Borys Wrzesnewskyj resigns
Canadian Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj has resigned as associate foreign affairs critic over comments in support of Hezbollah. But the Liberal Party is still in trouble. Wrzesnewskyj is just one member. One Liberal blogger knows that there are plenty more who think Wrzesnewskyj was right on the issue, and are plotting revenge.
The furor over Borys Wrzesnewskyj's confused comments over how to deal with Hezbollah have cost him his job in parliament:
Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj has resigned as associate foreign affairs critic for his party after controversial comments he made about the conflict in the Middle East.
Wrzesnewskyj offered his resignation Tuesday night, he told CanWest News Service, and it was accepted by Liberal Leader Bill Graham.
Wrzesnewskyj, who will meet with reporters this afternoon, came under fire earlier this week for suggesting he favoured removing Hezbollah from Canada’s list of terrorist organizations. In some media reports, the MP was quoted as saying that Israel was responsible for "state terrorism" in the conflict with Lebanon.
Wrzesnewskyj has denied making some or all of the comments in question at different times, it seems.
This isn't about the morality or wisdom of dealing with terrorists. This isn't about whether it is reasonable to expect terrorists to change their behaviour, or whether there are some terrorists so steeped in blood that no negotiations can be considered.
This is about the effect on the Liberal Party. This is about being a liability. This is about a failure on the part of Wrzesnewskyj to control the situation he had created. This is about a failure on the party of interim leader Bill Graham to react quickly and decisively, a failure whose cost will be paid by Wrzesnewskyj.
It is a happy coincidence that it is also the right thing to do.
Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham said Wednesday he asked Mr. Wrzesnewskyj to meet with him to explain his comments.
"He did that and in the course of doing that, he tendered his resignation as associate critic (of foreign affairs), which I accepted in the circumstances," Mr. Graham told reporters. "Therefore, I consider that matter closed."
No time to discuss the deeper issue of terrorism? But then Bill Graham just wants the problem to go away.
It has gone away inasmuch as Wrzesnewskyj s concerned. But for the Liberal Party as a whole, the underlying problem remains -- incredible tension within the Liberal Party over the Middle East, especially as the Conservative Party has staked out an uncompromising position in support of Israel and against terrorists. An example of this tension appears on Jason Cherniak's blog:
Boris Wrzesnewskyj has resigned his post as Liberal Associate Critic for Foreign Affairs. I called for this when I first read his comments and a number of bloggers have accused me of being part of a "witchhunt". I also happen to know that some of them have used this as excuse to attack me by sending private emails to the Dion campaign.
I will admit that all the vile directed my way made me begin to second guess myself. However, since even Borys recognizes that he could not continue in his position after having made the comments that he did, I feel vindicated. Clearly, it is those who attacked my position that do not represent the values of the Liberal Party. [emphasis added]
With all due respect, Jason, I think the jury is out on that last statement. Those people who sent the private emails, the ones who are publicly castigating you, the ones who hate you and your position on Israel (and who hate Israel itself) but who have not said anything yet -- they are still in the Liberal Party. As long as they are members, they help mold the values of the Liberal Party. So do you, but your capacity to affect change is limited, as you admit yourself:
I am not an MP. I was not in a position to call Borys or hear "his side of the story". I am a lowly blogger who could do naught but voice my concerns publicly.
Yes, you came out on top on this one, and an MP went down. But Wrzesnewskyj was clumsy. Worry about the clever ones. They are still in the party, and I'd be willing to bet they are represented at every level, from lowly blogger to the highest executive and elected positions. And they are still gunning for you and anyone like you.
Once the foolish ones like Wrzesnewskyj are gone, the rest are going to be that much harder to root out. See, the problem is this -- people like Jason Cherniak and Warren Kinsella are entirely forthcoming with their opinions. Those who harbour animus towards Israel, or to Jews in general, or feel that Hezbollah has been treated unfairly, almost always work in the shadows. With what happened to Wrzesnewskyj, the rest will retreat further into the shadows, fully aware of the price to pay for being too honest with their opinions.
