All the depth of a parking-lot puddle

Babble on.

Rosie DiManno's column in today's Toronto Star is worth reading for this line alone:

But elsewhere, be it Darfur or Haiti — or whatever bright object of humanitarian need might captivate the likes of Jack Layton — would lose its thrall, you can bet on it, as soon as Canadian troops started dying there, too. (Babbler's italics)

Apparently DiManno's not the only one unimpressed by Taliban Jack! and his adamant refusal to accept the realities of rebuilding a peaceful and independent Afghanistan, when the glib and easy alternative is to exclaim "Support our troops! Bring them home!" to ego-feeding applause from his domestic political base.

Hamid Karzai - you know, the elected leader of Afghanistan who has publicly thanked Canada a number of times for sending soldiers to his country to help stabilize and reconstruct a civil society there - isn't even answering Layton's correspondence (ht: The Cornerbrook Doppelganger).

NDP Leader Jack Layton has made several requests for a meeting with the Afghan leader - and has had no reply.

Well, when Jack! is spouting the drivel that follows, it's no wonder Karzai doesn't want to waste his time sharing fake smiles over stale donuts with the man.

“This mission is completely out of whack,” Layton said.

“By investing so heavily in the war effort in the south, it’s depriving Afghanistan from the investments in humanitarian aid and in reconstruction that are required elsewhere in the country.”

So...what, Layton? Are we supposed to abandon the southern provinces to barbarism? Or is some other nation supposed to have its sons and daughters trudge and bleed and fight in the dirt of Kandahar to pacify the region before we arrive bright-faced and bushy-tailed ready to dig wells and build schools? Which nation should shoulder that burden? Someone's going to have to, because the Afghans themselves can't yet. That's why Karzai continues to request our support, you posturing, facetious dilettante. Any wonder why he won't allow you to waste his precious time?

As Christie Blatchford has noted, this man is clever enough to know that the CF is doing the heavy-work required to allow the humanitarian and reconstruction projects to take root. That he chooses to deliberately ignore that fact for crass political gain speaks volumes about his character.

Or lack thereof, to be more accurate.

Babble off.

Update: Stephen Taylor notes that the ass doesn't fall far from the hole:

In 1937, Tommy Douglas said the following before Parliament:

"Against whom are we arming? What potential aggressor is more aggressive today? Oh, I know that bogeymen have been trotted out in this chamber. It has been suggested that it might be Italy, it might be Germany, it might be Japan."

It might be congenital.