Was it just me, or did other Canadians want to hurl when they heard Harper state the following in today’s gratuitous and over-the-top exercise in US pandering?
“I just want to make this clear to our American friends,” Harper said in a tone that began to sound rather stern. “The view of this government is unequivocal: threats to the United States are threats to Canada.”
Like the time Harper wrote this:
Canadians Stand With You
Wall Street Journal | 3/28/03 |
By STEPHEN HARPER and STOCKWELL DAY
Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.
This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need. The Canadian Alliance — the official opposition in parliament — supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values. Disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, and for the collective interests of our key historic allies and therefore manifestly in the national interest of Canada. Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada’s largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us.
But we will not be with the Canadian government.
Modern Canada was forged in large part by war — not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century — against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism — Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way. We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That is why we will stand — and I believe most Canadians will stand with us — for these higher values which shaped our past, and which we will need in an uncertain future.
Messrs. Harper and Day are the leader and shadow foreign minister, respectively, of the Canadian Alliance.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Harper to Obama: Canadians Stand With You Part 2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
For some strange reason you seem to forget to mention that your leader Mr.Ignatieff has also said that Canada should have joined the U.S.in Iraq. But I digress. Just typical. This is what we call selective memory.
The Right is Where it's At:
My leader?
My conscience is "my leader" and I was opposed to the Iraq War from the outset, on the basis that:
(1) You don't commence military action on a new front of your own timing (Iraq) while another front (Afghanistan) is unresolved, for fear that a third front (not of your making, nor of your timing) emerges. It's called spreading yourself too thin.
(2) If Iraq truly had WMD, then you don't pre-announce military action, in the same way that you don't poke a sharp stick in the eye of an armed aggressor.
As for "selective memory", I don't recall Michael Ignatieff making such gratuitous pandering comments TODAY about the "unequivocal" support of the US's interests a la "threats to the United States are threats to Canada".
Meanwhile Ignatieff's position that Canada join the US in the invasion of Iraq.....was wrong.....which is why he admitted the error of his ways.
As such, the "selective memory" is yours, not mine.
Brent Fullard
"As for "selective memory", I don't recall Michael Ignatieff making such gratuitous pandering comments TODAY about the "unequivocal" support of the US's interests a la "threats to the United States are threats to Canada".
First we don't know what he has said in private. Secondly don't you want your biggest trading partner and superpower on your side? Mr.Harper is our PM what did you want him to say humm? That threat to the United States are not threats to Canada"? Is this the way to get along with the U.S? You know sir no matter what Mr. Harper our PM whether you like it or not would have said it wouldn't never be good enough for you.
You said:
"Meanwhile Ignatieff's position that Canada join the US in the invasion of Iraq.....was wrong.....which is why he admitted the error of his ways."
Mr.Harper has also admitted that it was a mistake. I stand by my comment "selective memory".
Maybe our PM should look after his own citizens first instead of selectively penalizing them for believing him.
Income trust investors were sorely stung to a tune which will never , that is never , be recovered.
Our faith in our political system has been ruined.
His dishonor in this instance can never be forgotten no matter what he ever does or says.
As a life-long PC member the shame he has brought upon this party is unequalled & irrevocable.
Dr Mike Popovich.
The Right is Where it's At:
WOW! Are you saying that Harper actually admitted that his call to arms on the behalf of all Canadians to invade Iraq was a mistake? WOW, I dint know that!
Hard to accuse someone of "selective memory" concerning an event that they knew nothing of.....but go ahead anyway.
I can't belive that the infallible Stephen Harper would admit to EVER making a mistake.
Do you suppose this admission of error was some sort of moral epiphany that he came to of his own independent volition? Or do you suppose that fact that the question was put to him on a live televised leaders' debate during the middle of an election might have had something to do with the "political calculus" of disowning a position that would otherwise resonate with less than 1% of Canadians?
Do you suppose that Harper would have admitted that invading Iraq would have been a mistake during a live televised leaders' debate during the middle of an election, in the scenario where Canada had actually followed his advice on Iraq, and say, 500 Canadians had lost their lives?
No, I didn't think so.
Such is the intellectual "purity" of Stephen Harper's mea culpas. He is only prepared to be wrong, when it suits his political purposes.
To me, he has proven himself, as with income trusts, to be person devoid of principles.
Brent Fullard
Post a Comment