Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

NDP says Grits and Tories hid truth about Afghanistan cost

GLORIA GALLOWAY

Globe and Mail Update and Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 11:56 PM EST 10/10/08

Tories have missed the chance to contain corporate greed and help protect Canadian consumers, Jack Layton charges ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Abe MacIntosh from Canada writes:
    I want my mortgage interest rate cut, so I can take advantage of some of the buying opportunities in the stock market.
  2. B M from Barrie, Canada writes: Jack, Jack, Jack...you had a good run...Now! back on your mat....good boy.
  3. David Gibson from Hamilton, Canada writes: Jack, you are punching above your weight.
  4. Harvey Mushman from cambridge, Canada writes: More of the same old same old from the NDP. I often thought they should have stolen the old campaign slogan from the Marxist-Lenninist Party of Canada..."Make the Rich Pay!" Still I guess his message will always appeal to the 15% or so of Canadians who feel they "deserve" to have other people's money given to them for free.
  5. joe 6 pk from Canada writes: .

    jacko ....

    does money grow on trees ???

    does money fall from the sky ???

    do you believe in the tooth fairy ???

    i'm just asking ....................................

    .
  6. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: What is factually wrong with what Layton said? Just asking.

    Hardcore Conservatives are the most spiteful, the meanest, the most selfish and hateful people who walk this planet. No wonder they cause so much trouble for societies that others have to clean up after. I just wish that all the economic hardship that is being brought onto us by the greedy and warmongering decisions of Conservatives would just fall on their own constituency. I resent having to pay the price for the decisions of this narrowminded bunch.
  7. Skeptical Realist from Canada writes: Nice editorial in the other national paper. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=868919
  8. Mark Sandford from Montreal, Canada writes: Good question joe 6pk.

    Does money grow on trees? It must because the government is going to spend 18 BILLION on Afghanistan. Every world power throughout human history has tried to conquer or "smarten up" the Afghanis....yet no one has been able to. Alexander the Great tried, the British THREE times, Soviets, now America...and in extension, Canada. No one has come out the victor. There has been conflict since the 1500s. It's the 21st century, and we still cant figure it out.

    So, does money grow on trees? No. So why are we spending 20 billion on this adventure? You'd have to believe in the tooth fairy to do such a thing!
  9. James Tod from Vancouver, Canada writes: Sorry Jack, but Dion had the same information you did.

    Harper's secretive shadow war cabinet has told nobody what the figures are, what the consensus is with NATO leaders, or anything in between.

    This campaign has been changed now as Dion has a chance to supplant Harper altogether. You worked with a Liberal minority government before to pass some very good legislation. Can you say the same thing about Harper's minority? No, I don't think you can.

    To NDP voters: please consider voting for Dion if the Liberals are closer than the NDP at defeating Harper in your riding next Tuesday. Indirectly your vote will give the NDP a greater voice by not splitting the vote and allowing a CPC MP to slide up the middle. You have much more in common in general with the Liberals, another Harper government would be dangerous for the country. Ditto to Greens.
  10. Ryan O from Alberta, Canada writes: $18 billion in Afghanistan and for what? There is no end in sight for this insurgency. When we leave, whether it is 2009 or 2011, the Taliban will still be there.

    It's time to set the record straight. Conservatives are not fiscally responsible. They merely splurge on things we don't need, like war, while making cuts to things that we do need, like social services. Witness how George W. "fiscally conservative" Bush posted a record breaking $438billion deficit. Did he go into deficit to pay for universal health care? No! He splurged on tax cuts for the wealthy and aggressive war in Iraq. Harper looks to this man for ideological inspiration, which is why I don't want Harper anywhere near a majority.
  11. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: Partial definition of a Conservative: someone who would rather spend money on war than on daycare
  12. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Typical cheap grandstanding and demagoguery. The fact is that successive liberal and conservative governments going back decades ensured the Canadian Bank Act was strong enough to save our Canadian bacon. You can thank both Conservatives and Liberals Canada isn't in a position to have to throw a few hundred billion at bailouts and Lucky Jack is playing politics with our financial system. The FACT is that our financial system is the best, strongest system on earth - bar none.

    As usual, the NDP are horrifyingly irresponsible (which may be easier for a leader who knows they have no hope of leading but is still shameless and unforgiveable.) Dion has been only marginally less so thus violating his own party's legacy.

