- Reaction score
- 2,329
- Points
- 1,160
Note the irony. The Liberal party, when it formed the government, deployed troops to Afghanistan, first as part of OEF, then ISAF, then transferred back to OEF. Now, apparently, in their latest revisionist history lesson, are focussing in on Ignatieff for supporting the extension of the current mandate
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060610.wdebates0610/BNStory/Front/home
Ignatieff takes heat over Afghanistan vote
CAMPBELL CLARK
Globe and Mail Update
Canada's role in Afghanistan stood out as the chief dividing line in today's Liberal leadership debate, although fundraising issues raised conflict outside the room even before the 11 candidates met for their first debate in Winnipeg.
In a crowded debate that led to more generalities than specifics and little differentiation between the candidates on many issues, the splits on Afghanistan between hawks and doves – notably between Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff – created the sharpest divide.
But even before the debate began, Joe Volpe sought to mend the his dented leadership hopes by charging he has been smeared by other Liberals over the donations he took from the minor children of drug company executives – and arguing candidates should bow out of the race unless they publicly disclose their donations each month, as now he intends to do.
That issue was not raised during a slow-paced debate that mostly saw the 11 candidates answering questions from Liberals in a long row – where Afghanistan stood out and front-runner Michael Ignatieff appeared to be the chief target.
Last month's vote on extending the mission of Canadian troops in Afghanistan split the candidates – with some insisting that Liberals should not give Prime Minister Stephen Harper a hasty carte blanche for what might become a heavy combat role, and only Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Brison voting for the extension.
Mr. Ignatieff insisted that Canada can't claim to be a humanitarian peacekeeper if it is not prepared to fight fire with fire – while rival Bob Rae warned that if the mission evolves into anti-guerilla combat Canada could be viewed more as occupier than peacekeeper.
After the debate, Mr. Rae said the foreign policy issue was about the only thing that stood out – and that a key issue for Liberals is whether Canada will have an independent foreign policy.
“I don't think that people want Harper Lite. I think that that's one of the issues that is obviously going to be front and centre.”
Mr. Ignatieff had defended his support for extending the Afghanistan mission to 2009, saying he could not vote against it when the lives of Canadian soldiers are on the line.
“You can't deliver humanitarian aid and reconstruction, you can't protect people…unless you have the capacity to have a military that can stand up and if necessary respond with fire,” he told the crowd of about 500 Liberals.
“I felt when I had to stand up I had to make a choice to stand with a mission, stand with the troops, and stand with their extension – this is the key point – stand with the extension because Canada is a serious country. If you ask us to do something hard and difficult, we will do it. We should stay there until we get the job done and return with honour.”
Mr. Rae drew applause when he said he disagreed.
“What I saw in Iraq last summer was what happens when an army of liberation is perceived by a population as an army of occupation,” he said.
“The risk that we run by turning ourselves into a combat force that's engaged in counter-insurgency and counter-guerilla forces is that we will in fact lose our way as peacekeepers and as people who believe in the maintenance of peace.
“And that it seems to me is a very basic question for Canadians and very important for Liberals as we head into the next election: Are we prepared to craft an independent foreign policy in which we're proud of our own voice as Canadians?”
Others echoed the same view, with Hedy Fry saying MPs do not know if he Canadian force will turn into one which “inflames” Afghanistan, and Gerard Kennedy saying Canadians were denied a debate on what the role really is.
“Are we building a civil society in Afghanistan alongside the Afghani people, or are occupying a troublesome part of this world?”
Only Mr. Brison joined Mr. Ignatieff as solidly in favour of extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan, saying he was part of a cabinet that sent more troops as part of a multi-national force last year, and the goal mission has not fundamentally changed.
“If we don't have a role in Afghanistan with 25 other countries I don't believe we have an appropriate role anywhere,” Mr. Brison changed.
On other issues, questions, and even rounds of one-on-one debates, produced little difference and candidates mostly agreed with each other.
