Chretien on The Hour

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

agreed. Canada joining the coalition would have been a nice feather in the cap for the Bush admin politically, given Canada's "peace-loving" reputation.

[BubberMiley]

So I would have to agree that Iggy's mea culpa was much bolder than Harper's.

I'm not aware of Harper's mea culpa. Can you provide a link to that? I'm only familiar with him expressing disappointment that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

[capricorn]

But I'm happy to continue to discuss how Chretien will also be remembered.

Chretien=HRDC Boondoggle+Shawinigate+Adscam+Gomery+golf balls=Chretien

How's that for a legacy?

[capricorn]

I'm not aware of Harper's mea culpa. Can you provide a link to that? I'm only familiar with him expressing disappointment that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

I suggest you re-read the thread. The answer to your question lies there somewhere and I don't want to re-visit old territory.

[jdobbin]

But I'm happy to continue to discuss how Chretien will also be remembered. Though I think his leadership on the Iraq issue is his crowning achievement, his legacy also includes balancing the budget and leaving Canada in much better economic shape than he received it from the Tories.

Funny I never voted for him though, isn't it?

I guess this statement will preclude you from being called a dirty Liberal. lol

[capricorn]

I guess this statement will preclude you from being called a dirty Liberal. lol

BM may be a closet Conservative.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm not aware of Harper's mea culpa.

Post #45.

[BubberMiley]

Post #45.

You mean the link to the CBC article in post #43? I couldn't find anything resembling a mea culpa there either.

[BubberMiley]

BM may be a closet Conservative.

I voted PC when Clark was leader.

I like Joe.

[Moonlight Graham]

Chretien isn't some wise, knew-more-than-the-other-countries PM in his Iraq decision. He had no idea there would be no WMD's, nuke program, that he'd been lied to by Bush admin, or that the war would be the big quagmire it is.

Chretien played it politically smart. Wars are devisive, especially if they aren't approved by the U.N. The Iraq war was especially controversial, even before the invasion. Chretien had no opinion on the Iraq war, he left Canada's decision up to the U.N. security council. He played it very well politically, but Chretien doesn't get an enormous amount of credit from me for being "Canada's saviour from Iraq". Damaging relations between the U.S. & Canada certainly doesn't mean as much to the Liberals/Chretien as damaging themselves domestically in the polls.

[Michael Bluth]

You mean the link to the CBC article in post #43? I couldn't find anything resembling a mea culpa there either.

If you refuse to see something no one or nothing can make you see it.

Chretien played the political to the polls in his decision on Iraq.

Any argument that history will be kind to Chretien because of that decision is weak. Gomery and Shawinigate are why he will never be viewed favourably in history.

[bush_cheney2004]

Chretien isn't some wise, knew-more-than-the-other-countries PM in his Iraq decision. He had no idea there would be no WMD's, nuke program, that he'd been lied to by Bush admin, or that the war would be the big quagmire it is.

True...in fact, Canada proposed an inspection compromise that would guarantee war after the deal expired.

Chretien played it politically smart. Wars are devisive, especially if they aren't approved by the U.N. The Iraq war was especially controversial, even before the invasion. Chretien had no opinion on the Iraq war, he left Canada's decision up to the U.N. security council. He played it very well politically, but Chretien doesn't get an enormous amount of credit from me for being "Canada's saviour from Iraq".

Yep, but he wasn't worried about no steenkin' UN when it was time to drop bombs on Serbia in 1999. As far as Iraq goes, Canada was saved from nothing. The "hero" and his "principled" party would be turfed while Blair, Bush, and Howard were returnedto office.

Damaging relations between the U.S. & Canada certainly doesn't mean as much to the Liberals/Chretien as damaging themselves domestically in the polls.

Nope....sure doesn't.

[jdobbin]

BM may be a closet Conservative.

I was going to say a PC. I think there is a difference.

[BubberMiley]

If you refuse to see something no one or nothing can make you see it.

If you refuse to show something, no one or nothing is going to take your word for it.

[Michael Bluth]

If you refuse to show something, no one or nothing is going to take your word for it.

Any reason why you are trying to steer clear of the 'legacy' you credit to Chretien for making a political decision?

When will you mention the crimes of Shawinigate and Gomery?

Why ignore them?

You have seen the post about Harper and Iraq, and referred to it in a post of your own. Turn a blind eye all you want.

[BubberMiley]

Chretien played it politically smart. Wars are devisive, especially if they aren't approved by the U.N. The Iraq war was especially controversial, even before the invasion. Chretien had no opinion on the Iraq war, he left Canada's decision up to the U.N. security council. He played it very well politically, but Chretien doesn't get an enormous amount of credit from me for being "Canada's saviour from Iraq". Damaging relations between the U.S. & Canada certainly doesn't mean as much to the Liberals/Chretien as damaging themselves domestically in the polls.

Chretien had a higher standard on the question of whether or not we should go to war. His motivation for that higher standard is irrelevant to me. Chretien was a wily, competitive, strategic, brilliant politician. That was his greatest strength, and if his political instincts form what are ultimately very prudent decisions for the country as a whole, then so be it. We are not in Iraq now because Harper isn't a slouch in the politicking himself (and kudos to him for that too).