    I may be a conservative, but I respected the Chretien/Martin leadership far more than that fool sociology professor.

    As far as the cost of the war goes, if the government released a report outlining the cost it isn't too bright to claim they were hiding it.
  13. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Ryan O

    You blame the conservatives for the Afghan war? You need to get your facts straight before you speak up and continue to make yourself look foolish.

    We entered the war in 2001. Who was PM then? Chretien the Liberal was.

    Paul Martin expanded the mandate and put our troops in the middle of the battles. Not Harper. BOTH the Liberals and Conservatives elected to extend the mission.

    ONLY Harper put our participation to a vote. Chretien didn't put our participation to a vote when we started the war, Martin didn't when he escalated it, but Harper did (and the liberals voted with it) to extend it.

    You get to be partisan. You don't get to invent an alternate reality.
  14. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: JP Warwick, that is exactly why neither Liberals nor Conservatives can be trusted. Tired of this CRAP of both parties governing from the Right.
  15. P Zerr from Somewhere, Canada writes: Where you agree with the war or not, the Liberals committed us to it, the Conservative honored that agreement and all major parties approved it. Not sure how this could be construed as a Conservative agenda.

    That aside, if we want any global respect, Canada has an obligation to world issues. We occasionally have to act in a selfless manner.
  16. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Jonathan Edwards

    I don't suppose you remember why we went there? Something about NATO, terrorism...

    Even the EU socialist states were there (even if reluctantly.) Reason: they were called upon to keep their word under the treaties they signed when they joined NATO.

    But knowing these thing requires thought and knowledge. Voting for the dippers doesn't.
  17. N. C. from Toronto, Canada writes: Harvey Mushman. This 15% of the population that feel they "deserve" to be handed other peoples' money of whom you speak...would that be the Stock Exchange financiers, banks, corporate magnates, and wealthy industrialists who have been bleeding us dry for years, who are now screaming for help because their own shoddy, unethical practices (encouraged by the Conservatives' "unregulated capitalism is God" ideology) have thrown the global economy into chaos? That's the small percentage of folks that Harper wants to provide with our hard-earned money - them, and evidently the military industrial complex as well. Harper is as big a supporter of "welfare" as Layton - only where Layton would give it to people who struggle to meet basic survival needs (or to bolster the health care system, education, etc.), Harper is giving handouts to people who drive BMW's and own 5 houses.

    You'd have us believe that it's the NDP that deserve our contempt? Whatever.

    Here's what the Conservative legacy has been so far: tax cuts, bailouts, and golden parachutes for the rich; cutbacks, wait-lists, and tainted food for the poor. "Make the rich pay?" Well maybe they darned well should! They've made everything they have by robbing everyone else blind, with special help from Harper and Bush. Maybe it's time they gave us some of that money back.
  18. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: Treaty obligation under NATO? You got to be kidding me. NATO has an obligation to defend other NATO members from attack by another nation. No such thing occured. No nation attacked the US on 9/11.

    Since the US is harboring and protecting terrorists who have been convicted of terrorism in Latin America, does that make the US a legitimate target for attack?

    NATO has outlived its purpose. While there was a Warsaw Pact, it was a counterbalance. But now it is a tool for war, not defense, whether in the case of the attack on Serbia or the attack on Afghanistan. The attack on Afghanistan was planned long before 9/11 to secure American hegemony, as clearly outlined in the PNAC document, many of whose contributors were also the architects of these wars in Asia.

    I got my paycheque today. So far this year I paid nearly $18,000 in taxes, and the warmongers and economic know-nothings and thieves have cost me ~$50,000 losses to my retirement funds. I hope both the Liberal and Conservative jerks get reduced in this election, so that the money I pay in tax actually goes to something useful. I don't want people to get killed with my taxes.
  19. Ryan O from Alberta, Canada writes: JP Warwick: It's true, the Liberals did follow Mr. Bush into Afghanistan. This was right after 9/11, and after such a dramatic event it's understandable that Chretien went in with UN backing. Martin wanted to curry favour with the Bush White House after Chretien refused to go to Iraq, so he put our troops on the front lines in Afghanistan to take over for US troops leaving to go to Iraq. If you're wondering, I don't agree with Martin's decision either.

