\|/
Will NDP support extended Libya attack?
Tue, 2011-05-17 20:00
#1
Will NDP support extended Libya attack?
Tue, 2011-05-17 20:04
#2
[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Decision+extend+Libya+mission+agenda... to extend Libya mission on agenda for new Parliament[/url]
New Democrat MP and foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said the Official Opposition is not opposed to a possible extension beyond the three-month mandate, but he wants a more defined role and greater emphasis on diplomatic and humanitarian objectives.
"I'm not suggesting that we'd say no, but it would have to be something we would look at and want it to be a role for Canada to play," he told iPolitics.ca. "We're all concerned about mission creep."
Someone should explain to I-can't-count-Dewar that he can now safely pretend to vote "NO" without numerically jeopardizing his precious mission to save humanity.
Now that the NDP has replaced the Liberals, it will be truly tragic if the NDP replaces the Liberals.
Tue, 2011-05-17 20:17
#3
Concerned about mission creep? It's creeps like this that should concern us.
Tue, 2011-05-17 20:37
#4
Let's break it down...
"I'm not suggesting that we'd say no, but it would have to be something we would look at and want it to be a role for Canada to play," he told iPolitics.ca. "We're all concerned about mission creep."
Ah! So Dewar is not saying the NDP's mind is made up beforehand WRT the continuing international interference in Libya's sovereign affairs. Why would the NDP not declare their position now with so little transparency and information coming from the stoogeaucracy as usual?
Canada is already a willing participant as per Steve the vicious toady's decision similar to the way Paul the vicious toady inserted us into the US-led quagmire beginning in Kandahar province with his and Manley's excellent adventure into US-style combat mission by late 2005. Okay, that's straightforward.
The NDP has requested briefings from National Defence and Foreign Affairs officials next week to prepare for discussions that will fall under a tight time frame. He wants assurance Canada's primary military role is to create conditions for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement to end the civil war.
Ah! This is a hint of things to come from the NDP. "Ceasefire" and even "negotiations" in a civilized manner to end the civil war. If we remember, trouble in Afghanistan began as a civil war prior to the US CIA and MIlitary's 30 year-long meddling in that country and resulting in grinding poverty and despair for tens of millions of Afghans thus far. So the NDP seems to know how the colder war vicious empire operates in general when breaking cold war era promises for global peace and widespread prosperity.
They will be demanding transparency and information from the US proxy regime in Ottawa. And Dewar is referring to it as a civil war in Libya and not a wider threat to surrounding countries as the Arab league and their backers in Warshington have described it in order to justify humanitarian bombing a la NATO of 1999 and even Hitler of 1939, Sounds good to me. Continue plugging away at the stoogeaucracy, NDP.
Tue, 2011-05-17 20:59
#5
They're not so much about plugging away at the stoogeocracy as they are with carving out a niche for themselves within it. In its dealings with African, Middle Eastern and Central Asian nations, the west has really only discovered one way to go about 'creating conditions for ceasefires and negotiations," and that is through unmitigated violence with impunity. Canada has no business playing any military role whatsoever in the tormenting of the latest resource endowed country targeted by colonial expansionism and piracy. It's akin to considering whether we're to continue accessorizing these circumstances as the shoulder parrot for uncle peg leg, sailing around the world under the jolly roger.
Tue, 2011-05-17 21:05
#6
Gadaffi bad, western imperialists worse.
Tue, 2011-05-17 21:45
#7
Canada has no business playing any military role whatsoever in the tormenting of the latest resource endowed country targeted by colonial expansionism and piracy.
Of course, how do you convince millions of Canadians that Steve's prior toadying to unca' peg leg in Libya was wrong in the first place?
For one thing, Qadaffi's big mistake in the first place was declaring no mercy on the Libyan rebels (and US-backed al-Qaeda although not broadcast as such) in Libya. Even Hitler knew enough to suggest that the Luftwaffe would be merficul on women and children in 1939 Poland. Even Gerhard Schroeder knew to refer to the 1999 bombings as humanitarian intervention.
But not Qadaffi in 2011. Qadaffi just doesn't lie to the world very well when inadvertently inviting Gladio Inc. to intervene for humanitarian reasons similarly. He just can't get away with expressing real intentions to roll back the Glad Gang's mercenaries and political opposition funded illegally by the US of A. Otherwise the Glad Gang have no reason to be there according to international laws since Nuremberg.
