Chretien on The Hour

[noahbody]

On The Hour, Chretien responded to the comment that we never implemented Kyoto by saying don't blame him, he wasn't there. He says he almost had a deal with the oil companies but since his successors failed to implement this deal that admittedly wasn't done, we have lost four years and won't be able to make our targets by 2012. What an unbelieveable statement. Someone should mention to him we really needed to meet our targets by 2008.

[Borg]

On The Hour, Chretien responded to the comment that we never implemented Kyoto by saying don't blame him, he wasn't there. He says he almost had a deal with the oil companies but since his successors failed to implement this deal that admittedly wasn't done, we have lost four years and won't be able to make our targets by 2012. What an unbelieveable statement. Someone should mention to him we really needed to meet our targets by 2008.

The "Creature" is a politician and a liberal - not to be trusted to say or do anything that does not benefit HIM and then the party.

He is simply ensuring he is cleared when history tells his sorry tale.

Borg

[BubberMiley]

This was a good interview, though a little rushed. I liked how Chretien mentioned how he would like to take on Harper if he were a younger man. I don't think Harper would stand a chance.

Above all, Chretien seemed to be into politics to satisfy is competitive nature. He never backed down from a good fight, and history will judge him kindly for not joining the coalition of the willing when Harper and the conservatives were voicing their shame that Canada was not in.

Harper now would like to rewrite history and pretends that he was never for Canada joining the invasion of Iraq. Fortunately, we still remember what he said in 2003.

[Michael Bluth]

This just in.

Three posts until we get our first Harper *scary* *scary* *scary* claim.

Exactly what does Chretien being on the hour have to do with how scary Stephen Harper is?

[Wild Bill]

This just in.

Three posts until we get our first Harper *scary* *scary* *scary* claim.

Exactly what does Chretien being on the hour have to do with how scary Stephen Harper is?

Yeah, it is predictable, isn't it?

Who I find truly scary are hosts like Ben Mulroney and George "Snuffleupagus". I guess I'm showing my years. I don't see them as hip at all but rather the modern equivalent of David Cassidy or Dick Clark giving you all the rock and roll that has been approved by your parents!

In other words: trite, manufactured and lame!

Still, that's better than my impressions of Chretien. People will be talking about Shawinigate and his likely connections to AdScam long after they've forgotten Mulroney and Kurt Schreiber.

[Michael Bluth]

Who I find truly scary are hosts like Ben Mulroney and George "Snuffleupagus". I guess I'm showing my years. I don't see them as hip at all but rather the modern equivalent of David Cassidy or Dick Clark giving you all the rock and roll that has been approved by your parents!

Here's the difference as I see it.

Ben knows how he got the job and is working it to try and build a career for himself in entertainment. He doesn't pass himself off as a 'serious journalist'.

On the other hand Georgie thinks he is a journalist, despite The Hour being truly a general interest show.

Some very good commentary on his work from the Ryerson Review of Journalism. Link

If George continues to scratch at the surface of issues, he'll end up on top of the stack of failed CBC experiments. But if he adds depth to his omnivorous approach to reporting on entertainment, culture and news, The Hour could work. George comes across as everyone's regular guy, so the question is: When does a regular guy like George grow up? The Hour will only grow if he does.

Will we ever see that depth? How much longer will it take?

Edited January 1, 2008 by Michael Bluth

[BubberMiley]

Three posts until we get our first Harper *scary* *scary* *scary* claim.

I didn't say anything about scary. You are just incapable of coming up with any other defence about how Harper would have included Canada in the coalition of the willing because it is indefensible.

To remind you, because you may have chosen to forget, Harper sent a letter to the Wall Street Journal, saying:

"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."

Canadians remember this, and this is why the CPC can't manage to find support beyond its base despite the implosion within the Liberal Party. History will remember it too, as much as CPC supporters try to forget it.

[jdobbin]

Canadians remember this, and this is why the CPC can't manage to find support beyond its base despite the implosion within the Liberal Party. History will remember it too, as much as CPC supporters try to forget it.

Some of board members here insist that being in Iraq would have been better than being in Afghanistan. I guess that is a new tact to take. It's not too late for Harper to take that position.

[jdobbin]

Still, that's better than my impressions of Chretien. People will be talking about Shawinigate and his likely connections to AdScam long after they've forgotten Mulroney and Kurt Schreiber.