When will you mention the crimes of Shawinigate and Gomery? Why ignore them?

Why talk about nothing else? I'm talking about what I consider important. You can talk all you want about you consider important.

In fact, I bet you already have.

You have seen the post about Harper and Iraq, and referred to it in a post of your own. Turn a blind eye all you want.

I swear to god I have no idea what you are specifically referring to. I have asked if it is the expression of disappointment about not finding WMDs but you won't answer.

[Michael Bluth]

Why talk about nothing else? I'm talking about what I consider important.You can talk all you want about you consider important.

You must agree then that only the most sychophantic of Chretienites wouldn't mention shawinigate and Gomery when discussing his legacy. I hope that isn't what you intended.

I swear to god I have no idea what you are specifically referring to. I have asked if it is the expression of disappointment about not finding WMDs but you won't answer.

By quoting the question last time you asked it .... so feel free to assume I was replying to that question in the affirmative.

[BubberMiley]

You must then agree that only the most sycophantic of Harperites would try to make "I'm disappointed he didn't have WMDs" sound like "it was my fault," which, by the way, is what mea culpa sounds like in Latin.

[jdobbin]

You must then agree that only the most sycophantic of Harperites would try to make "I'm disappointed he didn't have WMDs" sound like "it was my fault," which, by the way, is what mea culpa sounds like in Latin.

Fortunately, I don't think many people are fooled by Harper's dodging of the issue. It is probably why he hasn't been able to get out of minority status in the polls. There is a reluctance to give a majority to someone who shows poor judgment and then each year has a new angle on the issue.

[M.Dancer]

Fortunately, I don't think many people are fooled by Harper's dodging of the issue. It is probably why he hasn't been able to get out of minority status in the polls. There is a reluctance to give a majority to someone who shows poor judgment and then each year has a new angle on the issue.

Really? I doubt very many people know the whole story as witnessed on this very thread. Harpers inability to gain has more to do with the expertise of the liberal fear-smiths than it does to anything that Harper has actually said or done.

[Michael Bluth]

You must then agree that only the most sycophantic of Harperites would try to make "I'm disappointed he didn't have WMDs" sound like "it was my fault," which, by the way, is what mea culpa sounds like in Latin.

So you must agree then that the citation you gave from Iggy wasn't a mea culpa?

Edited January 3, 2008 by Michael Bluth

[BubberMiley]

So you must agree then that the citation you gave from Iggy wasn't a mea cupla?

If I may paraphrase my brief scan of his article, I believe that the gist of his egghead prose was that decisions made in academia are made in a vacuum and not the real world. Since 2003 he has entered the real world and learned much there. He takes responsibility for his 2003 position, admits his mistake, and says that with his new real-world perspective he is better equipped to make these decisions in the future.

If admitting your mistakes is not a mea culpa, what is?

[Michael Bluth]

If admitting your mistakes is not a mea culpa, what is?

I thought you needed to hear "It was my fault".... that was what you said in Post #68.

Very convenient how you are trying to apply a higher standard to Stephen Harper than Iggy.

The average Canadian voter can see through such a blatant double-standard. They did in the election two years ago and they will in the next election.

Change the channel ... better yet don't and guarantee another Liberal loss.

[jdobbin]

Really? I doubt very many people know the whole story as witnessed on this very thread. Harpers inability to gain has more to do with the expertise of the liberal fear-smiths than it does to anything that Harper has actually said or done.

Who's fault is that no one knows what Harper's true thought process on Iraq is? Harper's looks like he is skating as fast as he can. The best he can do is shrug his shoulder and say: Too bad we didn't find weapons?

Canadian views on Iraq have sharpened and if anything, it has probably led to Chretien's rise in estimation according to some polls on leaders past and present. Harper's lack of clarity on the issue probably gives Canadians as much pause as his determination to extend the mission in Afghanistan till 2012.

Harper says he would like to stay in Afghanistan till 2012. Most Canadians want the troops home in 2009. I think that now like back in 2006 (and even earlier to 2004), Canadians are reluctant to vote wholeheartedly for Harper when he would simply take a majority as being consent to go to lengthy wars they are not much interested in being a part of.

[BubberMiley]

Very convenient how you are trying to apply a higher standard to Stephen Harper than Iggy.

Admitting a mistake is taking responsibility for your own bad judgement, which to me is the same as saying "it's my fault."

Admitting someone else made a mistake and expressing disappointment about that is totally different.

The Canadian people know the difference, but they might be comforted by the fact that Canada hasn't joined the Iraq war in the past 18 months and vote CPC despite Harper's earlier bad judgement and even despite his failure to take responsibility for his error. They might also be uncomfortable that he has not learned anything from his error and find no reassurance that he wouldn't make the same mistake again.

I hope that Canada is not presently in Iraq only because the CPC is waiting on a majority. That would truly be *scary*.

Edited January 3, 2008 by BubberMiley