Okay, I was just writing this post--though it wasn't anywhere near this good. 
Hear! Hear!
Yikes!
Well, you certainly take me down a peg. But, what is the official position of the NDP on Afghanistan?
Is it immediate withdrawal? No.
Comments of the NDP members, given in the free vote in the house, does not represent the party's stated position. It's fine for individual members to stand up and wave the flag of peace, while their leadership refuses to make a committed stand to withdraw. Sort of having your cake...
On Haiti; you must be joking!
If you think the Preval election the culmination of "progress" you've not done your homework.
Canada devoted millions of tax dollars to stage the Haitian elections, and continues to support the UN mission there, itself rife with murderous mismanagement and outright corruption.
Preval has been so contained by back room manoeuverings, how much he can achieve for the people is doubtful.
But, there is one bellwether that can measure the "progress" in Haiti, and that is: Where is Aristide? Can the former president, kidnapped in a coup engineered in Canada, now be reunited with his political protoge, President Preval?
Yeah, Cook knows the Liberals started this; it's fairly clearly stated in the piece, and in numerous other articles your humble correspondent has penned. So? If the Liberals are using my piece for their ends, it's news to me. But, so what? This attack piece seems to imply I'm some kind of useful idiot in the hands of the Liberals. That ignores the comments I've made in the piece. But, for one more time: The Liberals initiated this horrendous policy, and the core of that corrupted caucus still supports "their" policy, and the Liberals that will be the ones in parliament that ensure Harper and his Republicans remain in power. But, the NDP decided in the last election to focus on the Liberals, while giving the more odious Conservatives a free pass; another cynical bit of politicking that cost Canada a Conservative minority.
The point remains: Where is the official NDP position?
I've interviewed Jack Layton twice, face to face, each time before an election. Each time, I asked Jack straight: "What is the party's position on Afghanistan?" Both times, Jack looked like he swallowed a thumbtack. Neither time could I get a straight answer out of him.
So, what is one to assume the NDP's position to be on the war? I assumed, correctly I still believe, the NDP will hide in the political reeds, afraid to appear "unpatriotic," or vulnerable to charges they "don't support the troops."
If, as you allude, the NDP is against the war in Afghanistan and Canada's further involvement there, why do they not call for immediate withdrawal? If, as you seems to hint, the party is philosophically opposed to the war, their refusal to come out and openly call for withdrawal is hypocrisy at best, cynical real politic at worst; cowardice in either case.
cheers
chris
Have you read the article by Larry Zolf on CBC online?
"The NDP are Floundering" (otherwise known as "Three Cheers for the Liberals").
Jurist, please make me feel better and rip that article apart too.
Chris,
As you probably know, the NDP makes policy with input from its members. There is a policy convention this September. I know for a fact that there are resolutions going forward on both Afghanistan and Haiti. If you still think they're dithering after September, then you're probably right, but how about waiting until then to throw accusations around?
Jurist,
I second Deanna's plea! I'd do it myself, but I think you're on a roll.
I think there will be many, many, resolutions brought to convention this September on both Haiti and Afghanistan. My riding has put one forward for Afghanistan as well...
Good piece by the way.
cheers,
Thanks for the compliments from those who enjoyed the post. ...I've posted on Zolf as well now, though in fairness I'll point out that one can't so much accuse him of being a Liberal cheerleader as of having no idea who or what he supports or approves of from week to week.
Chris: Understood that you can't be held responsible for the Libs' use of the article. But it's beyond me how you can pull out the canard that the NDP somehow cost the Libs the election by directing its ire in the wrong direction, yet write an article blaming the Libs first and the NDP second for the Cons' neoconservatism.
On the substantive policies, as Sean pointed out, any formal party policies will be dealt with at this fall's convention.
But I'd think one can very easily distill the NDP position on Afghanistan from the debate: the NDP supports continued involvement in peacekeeping and reconstruction, but not the combat role requested by the Cons absent full disclosure and a significantly more compelling rationale. I can understand if you disagree with the position (particularly in that it doesn't involve a complete pullout, and implicitly allows that the NDP could support a combat role in some circumstances), but there's no basis for equating that legitimate disagreement with either silence or cowardice.
On Haiti, I've been consistent in pointing out the legitimate concerns that arose regarding this year's election. But from my standpoint it looks like despite the pressures to the contrary, Haitians took full advantage of their chance to elect somebody who reflects their interests rather than those of the occupying forces.
That said, I haven't seen much in the media since Preval took office, and if you can point me to news to the effect that he has been limited in his ability to carry out the democratic mandate (or anything else of interest) then I'd be interested in seeing it. (And I presume the NDP generally would be as well.)
I also certainly wouldn't consider Aristide to be the sole benchmark by which we should be evaluating Preval's freedom to act: if some tradeoffs are going to have to be made, I'd much rather see Preval ensure an end to the rumoured attempts to tie the hands of his government on policy, rather than trading policy freedom away in exchange for Aristide's return.
Why would you spend your energy apologizing for the NDP rather than urging them to be more vocal in opposition to the Conservatives?
Rob: It helps to read the post that one comments on. The NDP has been plenty vocal in its opposition to the Cons, both on Afghanistan and on many other issues. (And today, while news about the Libs is limited to machinations related to the leadership race, it's Layton who's demanding a debate on the Cons' softwood lumber capitulation.)
Commenting by HaloScan