They might relegate Shrieber to that of a footnote but Mulroney remains the most hated former PM in present day Canada. He is the undisputed champion in that regard.

[Moonlight Graham]

Harper now would like to rewrite history and pretends that he was never for Canada joining the invasion of Iraq. Fortunately, we still remember what he said in 2003.

Do you have a link where Harper says he was against the 2003 invasion as you say?

I'm not a big Harper fan, but i do remember him saying in the last year or so that he did support the Iraq invasion in 2003 based on what U.S. and other intelligence was saying about WMD's etc., and Harper added that if he knew there would be no WMD's he wouldn't have supported Canada going into Iraq.

From CBC during 2006 election coverage: "On Iraq in particular, he said he was happy about the removal of Saddam but would not commit Canadian troops to the conflict, and he felt "great disappointment" at the breakdown in pre-war intelligence." http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/iraq.html

[Alexandra]

They might relegate Shrieber to that of a footnote but Mulroney remains the most hated former PM in present day Canada. He is the undisputed champion in that regard.

It was last summer I believe that Canadians voted Pierre Trudeau as the worst Canadian. The Beaver magazine poll. Whether 'worst Canadian' trumps 'most hated PM' depends on one's bias. Or, more likely it depends on whether one lives in the Eastern or Western provinces of Canada. The western provinces being Sask., Alberta and B.C. of course.

`

[jdobbin]

It was last summer I believe that Canadians voted Pierre Trudeau as the worst Canadian. The Beaver magazine poll. Whether 'worst Canadian' trumps 'most hated PM' depends on one's bias. Or, more likely it depends on whether one lives in the Eastern or Western provinces of Canada. The western provinces being Sask., Alberta and B.C. of course.

Even the Beaver says it was a completely unscientific poll.

Chris Hannah, a singer not known by most Canadians was chosen as the number 2 worst Canadian in that same poll.

Every recent poll with any credibility as shown that Mulroney is the most hated PM in recent history.

[jdobbin]

Do you have a link where Harper says he was against the 2003 invasion as you say?

I'm not a big Harper fan, but i do remember him saying in the last year or so that he did support the Iraq invasion in 2003 based on what U.S. and other intelligence was saying about WMD's etc., and Harper added that if he knew there would be no WMD's he wouldn't have supported Canada going into Iraq.

From CBC during 2006 election coverage: "On Iraq in particular, he said he was happy about the removal of Saddam but would not commit Canadian troops to the conflict, and he felt "great disappointment" at the breakdown in pre-war intelligence." http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/iraq.html

This is part of the every changing views on Iraq that Harper has. If he has been PM, he would have found a way to make sure Canada was involved militarily in Iraq. He's gone through some rather incredible contortions on the issue.

Edited January 2, 2008 by jdobbin

[BubberMiley]

Do you have a link where Harper says he was against the 2003 invasion as you say?

Harper has never said that he opposes the invasion, but in December 2005 he flip-flopped to a more pragmatic position given the overwhelming opposition in Canada to the war. He wrote another letter to an American newspaper--this time the Washington Times (apparently he's more interested in communicating to Americans than to Canadians through the Canadian media). He said: "While I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country."

He made no comment on his earlier judgement in 2003.

Edited January 2, 2008 by BubberMiley

[Moonlight Graham]

On The Hour, Chretien responded to the comment that we never implemented Kyoto by saying don't blame him, he wasn't there. He says he almost had a deal with the oil companies but since his successors failed to implement this deal that admittedly wasn't done, we have lost four years and won't be able to make our targets by 2012. What an unbelieveable statement. Someone should mention to him we really needed to meet our targets by 2008.

Ya Chretien said "he wasn't there". Actually, he was there when Canada signed the Kyoto treaty in 1998, and he was there when the treaty was ratified in 2002..and he was there for another year after that. Yet the Liberal gov't did next to nothing. Not to mention the years when Chretien was PM since 1993. Obviously, Chretien has a large portion of the blame on Canada's environmental and kyoto failures.

[MontyBurns]

Chretien is to blame for this Kyoto mess. He shouldn't have gotten us into it if he had no intention of implementing Kyoto.

[Moonlight Graham]

Harper has never said that he opposes the invasion, but in December 2005 he flip-flopped to a more pragmatic position given the overwhelming opposition in Canada to the war.