So Qadaffi fucked up. And now it's time for the western world political opposition parties to extract their countries' NATO contingents from yet another sovereign country. Being political opposition is a dirty job, but someone has to do it. And this is another opportunity for the NDP to demand transparency and accountability from our aye-ready-aye Uncle Sam's yes-men in Ottawa aka the stoogeaucracy and even The Colonial Administrativeship under head stooge, Steve Harper.
Tue, 2011-05-17 21:48
#8
The New Democrats were clear in the election platform that peacemaking was part of the plan. Peacemaking is a dubious term used to justify almost any intervention under any logic. This has not been a part of the plan in the past and the NDP need to define what it means in terms of their vision.
NDP platform -- http://tinyurl.com/6js3opt
Tue, 2011-05-17 21:52
#9
MPs of all four parties voted unanimously in favour of the Canadian intervention in Libya. We need to get the message to the new Official Opposition that they must not wait five years to have second thought about Libya (as they did in the case of Afghanistan). A wind of change blew over Canada on May 2. We need to encourage the new forces that came forward under the NDP banner, and we need to embolden the leadership to do the right thing. Otherwise, we had better blame ourselves when they take the path of least resistance - the path proposed by Dewar and his ilk.
Tue, 2011-05-17 22:13
#10
MPs of all four parties voted unanimously in favour of the Canadian intervention in Libya.
Don't forget it was election time and they didn't need the NDP's support just like they didn't need us when volunteering Canadian lives to Afghanistan at start of the 2000s.
Afghanistan and 9/11, 9/11 and Afghanistan. The Yanks had every country's sympathy then based on a lot of lies concerning a terror attack in NYC then. They had me fooled over 9/11 at the time, I must confess.
And there was a sudden change in Canada's Afghan mission from merely providing security in Kabul to that of relieving the US Military in Kandahar by 2005. That was when Canadian soldiers replaced US troops in Kandahar province who were re-assigned to Iraq for that US Military quagmire of utmost importance to blood for oil hounds.
Tue, 2011-05-17 22:16
#11
We need to encourage the new forces that came forward under the NDP banner, and we need to embolden the leadership to do the right thing.
I just think its too bad, and quite telling of the NDP at every stage, that it has to be bought down from its perch to greet peace activism and anti-imperialism, instead of meeting them somewhere along the way.
Tue, 2011-05-17 22:20
#12
MPs of all four parties voted unanimously in favour of the Canadian intervention in Libya.
Don't forget it was election time and they didn't need the NDP's support just like they didn't need us when volunteering Canadian lives to Afghanistan at start of the 2000s.
Ok, Fidel, I won't forget that. Now how do we get them to vote "NO" now that the election is over?
Tue, 2011-05-17 22:38
#13
MPs of all four parties voted unanimously in favour of the Canadian intervention in Libya.
Don't forget it was election time and they didn't need the NDP's support just like they didn't need us when volunteering Canadian lives to Afghanistan at start of the 2000s.
Ok, Fidel, I won't forget that. Now how do we get them to vote "NO" now that the election is over?
Well now it's becoming clearer to the world just who these rebels really are, I think the "no" part will come easier for the NDP. And this will include a lot prodding and cajoling by the NDP for the Harpers to release information to the public about very many things, from their refusals to deal in truth regarding Afghan detainees to Obama's presidential order for the CIA and US taxpayers to provide aid to Libyan rebels and al-Qaeda.
It's becoming clearer only now as to why Qadaffi declared no mercy on foreign backed Libyan mercenaries and foreign financed political opposition plotting to overthrow the Qadaffi government.
We have to remember that the US Government is the most secretive in world history, and our vicious toadies in Ottawa are operating on that basis as well. They don't ask their bosses only trust and obey. It's the NDP's job to pressure them into acting like a sovereign government acting on Canadian foreign policy and not simply following colonial troop duties fobbed off on them by Washington. And this will be key in turning Canadians against the F-35 extravaganza spending on attack jets designed for offensive military maneuvering on USA's behalf sometime down the road, or whenever Steve receives new marching orders from Washington.
