Mulcair withdraws NDP criticism of Harper's severing ties with Iran

Okay, the same NDP/NPD leader who questioned the veracity of Obama's statement about Bin Laden, contradicts his own foreign affairs critic, while extending the benefit of the doubt to Harper's government. Curious.

I can't show you classified intelligence, dude.

It doesn't work like that.

If Mulcair can give Harper the benefit of the doubt, then I can give the NDP the benefit of the doubt.

But there had better be an accountability moment coming for Harper, or else there will be an accountability moment for the NDP.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

If Mulcair can give Harper the benefit of the doubt, then I can give the NDP the benefit of the doubt.

But there had better be an accountability moment coming for Harper, or else there will be an accountability moment for the NDP.

I can't give Harper the benefit of any doubt and that is precisely why Mulcair does not speak for me.

Here's my principle.

If we're going to accuse the Conservatives of making fact-free decisions, then we should model fact-based decision making, even as an opposition.

In all but the rarest of crisis moments, that usually means fact-finding, thinking, and even a little bit of waiting. If and when no facts come out, THEN you condemn the government for making bad decisions.

I know it's bullshit. You know it's bullshit. But the government-in-waiting is held to a higher standard than just shouting "bullshit" at the first possible moment.

Quote:

Dewar said Friday the move represented "bad diplomacy" and questioned its announcement from Russia, calling that a 'missed opportunity' to push president Vladimir Putin on the issue.

Seems like Dewar followed principle so why the back pedaling?

There are facts and there are principles. In principle this was a very bad decision in international affairs and that is what Dewar said.  I thought he was way better in that comment than when he was spewing NATO lies as FACTS. You know things like the Libyan government was handing out Viagra to rapists. 

The NDP doesn't seem to feel a desire to retract any of its comments that were based on lies so sorry if I am a little skeptical about some overriding principle of only speaking when they know the facts.  They mouth NATO propaganda and call it either truth or a likely reality.  Those lies justify innocent people being slaughtered in our names in distant parts of the globe.  Sorry if I despise the semantics game the OO is now engaged in.  They are no longer the peace party but just another group of imperial apologists.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The credibility of Baird or Harper on these issues is worthless and their recitation of the facts must be accepted in that light.  Once you've lied to the court of public opinion over and over nobody should give you any benefit of the doubt.  That is just the way it works in the real world.

I think this is a solid argument and one the NDP should be using.

That being said, I don't think Mulcair is acting unilaterally. In fact, when he tells newspapers that "until we have that information it's hard to comment further", I don't think there's any action at all. Which might not be the action we want, but it's also a long way away from signing onto an imperialist agenda.

I think Mulcair's waiting for the movie version. Perhaps he should call George Clooney.

Unionist wrote:

So, which specific information is Mulcair waiting for? How will he know when he has it? How will he know that he won't get it?

Tom Mulcair, Leader of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party of Canada, was sworn in as a member of the Privy Council of Canada at an event at Rideau Hall today.

http://www.ndp.ca/news/tom-mulcair-sworn-privy-council

Intelligence Assessment Secretariat of Privy Council of Canada 

The Intelligence Assessment Secretariat provides the Privy Council Office and other senior government clients with original, policy-neutral assessments of foreign developments and trends that may affect Canadian interests.

The Staff coordinates assessment work that involves more than one federal department or agency. It also helps foster and strengthen relationships with allied international assessment organizations.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=secretariats&sub=ias-bei&doc=ias-bei-eng.htm

Maybe he got his information from here.

Mulcair is a zionist. And his statement seems to be a clear indication that he won't condemn the Harper government's severing of diplomatic ties with Iran, a move which is a clear provocation on Harper's part. Absolutely disgusting.

For the moment, as it pertains to Iran, Netanyahu/Harper is the new Bush/Blair.

Canada Preps For War with Iran...  -  by Jim Miles

http://www.countercurrents.org/miles110912.htm

"...Displaying its ignorant and malevolent foreign policy, Canada is prepping, alongside the US and Israel, for an eventual attack on Iran. They are looking for an increase in violencve against Iran, without diplomacy. That is the real reason for withdrawing the embassy staff, in order to increase tensions and prepare the Canadian and global public to the Canadian regime's support of either US and/or Israeli attack on Iran..."

