redwhite

Martin has been Prime Minister for six months. He began by saying that he will not consider his time in government a success unless he involves all regions (specifically the west) and reunites the country. He said he would not call an election until he "gets to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal". He seemed to want to clean up the federal government and he expressed a desire to work honestly with the provinces to improve the healthcare system. He has accomplished nothing. He could have governed positively, made progress in getting to the bottom of the scandal and cleaning up the corruption in government, and made some progress on "fixing healthcare", and probably significantly improved our relations with the U.S. given the international respect he has (relative to Chretien, his international stature is through the roof - at least Canadians are not embarrassed everytime he opens his mouth on the international stage). If he had simply started to do what he promised, or made any effort whatsoever, I believe he very likely would have been untouchable one year from now when he needed to call an election. Accountability could have been restored in government, and maybe Canadians could once again start feeling some pride for being Canadian, not just trying to convince themselves that the best thing Canadians are is not American. He chose not to live up to his word. Against the advice of his advisors, he called an early election (before the newly formed CPC was able to hold a policy convention, hoping to catch them offguard) and hoped to walk away with a large unearned majority. It was political opportunism at it's worst. He then launched the most vile negative campaign in Canadian history, choosing to conduct a dishonest, scare mongering campaign and further divide this country. He had his chance, he was given complete control of this country on December 12, 2003, and he chose to not even try. He does not deserve another chance.

That is simply dishonest, like virtually all of the Liberal campaign.

That the quiet majority of Canadians were in support of the ousting of Saddam Hussein is common knowledge. Just because you prefer to support a sadistic dictatorial regime does not mean clear thinking Canadians agree with you. That the quiet majority of Canadians were disgusted and ashamed by Chretien's shameful posturing and self righteous attitude is also common knowledge.

The polls. Most Canadians disagree with the US invasion of Iraq. Look it up. No, you look it up and prove your assertion. That's how arguments work, you make a claim, then you prove it. Here's a guide for you: http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/logargs.htm You may want to pay specific attention to "Burden of Proof".

Which undergrad degree did your dog get, from which university, and which grad school did they attend? Just so we can get an idea of how much smarter your dog is than Bush.