YankAbroad

George Bush never said "I strongly believe Iraq has illegal weapons." He said "I KNOW Iraq has the weapons and we KNOW where they are." That's a bald-faced lie, plain and simple.

Bin Laden isn't in Iraq and wasn't in Iraq.

I had to chuckle at the "conservatives in the USA like conservatives from Canada" line, Murray. Imagine if Harper ran an ad where he talked about "LIBERAL Americans like Ted Kennedy can't WAIT for Paul Martin to win the election." Pure silliness by the Liberal Party, and one that will backfire with even liberal Americans when it comes to bilateral relations. Even US business and news press has picked up on the anti-American rhetoric. . . it's no longer something "not seen" south of the border, and it will have profound impact on US policy in the future.

The complaints from supposed Arabs who supposedly "don't feel safe" in the USA are bullshit. The folks who make those accusations are used to western countries like Canada, or the UK (my present home) which bend over backwards to make them feel welcome -- changing institutions to be "more Islamic," etc. Whereas, the philosophy of the US has always been "come here, as it is, and make your way." Sell us on the changes to society you want to make and their benefits, rather than demand we make them just to make you comfortable. Change yourself AND your views, not just those of society, to fit in. Many find this to be "too much work," and prefer the welfare states in places like here in the UK, which will provide housing, food, shelter, free transport, etc. to demogogues who call for the government to be overthrown and replaced with a theocracy.

To be 100% frank, the thing that annoys me far more than the distortion of positions against the WTO which the softlumber advocates on the Canadian side are taking is this idea that Canada is just entitled to the entire American market without any blockades. As someone who does business on both sides of the border, I see this attitude from the Liberal Party and its supporters all the time. American markets exist solely to fuel Canadian enterprises -- but whenever we Americans want to sell in Canadian markets, we're hit with taxes, fees, restrictions, regulations at the border, labour visa issues, etc. Whenever we complain, we're usually (quite haughtily told) that "Canada is a sovereign country and you're gonna have to do things OUR way, since the border is HERE." Well why shouldn't that standard work both ways? I'm all in favor of free trade, but if "free trade" in practice means handing over US markets and jobs to Canadian producers, with no benefits for American businesses (but plenty of barriers which, if they existed the other way, would get people in Canada screaming) what's in it for us?

Make an example of the guys who actually did the planning and execution, rather than sidetrack in Iraq and lose sight of the prize.

I'm afraid that the Uzbek kleptocracy is in no position to be smacking Bush on issues of propriety, fairness, or democracy.

If we North Americans were serious about our values, we'd offer automatic asylum and settlement to women, gays and other oppressed minorites in Iran. They land, we take their passports, they stay for the requisite period and become US or Canadian citizens. It would do a lot more good than all the rhetorical barbs slung at Tehran. Like they care what we think!

Where did I criticize Canada? I criticized the idiots in the Liberal and Conservative parties who are playing politics with gay people's lives. I have similar contempt for the Republicrats in the USA who do the same thing.

The cost increases are still lower than the subsidies. The net result remains selling lumber below cost. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to see the tariff go. I think Canada's culture and media laws, various anti-competitive tariffs on both sides of the border, and restrictions on labour mobility should all disappear.

There's nothing particularly "democratic" about denying basic rights under the law to a permanent minority. It's a bit like arguing for Alabama in the 1960s to put desegregation to a popular vote and then tell blacks "sorry, but the democratic decision is to deny you entry to state universities and put you in separate schools, deal with it." If Canada is such a free and accepting society which values individual liberty and human rights, it shouldn't be "democratically debating" removing or depriving rights from any permanent minority of law-abiding citizens who experience popular hatred from people like yourself.

Frankly, if the USA nullified NAFTA, it would suffer no ills. It should be replaced with a real free trade agreement which bans subsidized products (like the soft lumber which the BC government sells below cost), and which allows full freedom of movement and labor. NAFTA is neither free trade nor particularly North American.

