gerryhatrick

Hardly. You think he's embarrassing Harper, so you are angry at him. That's fair. But don't pretend he's irrelevent. He's made a name for himself and won the respect of a lot of people. Just because Harper won't return his phone calls hardly makes him irrelevent.

No kidding. It's a wall of silence. The only information they're willing to give is the "rhetoric". It's sad to see so many defenders of this throwing away thier integrity for partisan loyalty.

No, it's not the same information worked from a different angle. And no, you didn't realize it. In your last post you clearly believed the topic was about the Downing Street Memo which came out over a year ago. This is a transparent attempt to cover up your ignorance. This is a first-hand account. The DSM was a second hand account. This time Bush is openly talking about methods to provoke a response to give him the excuse to invade (painting a US spy plane UN blue). It's nothing like the DSM. Nice try. I'm glad you realize there's something new out there now at least.

Provoke a war? Sorry Gerry but there was already a war which was suspended under a conditional ceasefire. That is weak. But I'll play along. OK, there already was a war...under suspension. So then by suggesting they paint a spy plane with UN colors he was looking to provoke a violent reaction to give himself an excuse to resume the war. Whatever. It's still the same....a cynical plan to purposely create the conditions for an invasion at the same time he outwardly claimed he wanted to avoid conflict. You're the guy who's not ever aware that there is new first-hand information about a meeting between Bush and Blair! You think all the fuss is about the Downing Street Memo. It's breathtaking that someone stands up and debates a position without even the most basic awareness of the current events being talked about!

I don't think anything of the kind. You're a great one for false arguments. I have been clear about what I think. You think Iraq and the region will explode if the US leaves Iraq. This is based upon your idea that the US is somehow keeping the violence in check. It's illogical, but you're entitled to your opinion.

"Lad?" Names? That is emotional. Oh, SORRY I called you "lad". What an awful "name". Certainly provides you the cover you needed to ignore my point about the topic post. My God, you haven't even looked at the topic post. You don't even know what the topic is about. Not the "Downing Street Memo" that came out a long time ago. Brand new KK. Go look, if truth and reality interests you at all.

I'm not sure if Harper has any saving graces for me and I did feel sorry for Paul Martin. He took the fall for the sponsorship scandal, but the fact that the CPC just kept harping on it last election, could be one reason why they dropped in the polls and were only able to secure a minority. I realize that there are Conservative posters here, and when I bring up the issue of private healthcare, they immediately come to the PM's defense - not in the fact that he intends to uphold the Canada Health Act - but being loyal supporters, know that he is on their side of the issue; which is the move to private. However, he can't be on both sides. What I've seen with Mr. Harper so far, is that while he preaches ethics and accountability, his track record is anything but beyond reproach. Canadians wanted and deserved better. If this is a political forum, than all views should be welcome. If it is strictly a Stephen Harper fan club, then you're right. I have nothing to contribute. You didn't really answer my question. Is there anything you like about Stephen Harper? No this is not a Stephen Harper fan club, but we do try to weed out the useless and I am just trying to determine if you fit that category! Do you hate Stephen Harper? Is every post by you going to be, Stephen Harper and his ducks in a row trying to tear Canada apart, bringing in back street abortions, terrorizing the gay community, putting the nasty Bible back into schools, ruining healthcare, childcare and everything else??? You really seem to be one track minded. Actually she said she wasn't sure if he had any saving graces, which is an answer for you. Your post is one big abusive rant. Does critisism of Harper make you emotional?

Holy sour grapes batman! All this guy did was answer a question about the floor crossing in an honest fashion. He didn't critisize Harper over it at the time. THEN Harper dragged him to the carpet...tore a strip off him. Harper is the idiot for making it into a bigger deal than it needed to be. Harper turned this guy into a "Maverick". He laid the chips down on him, and the guy decided to openly defy him because he wasn't going to be bullied. Now Harper is trying to Muzzle all his MP's, of course this man will again stand up for himself and his constituents. He's guaranteed himself re-election with this accountable and honest behavior.

The proof that he was looking to provoke a war is more than enough to stamp out any notion that he was just getting prepared, as you strangely try to portray this. A police officer doesn't unholster his sidearm with the expectation or intent or GOAL to provoke a violent response. Give your head a shake man.

Check the topic post. A first hand account of his dishonesty is not exactly "conjecture" and "emotional drivel". Nice try though. Ignoring the evidence presented in the topic makes you look like a "troll poster". Start debating in good faith. Pretending there's nothing wrong with pre-deciding a war while outwardly claiming effort to avoid it is dishonest. It's a breach of public trust of the worst possible nature. That's not "emotional" lad, it's plain fact.

In any case, violence is happening in Iraq now. It's astounding KK that you would worry about sectarian violence if the US left. As if it's not happening now, along with a stream of other violence directed at US troops which continues to cause collateral damage on civilans and structure. It appears the Iraqi government is getting fed up with the US. Will they leave if asked? Now the Iraqi government has asked the US to give up security control. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/arch...3/29/2003299786 Time for the US to leave. They're worse than ineffectual now.