    Who wanted to march with Mr. Bush in his aggressive war against Iraq? Oh yeah, that was Mr. Harper, who stole a speech from another "coalition of the willing" member to justify the invasion. Had we taken Mr Harper's advice, we would be paying a lot more than $18 billion on wars of attrition.

    I personally think that we (Canada, not so much the US) went into Afghanistan with noble intentions, but Bush doomed the mission by focusing on his revenge mission against Saddam Hussein instead of fixing Afghanistan. Oh well, at least the Afghans still have poppies to sell. I'm sure a lot of people will turn to heroin now that the economy has gone to hell.
  20. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Frankly, if you vote left, you can hardly whine about the government costing you money. You vote for high taxes and no economy when you vote left.

    In fact, you DESERVE to lose your money. You vote to steal mine.
  21. Stop the Socialists from Canada writes:

    The Economist recommends voting Conservative as best way to turn around the economy.

    http://tinyurl.com/3r7g88
  22. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: JP Warwick, I am proud to call myself a socialist. I spend half of my after-tax income on helping others, without the benefit of a 'tax-deductible receipt'. I don't mind sharing, and I don't complain about taxation. What I complain about is if my tax dollars get misappropriated towards causing death, destruction, maiming, and ruining other people's lives. That is despicable, and is what I have stood against my entire life.
  23. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: JP Warwick, so you feel comfortable with stealing mine? The difference between a socialist and a conservative government is, the socialist one will tax you to build healthcare, a social system and infrastructure. The conservative one will take yours to subsidize big business, give tax breaks to the rich, and squander the rest on invading other countries, misusing our military, and killing women and children in far off lands to satisfy their greed, and to start up the heroin trade again.

    I'd rather my taxes go to make life better than to make it worse for me or someone else. Yes, I don't agree with the Social Democrats (NDP) on everything, but they're the closest party to represent most of my values and what I stand for.

    I despise the women-and-baby-killers Conservatives and Liberals.
  24. Brian Engler from Richmond, B.C., Canada writes: Hello all,

    Lest we forget: It was Mr. Layton's support of the Conservatives when the issue was first debated under the Conservative minoirty government that extended this illegal war in the first place.

    Does anybody remember that Mr. Layton supported this war (with the Conservatives) because he wanted us out "immediately" instead of "as soon as possible"?

    Given that we are still engaged, this literally flabbergasted many political observers at the time; and still continues to flummux me. Perhaps Mr. Layton would like to explain this philosophical disagreement to the families of our fallen soldiers? How about it, Mr. Layton?

    -Brian Leslie Engler
  25. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: ...another thing Conservatives and Liberals stand for:

    Exporting of the good jobs and replacing them with Service Sector Jobs. Only to Liberals and Conservatives does 30000 jobs lost in Manufacturing and 35000 jobs gained at MCDonalds constitute a "net gain of 5000 jobs".
  26. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Ryan O Economy there has gone to hell? What do you think it was before? Fact: GDP per capita has skyrocketed (in percentage terms. In absolute terms, they remain some of the poorest people on earth.) Fact: Infant mortality is dramatically down. Fact: the number of children in school has skyrocketed and unlike when the Taliban ran things, little girls get to go. I'd hate to be there now and I sympathise with them. I'd really have hated to live there before we got there. Especially if I was a woman. Things still suck there hardcore. But they suck marginally less even with a war on. And as a counter-point, maybe lucky jack the cynical and shameless demagogue can explain his advocacy of leaving our present war to start a new war in Sudan from scratch. If we aren't welcome by the Taliban, just what in hell does that foolish creep think is going to happen when we intervene in Sudan to attempt to stop the genocide? Hint: both are violent radical Muslims engaged in killing and oppressing their own people. In both cases, the primary victims are Muslims. In both cases, they have had ties to Al Qaeda (in fact, Bin Laden moved from Sudan to Afghan.) To what possible benefit can leaving one war unfinished to go fight a whole new one make sense? Of course, Lucky Jack doesn’t call it a war. He's either dishonest enough or foolish enough to think it would be a campfire "peacekeeping" mission.
  27. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Ryan O Economy there has gone to hell? What do you think it was before? Fact: GDP per capita has skyrocketed (in percentage terms. In absolute terms, they remain some of the poorest people on earth.) Fact: Infant mortality is dramatically down. Fact: the number of children in school has skyrocketed and unlike when the Taliban ran things, little girls get to go. I'd hate to be there now and I sympathise with them. I'd really have hated to live there before we got there. Especially if I was a woman. Things still suck there hardcore. But they suck marginally less even with a war on. And as a counter-point, maybe lucky jack the cynical and shameless demagogue can explain his advocacy of leaving our present war to start a new war in Sudan from scratch. If we aren't welcome by the Taliban, just what in hell does that foolish creep think is going to happen when we intervene in Sudan to attempt to stop the genocide? Hint: both are violent radical Muslims engaged in killing and oppressing their own people. In both cases, the primary victims are Muslims. In both cases, they have had ties to Al Qaeda (in fact, Bin Laden moved from Sudan to Afghan.) To what possible benefit can leaving one war unfinished to go fight a whole new one make sense? Of course, Lucky Jack doesn’t call it a war. He's either dishonest enough or foolish enough to think it would be a campfire "peacekeeping" mission.
  28. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: Brian, what stopped the Liberals from voting for an immediate withdrawal? Why do you expect the NDP to support a stupid decision to let more soldiers die in an unwinnable war? Layton was right, and he still is. 2011, 2009... neither of them were what the NDP stands for, so why do you expect them to vote for it? There is no room for compromise in the killing of our soldiers and of Afghan civilians. Troops out now.
  29. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Jonathan Edwards

