# NDP says Canadian military wrote Afghan president's speech



## x-grunt (25 Sep 2007)

searched to see if previously posted, nothing seen, so:

*NDP says Canadian military wrote Afghan president's speech*

Article link: http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=w092553A

September 25, 2007 - 13:13

THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - The NDP says it has documents that show the Canadian military effectively wrote Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to Parliament last year.

The party's defence critic, Dawn Black, says the papers indicate Karzai's address was an "elaborately staged political stunt."

Continued Below

Black held a news conference Tuesday to release access-to-information documents that suggest a team of military advisers prepared an initial draft of Karzai's speech, delivered on Sept. 22, 2006.

She quoted a situation report from Task Force Afghanistan as saying: "Team prepared initial draft of President (Karzai's) address to Parliament 22 Sep."

Black said Gen. David Fraser reports in the documents that "key statistics, messages, themes, as well as overall structure (of the speech), were adopted by the president in his remarks."

"What Canadians heard was not the voice of the Afghan people, but the talking points of the Department of National Defence," Black said.

In the speech, Karzai thanked the families of soldiers killed in combat and painted an optimistic, but not rosy picture of his country's future.

He also took direct aim at NDP Leader Jack Layton's opposition to the war, saying that those who believe the mission was weighted too heavily toward combat and not enough toward reconstruction were wrong.

"There has been speculation about the resources that the Department of National Defence is pouring into trying to sell this mission to the Canadian people," Black said.

"I never thought that the Canadian military would go this far. This raises serious concerns about the independence of the Afghan president and origin of his recent comments to Canadian media in Kabul."

Black said she plans to call for an emergency debate on the issue in the House of Commons when Parliament resumes next month.

She also said she will seek an investigation by the Commons defence committee into the military's communications campaign.


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2007)

So, the Canadian media & Afghanistan's President are both puppets of the Canadian Forces?
Sounds like tin foil hat time.


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2007)

Or maybe.......just a thought mind you, but......could it be the truth?

Gee, not agreeing with Jacko and Dawn Blacks position, there must be a conspiracy there somewhere.......


----------



## x-grunt (25 Sep 2007)

Is it possible this is a wild spin on an actual event, like say the CF gave Karzai some kind of written background brief to inform him for his speech? That's way different then actually writing his speech, but could be taken for quite the ride by the NDP.

I know nothing about how this works, but I imagine some background prep is SOP for something like this.


----------



## geo (25 Sep 2007)

Hmmm
I'm thinking..........  
(Pzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt)
(Bronx cjeer)


----------



## Jaydub (25 Sep 2007)

This is a new low, even for the NDP.

Jack Layton really doesn't have a clue what's actually happening in Afghanistan.


----------



## Mortar guy (25 Sep 2007)

Yeah like the way our embassies provide background info to visiting heads of state. Or how the 'outline' of discussions between heads of state/heads of govt are often agreed upon well before any President or Prime Minister speaks at a summit or visit? Its conceivable that the military simply provided background info and Karzai's office used that as the basis of his speech. This is not at all unusual as it would be pretty silly for Karzai to guess or make up stats about Canadian activities in Afghanistan rather than get those stats from our military!

I worked for our Governor General for two years and was a member of Canada's Strategic Advisory Team in Kabul for a year and in my opinion, this is a non story that the NDP are milking for shock value.

MG


----------



## xo31@711ret (25 Sep 2007)

For the love of...how were these idjits able / allowed to form a party?!


----------



## old medic (25 Sep 2007)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> For the love of...how were these idjits able / allowed to form a party?!



Because their alien puppetmasters write all their speeches for them.


----------



## geo (25 Sep 2007)

( not very good pupetmasters.... you can see their lips move)


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Sep 2007)

How's this for another possibility?

The "team" in question could be the Strategic Advisory Team-Afghanistsan, as described in this CBC TV piece from March of this year.  

According to this CF Backgrounder, part of the team's job is to, "support the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in developing key national strategies and mechanisms for the effective implementation of those strategies." (Translation:  help mentor the AFG government in getting what they want done, done)  From the same backgrounder:  "The team includes a small command and support element, two teams of strategic planners, a defence analyst and a strategic communications advisor."

