Tell Parliament what you think of this atrocious policy. Join the Virtual March on Ottawa, Nov. 18. More information at the Canadian Peace Alliance: http://www.acp-cpa.ca/en/VirtualMarch.html

It is a left leaning party–depending on the leader. When it first came out, led by Lucien Bouchard, I suspect it was more centered; let’s not forget where Bouchard was before, in Mulroney’s cabinet. Under Duceppe, it did go left leaning.

However, now he is concentrating on getting Quebec sovereignty; I suspect the arena is a smoke screen, more than anything else. Let’s not forget that Pierre-Karl Peladeau does appear to have close ties with Harper and has been lobbying hard to have a publicly funded hockey arena, while he would bankroll a financially insolvent team from the Southern US.

When Harper left the door open a crack regarding funding for that arena, Harper’s numbers went up in La Belle Province at the expense of the Bloc, not the Liberals or the NDP (not that the NDP can go any lower; they only have one seat here). I first thought to myself: Duceppe, what the fuck are you doing? Then I remembered one thing Chantal Hebert wrote in her column a long time ago: Duceppe’s ideal conditions for a “yes” win on sovereignty in the next referendum would mean a Harper majority. So, one has to wonder…

Any of those columnists, pundits and bloggers automatically assuming that the Bloc is joining Layton’s outcry is not paying close enough attention.

I think that all parties have been lobbied alright ck, they know full well who they work for, and it isn’t us! Except maybe the NDP. I’m grateful to Jack Layton for standing up on this issue.

Highly unlikely. Harper is a junta lite dictator, far more frightening than Iggy could ever be.

I do, however, believe, well more than believe, I’m actually pretty sure that both have been approched by some serious lobbiests. There is no other explanation.

Speaking of coalitions; You wanna quasi coalition to look for? How’s about the Bloc Quebecois and Stephen Harper?

http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/votes-11-15-2010

Everybody keeps pairing the Bloc and NDP in this vehement opposition to this new mission. However, if one takes the time to look and read and listen, it’s Jack Layton and the NDP making the most noise. Duceppe is only making some tepid noises; nothing really compelling. Plus, Duceppe did sign with the Liberals and the Harpercons on that thingey regarding detainee documents. I remembered all the rage against the Liberals, but the bloc’s participation was largely ignored.

Like you say, the mission is immoral and, likely, illegal too. Only those who are ignorant of the history of Aghanistan would have thought that the mission was winnable (these guys had fought off Alexander the Great, two British invasions and a 10 year long Soviet occupation). We are supporting the druglords and warloads who form the Northern Alliance. Many of these NA guys are communists and had supported the Soviet invasion which killed over a million Afghans. Many of the casualties were women and children. Additionally, the Soviets and their NA allies displaced some 6 million people. Drug production has increased over 90% since our puppet, Karzai, took over. The Taliban, being religious, were against the drug trade (thus the mice were happy once the Taliban-cats had been chased to the mountains). So now Harper and Ignatieff are telling Canadians that to admit our mistakes and leave Afghanistan immediately would be a disrespect for the Canadians lives that had been lost to support this?

Ignatieff demands details of the mission from Harper AFTER both he and Rae had publicly stated that they would not be forcing a vote on the issue. Very similar strategy to his enumerating all the things that were wrong with the budget and then turning around and voting to pass the budget without a single amendment. Clearly, either the Libs were in agreement with Harper on extending our stay or Ignatieff must be one very, very slow learner. Bob Rae did surprise me though — I had thought that he was a smarter politician than this.

Why would Ignatieff/Rae share the anger and frustration associated with the extension of the mission with Harper? Sometimes, I have to wonder if there really is a coalition between the Cons and Libs or is Ignatieff really a Cons mole inside the Lib party?