    You illustrate why the NDP will never form a government.

    Lucky jack favoured sending our troops to Sudan. I guess you'll have no one to vote for then.
  30. Calli Tanner from Canada writes: Mr.Layton is playing way out of his league. And although I do place him slightly above Dion, who I would not trust to lead a sing along at a boy scout rally never mind my country, Layton is not the man for the job either.

    Mr.Layton is always so quick to jump on everyone else and toss around points on spending yada yada.... At this stage of the game people are tried of his school yard tactics... I want to know what he will do for ME, my city, my region, my province, my country... yes, in THAT order. Frankly I don't care what the 'other guy' did or didn't do at this point in the game... just tell me what YOU will do. And it better be good.
  31. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: Calli, you're not paying attention. Layton has said a lot about all those things. But if you're not listening, what else can he do?
  32. Wakeup Call from Edmonton, Canada writes: Jonathan Edwards - Let me know when you turn 30, then I will be able to explain it to you. ... After reading your subsequent posts, I rescind that offer, you will never have enough brains. You are so far to the left you must consider Karl Marx to be a Conservative. You vitriol against the war in Afghanistan is quite evident, so I suggest you tie up your boots and head over their and help the Taliban come to terms with their evil ways so the can learn to be socialist. You could suggest they start by reading : The Green Book (written by Muammar al-Gaddafi).
  33. Wakeup Call from Edmonton, Canada writes: Calli Tanner - I'm with you on that one. I could not imagine Jack with boy scouts, they are to militaristic for him. I imagine there would be lots of hugging and they would start selling cookies like the other girl scouts, so they could build some injection sites for the druggies who hang out by the camp. I wonder if Jack or Olivia know any good cookie recipes.
  34. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: The beautiful thing is that we have no rights or obligation toward Afghanistan other than to leave them to build their own society in whatever way they choose. ... AND of course that includes NOT selling them weapons which would facilitate them killing each other.

    The US started this whole mess 6 months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, by supporting and arming religious fanatics to bring down the government which happened to be secular and pro-communist, and under which all the "little girls" were already allowed to go to school. ... not unlike Iraq, where women had equal rights as men, under the secular government of the Baath Party, and could attend university and work in any capacity.

    Pray tell, why did the US encourage a civil war in Afghanistan? Why did the US end the possibility of "the little girls" to go to school? Why did it finance the Mujahedeen and later the Taliban? Tell me. You see, I am older than 30, and know the history of Afghanistan going way back, not just to the convenient 9/11. How about 1978/79? You tell me why the US - the self-proclaimed 'peace, freedom and democracy'-lovers - started and encouraged a bloody civil war in Afghanistan, when the country was previously at peace. Hypocrites.

    This is not about the little girl going to school. It is about geo-strategic positioning. The support for death-squads to impose capitalism on disagreeable populations is just one more proof that the US (and now NATO) cares nothing for the wellbeing of people, but only for the interests of the greedy.
  35. George Smith from Canada writes: The only blame in this whole mess has to be attributed to Bush and company.