According to the document the NDP is sharing with us on their web page, "team prepared initial draft of president's address to parilament 22 Sep."  What the news release and MSM (so far) seem to be missing is the little bit before that:  "At requst of president's office and with statistical input from SAT (Strategic Advisory Team) members attached to ANDS (Afghanistan National Development Strategy) and MRRD (AFG Ministry, or Minister, of Rural Rehabilitation and Development), team prepared..."

Even earlier in the released document, it suggests the SAT team's comms advisor accompanied the Afghanpresidential delegation on several out-of-country visits.  That indicates to me a pretty close relationship and level of support on the part of the CF team, and trust on the part of the AFG side.

What I read into the document:  The President's office asks for help, the SAT folks working on the Nat'l redevelopment strategy worked with some ministerial staff to come up with some notes.  Later, it says the President was OK with the "key statistics, messages and themes, as well as the overall structure" of the piece.

By my understanding, the job of the SAT team is to advise, and the President can accept or reject any advice or material given by any of his team, or teams advising him -- sounds pretty sinister to me....   :


----------



## Jaydub (25 Sep 2007)

The NDP likes to preach about Afghanistan being the wrong mission for Canada.

Maybe they should consider that it might be the _right_ mission for _Afghanistan_.

But, no, in true leftist fashion, it's got to be some right-wing, neo-con government conspiracy...


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Sep 2007)

Jaydub said:
			
		

> The NDP likes to preach about Afghanistan being the wrong mission for Canada.
> 
> Maybe they should consider that it might be the _right_ mission for _Afghanistan_.
> 
> But, no, in true leftist fashion, it's got to be some right-wing, neo-con government conspiracy...



Or at least venting and complaining without a viable solution...


----------



## Greymatters (25 Sep 2007)

x-grunt said:
			
		

> The NDP says it has documents that show the Canadian military effectively wrote Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to Parliament last year.



If the Canadian military wrote it effectively, I dont see what the problem is.  Were they supposed to write it ineffectively?   ;D


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

Damn,

So if my prof hands me a document that says:

Your final term paper should address:

this,
this,
this, and
this.

I can tell everyone he WROTE that paper for me?? Talk about political shit-spinning once again. I'm over it. I ain't voting NDP ... 'ya figure??  :


----------



## NavComm (25 Sep 2007)

I have a little button on the remote for my tv that says "mute"...I press it every time I see Jack Layton or any of his buddies/affiliates begin to assault my senses through my television screen. It's like a little cloaking device that protects me from having to listen to the mad rantings of a bunch of misinformed whackos.


----------



## Blindspot (25 Sep 2007)

This just in:

SENLIS COUNCIL, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AND POLARIS INSTITUTE WROTE NDP FOREIGN POLICY.


----------



## riggermade (25 Sep 2007)

Maybe they can get Myriam Bedard to run for them I think she would fit right in


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Sep 2007)

Blindspot: Hardly the Senlis Council:
http://www.senliscouncil.org/modules/media_centre/news_releases/89_news



> MacDonald also called on *more NATO countries to take the burden off Canadian soldiers currently fighting in Kandahar. “It is imperative that NATO has more troops on the ground in the south to secure a decisive military victory* [emphasis added],” she said. “This would reduce the need for bombing campaigns, which are causing enormous suffering and turning the local population against us.
> 
> “The lack of a sufficient NATO deployment means that the military do not have the troops necessary to hold territory. Often, when they move on to another hot spot, the Taliban simply return to areas already cleared, meaning our troops are having to go back and fight over and over again for the same territory,” said MacDonald.



Not quite Jack's quacking.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Franko (25 Sep 2007)

Sweet Jeebus....talk about paranoia.

Yep....the CF is controlling Canada and Afghanistan by their thinking.       :

Put down the crack pipe.

Regards


----------



## Haggis (25 Sep 2007)

Jaydub said:
			
		

> Jack Layton really doesn't have a clue what's actually happening in Afghanistan.



True, but he DOES have a firm grasp on what sways Canadian public opinion:  showing collusion between the newly militaristic CF (which has abandoned it's peacekeeping heritage) and the Bush-installed Karzai "regime". 

Canada's war in Afghanistan will not be won or lost in Pashmul or Panjwaii.    It will be won or lost on the battleground of public opinion.


----------



## Petard (25 Sep 2007)

It would seem to me the NDP got spurred on by this recent documentary run on CBC; some question why the military even has a communication plan. Would they rather we say nothing and be accused of being secretive again?

