Jack Layton May Have Sold Out for Nothing

I mentioned yesterday being surprised that every single NDP voted in favour of bombing the hell out of Libya.

Layton performed his usual posturing, saying yes drop those 1000 bombs, but then I'm going to say enough. What an amazing blowhard he has turned out to be.

Well, Jack, you may have sold out a little too soon. Apparently Gaddafi is now negotiating with the rebels.

I know that the NDP could not stop Harper, but a "no" vote would have been symbolic. For years those on the left have been critical of the Liberals, for too often supporting American Imperialism. The NDP would never do that, or so we were led to believe.

Well, guess what? Not only would they, but they did.

And in a surprising twist, the Republicans are questioning the U.S. reason for the "mission". (bombs for oil)

Republican leaders demanded a written justification of military involvement in Libya from President Barack Obama on Wednesday as the traditionally hawkish party shows signs of losing its appetite for war.

This puts the NDP just right of the Republicans.

Poor Harper. If there is a truce, and peace is negotiated with Gaddafi's son, and a promised election on their terms, what is he going to do with all those damn bombs? $130 million worth.

What a screwed up country we've become. And just think. Another 4-5 years of a Harper majority with Jack Layton "holding the bully's coat". I'm so thrilled.

What is Really Going on in Libya?

I can't help feeling that this so called "mission" in Libya is just more blood for oil. You can't save people by bombing them, and yet we are bombing the hell out of the place.

I'm no fan of Muammar Qaddafi, but the oil companies were, and in 2008, lobbied the U.S. government on Qaddafi's behalf.

Steve Mufson writes in the Washington Post:

It struck some visitors to the Houston office of ConocoPhillips chief executive Jim Mulva as peculiar that he displayed a photograph of himself and Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

They were an odd couple: a veteran of corporate politics at a U.S. oil company and the colonel who had survived four decades of confrontation with the West while maintaining repressive rule over his North African nation.

But we learn from Wikileaks, that the love affair ended when the Libyan dictator began making demands that the oil companies pay more. Big mistake.

After making some very compelling arguments against extending the "mission", I was surprised that the NDP supported the continuation of this war.

Apparently, only Elizabeth May voted for sanity.

Canada has also announced its support for the National Transitional Council, which surprisingly already boasts a bank and national oil company. Its interim leader, Mustafa Abdul Jalil , seems a decent sort, but what do we really know of this group?

In 2007, Westpoint tied several factions to Al Qaeda and according to the UK Telegraph:

The result of the present inquiry is that the Libyan branch of Al Qaeda represents a continuum with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group centered in Darnah and Benghazi. The ethnic base of the Libyan Islamic fighting group is apparently to be found in the anti-Qaddafi Harabi tribe, the tribe which makes up the vast majority of the rebel council including the two dominant rebel leaders, Abdul Fatah Younis and Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The evidence thus suggests that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the elite of the Harabi tribe, and the rebel council supported by Obama all overlap for all practical purposes.

Peter MacKay now admits to not knowing much about the NTC, but shouldn't he have done a bit of research first?

Mustafa Abdul Jalil is an Islamic fundamentalist, which doesn't mean terrorist, but what kind of government would be replacing Qaddafi? And are we now going to train and arm the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group?

In the video below you'll hear a former CIA agent say that we should not get involved. He sees a repeat of the Taliban, that Ronald Reagan trained and armed.

I think we are making a huge mistake. If the oil companies want Libya's oil, they should pay for it like everyone else.

As a Political Analyst Angelo Persichilli Makes a Great Shoe Salesman

Angelo Persichilli finally came out of the closet a few months ago and admitted that he was indeed a Conservative. Phew!

And I thought he was a liberal.

Persichilli certainly isn't the only right-wing columnist in the country, but at one time I thought I remembered enjoying his work. But that was a very long time ago. Now he doesn't even try.

Harper has "moved to the centre"? Of what? Persichilli's universe? I mean he can't be serious.

And though I'm sure he hopes that "the Liberal party is at risk of extinction", I think he needs to pick up a history book.

Party support comes in waves.

The Conservatives under R.B. Bennett, won a majority in 1930 with 134 seats. By 1935 they were reduced to 39.

In 1958, the Conservatives under John Diefenbaker won 208 seats (Liberals 48 with no viable third party). By 1963 they were reduced to a minority, and then knocked on their keister.

In 1984 Brian Mulroney won 211 seats. By 1993, his party was reduced to just 2 and eventually folded.

The NDP's success this time around was due to a wave, that headlines announced before it actually took place. They will have a lot of trouble getting it to hold, unless they do something bold, and not just try to pretend to be Liberals, in the same way that the Harperites are pretending to be Tories (or according to Persichilli, also pretending to be Liberals).

This next five years will be hell, as Canada has now taken on an aggressive foreign policy. We are in the market for 1300 bombs, and according to University of California's Michael Allen, we are taking over the "Democracy" (violent coup) business.

This will forever change who we are and how we are viewed by the rest of the world. If the NDP support this, they are no longer NDP. And the fact that the Conservatives are inititating this, means that they are no longer conservative. Not in the Canadian tradition.

Pay attention Angelo. There's no excuse for your drivel.