    Canada had a responsibilty under NATO to assist the US and as people of our word, we went there in good faith. The US screwed us and the other members of NATO by diverting energy from the mission and invading Iraq.

    The situation is a mess. There will be no decisive victory. We are probably going to end up with a negotiated end and the Taliban will still be there. Bin Laden will still be there (or nearby).. We will arrive almost where we started except we created a lot more future terrorists and lost the trust of many.

    Realistic foresight almost 7 years ago would have brought Bin Laden to some form of justice and it would have cost almost nothing.

    Unfortunately the US had to have it's way.

    Time to reconsider our role in NATO.

    Such foolishness. Such a waste of lives.
  36. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Jonathan Edwards

    You really are pathetic. The soviets invaded you fool.

    It amazes me that communist sympathizers (useful idiots) are STILL making excuses.

    So, if the US invades, the other side is well within its rights to form an "insurgency" but if the soviets invade it's the US's fault. Although I'm sure the US wouldn't have lifted a finger to help Afghan if it wasn't the cold war, you can hardly blame the US for a Soviet war.

    And yes, in hindsight, it may have been a better move just to let the commies have them.

    You aren't a socialist. You're an unreconstructed communist. And you call western liberals and conservatives baby killers? How dare you?! Your friends killed 120 million people. I suppose you consider that "social justice"?
  37. Ken Porter from The Prairies, Canada writes: Jonathan Edwards I hope these right wing rednecks are not getting to you. You have a lot of people who share your sentiment. You are 100% bang on. These guys have the blinders on so tight that the brown stuff is starting to ooze from their eyes. The bottom line is a quote from Kevin Page, the "INDEPEDANT" parliamentary budget officer. "Page served up some sharp criticism of both Liberal and Conservative governments, saying they have not been upfront with Canadians.

    The report serves up more bad news for the federal Conservatives, who have already come under criticism for their secrecy and lack of disclosure surrounding many aspects of the mission.

    Neither the Libs or Cons can be trusted....CASE CLOSED
  38. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: JP, who is the fool? You're not even educated enough to know that the US helped start the civil war in Afghanistan HALF A YEAR BEFORE the Soviets went to aid the Afghan Government. (Yes, the Afghan government had "begged" Moscow for military support since the summer, and did not receive it until Christmas. Hardly an "invasion".). You shouldn't write about Afghanistan if you don't even know the fact that the US started this whole mess back then, months before the first soviet boot crossed the border. Ask Zbigniev Brzesinski, who wanted to create a "Vietnam" for the Soviet Union.

    And no, I am not a "communist sympathizer". And no, I have no "friends" who are killers. Killing is not a philosophy of the Socialism I believe in. I am a social person who cares about the wellbeing of my neighbour. And no, I don't read Marx. And no, I don't agree with every policy of the NDP. But they're still the best choice for Canada.
  39. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: Thanks Ken
  40. Anti Fascist from Canada writes: JP Warwick you are misinformed the Soviets did not invade Afghanistan. They were asked to come. Unfortunately for them the ones doing the asking were not the religious nut cases that the mericans wanted to deal with.

    Taliban Jack is the leader we need today to clean up the problems of yesterday and chart new a new course to realise the dreams of Canadians.

    If you love this country, help wrest control of it from the corporations, on election day Vote NDP. For honesty in government.
  41. JP Warwick from Canada writes: The afghan civil war started long before 6 months before the Soviet invasion.

    By 6 months prior to the invasion, the commies had already murdered what? 25-30k people? The majority of the country was already in open revolt by then. The soviets were in there long before that. At least the mid if not early 70's.

    The idea that it was the US which started that war is laughable. What the US did was ensure the soviets lost - there is a difference.
  42. JP Warwick from Canada writes: Anti Fascist

    Saying that one side "asked the soviets to come" is no different than saying the other side asked the US for help. But you only blame the US.

    The soviets were asked to come by the government they installed after a coup. The Afghan people objected and revolted and the US supported the "insurgents."

    In no way does that make that situation the fault of the US any more than saying the US was at fault for both the World Wars because they armed the UK before entering themselves.