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/militaryafghanistan/selling_the_forces_1.html


----------



## geo (25 Sep 2007)

heh.... so we came out of hiding and started to be "in your face"... who woulda thought we'd end up with the public supporting us more than they support politicians.

We should done this years ago!


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2007)

Petard said:
			
		

> It would seem to me the NDP got spurred on by this recent documentary run on CBC;


I saw that documentary.  I really liked Lew MacKenzie's view that the military should not be lambasted for communicating what it is doing.  We should be making noise against the failure of foreign affairs & CIDA to communicate their work.


----------



## Flip (25 Sep 2007)

> . It will be won or lost on the battleground of public opinion.



Either you've been reading my mind or this is getting obvious.

I think a few notions need to get out to the Canadian public about
what happens if  the NDP gets their wish.
Of course they wouldn't accept responsibility for any disaster that occurs
because of a premature withdrawl. - I think Canadians need a stern warning is all.....

Hmmmm.

Today's NDP ...... the anarchy party.

Peace through capitulation ..... Vote NDP.

Democracy doesn't matter ..... with the NDP

Back to the bronze age ..... with the Taliban and the NDP

The NDP..... defeater of Afghan womens's rights.  

Never mind...... ;D

P.S. How hard would it be to get some Afghan civilians to chant "Down with NDP" on video?


----------



## Shamrock (25 Sep 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> P.S. How hard would it be to get some Afghan civilians to chant "Down with NDP" on video?



Don't know, you'd have to find a non-military scriptwriter.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Sep 2007)

The NDP has only one line of  thought. Attack the Conservatives, screw the Afghans, link everything to the Evil Bush, and may the devil take the hindmost.  Not too different from the Liberals (see Denis the Thug).

Yet at last Canada has entered the big leagues with our own satellite (Quisling?).  The awful power of the CF would make Donald Rumsfeld proud.  And make Ms. Black very, very afraid.

But then she probably already is.  Right.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (26 Sep 2007)

Petard said:
			
		

> It would seem to me the NDP got spurred on by this recent documentary run on CBC; some question why the military even has a communication plan.



Lets see, why would the CF have a communication plan....  

Because its what every major organization in the world does?
Because its a requirement to have a plan before those controlling the money let you spend any?
Because its a good way to let everyone involved know whats going on?

Like, duuh!  That is one of the dumbest accusations I have heard...


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Sep 2007)

The NDP must be on drugs!


Wes


----------



## Flip (26 Sep 2007)

> Don't know, you'd have to find a non-military scriptwriter.



Oh! of course!

But, answer this because I don't know......

Don't you really mean a non-CF script writer?

BTW - I saw this episode of "Talking To Americans" last week

Funny.....


----------



## RangerRay (26 Sep 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> The NDP must be on drugs!
> 
> 
> Wes



Worse, anyone who votes for them must smoke crack.

What a non-story.  The government commonly vetts the speeches of visiting dignitaries.  As well, President Karzai has been making very similar speeches around the world.

What a bunch of putzes.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (26 Sep 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Worse, anyone who votes for them must smoke crack.
> 
> What a non-story.  The government commonly vetts the speeches of visiting dignitaries.  As well, President Karzai has been making very similar speeches around the world.



I've tried to not post on this topic,  but I have to agree that it is common practice for the Canadian government to give rough outlines and suggested talking points to visiting dignitaries.  It allows them to understand how to make the best impression possible while visiting here. (We even do this for American presidents who come to visit - we really do.)  

Now as for all NDP supporters smoking crack... I was an NDP supporter, but I've never done crack (in fact I've not even tried pot)  If the NDP didn't take such a nonsensical view of the mission in Afghanistan, I'd likely still be a supporter.


----------



## Bigmac (26 Sep 2007)

Karzai:  "Gee Brain, what do you wanna do today?"

CF:  " Same thing we do everyday Pinky, try to take over the world one speech at a time!"

     
I think the NDP have been hangin' out with the Marijuana Party too much. It's puff, puff pass Jack!


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2007)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> .... it is common practice for the Canadian government to give rough outlines and suggested talking points to visiting dignitaries.  It allows them to understand how to make the best impression possible while visiting here. (We even do this for American presidents who come to visit - we really do.)



