:
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay is in hot water after he allegedly referred to Belinda Stronach -- his former romantic interest -- as a dog.

His comment came during a heated exchange in the House of Commons over the government's new Clean Air Act.

After a Liberal MP asked how the new clean-air rules would affect MacKay's dog, he pointed to Stronach's empty chair and responded: "You already have her."
On the other hand, I did learn something new - apparently the legendarily "loyal" dog that MacKay posed with post-tantrum belonged to his neighbour, not him. So dude's not only a petty, vindictive, stupid pantywaist, but he's a liar, too.

As for the Afghanistan remark, Mackay elaborated to say this:
Although he doesn't refer to Layton by name, MacKay says there are some who believe they can wave a magic wand and make the insurgency disappear.

That's "naive,'' he says.
See, and I say there are some people who want to continue the policies of the status quo, despite the fact that it's clearly not working. That isn't naive - it's the textbook definition of insanity. Sadly for us all, those people currently fill the Cabinet positions in the government of Canada.

I should say that I actually believe that Layton's, and the NDP's, position probably does upset the troops in Afghanistan. That doesn't, by itself, make it wrong.


Olaf said...

I should say that I actually believe that Layton's, and the NDP's, position probably does upset the troops in Afghanistan. That doesn't, by itself, make it wrong.

See, now that's a sensible rebuttal. Buckdog went off the deep end on this one I think.

It most certainly doesn't make it wrong... even if I may firmly believe that Layton is somehow being disingenuous in suggesting that we can pull our troops out (and all NATO troops, by extention) and expect that humanitarian or reconstruction efforts will not be affected.

Two down...

john said...

I'm not sure how calling for Canada's withdrawal is equivalent to calling for all NATO troops to be withdrawn. Unless you think the situation is so bad that the 2,000 Canadian troops provide the margin of victory in Afghanistan, in which case we're terrifyingly close to defeat, aren't we?

Olaf said...


My point is that if it's "OK" for Canadian troops to withdraw, we can hardly expect the troops of other nations to remain. We are one of the few NATO countries with the collective balls to be in the South.

I mean, all the arguments for Canadian troop withdrawl could just as easily be used for UK, or US, or Dutch troop withdrawl, and we shouldn't consider our withdrawl as somewhat seperate from their withdrawl.

Either the NATO mission is misguided, and all troops should withdraw, or it is essential, and no troops should withdraw. We can't make the argument somehow that Canadian troops shouldn't be there, but other NATO troops should.

If consistency be our guide, Layton should not only call for the withdrawl of our troops, but of ALL NATO troops. But he won't.