They'll stay in the shadows, ready to take down Cherniak and others like him when the opportunity presents itself. It won't even be about Israel or terrorism. But regardless of the apparent reason, it will be payback for this, should it ever happen.
It's politics as bad as it can be.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Party Canada Israel Hezbollah terrorism
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
woot!
...and I only just posted about Wrzesnewskyj too..
(I guess I should comment more often).
In all fairness to the Liberals though, if they want to recreate themselves they can't have that kind of baggage beside them.
Now lets see how the Liberals squirm and try to brush themselves off (yet again).
Maybe Caroline Parrish and Wrzesnewskyj can commiserate together over some Red Rose tea?
Posted by: Fir3start3r at August 23, 2006 03:55 PM
Isn't it usually the party forming government that has "disgrace" resignations from cabinet? Good on the opposition Liberals for taking their sense of "natural governing party" to their shadow cabinets.
Posted by: at August 23, 2006 04:15 PM
He didnt lose anything but a title. Big deal.
Posted by: FREE at August 23, 2006 06:40 PM
Yeah, but he gained a new title: Hezbollah Apologist esq.
Posted by: Levesque at August 23, 2006 06:48 PM
Out of curiousity, Steve, what do you think of Robert McLelland calling Jason Cherniak an anti-Semite and Warren Kinsella finally forcing hate-spewing blogger "Big City Lib" to reveal himself?
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at August 24, 2006 12:24 AM
Alarmed? Yes, I am alarmed, because too many people are not aware of this second rising tide of murderous fascism. Hitler was leading a fairly small population towards world domination in 1938. Hitler came close to winning control of all Europe.
This time there are several leaders motivating billions of Muslims to enslave and subdue our democratic and free lifestyles that we enjoy today. The majority of us seem not to be aware of the intolerable suffocating pain it will be to live under iron - fisted Shia law.
That a Canadian Liberal MP visiting Lebanon could suggest Hezbollah be removed from the terrorist list simply adds to my impression that a majority of Canadians have no idea that we are at war for our survival and freedoms. My sense of urgency may mean nothing, but the following views are h/t [Duke].. From a retired commander, USAF.
I did a "Google search" on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio (Air Force Hospital). So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs in California , and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about! (the same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)
1. When did the threat to us [of the free world] start?
Many will say September 11, 2001 .The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut , Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut , Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; [241 dead marines]
* Lockerbie , Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%. [ Twenty-five percent ]
5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
(see ht tp/w.w.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists.
They focus the world on the US, but kill all in their way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us *infidels.* I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:
We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them.
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?
The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and likewise get committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing?
Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
This is only part of it. You can get this filled out at DukeMcgoo.blogspot.com
= TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at August 24, 2006 01:42 AM
This is really rather unfortunate for MP Kenney.
Posted by: A at August 24, 2006 07:05 AM
2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
TG: I think it rather has something to do with Western (read: U.S. + her allies) foreign policies and the perception of Western imperialist ambitions in the Middle East. Whether intended as such or not, these actions and policies are perceived by terrorist groups as provocations. "They hate our freedom" is as oversimplistic and propagandist a statement as "Support the troops."
4. What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%. [ Twenty-five percent ]
What is the radical terrorist/ideologue population within the Muslim world?
Far far less. As long as "we" continue to carelessly lump together terrorist groups with the entire Muslim population, "we" continue to risk pushing moderate Muslims to the radical extremes. Antagonizing the whole of Islam serves only to foment the resentment of the West that terrorist groups thrive on. "We" would do well to recognize our own role in this vicious circle.
Posted by: A at August 24, 2006 07:21 AM
Come on Steve. Ar you suggesting that the Tories have no nutbars? Guys like bigcity lib are a small minority in the party. Their prominence in the blog world should be taken as indicative of anything.
Posted by: Jason Cherniak at August 24, 2006 07:27 AM
Peggy Nash, Toronto Star, blah, blah, blah.