Not at all! I identify with french Canadian nationalism far more than the manufactured-in-Ottawa rah-rah media-culture fake bilingual nationalism promoted by groups like the Council of Canadians -- which reminds me more of schoolhouse rock rejects than real nationalism based on a shared culture and values. It guts me to have some English Canadians blast me as an evil horrible person who hates and doesn't understand Canada when I at least took time to learn French when I was in Canada and they're 9 times out of 10 unilingual!

It's nauseating that people in both big parties in Canada are playing poker with the lives of gay and lesbian Canadian families in order to get themselves some power.

Chretien's intentions may not have been purely strategic when he opted out of the Iraq War, but it's proven to be a wise decision. Canada would be well advised not to get mired down in Iraq or provide cover for Bush's poor planning. It's up to him to articulate a strategy to fix the mess -- not demand that all the countries he insulted for calling him on his bullshit skip in to bail him out.

Dubya doesn't have a clue about Canada or much of anything else, but he loves his tariffs. It's not so much a swipe againt Canada as an effort to protect a domestic industry, ala his steel tariffs a couple of years ago. I do have to say, however, that if the shoe was on the other foot and it was the US pressing to have Canadian tariffs refunded -- with the risk of Canadians losing jobs to more efficient US producers -- I don't think the same people now extolling the virtues of NAFTA in Ottawa would be doing so. Call me a cynic.

Spin? In America? It's a bit like Canada being "officially bilingual," I guess. I got out of a speeding ticket in Kamloops by pretending to be francophone only -- the officer didn't speak French and called me a "French son of a bitch" before letting me go.

Why should religious schools be publicly funded? Canada would be better served by allowing private religious and nonreligious schools and universities to operate, rather than insisting that every institution be beholden to Ottawa dollars. Depoliticized education is crucial to the development of a mature democratic society and a strong economy.

Actually, I think Ms. Coulter has no equal in twittiness. She's refined shrieky and unbalanced hyperbole, combined with the politics of personal destruction, to an art form which would have made Hearst at his worst green with envy at her capabilities.

Because as is so often the case with politician, the law (including the Constitution) is for the "little people" to follow, not our masters. Our masters forget the whole concept of the country, which isn't "daddy knows best" paternalism, but accountability to the electorate. Bush is commander in chief of the army, not the country, he has a legal obligation to report to Congress (as the executive who works for them), and he took an oath NOT "to keep America safe by any means necessary" but to uphold the Constitution. There's no reason he need violate the Constitution to do so, except that he has contempt for this country and its institutions and wants to do things his way. He's clearly broken the law, he should be impeached and tried for that lawbreaking, but he will not be because of the sclerotic political conditions in Washington.

I don't have a strong opinion on Roe v. Wade, as abortion doesn't strike me as a particularly major issue. The overemphasis on it, to the detriment of basic Fourth, First and Second Amendment rights which are being actively undermined by this clearly criminal administration, is corrosive to our country -- regardless of what political or party affiliations you have.

"Logic and reason" isn't saying "Kennedy did bad stuff too." I wouldn't support Kennedy for the court vacancy any more than I support Alito. The focus is on Alito -- the efforts to get people to defend Kennedy's actions, for which he was legally exonerated forty years ago, is just infantile. It's a bit like going after Bush's alcoholism when he begins to criticize drug policy. It's a cheap shot designed to undermine discussion of the real issue in favor of scoring cheap points and suggesting that those who bring up valid concerns "have no right" to do so.

We have a culture of many cultures -- culinary, linguistic, musical, architectural, political, legal, etc. Just go to New England or Georgia and tell me those aren't unique cultures which are part of our varied landscape.

It's interesting how the right wing's reaction to criticism of their candidate hasn't been to substantively respond to the criticism, but rather attack Ted Kennedy. When did Kennedy get appointed to a Supreme Court slot?

tml, if more people on both sides of the border understood things the way you just described them, we could throw away these silly arguments and get down to the work of creating a better economic block with labor mobility which would elevate Mexico, preserve the differences between the three countries, increase average incomes in Canada, and expose more Americans to international points of view. I hope we get there in the next ten years.