Brachina wrote:

One if the States and Britian don't support war it isn't happening.

Mass consent for another war hasn't reached sufficient enough levels yet.  It helps to have opposition parties assist with sounding the general alarm as well.

Quote:

Two Mulcair has already said he opposes war with Iran anyway.

This would constitute an about face from an already proven track record of supporting war against Libya and Syria.  There's absolutely no reason to believe that this swindler wouldn't climb aboard the imperial war machine once again.

Quote:

Three- boots on the ground, do you honestly think our embassy sees anything Iran doesn't want them to see. The truth is embassy had no real power or use.

This is an irrelevant line of apologetics that simply doesn't grasp or ignores the fact that embassies constitute electronic eavesdropping installations.  They all have military attaché staff with diplomatic immunity as well.  They're not there to model uniforms for prospective foreign clients.

Quote:

Now we have real issues, like Poverty in Canada, Unemployment, Anti Union adgenda, the Enviroment, a dying manifacturing sector, Medicare, Pharamicare, trade agreements, Gay rights, and so many others.

Deflection.  Foreign relations and the manufacturing of consent toward the next war in which thousands, if not millions of lives are at stake constitute real issues for at least for some of us.

Quote:

The Iranian embassy is a waste of tax payers dollars, at least for now, so honestly I don't care. Now if Iran has a Persian Spring that would be different, I hope they do some day and toss the current fantantical clerics out. But for right now I think we have real issues to deal with, not some weird move by Harper. I honestly don't care.

And people got all upset with a satirical comparison between the NDP to the Tea Party.  Iranian GDP actually pays for Iranian embassies, not the Canadian taxpayer.  Not my 'tax dollars' sounds mighty tea partyish to me.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

  SJ is a currently serving member of the CF.

Not anymore.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I am worried about Mulcair but I guess we will have to see first what he actually does before we decide anything.

Tearing up membership cards and turning one's back on a lost cause is pretty much all anyone can realistically do in response.  If you try and think back to determine under what set of circumstances the party grassroots would have indicated approval of the foreign policy decisions that the NDP have taken in recent years, you might get a sense of how irrelevent grassroots membership and intentions have become to the upper crust of the party.

Unionist wrote:

I think we need to keep pressuring them to do the right thing, no matter how unlikely it seems,

People have been pressuring from within the fold for decades, only to be expunged, drummed out, paid lip service to, or simply ignored.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

  I agree with Unionist.

Mostly I do as well, with the exception of those occasions when I disagree with him. 

Quote:

Voters can tell which parties listen to them. Well it goes both ways. Parties can tell which voters are willing to listen.

Conversely, they can also sense when voters are no longer willing to listen.  It's at the point when a critical mass of non-listeners is reached that they tend to re-acquire listening skills themselves.  People who go along with them kicking and screaming are still going along.  The bar is so low these days that this is all the legitimacy required.

Quote:

A voter who engages the NDP with "I burned my membership card years ago" probably won't have much influence. The party is winning without you. They don't need you.

Mass appeal is derived from convincing one individual at a time.  While its true that they could care less about the individual, they do care about legitimacy as a prerequisite toward achieving their own goals, whatever they may be.

Quote:

Similarly with a voter who treats war with Iran as a foregone conclusion. If you start a conversation by assuming that this whole "non-position on the embassy closing" is proof that the NDP will allow (let alone endorse) an invasion of Iran, there is no way that conversation ends with anyone changing their mind. You have told effectively told the NDP "I will never trust you. I am unreachable. Don't bother."

If they're unwilling to reflect the existing sentiments from within, if we're assuming here that anti-imperialist sentiments still exist in the party, then there is little basis for trust to be found within the record of late.  The longer that these sentiments are refused the light of day by the actions and statements of leadership, at some point people should necessarily begin to consider if the sentiments are genuine after all, or if they're part of the overall charade.  Because if they are genuine but never make it to the surface of the organization to be transformed into words out of the leadership's mouth, then we should be a little curious at least as to why people endure being spat in the face.

Quote:

I know that no one really wants to check out and do nothing. But there's a thin line between a forceful stand and self-marginalization.