Wed, 2011-05-18 06:12
#14
So to recap and try and make some sense of where this pretzel begins and ends, CIA and Al'CIAda gladios are up to their eyeballs in Libyan blood with this latest joint business venture, one where NATO has volunteered to prop itself up as the bogeyman in return for a share of the spoils, and where Canada finds a role for itself as a junior partner, the slogging has gone on a little longer than anticipated, and with deadlines approaching the call is starting to make its way around to see who's still in on the deal, and both the Harper and the Layton gangs have already suggested that they won't be saying no. Does that about cover it so far?
Wed, 2011-05-18 06:27
#15
... and both the Harper and the Layton gangs have already suggested that they won't be saying no. Does that about cover it so far?
The NDP will have some way to go in equalling the number of times the LPC voted with the Harpers on everything from Afghanistan to a number of Reform-Alliance-Conservative Government austerity budgets.
My guess is the NDP will poke and prod them on transparency and accountablity to Parliament and Canadian public. Harper ultimately receives his marching orders from Warshington, and the NDP knows it. Lots of embarrassing times ahead for these Reform Party retreads because this isn't a friendly opposition party they will be facing. The Harpers are certain to miss all those friendly Liberal MPs in official opposition and who gave them an easy time of it for too long.
Wed, 2011-05-18 07:38
#16
The NDP will have some way to go in equalling the number of times the LPC voted with the Harpers on everything from Afghanistan to a number of Reform-Alliance-Conservative Government austerity budgets.My guess is the NDP will poke and prod them on transparency and accountablity....
Well, as the official opposition now, yes it will take a few decades to equal the liberal record, but I think they're off to a running start.
As for transparency and accountability, we're having a tough enough time trying to figure out what the NDP means when they talk about peacemaking, let alone having them approach stooge Harpo for explanations.
Wed, 2011-05-18 07:51
#17
*sigh*. This is the state of our politics. The NDP cannot even muster a vote against imperialism when numerically they will make no difference. They don't even need courage to make this vote, it is basically just a protest vote.
Fidel is here twisting himself in circles to defend the indefensible, however it doesn't work.
Wed, 2011-05-18 08:16
#18
No, it doesn't Ghislaine. These are tactics the liberals have applied for decades.
Wed, 2011-05-18 09:25
#19
knownothing
Time to oppose the mission. It has certainly creeped. CIA boots on the ground. That means creep.
Wed, 2011-05-18 09:28
#20
CIA boots were there all along. But it's something Dewar and Co. are still looking at, to determine if there's a continuing role for Canada to play.
Wed, 2011-05-18 09:37
#21
knownothing
Sure there is a role to play. Just not a military role.
Wed, 2011-05-18 09:57
#22
In fairness to Fidel, he stated here from the very start that he disagreed with the NDP on this one. Everyone here agrees that the Libya intervention is wrong. We need to talk about how to get all potential allies on board, and I choose to believe that includes the NDP.
Wed, 2011-05-18 10:30
#23
With Baird moving to Foreign Affairs, I hope the party seizes the moment to give Dewar a different shadow portfolio. I'd be more inclined to trust the NDP to do the right thing re Libya with almost anyone else in his role.
Wed, 2011-05-18 10:50
#24
M. Spector
Jeff, evidently you're under the misapprehension that the NDP foreign affairs critic has a free hand to make up foreign policy on his or her own.
Wed, 2011-05-18 11:01
#25
Individuals can make a difference. If Svend hadn't been in that role and then had a change of heart, I wonder whether the NDP would even belatedly have spoken out against the bombing of Serbia. Of course, there are limits, which Svend found out when he said something mildly critical of Israel and got turfed. But as long as we avoid the silly illusion that the NDP will take the lead, I think it's important to bring pressure to bear by any means available. The stakes couldn't be higher.
Wed, 2011-05-18 11:09
#26
knownothing
If the NDP continues to support the Tories warmongering we will suffer the same demise as the Liberals
Wed, 2011-05-18 11:15
#27
I'm also thinking of the signal a party sends by assigning someone to a particular portfolio. Having Dewar there is perhaps meant to "moderate" the face of New Democrat foreign policy, but IMO that's a dismaying message.
Wed, 2011-05-18 19:06
#28
It doesn't matter who you post to foreign affairs as critic. The NDP caucus as a whole decides on support or not if my understanding is correct. Individual MPs need to speak out and put pressure on the collective opposition as a whole. It would be great if the newer and younger MPs asserted themselves but this might be too much to expect from them considering they are still trying to grasp being an MP. However veteren NDP MPs need to take the lead and assert themselves.