I also supported Canada becoming a part of the invasion in 2003 based on all the intelligence & rhetoric that was being stated by the U.S., Britain etc. Most of it were lies. If i knew then what i know now about the WMD's & U.S. truth-twisiting, i wouldn't have supported the war. Many others also fall into this category. Harper could be flipping for political reasons, or he could fall into this category as well. Its extremely hard for us to know what his true thoughts are/were.

What i'm quite sure of is that if Canada joined the U.S. coalition, they'd very likely be long out of Iraq because of popular demand, no matter who was governing.

[capricorn]

This is part of the every changing views on Iraq that Harper has. If he has been PM, he would have found a way to make sure Canada was involved militarily in Iraq. He's gone through some rather incredible contortions on the issue.

Michael Ignatieff had a change of heart on Canada's involvement in Iraq. Rather than tell Canadians directly, he bared his soul in a rambling New York Times article. A rather odd way for a serious contender to the Liberal leadership to act.

Having left an academic post at Harvard in 2005 and returned home to Canada to enter political life, I keep revisiting the Iraq debacle, trying to understand exactly how the judgments I now have to make in the political arena need to improve on the ones I used to offer from the sidelines. I’ve learned that acquiring good judgment in politics starts with knowing when to admit your mistakes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/magazine...amp;oref=slogin

Imagine if Ignatieff had been the Liberal leader instead of Chretien at the time. I imagine he would have committed Canada to the Iraq war.

So it looks like a politician changing views is not exclusive to the Conservative Party.

[capricorn]

He wrote another letter to an American newspaper--this time the Washington Times (apparently he's more interested in communicating to Americans than to Canadians through the Canadian media). He said: "While I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country."

He made no comment on his earlier judgement in 2003.

Please post the link to the Washington Post story you refer to. Thanks.

[jazzer]

I also supported Canada becoming a part of the invasion in 2003 based on all the intelligence & rhetoric that was being stated by the U.S., Britain etc. Most of it were lies.

Chretien also had the info and intel like everyone else, yet he decided not to enter the war. I really think most Canadians felt the same way at the time.

Edited January 2, 2008 by jazzer

[bush_cheney2004]

....What i'm quite sure of is that if Canada joined the U.S. coalition, they'd very likely be long out of Iraq because of popular demand, no matter who was governing.

The point is largely moot save for politics, as Canada couldn't have contributed much in the way to force levels that were already in theatre or committed to Afghanistan. It would have been another nation among the much maligned list of nations who did join Britain and America. From a practical point of view, Canada contributed more with continued Gulf operations, overflight rights, and cargo hops. Not quite the staunch opposition seen from France and Germany....PM Chretien sat on the fence very well.

Even looking back to Gulf War I, Canada's contribution was more political than militarily significant.

[capricorn]

Chretien also had the info and intel like everyone else, yet he decided not to enter the war. I really think most Canadians felt the same way at the time.

Chretien must certainly have known that, at the time, our decimated military was not equipped to join operations in Iraq. Thinking back, I can't recall Chretien polling Canadians about their opinion regarding a possible commitment. Perhaps he just took a guess, just as you are.

[jdobbin]

Please post the link to the Washington Post story you refer to. Thanks.

You mean this paid for post by Stephen Harper in the Wall Street Journal?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/879589/posts

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.

[jdobbin]

Michael Ignatieff had a change of heart on Canada's involvement in Iraq. Rather than tell Canadians directly, he bared his soul in a rambling New York Times article. A rather odd way for a serious contender to the Liberal leadership to act.

Imagine if Ignatieff had been the Liberal leader instead of Chretien at the time. I imagine he would have committed Canada to the Iraq war.

So it looks like a politician changing views is not exclusive to the Conservative Party.

Yes, imagine what it would have been like. Probably why he wasn't elected leader.

Harper hasn't had the same mea culpa on Iraq.

[Kitchener]

Chretien must certainly have known that, at the time, our decimated military was not equipped to join operations in Iraq. Thinking back, I can't recall Chretien polling Canadians about their opinion regarding a possible commitment. Perhaps he just took a guess, just as you are.

You don't know that major political parties monitor public opinion on major issues? "The Liberal, Progressive Conservative and New Democratic parties all regularly commission surveys for their private use." (Canadian Encyclopedia)

I doubt that they make a point of informing you personally every time they do it.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Kitchener