As a matter of fact..... (shared with the usual disclaimer - highlights mine)

(BTWI, here's the speech if you want to see how "tainted" it is.   :  )

*Afghan officials deny DND wrote speech*
NDP allegations about Karzai's address 'insulting'
Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service, 26 Sept 07
Article link

OTTAWA - The Afghanistan government says the federal NDP is being "ludicrous and insulting" for suggesting that Canadian military officials wrote President Hamid Karzai's speech to Parliament last year.

The Afghan embassy in Ottawa issued the blunt denial after the New Democrats released documents obtained through Access to Information indicating the Department of National Defence provided "messages" and "themes" that were adopted by Mr. Karzai in his address to Parliament.

An internal military report, provided to the federal party under Access to Information, says members of the Canadian Forces strategic advisory team accompanied Mr. Karzai and his Afghan delegation to New York before his arrival in Ottawa last September for a historic address to a joint session of the House of Commons and the Senate.

It says that "at the request of president's office" the Canadian military team "prepared initial draft of president's address to Parliament Sept. 22."

The note goes on to say that: "It was noted that key statistics, messages and themes, as well as overall structure, were adopted by the president in his remarks to joint session."

NDP defence critic Dawn Black said the report is an example of how the Conservative government is trying to manipulate public opinion for the country's military involvement in Afghanistan.

"President Karzai's address to Parliament was an elaborately staged political stunt by this government to sell Canadians on the combat mission in Kandahar," said Ms. Black, who called Mr. Karzai a "front man" for the Conservative government.

The NDP has called for the immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan.

Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, lashed out at the NDP, and said *top Afghan officials, including Mr. Karzai himself, crafted drafts of the speech.

Mr. Samad said government officials from both countries shared information over several weeks as Mr. Karzai's trip was being planned.

"As is customary in diplomatic arrangements and co-ordination, they shared information about protocol, agenda, discussion items and other relevant bilateral issues," he said in a statement.

"To suggest otherwise is not only ludicrous and insulting, it is also sadly diverting attention away from the real issues we face as two nations."

A spokesman for Peter Mac-Kay, the Minister of National Defence, said there is nothing nefarious in a host government providing input for a speech by a foreign visitor.

"The NDP's attempt to undermine President Karzai's integrity shows once again its willingness to say anything as it opposes Canada's commitment to the United Nations and NATO to help Afghanistan," Dan Dugas said.*

Mr. Karzai's speech before Canadian MPs and senators did not differ significantly in substance

from the usual theme of other international speeches he has given in recent years.

As he has done in most of his public appearances in the past five years, Mr. Karzai spoke of the need for foreign troops to remain in his country until it can protect itself from radicals and terrorists.

He cited both progress in reconstruction -- a doubling of per capita income to $355, six million children in school including more than two million girls, and 28% of the seats in parliament occupied by women -- but did not shy away from the problems that his country still faced.

He told Parliament that the Taliban insurgency in Kandahar had burned down 150 schools, denying 200,000 children access to education, while the illegal opium trade was threatening to destroy his country.

He thanked Canadians for the sacrifices of their "sons and daughters" who have laid down their lives fighting to secure his country's freedom.

Ms. Black questioned Mr. Karzai for failing to repeat controversial subject matter he used a day earlier in a speech in New York, when he criticized the accidental killing of Afghan citizens by NATO bombers.

Canada has not deployed fighter jets to Afghanistan and has so far not been implicated in any of the accidental killing of civilians there.

Ms. Black said the memo raises questions about whether a recent news conference in Kabul Mr. Karzai gave to Canadian journalists based in Kandahar was also a stage-managed event designed to disseminate "propaganda."

The embedded journalists were flown on a military aircraft to the Afghan capital especially for the press conference, where Mr. Karzai warned that if troops were withdrawn from his country, it would descend into anarchy.

Ms. Black called for an inquiry by the Commons defence committee on the military's communications strategy as well as an emergency debate in the House of Commons on that matter.


----------



## armyvern (26 Sep 2007)

Yes, but you see, never having been elected as the national governing party, the NDP is blissfully ignorant (or can claim to be so) of any governing national party of Canada's interactions with visiting dignitaries and protocol. 