You know, I'm surprised people like KK and Monty and the other few around here defending Bush and all he's done don't just slink away and hide out until the Repubs get themselves a new leader. Defending someone so obviously dishonest and incompetant who's f'd up things so badly is a thankless job.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_11-20-02.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021016-1.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030306-8.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030308-1.html Well, that took five minutes. Note the last two were shortly after his coniving with Tony Blair to go to war regardless of any event. If I included every time Ari and Scott (speaking for the President) and Colin et al said war was a "last resort", it would be a much longer list. Get real Jerry. Of course they would keep an open door (for diplomatic and political reasons), Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think you can debate in that fashion? First you say you don't recall Bush saying war was "a last resort". I demonstrate that you must have been sleeping during the run up to war with several examples of just that. And now you talk about them keeping an open door? There was no door, open or otherwise! You "get real" Monty. Wake up and smell the coffee you spilled all over yourself. The war was decided upon, and this proves it.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/200...508906-sun.html Well, that's one with the balls to openly claim his right to free speach so far. I think every Conservative MP who defends thier right to free expression deserves a vote in the next election.

Indeed it is. What is he scared of? Now that Maverick MP is standing up for himself again. Oh brother Well, I guess Steve brought it on himself this time. What better way to get people to talk than telling them to shutup?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_11-20-02.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021016-1.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030306-8.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030308-1.html Well, that took five minutes. Note the last two were shortly after his coniving with Tony Blair to go to war regardless of any event. If I included every time Ari and Scott (speaking for the President) and Colin et al said war was a "last resort", it would be a much longer list.

Newsmax edited it down to 45 seconds? They must have picked off just the parts where Hannity got good licks in. The whole thing is actually over 10 minutes. Listen here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/27.html#a7685

What is the point of that? So therefore it was OK to lie his way into a war? Besides the fact that your quote refers to "support efforts" (rather than START A WAR!) it's not relevant.

No. I imagine that he was intent on invading Iraq immediately after, if not during the Afgan operation. The War was not illegal so what is the problem for him? I thought it might be a problem if he had obviously decided privately that the war was going to happen no matter what, but publicly was saying that it could be avoided. That strikes me as a problem.

Guess they were wrong. They have been wrong about a lot more than that too. That's correct, they were wrong. They were wrong to invade Iraq and now they're wrong to say it's necessary to remain in Iraq. A whole pile of wrong.

Almost but not quite. Al Queda is not a force in Iraq. They are a presence and at the moment, a minor one at that. That is how I know that he meant those who were idealogically similar in mission. Well again, it's the false claim that it will be left to terrorists if the US leave more than Al-Qaida. Change the record KK. Did you check out the latest revelations about Bush and Tony Blair? They both agreed there would be no sectarian violence in Iraq after the invasion. That's the fella you put your world view trust in KK.

Now we see HERE what this man is. He's not a leader, he's a thug. No wonder a couple people in Canada were caught calling him names. He deserves to be called every profane name there is. I love America and have lot's of American friends. Forget the "anti-Americanism", that ain't it. The problem is a man who decides to begin a war more than a month before doing so while claiming to the world he was hoping to avoid it. about ways to avoid it. He wasn't going to be denied this war, no matter what. He mused about ways to provoke a confrontation. What is left for a man like that but Hell? He's certainly the common denominator in our bad relations. Harper can hitch his wagon to Bush if he likes. I say wait for the real America to emerge again.

Do you think the latest details of a Jan.31 2005 meeting between Bush and Blair could contribute to impeachment proceedings? Nobody is denying the authenticity and it clearly describes Bush being decided upon war and even coniving for ways to start one over a month before it started. They even had a date. This was before Powel went to the UN and before weapons inspectors were done. The narrative from Bush during this period was that he didn't want war and there were ways that it could be avoided. Clearly, a lie.

No. You started the side track when you said that Bush was dumb enough to believe that Al Queda was going to take over Iraq when he said they were fighting the people who attacked them on 911. Obviously those who did that are dead and therefore cannot be the same ones in Iraq. Therefore, he would have to be referring to mean the same type of people. OMG. The dumb side-argument just got dumber. You're actually suggesting that Al-Qaida is dead!!! No I know...I know. You're of course being literal to the point of childishness. Al-Qaida is still alive and well and when Mr. Inevitable War Idiot said leaving Iraq meant leaving it to those people who attacked them on 9/11 he meant the organization, not the specific individuals. That was a fun waste of time, huh?

New documentation, a FIRST HAND account of Bush and Blair meeting on Jan. 31, 2005 details Bush's unshakable determination to go to war. It was decided, as all the lefty kooks have been claiming, and here's the proof. Regardless of what weapons inspectors found, OR of the 2nd resolution happening....he was doin' it! Not only that, but he floated the idea of painting a spy plane UN colors to try and draw fire which would have given him the excuse for war. That and assasination of Saddam. Hey KK, this is the guy in which you have full confidence has a master plan for the Mid-East that no lesser person (like a US soldier) can imagine. He's the visionary. What an embarassment for the USA.