Military wrote Karzai's speech, NDP says - Canadians are getting that sinking feeling like us

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070926.KARZAI26/TPStory/National

ALAN FREEMAN

September 26, 2007

OTTAWA -- The New Democratic Party yesterday accused the Canadian military of writing last year's speech to Parliament by Afghan President Hamid Karzai in what the party's defence critic called an "elaborately staged political stunt."

The allegation, based on a military situation report obtained under an access-to-information request, was immediately denied by Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, who said the suggestion that Mr. Karzai's speech was ghostwritten was "not only ludicrous but also verges on being insulting."

The reference to the Afghan President's speech was included in a sheaf of "situation reports" sent by Task Force Afghanistan to National Defence headquarters and other government recipients in October, 2006.

The documents, which were heavily censored on national security grounds, include a report on Mr. Karzai's visits to New York and Ottawa the previous month, noting that he was accompanied by a "communications adviser," presumably from the Canadian military.

The report noted that Canada's Strategic Advisory Team, a group of Canadian officials working out of Kandahar, had prepared an "initial draft of {the} President's speech to Parliament 22 SEP. It was noted that key statistics, messages and themes as well as overall structure, were adopted by the President in his remarks to {the} joint session."

Dawn Black, the defence critic, said this proved that Mr. Karzai's address to Parliament "was not the voice of the Afghan people, but the talking points of the Department of National Defence."

[Kagemusha]

1. That's a pretty darned expansive speculation.

Now, any speech of this nature is an elaborately staged political stunt. But to say the military wrote it seems wildly beyond known facts. The NDP has a long history of such expansive claims.

[Spazito]

2. In this case, it seems the documents cited certainly raise the

question:

"The report noted that Canada's Strategic Advisory Team, a group of Canadian officials working out of Kandahar, had prepared an "initial draft of President's speech to Parliament 22 SEP. It was noted that key statistics, messages and themes as well as overall structure, were adopted by the President in his remarks to joint session."

Hillier is a POS who has been busy politicizing the DND so this doesn't surprise me at all, sadly.

[Kagemusha]

3. Maybe my English was not sufficiently clear...

Advice on what elements to stress in a speech do not constitute "writing" the speech. It is advice. Taking the presence of advice and manipulating it into something else is either speculation or rhetorical excess. From what I've heard over the years, the NDP is no stranger to rhetorical excess. They could have focused on the military involvement in the speech, the advice for the speech, etc, but they chose to go, they WROTE the speech, they WROTE the speech. Uh yeah whatever.

[Spazito]

4. Ahhh, I get it, it is that they chose the 'wrong' issue to confront re this

It wasn't the "writing" of the speech that was wrong but, rather, the inappropriate involvement of the DND in the preparation of the speech? You feel if they had focused on the involvement of the DND re the political aspect of the speech you could agree with them?


You know as well as I that no political party is a stranger to rhetorical excess on either side of the border. In this case, the rhetoric has brought attention to an issue of the DND inappropriately involving itself in political matters so, all in all, it is better rhetoric than most from any of our parties.

[Kagemusha]

5. You're kidding me. Better rhetoric?

I guess I'm not making myself clear. The reason I dislike the modern Republican party is because of its ends-justify-the-means behavior. Torture to get information or get confessions? No problem. Eviscerate the Constitution? No problem. Break the budget? No problem. Anything to get.. actually, it has nothing to do with results, it's just to do with the illusion of results.

So forgive me for feeling dismay at the NDP using cheap shots for the "greater good". I've had it up to here with the "greater good".

Besides, different country. If the government of Canada is happy with its military providing a communications adviser, it's not "the military", it's "the government". It's all one happy family under the "Crown". If the NDP thinks this is an issue with military involvement in the political process, they've been watching too much American TV.

[Spazito]

6. Ummmm, the military is NOT to involve itself in political affairs in

Canada and if they are, as it appears, doing so, it IS an issue, imo, even if it not to you.

I sense the NDP could never meet your expectations, actually, I highly doubt any party could given what you have espoused above. Certainly the Liberals can't. The former Reform Party now known as the New Conservatives? Hmmm, or maybe the Bloc? Don't think so. It must be tough finding a party to support, I find that here at times as well.

[Kagemusha]

7. No, I don't like any of them. That is my honest answer.

But in all seriousness, Karzai's speech was hardly a domestic political affair. It was a dog and pony show. A PR exercise. To construe this as some sort of military giving orders to Canada's own politicians by stealth is really silly. It also begs the question of how much of a dog they think Karzai is. They cover up that issue by making it out to be some sort of.. 'our own military addressed Parliament through the leader of a foreign nation who can't think for himself.' Uh. huh. If that's their story and they're sticking to it, fine, but don't expect rational people to consume the claim whole. They're not bothered by that and neither are you, fine. But it's an immature political approach.

[Spazito]

8. I didn't read it as anyone construing it to be the military giving

orders to Canada's politicians by stealth but, rather, Karzai was not speaking for his people but mouthing the position of our military with regard to our mission in Afghanistan. As to an immature political approach, could you please enlighten me as what you would consider a mature political approach, I am unclear as to what you mean.

[Kagemusha]

9. Oh, I don't know... actually making arguments based on known facts?

But that's too hard. Everyone has to take known facts and run 5 miles further than the facts carry them because that's "making a point".

It makes us all into children.

[Spazito]

10. Ahhh, I understand what you meant now

I find the 'practice' of Politics to be childish for the most part. Too bad, there is power attached to the behavior.