Hopefully, too, they will remain so for eternity. I just can't imagine the themes they'd manage to suggest as talking points to some visitors. Gawd forbid Korea ever visit while they were in power ...  :


----------



## Staff Weenie (26 Sep 2007)

Now, Vern, don't you want to thee the Conservatives have a chance to attack the NDP for writing speeches for Mr Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, Mr Ahmadinejad, or any other of their peaceful worker-loving friends?????

Just think of how many downtrodden unfairly maligned world leaders could come to visit Canada?? I've been waiting most impatiently to hear from Hasan Nasrallah!


----------



## Haggis (26 Sep 2007)

Now we wait and see which headline gets the most exposure:

*Afghan officials deny DND wrote speech*

or

*NDP says Canadian military wrote Afghan president's speech*

This will be a fair indicator of which "set of facts" is going to lead public opinion.


----------



## maniac779 (26 Sep 2007)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/25/ndp-karzai.html

I read this article this morning and I have had enough.

Its amazing what the opposition is willing to do in order to clamour their way toward more seats in the next election. Its like they have no plan, no vision. It seems like all their strategy surrounds making the government look bad and hoping that they’ll get more seats by looking like the least incompetent party.

But more than that, its disturbing to me, as a member employed in the service of this great nation, that members of those trying to form the government are actively trying to demonize people in uniform. This NDP “defence critic”, out right accused DND of manipulation. We have been accused in the past of abuse. We are constantly accused of “not doing enough”.

I’d like to know when we are going to be accused of making the lives of Afghans and Canadians better and safer. When are we going to be accused by members of parliament and some portions of the public of being professional, dedicated and some of the best Canada has to offer?

Reading the article I linked to above, makes me nervous that someone is trying to take over the company I work for just to drive it into the ground only out of spite that someone else is doing a better job than they can.


----------



## nihilpavor (26 Sep 2007)

For some people the goal of our presence in Afg. is only to spread US imperialism. Proofs (according to them) that president Karzai is only an american and canadian muppet strongly reinforces that belief in their minds. 

We all know that the speach-writer doesn't count for anything, it's the one that gives the speech that counts because he is fully responsible of what he says, not only for himself but also for the official function he occupies, and because in politics speeches are actions.


----------



## Baloo (26 Sep 2007)

Peter Rabbit would be wise to stay out of Mr. McGregor's garden.

I am finding it a hard time to understand why the Department of National Defence did not immediately fire back with all their ability into fighting this...quite frankly, disgusting and degrading commentary by Dawn Black. To have her insinuate these things about the Canadian Forces is insulting at best, downright slander at worst. Peter McKay should hold a public lambasting of the NDP personnel who supported this idea. To have the military provide certain stats or talking points that the President would not have of the Canadian presence, is one thing, especially on this "first draft." But suggesting that this is some kind of monstrous machination of the military to push our own secret 'agenda' on Afghanistan is astonishing. 

I somehow doubt that Hamid Karzai was relying on Canadian officials to write his entire speech for him. Just a thought.


----------



## Bograt (26 Sep 2007)

There have been a couple of recent stories both have lead me disheartened.

Last week the CBC's National had a piece that examined Gen Hillier's 'information war.' The story suggested that DND had 500 PAOs who's job it was to promote the CF version of the war. This was of course part of Hillier's plan to 'use the war' to buy more equipment for the CF.
The story also insinuated the the Wear Red campaign was being used by the CF to usurp the power of the Parliament.

Next is this little piece of litter. The NDP whispers military propaganda in the ears of Canadians hoping to frighten those in the 416 are code.

Who do these people think we are? Do they think we are thugs or blood thirsty killers? Do they think we are people who were not good enough to get a real job? Do they realize that we are their neighbors, brothers, and sisters who volunteered to do our Country's dangerous work?

I have a couple of questions of my own.

1. What do they (Dion and Layton) think would realistically happen if Canada withdraws? Are they willing to take personal responsibility for the aftermath?

2. What the heck does 'non combat role' mean in Afghanistan Mr Dion? Does it mean that we would no longer try and secure parts of the country? Does it mean we move to 'safer' parts of the country? Does it mean we abandon the positions we currently hold? Does it mean that our ROEs will change to reflect a kinder CF? Does it mean that we choose to do the 'easier load' because 'that what Canadian's want"?

