Hey Manley! When Did 4 = Everything?
It was recently announced Stephen Harper has appointed a panel to study the issue of Afghanistan. On this panel is former Liberal deputy minister, John Manley, "former clerk of the Privy Council Paul Tellier, former Tory cabinet minister Jake Epp, former Canadian consul-general in New York Pamela Wallin and Derek Burney, a long-time adviser to previous prime ministers and a former ambassador to the United States."
First off, John Manley is not smart. It could be argued John Manley is merely a hack of the Conservative Party, a dupe if you will, playing the role of a Liberal to 'determine' Stephen Harper's already decided conclusion. But I won't make such an argument, though I think it is perfectly valid. I'm not making it, because I don't have to to show John Manley is lacking of intelligence.
The very purpose of creating the panel is:
So John Manley joined a panel that is limited to study four options, a panel created to study four options, and he thinks 'Everything is on the table'? John Manley should really just join the Conservative Party. Since I'm sure Manley knows from the outset that the Conservatives favour changing the definition of marriage, staying in Afghanistan for four decades, economic values trump social ones, and that freedoms are trivial; but Manley doesn't have to worry that he may be limited to those interests.....because "Everything is on the table."
First off, John Manley is not smart. It could be argued John Manley is merely a hack of the Conservative Party, a dupe if you will, playing the role of a Liberal to 'determine' Stephen Harper's already decided conclusion. But I won't make such an argument, though I think it is perfectly valid. I'm not making it, because I don't have to to show John Manley is lacking of intelligence.
The very purpose of creating the panel is:
to examine four options including the status quo; complete withdrawal from Afghanistan; a transfer to another region of the country; or refocusing efforts on reconstruction that would allow for a new military contingent from another country to take the Canadian combat role.That being said, "Mr. Manley made it clear he wouldn't be restricted to the four broad policy options enumerated by the Prime Minister. 'Everything is on the table,' Mr. Manley said."
So John Manley joined a panel that is limited to study four options, a panel created to study four options, and he thinks 'Everything is on the table'? John Manley should really just join the Conservative Party. Since I'm sure Manley knows from the outset that the Conservatives favour changing the definition of marriage, staying in Afghanistan for four decades, economic values trump social ones, and that freedoms are trivial; but Manley doesn't have to worry that he may be limited to those interests.....because "Everything is on the table."
Labels: Manley dumb Harper Politics Dion
posted by Daniel Mosely at 9:21 AM
9 Comments:
First off, John Manley is not smart.
I think a lot of Canadians would disagree. Long before this panel was even an idea, John Manley had earned the respect of Canadians from all political stripes.
I should have made it more clear. I think every person is smart (but that's another post); however in regards to specifically Manley believing 4 equals everything, on that one point he is not smart.
The venom some Liberals have directed towards Mr. Manley is evidence of extraordinary partisanship and pettiness. Do you really expect Canadians to be impressed by this?
I don't expect anything and you may claim whatever you wish. I posed that John Manley is not smart because he has entered into a panel that's sole purpose is to analyze 4 options with the belief that the panel's scope extends beyond those 4 options. He joined a panel to look at everything, when the panal has no mandate to explore anything other then 4 options.
You can call my argument petty, but when it has reasoning behind it, one would think you'd rather offer a flaw in my argument, then just calling names.
You really haven't made an argument. The burden of proof is entirely on you.
The fact is that the panel is free to explore any option they want. The Prime Minister has made this clear, and John Manley takes him at his word. I'm sure the panel, as a result of the mandate given by the Prime Minister, will examine any option they see fit to examine.
We have no reason to believe that the panel will restrict itself to four options, when both the Prime Minister and Mr. Manley have said all options are on the table. Do you have some evidence that the panel is restricted? Do you have any reason to believe that John Manley is lying? If you do, I haven't seen it.
My argument, in simple terms for you anonymous:
I have included a quote on my post that explains only 4 options are to be explored.
John Manley claims everything is on the table.
4 options does not equal everything.
John Manley is not smart in regards to this issue.
Please provide one shred of evidence that suggests the panal can come up with a 5th option.
In his announcement, the Prime Minister said: "I've asked the panel to examine four main options for the future of the Afghanistan mission, although they may consider other options."
If you don't believe me, listen to his speech under the video section of this page:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071011/afghanistan_panel_071012?s_name=&no_ads=
You're just speaking nonsense. We have no reason to believe that the Prime Minister isn't telling the truth. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Harper and Manley are in some sort of consipracy, and that the panel's options are actually restricted.
Once again, Liberals show a partisanship that is beyond disgusting. We are talking about the future of our military role in an extremely dangerous area of the world. If you had any integrity, ethics or morals, you would be proud one of your party members was selected to head such a critical and important panel. Instead you whine, cry and complain that Liberals should do nothing to aid the country, nothing to bring people together around an idea, nothing to improve the situation because that might make another party look good. The reason I totally disrespect Liberals is they support a party that constantly puts their own agenda and welfare ahead of the country. Disgusting.
anonymous: Why give four options then? Aren't these five people smart enough to know that Canada could stay, do more rebuilding and humanitarian aid, or withdraw? These four options sound like Harper's 5 priorities from the last election. Get the feeling Harper likes dumbing things down for Canadians. ourself excluded of course, you're way tooo smart for that.
Ron: Where's the partisanship? Me being against Manley's decision would be anything but partisanship. You know what's disgusting? Your logic.
Post a Comment
<< Home