Who in the shadow cabinet and NDP opposition as a whole will speak out as individuals? Unionist has said in the past that he voted for Mulcair because of his open opposition to Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Would Mulcair take a lead role in opposing Libya?
I see there is a 50th anniversary convention in Vancouver in June advertised on the NDP website. Why not show up in force and make it clear publicly and internally during the convention where most people stand on this issue and foreign affairs in general. Make it publicly clear what direction you want the party to take Canada over the life of this government. I'm not a New Democrat which is why I'm asking these questions since many on this board would know better.
Wed, 2011-05-18 19:46
#29
In fairness to Fidel, he stated here from the very start that he disagreed with the NDP on this one. Everyone here agrees that the Libya intervention is wrong. We need to talk about how to get all potential allies on board, and I choose to believe that includes the NDP.
Gulp. This looks like a safe post to reply to.
Yes, someone wrote before about it, Qadaffi did commit an error with declaring no mercy against the rebels. At that time the world knew little about who these rebels are and only that they are Libyans. It just looked bad for Qadaffi. Western leaders blew it all out of proportion, and US, French, British and Arab league officials knew exactly who they were supporting then and now.
If I am to apologize for the NDP, then I think it's possible the NDP did not or perhaps even still is not aware of the details. I think by now that someone and even Dewar must know more than before. And we will know more when Parliament resumes in June. Again, this a period of colder war, and politics is still a game of maneuvering through twisting and winding roads and even landmines.
FPTP governs how parties maneuver and attempt to appeal to some large percentage of voters. I think a PR system would help broaden the voter base targeted by parties when creating policies. But for the time being, FPTP will continue to reward parties that play it tight and are not politically extreme either way. I don't like it, and I'm sure many in the NDP and outside the NDP would prefer modern democracy. The NDP would have more political allies in Parliament with PR, but until then they are just another leftwing party that needs to play their cards tight to their chests. The NDP needs to go on the attack as much as possible over issues that matter most to Canadians. I am hopeful that the NDP presses Harper for more information and pushes the line for diplomacy and negotiated peace in Libya as well as Afghanistan. It is the democratic way of doing things as opposed to just taking instruction from Washington.
ETA: For what it's worth, I can't believe that Dewar didn't at least suspect that NATO and the west would take full advantage of the situation. They violated their own no-fly zone almost immediately when bombing "military" targets and all the while paying lip service to intervening for humanitarian reasons. Smarten up you NDPers.
Wed, 2011-05-18 19:56
#30
Here's the thing, though: I could see supporting it (for cynical, practical reasons) if there were public support for this Libya intervention, but there's not even public support. Inside the media echo chamber it was all "OMGWTFBBQ We gotta bomb Gaddafi before he takes out Misrata!!!", but IIRC all of the public opinion polls have been strongly against this war. I was also pleased to see that in various comment sections and in the social media, the reaction of most less-political people was "What the hell are we doing over there? Another war? This is none of our business" or something along those lines.
I think we're getting a bit of a North of the Queensway syndrome, the way the Americans have the inside the beltway syndrome.
Wed, 2011-05-18 20:18
#31
I'm hoping the NDP at least comes out with something like...Okay the no-fly zone is no longer a no-fly zone. Let's get outa there and pressure other NATO countries to do the same. Mediated peace talks to end the "civil war" which now, really, has become a multinational sport in meddling in the affairs of a sovereign country. Again.
Wed, 2011-05-18 20:56
#32
If I am to apologize for the NDP, then I think it's possible the NDP did not or perhaps even still is not aware of the details.
To your final point then, you're saying they haven't a clue? Oops about the bombing of that hospital, we're on an internship.
Wed, 2011-05-18 21:23
#33
I realize June is a ways off, as in weeks from now. That's enough time for the Glad Gang to have bombed them to kingdom come and send in the executive death squads to murder Qadaffi, take out bureaucrats, scientists, teachers etc in order that they can't rebuild anytime soon except for Ameri-Qaida's newest Central Bank for laundering petro dollars, some oil depots and a lot of poor Libyans out in the cold.
Even if Harper himself was to suddenly grow a spine tomorrow and withdraw any and all Canadian support for the medieval siege of Libya, it would only be a token gesture. NATO's credibility would be damaged, and much of the world would suddenly begin admiring Canada a lot more. But we can be sure the US-led NATO, which themselves are currently hiding behind the will of the Arab league of nations against Qadaffi, would continue doing what they do. Hopefully someday a prominent NATO country will break ranks and be joined by an ally or two in leading a major mutiny.