3. Why don't the Canadian Forces deserve the best equipment to do the job that is asked of them?


edited for typoes


----------



## Shec (26 Sep 2007)

Much ado over nothing.  As previously observed public servants crafting a politician's speech is SOP.  However the questions begs to be asked - does Mullah Mohammed Omar's Director-General of Strategic Communications oversee the drafting of Taliban Jack's talking points??


----------



## TCBF (26 Sep 2007)

Bograt said:
			
		

> Who do these people think we are? Do they think we are thugs or blood thirsty killers? Do they think we are people who were not good enough to get a real job? Do they realize that we are their neighbors, brothers, and sisters who volunteered to do our Country's dangerous work?



- They are afraid of us because they cannot do what we do.  They see us as anachronisms.  they believe there is no need for reactionary miitary forces, only "revolutionaries."



			
				Bograt said:
			
		

> 3. Why don't the Canadian Forces deserve the best equipment to do the job that is asked of them?



- Their Canada is the Canada of 1965 to now - un-Brit flag and medicare.  Ergo, all of our conflicts and accomplishments from the first 65% of the twentieth century are moot.  Gen Currie and Gen Crerar might as well be space marines for all they care.


----------



## Petard (26 Sep 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Lets see, why would the CF have a communication plan....
> 
> 
> Like, duuh!  That is one of the dumbest accusations I have heard...



I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that comment above was not directed at me, because if it was then you are definitely preaching to the choir

I don't see this just about the CF having an effective communication plan (when hitherto we were accused and hammered over the head many times for not being transparent enough), there is something nastier behind these stories. The gist I'm getting is that certain political groups are implying Canada is involved the way we are in Afghanistan because the military steered the gov't that way, through force of the CDS personality according to some. There is also implied in these messages that if it weren't for the war mongers we would be involved in our comfort zone of peace makers, or better yet, go back to that time when the military was so transparent we were virtually invisible. I think the part in Brian Stewart's piece about how it used to be, when the military could be ignored, is what these people grousing lately would really like. it seems more than anything they are seeking political maneuvering room to distance anybody from why we are in Afghanistan by somewhat setting the CDS up as a fall guy.
But they are having a tough time with the CF's communication plan that bursts that bubble of ignorance with a prick pin of reality.


----------



## Flip (26 Sep 2007)

> 1. What do they (Dion and Layton) think would realistically happen if Canada withdraws? Are they willing to take personal responsibility for the aftermath?



They might think that Americans will step into the current Canadian positions.

Personally, I don't think they know or care what happens next, so long as they
can be the morons guys who brought peace to Canada.

No one in media has considered out loud what the aftermath would be,
to my knowledge anyway.  If Canadians were presented with two 
realistically described alternatives ie. Stay the course until it quiets down or
retreat from Afghanistan and cause a **** storm. Canadians would choose the 
correct and moral first option. 
Edit to add:



> But they are having a tough time with the CF's communication plan that bursts that bubble of ignorance with a prick pin of reality.



Bingo! right on the head with that one!
The lefties are P.O.d that we are living in war-time and they all want to close their eyes and have it all just go away.  They are lashing out at anything they can, hoping to roll back the clock to before 9-11.

The big whine is, "why can't we just have peace"?
The real answer is, that the west did not start or want this war - just like the world wars.


----------



## x-grunt (26 Sep 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Now we wait and see which headline gets the most exposure:
> 
> *Afghan officials deny DND wrote speech*
> 
> ...



Bah. People love scandal. Anytime anyone has to deny some allegation the masses are disposed to assume they are as guilty as sin, and facts be damned.
The NDP picked a tried and true tactic: Make a wild-a** allegation and make the other guy work to prove innocence.

A politician I once knew told me that politics is the art intelligent people use to sway the mob-and mobs are stupid. The NDP is not going for people's brains but emotional reactions. And that's not stupid of them at all.



> They are afraid of us because they cannot do what we do.  They see us as anachronisms.  they believe there is no need for reactionary miitary forces, only "revolutionaries."



I disagree, they don't fear the CF. They see it as counter-progressive, as you say an anachronism, and therefore kind of stupid. This has been true throughout the ages whenever a people are not directly threatened.




> Why don't the Canadian Forces deserve the best equipment to do the job that is asked of them?