    There is an irony to the present situation EXCEPT that unlike the Soviets, the US et al want to get the hell out as soon as the government there is stable enough to defend itself and the soviets wanted to add it to their empire.
  43. Anti Fascist from Canada writes:
    Bring the criminal enterprise in Afghanistan to an end, VOTE NDP!

    No to the fibs no to the cons no more lies.

    Bring the troops home

    Hey Jonathan do not argue with imbeciles, because to an outside observer it's hard to tell you apart. But yes I agree with the other poster you have nailed it 100%
  44. Brian Engler from Richmond, B.C., Canada writes: Reply to Jonathan Edwards: Ok if you have such a good grasp on the realities of the situation; If Mr. Layton really doesnot support this war, then why are we still engeaged?

    Perhaps you would like to take it upon yourself to explain the distinction between "support" and "non-support" and "immediately" vs. the eminently more practical "as soon as possible" to the families of our fallen soldiers.

    How stu . . .bornly highly idealistic . . . pid are you really being here?

    Our men and women have paid for their lives because of (your) stu . . . bbornly highly idealistic . . . pid philosophical distinctions.

    Right now, I feel like i want to puke.

    -Brian Leslie Engler
  45. Dan V from N.Vancouver, Canada writes: Holy cow, someone hire an editor.

    "follow the moved of the central bank"

    "unfair charges, particularly vat automated tellers"

    etc...
  46. Joseph Bloggins from Canada writes: $1,500 per household over a decade works out to $150 per household per year. Assuming three people per household, that's $50 per Canadian per year. That works out to about 13.7¢ per Canadian per day to run the Afghan mission.

    To give you a bit of perspective, World Vision - certainly a noble-minded and worthwhile charity - asks for about ten times that daily amount to sponsor a single child.

    And to the always idiotic Marxist Anti Fascist (you can always tell who the Marxists are because they use stupid names like "Anti Fascist") who says "JP Warwick you are misinformed the Soviets did not invade Afghanistan. They were asked to come."

    Yeah....like Czecholovakia invited them to come. You neo-Bolsheviks are really twisted.
  47. Don Portz from Trochu AB, Canada writes: As Joseph Bloggin indicated, the cost of assisting the Afghan is some $150 per household. So based on Laytons remarks he would not even help another nation to the tune of $150. per household???

    And he claims to be for the downtrodden??? I cannot believe he has not brought out the Regina Manifesto that was the policy of his predessors.
  48. Jonathan Edwards from Somewhere, Canada writes: Don Portz, "Help"? You call demolishing a country and killing innocent civilians "help"? How perverse and twisted.
  49. mike sty - from Canada writes: What the open, transparent and accountable Harper Minority have been telling Canadians............
    ....................................... $8 BILLION

    What the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported..............
    .......................................$18 BILLION ---$22 BILLION

    Harper/Flaherty CONservative BOOK-COOKING at its best.

    Also what the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported about the LACK of co-opoeration and Harper's false transparency.
  50. Politicians are Fascist Pigs from Canada writes: Libs and Cons deserve fringe party status for their complicity in commiting without every once going to the CDN citizens about their war.
    Kick them all out Oct 14.
  51. sean smith from Canada writes: Layton and the NDP continue to be the only party that has been consistently correct on our fiasco in Afghaninam.
  52. Paul Dieter from Canada writes:
    Con-Libs: We are spending $20 billion to prop up a Narcostate!

    Con-Libs: We can't afford to spend more money on social programs...

    NDP: Jeez, no wonder!!
  53. Iam Becoming More Conservative:-((( from ORDINARY, Canada writes: You go Jacky boy.. You go!!

    Your the idiot who put Harpo in power to begin with and you and your party are the ones who will keep him in power.. Personally Iam thinking Harpo has promised Jacky boy a position in some warm climate... Keep up the good work Jacky.. Your not costing the Cons anything.. Free ride to power
  54. Harper can't be trusted from Canada writes: Here you have it folks

    This is how Harper behaves WITHOUT A MAJORITY!

    http://tinyurl.com/3zch2h

    Are you really thinking of voting for Harper?

    Think again.

    Trust a LEADER not a liar
  55. Stephen Harper's Ignorant Tories from Canada writes: Harper lies about Afghanistan and everything else he speaks about. It's second nature to him by now.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Federal Election 2008 coverage

Back to top