Still we wait until June. And although we are the opposition party now, it's still only a chance for the NDP to score political points depending on what's left of Libya's government laid siege to by the Always Glad To Bomb Your Oil-Rich Country Based on a Made-up False Pretext Gang. Our struggle for democracy continues.
Wed, 2011-05-18 21:32
#34
I realize June is a ways off, as in weeks from now. That's enough time for the Glad Gang to have bombed them to kingdom come and send in the executive death squads to murder Qadaffi, take out bureaucrats, scientists, teachers etc in order that they can't rebuild anytime soon except for Ameri-Qaida's new Central Bank, some oil depots and a lot of poor Libyans out in the cold.Still we wait until June. And although we are the opposition party now, it's still only a chance for the NDP to score political points depending on what's left of Libya's government laid siege to by the Always Glad To Bomb Your Oil-Rich Country Based on a Made-up False Pretext Gang. Our struggle for democracy continues.
So while awaiting all of these developments, we can look forward to June for the official opposition to score political points. In the meantime there's not a peep out of them except to say that they're not suggesting no to participating in some helpful way. No wonder you see a struggle. Or do you?
Wed, 2011-05-18 21:53
#35
In the meantime there's not a peep out of them except to say that they're not suggesting no to participating in some helpful way. No wonder you see a struggle. Or do you?
Not a peep out of who, the CLC or national unions? The International?
Qadaffi's bunch aren't going to fold-up tomorrow. They must believe in their cause to be holding out this long. They could even be receiving outside help themselves. This isn't the first time they've been attacked by royal navy pirates and luftwaffe. These Libyans are not going to dry up and blow away at the first sign of trouble.
Do Libyans themselves want change? What do you think, SJ? Tell us what you think of the situation overall.
Wed, 2011-05-18 21:54
#36
Them = the official opposition Fidel. Or is cognative dissonance interrupting again. What Qadaffi's bunch are doing is irrelevant to the discussion, and I can only imagine that Libyans want change, but they're not going to get there by suffering the agenda of a lying pack of murderous scoundrels, with the assistance of CF-18s supported by the acquiescence of our mini-empire's loyal opposition.
Wed, 2011-05-18 22:07
#37
M. Spector
What's involved in "extending the mission" in Libya?
Here's David Pugliese in today's [url=http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canada+orders+smart+bombs/4800544/stor... Citizen[/url]:
As the Libyan war enters its third month the Defence Department has quietly ordered [b]more than 1,300 laser-guided smart bombs.[/b]
The department could not provide comment about the purchase of the 500-pound Paveway bombs, but sources confirmed the new stocks are for the Libyan campaign, to replace those already dropped and for future missions against the North African country.
No details were provided about how much the purchase will cost taxpayers.
But John Pike, director of the Washington-based defence think-tank GlobalSecurity.org said [b]the smart bomb cost about $100,000 each.[/b]...
Canada has committed 560 personnel, seven fighter aircraft, two refuelling planes and two Aurora maritime surveillance aircraft to the mission. In addition, a frigate is also assigned to the conflict and is patrolling the Mediterranean to enforce an arms embargo on Libya.
There haven't been any discussions on how long Canada's efforts will be required. Parliament is expected to re-examine the mission in June.
1300 x $100,000 = $130 million just for bombs, but the government can't afford $53 million to fund settlement programs for tens of thousands of immigrants in Canada,
Wed, 2011-05-18 22:10
#38
"Although the NDP are in opposition, this result goes a long way towards rebalancing the Canadian political spectrum in favour of increased fairness and equality for all Canadians. It is a significant achievement and one which the Socialist International highly commends."
The struggle has been very lopsided in Canada for a long time. Layton and the NDP will be playing for all the marbles up for grabs in FPTP style(IOWs, dirty as it gets) over the next four point something years, or whenever Harper makes the next random snap election call for short-term political gain against all recommendations from pro democracy groups including the NDP.
Wed, 2011-05-18 22:12
#39
...or whenever Harper makes the next random snap election call for short-term political gain...
Wed, 2011-05-18 22:50
#40
Harpers have support of 24% of voting age Canadians. They are very beatable.