Equipment issues aside, the general public still doesn't really understand or agree with what is being asked of you. This is not the war of their fathers or grandfathers, where collective sacrifice is demanded in the service of a just world conflict. This is (to them) a small, far away problem just like about 50 others in the world and the only thing the general public knows is what is told to them in sound bites - if they even care. Most people don't think about this war, they largely just ignore it. Hearing of a death of a member simply causes a gut emo reaction about how stupid this is (to them).

make no mistake though - many people may not see need or relevance in what the CF does, and many may feel CF members are dumb lackeys to the govt will, but I have found they DO appreciate the fact you are willing to sacrifice for them.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Sep 2007)

The truth laid bare:

http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/09/28/charles-adler-the-ndp-values-ideology-above-truth-even-in-afghanistan.aspx



> *Charles Adler: The NDP values ideology above truth, even in Afghanistan*
> 
> She wore a long black veil to cover her mind by Charles Adler Sept 27/07 “That’s over the top Charles. We never said Karzai was a puppet of the Canadian military,” said the NDP’s Alexa McDonough. Over the top?
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (30 Sep 2007)

Alexa McDonough said:
			
		

> she said this issue wasn’t about the truth


Where have I seen this before?

... oh, yes!  Here:


			
				Homer Simpson said:
			
		

> Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Sep 2007)

"It is a remarkable confession from a Canadian political party which continues to offer feint praise for the bravery of our troops but consistently fails to admit that they have made a difference for the people who inhabit one of the poorest countries in the world."

That works so well I must wonder whether it was done intentionally.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Sep 2007)

The latest, from the Ambassador, shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Apology sought over NDP comment on Karzai speech*
CBC.ca, 30 Sept 07, 5:01 PM ET 
Article link

Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada says his country wants an apology from the NDP for alleging that Canada's defence staff essentially wrote Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to Parliament last year.

Omar Samad told CBC Newsworld on Sunday that one of his colleagues has demanded the NDP retract the accusation and apologize, because Afghan officials found it "insulting."

"We wrote the speech as Afghans and the president of Afghanistan delivered it to the Canadian people in Parliament, and that's where we stand," Samad said.

"It's an outrage that a political party here would not do its homework properly, would not go far enough into looking into this matter, would not understand how diplomatic relations, bilateral relations and arrangements for a visit work and would make such an allegation," he told Newsworld.

Last Tuesday, NDP defence critic Dawn Black showed a government document suggesting a team of Canadian military advisers provided "key statistics, messages, themes, as well as overall structure" of Karzai's speech, given on Sept. 22, 2006.

Black said the document, obtained through an Access to Information request, shows that the initial draft of the president's speech was prepared by the Strategic Advisory Team, described in media reports as a group of mostly Canadian officers acting as advisers to the Karzai government.

"What Canadians heard was not the voice of the Afghan people, but the talking points of the Department of National Defence," said Black, whose party has called for the immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan.

*NDP Leader Jack Layton said Sunday he met with Karzai last year and was told by the Afghan president that there had to be a negotiated settlement in his country, and yet there was no mention of it in his speech to Parliament.

"Why not?" Layton asked. "Was he being told by Canadian officials and [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper's office that he shouldn't mention that a negotiation was a better way to go? He told me that in person virtually days from the date he made that speech.

"The evidence that we unearthed shows that Mr. Harper, through the officials, was trying to influence what Mr. Karzai said," Layton said. "We should be very concerned about that."*

_(Poster's comment:  So, Taliban Jack wants the AFG President to write what HE thinks should be there, not what the President thinks.....)_

Last week, the ambassador said he and several other Afghan advisers prepared their own versions of the remarks and the final speech went through several drafts, which Karzai edited himself.


----------



## Haggis (30 Sep 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> *Apology sought over NDP comment on Karzai speech*
> CBC.ca, 30 Sept 07, 5:01 PM ET
> Article link
> 
> *NDP Leader Jack Layton said Sunday he met with Karzai last year and was told by the Afghan president that there had to be a negotiated settlement in his country, and yet there was no mention of it in his speech to Parliament.*



He tried that, Jack.  Wanna see how it worked out?

Shared with the usual disclaimer: Taliban refuse Karzai peace talks


----------



## Shamrock (30 Sep 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> He tried that, Jack.  Wanna see how it worked out?
> 
> Shared with the usual disclaimer: Taliban refuse Karzai peace talks



Don't try to confuse the issue with facts.


----------



## Greymatters (1 Oct 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The truth laid bare:



Great article!


----------