Ken Dryden seemed to strike a chord when he preached that the Liberals must be humble after being voted out because they were distrusted even though Canadians are not comfortable with a Conservative Party they see as “something small, pinched, ungenerous and not very happy.”
But there were few strong new policy stands, strong differences, or specifics.
Stéphane Dion stood out with a new proposal to scrap Mr. Harper's 1 per cent cut in the GST and use the $5-billion per year to expand the National Child Benefit and create a tax credit for the working poor.
But when the questions turned to reforming the equalization payments for so-called have-not provinces, most candidates agreed that it was a complex issue that had to be negotiated, and only Mr. Brison and Mr. Dion offered any specific proposals.
“Excuse me, but this is a debate,” Mr. Dion sputtered, insisting his opponents should offer a specific proposal.
Indeed, the most conflict of the day came before the debate, when Mr. Volpe took to the attack on campaign-finance issues.
After his own candidacy was damaged when it came to light that his campaign received 20 donations of $5,400 from five current and former executives of Apotex Inc., and 15 of their family members – including two 11-year-old twins, Mr. Volpe said he was attacked by Liberals smearing his integrity.
He called a pre-debate press conference to “clear the air” over the issue.
“I do this because the issues in the race should be about what distinguishes us from other parties, not about Liberals smearing the integrity of the Liberal Party, or my own in particular,” Mr. Volpe said in his opening statement.
“Unfortunately, some liberals have the misguided view that attacking the honesty of their colleagues, again, mine in particular, somehow builds party strength.”
After initially defending the donations, Mr. Volpe returned $27,000 received from under-18 donors – and yesterday he said other candidates should meet his “new standard” of transparency by publicly disclosing donors each month or getting out of the race.
While other campaign organizers scoffed at Mr. Volpe's challenge as a desperate tactic, the candidates said they would stick to the rules as they have been set out by the Liberal Party, although a few said they would be happy to disclose donations monthly if the party changes the rules.
But while they refrained from directly attacking Mr. Volpe, several of the candidates, including, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Dryden and Carolyn Bennett, said the incident has embarrassed the Liberal Party.
“I think it has, and I think that we, coming out of sponsorship and coming out of the problems, have to redouble our efforts to be as absolutely transparent and above-board as we possible can be,” Ms. Bennett said.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060610.wdebates0610/BNStory/Front/home
Ignatieff takes heat over Afghanistan vote
CAMPBELL CLARK
Globe and Mail Update
Canada's role in Afghanistan stood out as the chief dividing line in today's Liberal leadership debate, although fundraising issues raised conflict outside the room even before the 11 candidates met for their first debate in Winnipeg.
In a crowded debate that led to more generalities than specifics and little differentiation between the candidates on many issues, the splits on Afghanistan between hawks and doves – notably between Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff – created the sharpest divide.
But even before the debate began, Joe Volpe sought to mend the his dented leadership hopes by charging he has been smeared by other Liberals over the donations he took from the minor children of drug company executives – and arguing candidates should bow out of the race unless they publicly disclose their donations each month, as now he intends to do.
That issue was not raised during a slow-paced debate that mostly saw the 11 candidates answering questions from Liberals in a long row – where Afghanistan stood out and front-runner Michael Ignatieff appeared to be the chief target.
Last month's vote on extending the mission of Canadian troops in Afghanistan split the candidates – with some insisting that Liberals should not give Prime Minister Stephen Harper a hasty carte blanche for what might become a heavy combat role, and only Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Brison voting for the extension.
Mr. Ignatieff insisted that Canada can't claim to be a humanitarian peacekeeper if it is not prepared to fight fire with fire – while rival Bob Rae warned that if the mission evolves into anti-guerilla combat Canada could be viewed more as occupier than peacekeeper.
After the debate, Mr. Rae said the foreign policy issue was about the only thing that stood out – and that a key issue for Liberals is whether Canada will have an independent foreign policy.
“I don't think that people want Harper Lite. I think that that's one of the issues that is obviously going to be front and centre.”
Mr. Ignatieff had defended his support for extending the Afghanistan mission to 2009, saying he could not vote against it when the lives of Canadian soldiers are on the line.