Radical Islam is the source and sponsor of most all the terrorism we are fighting and dealing with throughout the world. It's the duty of the followers of the Muslim faith to weed them out from within their fold, they are the ones best able to do it. They have to be vigilant and aware of what their children and young people are being exposed to through teachings/brainwashing by radical factions in the guise of the faith.
Most rational people are not wrapping all Muslims in one package but there is a huge problem with the trust and suspicion factors when people are not open and forthright about their problem. This is merely human nature, fear of the unknown.
Posted by: Biddy at August 24, 2006 09:47 AM
A, So far moderate Muslims have chosen not to group under a common banner or leader.
Until they do, they will be lumped in with the Jihadists. = TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at August 24, 2006 10:13 AM
Mohammad was not moderate and his book, the Quran is not moderate. Mo's life and his book are violently specific about achieving the Islamic objective.
It is not the west which is to be blamed for the most recent rise of Muslim fascism. It is the proper and literal teaching of the Quran, the Hadith, etc. and the final purpose that Mohammad left with his followers.
After a period of recess, the Mohammadan death cult has money again and they are using it to fulfill their imperial dream. The whole umma is being swept along with it, or they will be swept aside.
That's what the rest of the world is up against.
I say neuter the males. In a generation and a half or so, there'll be no more problems.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at August 24, 2006 10:40 AM
From Fred at sda this morning (Hezboliberal.com thread):
"The group that Kenney spent a few minutes with after finding them on Parliament Hill is NOT on the terrorist list.
"Other groups have attempted to smear them as a MEK front, but they are not on the list."
I suspect this is a tempest in a teapot. The Liberals would love to trip Jason Kenney up. 'Anything to divert the public's attention from their latest Leadership fiasco (addresses and phone numbers of candidates displayed on the Internet) and Borys Wrzesnewskyj's comments in support of Hezbollah.
Not in the same league at all. No (im)moral equivalence here. Nice try, guys.
Posted by: at August 24, 2006 04:58 PM
Wasn't this co-called "incident" with Jason Kenney, which A refers to, in April?
Why the fuss now? Hmmm...
On the 6:00 p.m. news on CBC radio, the newscaster didn't call the group Jason Kenney spoke to on Pariliament Hill in April a "terrorist" group. The report did say that it had "links" to terrorist groups. Despite the CBC's scruples about calling the group a terrorist organization, in their coverage they featured Bill Graham speaking about the "terrorist" group Jason Kenney had spoken to.
Those guys at the CBC are tricksy, aren't they?
They know that the group isn't a terrorist group and yet they quote Opposition Leader Bill Graham MISTAKENLY calling it a terrorist group, knowing that most listeners won't notice the discrepancy.
Don't they have a code of journaltic standards there? Oh yeah, 'seems to me they do, but they seem to have misplaced it somewhere.
Posted by: 'been around the block at August 24, 2006 05:30 PM
A blogger at small dead animals posted this vis a vis Jason Kenney's speaking at a rally staged by a so-called (by the CBC and the Librano$) terrorist organization:
"According to the current CTV.ca article, the rally Kenney addressed was organized by the Committee in Defense of Human Rights in Iran. The photo and news article however appeared on the website of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. It is only this latter organization (the NCRI) which is known to be an alias for the MEK.
"Interestingly though, I found the Committee in Defense of Human Rights in Iran was a co-sponsor of a 'seminar addressing issues of fundamentalism' in Toronto late last year. Speakers at that event included Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi, Conservative MP Paul Forseth and independent David Kilgour. Now, since this group was able to co-sponsor such an event with speakers from both major parties, either this group has no known terrorist ties or such ties were (untill yesterday) unknown. See http://www.stopfundamentalism.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=223&Itemid=71"
Enough said. As I mentioned over at SDA, Jason Kenney's not for the taking and it's reprehensible, though not surprising, that the Librano$ are trying so desperately to discredit him.
This event HAPPENED IN APRIL. Why call attention to it now? Because the Librano$ are in hot water, not to mention total disarray. Their ball of wool is unravelling faster and faster every day.
Posted by: 'been around the block at August 24, 2006 07:35 PM
 
|
|
