Targeted words

Kady and Cameron have already discussed the Cons' dishonest attack on Jack Layton. But it's worth noting that a second obviously false part of the Con press release seems to have gone largely undiscussed.

The focus so far seems to have been on the concept of insulting Canadian troops generally, as well as the Cons' conflation of Canadian troops and coalition ones. But there's another piece of the Cons' claim which may be the least explicable of the lot:

NDP Leader Jack Layton made the disturbing suggestion yesterday that coalition troops are targeting and recklessly killing Afghan civilians.

Pay close attention to the use of the word "targeting". There's a readily seen difference between raising the possibility that civilians have been harmed as a side effect of carrying out another task, and accussing somebody of "targeting" civilians such that the actual goal of a mission is to cause harm to them. And indeed the Cons' inclusion of the two separate concepts makes it clear that they recognize the distinction.

So why does that matter? As Kady points out, the line refers to the following quote from Layton:

Yesterday in Newfoundland Layton said the following about Canadian troops: “This horrific practice of coming in with planes and strafing villages and having civilians killed, it’s turning the civilians against the mission,”

It couldn't be much more obvious that Layton doesn't suggest that civilians are targeted in any way. Instead, his criticism is that the tactical choice of strafing villages results in civilian deaths as an unintended side effect - with the further consequence that Afghan civilians are turned against the coalition's mission.

Now, the Cons could have met that criticism by limiting their focus to what Layton actually said. But instead, they apparently felt the need to add a lie about Layton's statement to try to paint him as unreasonable.

Of course, the Cons are likely counting on being able to make the lie stick with enough of their supporters to turn it into a political benefit. But the action really only suggests that when it comes to debating the truth of the matter, even the Cons recognize that Layton occupies the higher ground.