“You can't deliver humanitarian aid and reconstruction, you can't protect people…unless you have the capacity to have a military that can stand up and if necessary respond with fire,” he told the crowd of about 500 Liberals.
“I felt when I had to stand up I had to make a choice to stand with a mission, stand with the troops, and stand with their extension – this is the key point – stand with the extension because Canada is a serious country. If you ask us to do something hard and difficult, we will do it. We should stay there until we get the job done and return with honour.”
Mr. Rae drew applause when he said he disagreed.
“What I saw in Iraq last summer was what happens when an army of liberation is perceived by a population as an army of occupation,” he said.
“The risk that we run by turning ourselves into a combat force that's engaged in counter-insurgency and counter-guerilla forces is that we will in fact lose our way as peacekeepers and as people who believe in the maintenance of peace.
“And that it seems to me is a very basic question for Canadians and very important for Liberals as we head into the next election: Are we prepared to craft an independent foreign policy in which we're proud of our own voice as Canadians?”
Others echoed the same view, with Hedy Fry saying MPs do not know if he Canadian force will turn into one which “inflames” Afghanistan, and Gerard Kennedy saying Canadians were denied a debate on what the role really is.
“Are we building a civil society in Afghanistan alongside the Afghani people, or are occupying a troublesome part of this world?”
Only Mr. Brison joined Mr. Ignatieff as solidly in favour of extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan, saying he was part of a cabinet that sent more troops as part of a multi-national force last year, and the goal mission has not fundamentally changed.
“If we don't have a role in Afghanistan with 25 other countries I don't believe we have an appropriate role anywhere,” Mr. Brison changed.
On other issues, questions, and even rounds of one-on-one debates, produced little difference and candidates mostly agreed with each other.
Ken Dryden seemed to strike a chord when he preached that the Liberals must be humble after being voted out because they were distrusted even though Canadians are not comfortable with a Conservative Party they see as “something small, pinched, ungenerous and not very happy.”
But there were few strong new policy stands, strong differences, or specifics.
Stéphane Dion stood out with a new proposal to scrap Mr. Harper's 1 per cent cut in the GST and use the $5-billion per year to expand the National Child Benefit and create a tax credit for the working poor.
But when the questions turned to reforming the equalization payments for so-called have-not provinces, most candidates agreed that it was a complex issue that had to be negotiated, and only Mr. Brison and Mr. Dion offered any specific proposals.
“Excuse me, but this is a debate,” Mr. Dion sputtered, insisting his opponents should offer a specific proposal.
Indeed, the most conflict of the day came before the debate, when Mr. Volpe took to the attack on campaign-finance issues.
After his own candidacy was damaged when it came to light that his campaign received 20 donations of $5,400 from five current and former executives of Apotex Inc., and 15 of their family members – including two 11-year-old twins, Mr. Volpe said he was attacked by Liberals smearing his integrity.
He called a pre-debate press conference to “clear the air” over the issue.
“I do this because the issues in the race should be about what distinguishes us from other parties, not about Liberals smearing the integrity of the Liberal Party, or my own in particular,” Mr. Volpe said in his opening statement.
“Unfortunately, some liberals have the misguided view that attacking the honesty of their colleagues, again, mine in particular, somehow builds party strength.”
After initially defending the donations, Mr. Volpe returned $27,000 received from under-18 donors – and yesterday he said other candidates should meet his “new standard” of transparency by publicly disclosing donors each month or getting out of the race.
While other campaign organizers scoffed at Mr. Volpe's challenge as a desperate tactic, the candidates said they would stick to the rules as they have been set out by the Liberal Party, although a few said they would be happy to disclose donations monthly if the party changes the rules.
But while they refrained from directly attacking Mr. Volpe, several of the candidates, including, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Dryden and Carolyn Bennett, said the incident has embarrassed the Liberal Party.
“I think it has, and I think that we, coming out of sponsorship and coming out of the problems, have to redouble our efforts to be as absolutely transparent and above-board as we possible can be,” Ms. Bennett said.