Wed, 2011-05-18 22:56
#41
Yeah, but they have these security people.
Wed, 2011-05-18 23:13
#42
Yeah, but they have these security people.
And so your plan is to flank and then rush them? Is that still on?
Let's try to win the battle for democracy firs like Marx said to do. And if they refuse to respect Canadians' democratic choice, then you and the other guys from back o the room can step in with muscle.
And we have all your names so don't plan on slidin' out the backdoor when the time comes for plan b, okay, General Francisco Largo Caballero?
Thu, 2011-05-19 11:54
#43
Northern Shoveler
Far better than the flanking is the camouflage maneuver?
You change into the party you opposed so that you can usurp their place in parliament. The only problem is they don't change back really well because the background of the House they are trying to fit in with will not allow them to show any social democratic colours only liberal ones.
Mon, 2011-06-13 18:34
#44
Green Party release on Libya;
"The intent of the R2P resolution around Libya was to protect civilians in imminent danger, and not escalate the conflict into a regime-change-by-bombing-into-submission exercise. This creates a bad precedent that will undermine the appropriate application of R2P by the UN Security Council in other crisis situations," said Eric Walton, Green International Affairs Critic."
Mon, 2011-06-13 21:27
#45
Green Party release on Libya;
Credit is due.
The Conservatives sure are smart bastards: [url=http://www.hilltimes.com/dailyupdate/view/tories_give_green_leader_may_t...'ve given May time to debate the extension[/url].
Ms. May (Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.), who otherwise would not have had a chance to take part in the day-long debate since her party is not officially recognized in the Commons with only one seat, told The Hill Times she will nonetheless use the opportunity to try to convince other MPs they should help her deny Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) the unanimous Commons support he wants to extend the mission.
It was expected the Liberals and NDP were prepared to support an extension for another three months, as long as the government met conditions...
Go ahead, Jack, extend - give May her [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrats-reflect-on-war-measures-act]War Measures Act moment[/url].
Mon, 2011-06-13 22:37
#46
M. Spector
May is still pushing the neoliberal "R2P" agenda, apparently without realizing that R2P is designed to do exactly what is happening in Libya - i.e., regime change by another name.
And could someone explain to me why she needs "help" from anyone else to deny unanimous support to Harper's plan? Isn't her negative vote alone sufficient to do that?
Mon, 2011-06-13 23:16
#47
M. Spector - "And could someone explain to me why she needs "help" from anyone else to deny unanimous support to Harper's plan? Isn't her negative vote alone sufficient to do that?"
I think you're being disengenuous here intentionally. Her point wasn't that the House should be satisfied with a single no but that the entire opposition should join in opposing the mission extension. You hit on an accurate point though and a debate still happening among Greens. R2P is not practised as it is proposed and I agree that it may not have ever been designed that way. I oppose R2P but many Greens don't and there is no clear policy on it so far as the debate still continues among members. The proposal to set conditions for a Canadian departure from NATO was also a result of the split in the Greens over NATO membership. I oppose NATO membership and believe Canada should pursue an alternative peace alliance with other willing nations.
Tue, 2011-06-14 00:32
#48
M. Spector
Her point wasn't that the House should be satisfied with a single no but that the entire opposition should join in opposing the mission extension.
Yes, I understood that to be her point from the start. I just can't understand why it's posed in terms of "denying unanimous support" (whether by her or the journalist who wrote the article) when that ship has obviously sailed.
Tue, 2011-06-14 08:50
#49
So the NDP is poised to support an extension of this ghastly imperialist piracy. And despite taking these reactionary positions, they continue to self-identify as 'socialist', 'progressive' and 'left'. It is this which makes them so abominable.
Tue, 2011-06-14 09:05
#50
I am trying to figure out what differentiates the parties when it comes to foreign policy.
I am trying to understand how the NDP is trying to differntiate itself.
is it coming down to "the NDP is the one with the leader who smiles"?
Tue, 2011-06-14 09:28
#51
NDP Cooling To Extension Of Libya Mission - by Mark Dunn
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/06/13/18277761-qmi.html
"The socialist caucus wing of the party is floating a resolution calling on the NDP to 'actively campaign against any US or NATO intervention in Libya, against the imposed no-fly zone, and demand the withdrawal of Canadian warships and jet bombers from Libya waters and air space.."
sounds like good grassroots people fighting hard to make the party do the right thing..