Thursday, April 26, 2007

Paul Martin was WRONG

I bought a copy of the sorta-okay Canadian journal, The Walrus recently. There was a good story about the reporters who conspired in the demonization of Arar. But there was also a mewling, sycophantic piece of crap by Tim Murphy, Paul Martin's former chief of staff:

"Paul Martin Was Right"

Supposedly, Paul is either getting a bad rap or his very real, very stupendous "accomplishments" are being ignored:

The Paul Martin record is taking a hit these days, or it is being ignored. ... Now a backbench Liberal MP, Martin has heard the noise and felt the silence. He is not without a desire to set the record straight, even today.

So, it's telling that Murphy starts off his lists of Martin's achievements with the travesty of Afghanistan:

From Martin, Harper inherited a policy of purposeful action for the Canadian military in Afghanistan. It blended humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and security created by troops on the ground. It was consistent with our peacekeeping traditions and with the new Canadian-inspired “responsibility to protect” thrust of the United Nations. That precious balance has been forsaken by the Harper government, and Martin has said so.

Humanitarian aid has been insignificant in comparison with Canada's spending on "security," or, in other words, imposing acquiesence to a corrupt pupptet government. "Precious balance," ... I really have difficulty seeing the difference between Harper and Martin when it comes to the actions of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Not only does Harper’s militaristic approach to Afghanistan preclude Canada from acting in a meaningful way in places like Haiti and Darfur, the absence of proper diplomacy has put us at odds with our nato allies and has our soldiers doing disproportionate duty in Afghanistan’s danger spots.

I have no idea what Murphy is getting at when he says that Harper is preventing us from doing "good work" in Haiti. If only it were true that we weren't able to fuck up more than one country at a time. But, it seems to me that any proper diplomacy that would have put Canadian soldiers in a less dangerous part of Afghanistan would have been absent during the Liberal's term in office, since it was under them that we got the troubled Southern provinces of Afghanistan.

More over, the cynical, hurried vote to extend the mission to 2009 represented an abuse of Parliament. Harper, seemingly anxious to let the Americans off the hook in Afghanistan, put politics above the national interest.

Certainly, Harper is more gung-ho to kiss American ass, but as far as we're talking about how boners for the US government translate into policies that contradict Canada's national interest, Chretien's decision to go into Afghanistan was a knee-jerk desire to make 'em happy. A totally mindless policy. Murphy then launches into some unseemly hero-worship:

Martin will pursue this matter, as he will pursue others. Nearing seventy years old, he is wiser now about the politics of politics, but the passage of time will produce a political epitaph that stretches far beyond the simple construction, “He lost.” Martin will not run for elected office again, and the federal Liberals will find him tough to replace.

Y-a-a-w-n!!! I'm sorry, were you saying something? Tomorrow, I hope to provide a little snippet about the section dealing with: "Paul Martin is a socially progressive fiscal conservative."


Anonymous said...

Murphy's casual comment about Haiti really jumps off the page, eh? Does he not know? (I don't know what's worse...)

Great post, thwap!

thwap said...

Thanks. It was quite a long, revealing, infuriating article. I'll try to get to all of it.