Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Harper zings Martin

"The fact Mr. Martin is incapable of sticking by his decisions explains why he is no longer the prime minister of Canada," Harper said. ZING!

From CTV:
Harper slams Martin for criticizing Afghan mission
Updated Wed. Sep. 27 2006 9:33 AM ET News Staff

Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a stinging response Wednesday to former prime minister Paul Martin's accusation that Canada had lost its way in Afghanistan.

Speaking to reporters in Romania, where the Francophonie summit officially opens on Thursday, Harper said Martin approved the current mission in the war-torn country and was not in a position to criticize it.

"The fact Mr. Martin is incapable of sticking by his decisions explains why he is no longer the prime minister of Canada," Harper said.


  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 03:30:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Harper is getting better on the attack mode I see.

    Wonder when the pipeline will get built through Afghan anyways?

  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 04:53:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Joel K. said…

    Exactly what pipeline are you referring to? Why the heck would Canada need to develop more worldwide oil sources? We've got oodles of oil out West.

    Please don't peddle far-left, Michael-Moore-style conspiracy theories. Just say no. It feels so nice to take off that tinfoil hat.

  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 05:07:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Not only is the pipeline going to be build Joel but it's primary beneficiary is Israel. I bet that makes you a lot more happy right?

  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 05:18:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Anonymous, sources please. This is NOT going to turn into an Israel-hating thread, so be careful in what you say.

    Besides... who cares if Israel, among many others, such as the Afghan people, gets a benefit? If such a pipeline were to go in, I'd assume that everyone would benefit... lower oil prices across the board as supply increases... no?

    As an aside, since Joel K. brough it up, you know what I find funny? The image I always had in my head of a conspiracy-theorist was a young white male, right-wing and lower-middle class... recently, I'm finding WAY that there are WAY more lefties who are the paranoid conspiracy freaks!

  • At Wed. Sep. 27, 06:13:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Luke said…

    Yeah... pipeline... because this is the cheapest way to get oil.

    Desert Storm was about oil. The fact that Iraqi oil was then sanctioned by the countries that fought the war is convieniently ignored.

    Afghanistan is about an oil pipeline. The original plan to build that pipeline through Afghanistan was scrapped, and 5 pipelines have been build from the Caspian Sea in other places. But that dosen't matter; it's in the middle east, and so it must be about oil.

    Can you even hear yourselves? NATO, Canada, the US and Britain (amongst others) are spending billions of dollars and hundreds of lives to secure oil for Israel. Will you believe anything you hear?

    I can do this to! Fahrenheit 9/11 was distribued using funds from Iran and Syria. It's Iranian propaganda in our own time. Run for the hills!

  • At Thu. Sep. 28, 10:21:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger vicki said…

    And some will say Afghanisten is all about drugs. One way or the other you cannot deny what the terrorists have done.

  • At Sat. Sep. 30, 04:51:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous ryan said…

    For all the harping from the Liberals about how the mission has gone off course, they have yet to put forth any kind of plausible alternative.

    It's one thing to say that the mission is concentrating too much on military confrontation and not enough on humanitarian aid/reconstruction. But the security situation on the ground has be good enough that aid workers can operate safely. In order to provide that environment, we first have to deal with the Taliban threat.

    Whats the point of rebuilding infastructure for the Taliban to blow up? Whats the point of handing out aid if people are threatened and intimidated for accepting it? If the Taliban is not dealt with then all we will be doing is taking one step forward and two steps back. And the Liberals claim that the Conservatives have no exit strategy!

    For Paul Martin to come out and criticize the current mission takes a lot of gaul. He signed us on, to take control of southern Afghanistan, he knew it was the most violent part of the country. So exactly what would the Liberals be doing differently? Would the NATO not be in control of the mission if the Liberals were in power? Would Southern Afghanistan somehow be less violent? Or would the Liberals just stick our soldiers on garrison duty to ride out the mission on the sidelines like always, contributing troops, but never shouldering any of the load.


Post a Comment

<< Home