From The Horse's Own Mouth

As much as incompetents can constitute a veritable danger to society, especially when they are placed in positions of governmental decision-making, the fact remains that their lies and spins fall apart under the glaring light of truth - sooner or later.

Another case in point: Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not be holding a vote in Parliament on Canada's Afghanistan mission unless he can get some other party to support his desire for an extension beyond 2009.

See the catch-22?

Up until now, we've got sort of used to the continuous disassembling of our Mini Leader and his Harpie posse with regards to Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

First, it was an adamant commitment to the mission, using well-known neoconservative talking points (especially those coming from the Bush administration and allies):

"(...) We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble. We don't and we will not, as long as I'm leading this country (...)" - P.M. S.J. Harper; 03/13/2006;

"(to the soldiers:) Your work is about more than just defending Canada's national interests. Your work is also about demonstrating an international leadership role for our country." - P.M. S.J. Harper; 03/13/2006;

"(...) These (fallen soldiers) were working to bring security, democracy, self-sufficiency and prosperity to the Afghan people and to protect Canadians' national and collective security. We will not forget their selfless contribution to Canada (...)" - P.M. S.J. Harper; 04/22/2006;

"(...) (The soldiers) are there to defend our national interests and protect the population of Afghanistan. It is the Taliban who are committing violence against our troops and the Afghan people and this Parliament should be supporting our men and women in uniform." - P.M. S.J. Harper; 04/17/2007;

"We believe that we are engaged in a war on terrorism, a war on evil people, just as we were during the First and Second World Wars. We believe that these people have to be brought to justice." - Government Whip (Conservative) J. Hill; 04/20/2007;

"Is that the legacy we want to have for our Afghanistan mission, that we did not get the job done? Setting a deadline for the Canadian Forces to withdraw right now would send a clear and dangerous signal to the Taliban. For the sake of the Afghans, our mission cannot be measured simply by the number of years or months we have invested." - Conservative M.P. R. Hiebert; 04/20/2007;

"(...) Progress is being made [in Afghanistan] (...)." - Public Safety Minister S. Day; 04/24/07.

Even better, let us compare directly:

S.J. Harper (05/17/2006): "We honor those who take risks and make the ultimate sacrifice by making a commitment to staying the course".
G.W. Bush (04/05/2004): "(...) So we've got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course".

S.J. Harper (05/24/2007): "We can't set arbitrary deadlines (to get out of Afghanistan) and hope for the best".
G.W. Bush (11/30/2005): "(...) setting a deadline to pull out (of Iraq) is not a plan for victory".

S.J. Harper (05/23/2007): "I don't have to tell you ... the risk that terrorism will come home if we don't confront it here (in Afghanistan)".
G.W. Bush (07/04/2005): "We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home".

S.J. Harper (03/13/2006): "You (the soldiers) have put yourselves on the line to defend our national interests; protect Canada and the world from terror (...) it is in our national interest to see Afghanistan become a free, democratic and peaceful country".
G.W. Bush (11/30/2005): "We will not turn (Iraq) over to the terrorists and put the American people at risk. Iraq will be a free nation (...) and this will add to the security of the American people".

S.J. Harper (03/13/2006): "(...) cutting and running (from Afghanistan) is not your way. It's not my way".
G.W. Bush (04/21/2004): "We're not going to cut and run (from Iraq) if I'm in the Oval Office".

By May 2007, our Mini Leader was already coyly planning to extend the Afghan mission of Canadian troops beyond their scheduled 02/2009 pull out. Why? Because "the work is not complete yet" (sayeth both The Leader and The Mini Leader).

However, the idea for extending Canada's Afghanistan mission beyond 2009 caused such an uproar from the opposition parties and among Canadians at large, our Mini Leader back-tracked somewhat in June 2007, using typical neocon double-talk (emphasis mine):

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he wants a consensus among Canadians, not just parliamentarians, about the country's future role in Afghanistan (...) Harper hinted that a consensus might be possible if Canadian troops took on a different and perhaps less dangerous task should the current deployment be extended beyond the February 2009 deadline. (...) The Prime Minister also gave his strongest signal yet that he will seek all-party agreement in the House of Commons for any extension, saying he was looking for a 'meeting of the minds' not only with other political parties but among an increasingly restless public. 'I will want to see some degree of consensus among Canadians about how we move forward', he said. 'I would hope the view of Canadians is not simply to abandon Afghanistan. I think there is some expectation that there will be a new role after February 2009, but obviously those decisions have yet to be taken.'"

Aside from the fact that already there and then, our Mini Leader was expressing his obtuse - if not ignorant - views of what our duly elected representatives are for, he opened the door to so many questions with this statement.

For instance, was he hinting at a nation-wide referendum in the matter of a "consensus among Canadians"?

Well, never mind questions - because as Canadians increasingly kept losing faith in the mission, we've been exposed to many contradictory follow-up statements from either the Mini Leader himself or from his Harpie posse. A few examples:

Does our Mini Leader has any desire to prolong the combat mission in southern Afghanistan beyond 2009? "No". But he reaffirmed his government's plans to seek a 'reasonable degree' of parliamentary support before considering any extension to the current Afghan mission or agreeing to a new one.(07/10/2007). He also later on reiterated that his obvious preference is for Canada to 'finish the job' in Afghanistan (09/09/2007).

What says our new Defence Minister Peter MacKay? "The signal that has been sent already is that our current configuration will end in February, 2009". Mr. MacKay also added that the Harper government has committed to a vote in the Commons on Canada's future in Afghanistan (09/03/2007). But why worry? After all, the success in Afghanistan is only a matter of having a better sales pitch: "We have to articulate, perhaps a bit more forcefully, just what we've been able to accomplish" (09/01/2007). This, coming from he who has always seen progress, not chaos, in Afghanistan (01/08/2007). Just like the U.S. Iraq mission and surge, right?

OK, well - what about our new Foreign Affairs Minister, Maxime Bernier? After his dinner with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, he typically disassembled when asked if Ms. Rice indicated a desire for Canadian troops to stay in the country past February 2009 when the current commitment ends: 'We had a very frank discussion on our participation in Afghanistan, and I can assure you that like the other meetings I have had with our other counterparts, she is very happy with the work we are doing in Afghanistan and very proud of our people there.' (09/06/2007).

Welcome to disassembling double-talk city - indeed.

And so here we are today, with our Mini Leader proudly stating that there will be no vote in the House of Commons on the Afghanistan mission until at least some members of the opposition support his government - or, in his words, support to "give a mandate to our armed forces."

Translation: there will be no vote unless we are sure to win it.

Or, after federal elections and we have become a majority government.

This is what happens when incompetents are put in government: they play politics with the lives of the brave men and women who dedicate their lives in serving their country.

Bush is playing with his armed forces in Iraq, and so does Harper with his own in Afghanistan.

But don't just take my word for it - we've just heard it from the horse's own mouth.

In both Bush's and Harper's cases.

Had enough?


(Cross-posted at A Creative Revolution and at DKos)