It's not self-marginalization, because marginalization is imposed.  To be marginalized from the current leadership and direction of the NDP constitutes its own stand.  If more people were willing to take such a stand instead of going along and hoping for the best, there might be something to it after all.  For one thing it lays down a marker, either individually or collectively, that says certain positions are unacceptable.

Marginalization is often imposed. But I'm not trying to make a statement of blame. I'm trying to make a statement of fact. The practical effect of being in the margins is that you have no practical effect.

You don't have to work in the margins. Look at the number of New Democrats who want war with Iran. I haven't found any. There's probably dozens (if not hundreds) of New Democrats against war with Iran for every one who is supposedly for it. We're not marginal.

Hear are some other things that aren't marginal:

• The number of people who believe that the NDP's "until we have that information it's hard to comment further" warrants a follow up.
• The influence you have over your local NDP MP, if you were to call them with a friendly request for a follow up.
• The number of people who would pay more attention if this became bigger than closing an embassy.
• The number of people critical of the Iraq war who still care.
• The number of people critical of the Afghanistan war who still care.

I have sincere doubts that you could build a critical mass of people from the tiny group who still cares about Canada's airstrikes in Libya. Mostly because that group is small to begin with, and mostly because there isn't a strong connection between those airstrikes and Mulcair's "it's hard to comment further" on the embassy closing. (That is, a strong enough connection to be actionable.) I even doubt that you could find enough people who know about the embassy closing, let alone enough people who are outraged by the NDP's non-response.

Without that collective influence, it's hard for any collective marker about what's unacceptable to become noticed, let alone become effective.

But I loath talking to other activists about tactics. The fact of the matter is, people who do things tend to believe in doing those things, and with that comes a healthy doubt of everyone else. So I'll leave you with what I told some other activists I once knew.

About 10 years ago, I met a few activists through a friend, who wanted to drive to a neighborhood with a bunch of pro-Israeli military posters and graffiti them. To the extent that their goal was to end the occupation of Palestine, I was sympathetic. But I told them I thought the tactic was belligerent, and likely to alienate far more people than it persuaded. I didn't want to waste much more time on them, because I wasn't sure anyone could convince them of anything. But I told them, with utmost humility, "just make sure that whatever course of action you choose, it's going to have the effect that you want it to, and not just make you feel like you're doing something."

Not sure what they ended up deciding, but I hope I was helpful.

And I'll take my own words to heart too, as I continue working within my community and within the party.

autoworker wrote:

How much longer will Mulcair extend the benefit of the doubt to Harper? Which raises the question: how much longer should that same doubt be extended to Mulcair? I hope it's not a matter of Mulcair thinking as though he were the Prime Minister, as he first needs to prove himself as an effective OO leader, and not just assume that he'll one day form a government.

Yeah, I'm concerned too. I'd hate to see the NDP side with Harper on this issue. And even if the NDP doesn't start sabre-rattling against Iran themselves, I'd be disappointed if we didn't get some kind of response from them.

I did call my MP and Thomas Mulcair. I want a straight answer on this. Closing an embassy is a far cry from declaring war. But even if the risk is remote, it's of such a magnitude that I want to do everything I can. I don't want a sequel to the Iraq war, or worse.

I didn't see it as a statement of where the legal authority in Iran lies.

"Proof" is starting to become one of the most misused words on this site.

I guess I'll settle for downgrading "proof" to "appears".

No, it doesn't "appear" that way to me. A newspaper interview isn't a PhD lecture on constitutional law.

Thank you semantic police. Now I realize that when someone uses the political shorthand "Harper government" or "Harper regime", I'm going to give them a lecture about the parliamentary system and the governor general and the Queen of England. And I will end it with "do your fucking homework." You've convinced me. You win.

Right! If they don't refer to the exact branch of government that's in charge, they're completely unqualified for office. And also an imperialist.

It's all so clear to me now. I'm furious that Thomas Mulcair would say "until we have that information it's hard to comment further". What an imperialist asshole. In fact, anyone who refuses to comment immediately should be prosecuted for war crimes. I don't just want comments on embassy closings. I want comments on every flag raising and every Wal-Mart closing too, or else they lack the moral authority to live on this planet, and should be launched into space.

This thread has jumped the shark a couple of times over.