Harper's Olympic absence

[noahbody]

Chretien was smart enough to keep us out of Iraq. That one glimmer of brilliance just about redeems everything else he neglected.

If you do nothing all the time, sometimes you'll be right. If Chretien would have stood in the UN and persuaded its member nations to remove Hussein for his defiance of UN resolutions or persuaded the US to not to go to war, maybe you could characterize his actions as a 'glimmer of brilliance.'

Unfortunately he still managed to get us mired in Afghanistan.

Chretien blames Khandahar on Martin.

As for Harper, he epitomizes the observation that the business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

He did save a pile of money correcting the Kyoto mistake.

[madmax]

So you advocate a trade war with China.

No, a level playing field.

[madmax]

Without question the most corrupt Prime mnister in the last hundred years - and the dumbest. George Bush was an intellectual compared to Chretien.

Theres a whoppper of an opinion.

[jdobbin]

Gee, I guess you're right!

Best thing for us is to double or triple our trade deficits with China. Or with anyone else, I guess.

Thanks for pointing out the error in my logic. Particularly as regards to losing trade with China automatically meaning more expensive imports. I had forgotten that we never could afford toasters before and that there are no other countries that could supply us such goods at attractive prices.

I guess those countries that try to achieve trade surpluses must be fools! Thank heavens we're so smart.

I'm not as afraid of China's trade surplus as you seem to be. The value of our resources sent to China continues to rise and it will do two things: 1. Narrow the trade surplus they have with us. 2. Make their goods more expensive to transport to us which means we will either have to produce more in Canada or seek other low cost markets.

I have no problem blocking China from being fully involved in the WTO is they don't act in accordance with trade rules.

However, a trade war for ideological reason such as disliking the Chinese government is plain nonsense.

[jdobbin]

No, a level playing field.

I don't disagree that Canada has a lot of issues in regards to trade negotiations.

I just don't believe that the Conservatives should have a trade war with China because of Harper's dislike for the government.

[Argus]

Chretien was smart enough to keep us out of Iraq. That one glimmer of brilliance just about redeems everything else he neglected. Unfortunately he still managed to get us mired in Afghanistan. As for Harper, he epitomizes the observation that the business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

Chretien didn't keep us out of Iraq out of brilliance. He dithered and polled, and dithered, and polled, and decided that the best political advantage could be obtained by saying no. It wasn't because he knew it would be a mess, or had any moral objections to it.

He went into Afghanistan because he thought that would be a lot easier, a lot less politically difficult with his leftist base, and would be a sop to the Americans for abandoning them on Iraq.

But why do you think this was the right way to go anyway? Australia went into Iraq, and they took far fewer casualties than we have in Afghanistan. They're out too, while we're still commited.

[Wild Bill]

Chretien didn't keep us out of Iraq out of brilliance. He dithered and polled, and dithered, and polled, and decided that the best political advantage could be obtained by saying no. It wasn't because he knew it would be a mess, or had any moral objections to it.

Also, when our level of military resources is so low he must have realized that we just couldn't participate in both actions!

After all the criticism of the Liberal cuts to the forces there's no way he would have set himself up for the embarrassment.

[mcqueen625]

All I can say is if the the Canadian Bar Association has to ask Jean Chretien to speak at their luncheon, they are really scarping the bottom of the barrel. Chretien with his anti-US stance has done more harm to Canada that China could ever do. Remember it is China that need Canada and the U.S to peddle their inferior products, we don't need them. In fact every multinational corporation who ahs moved their factories to China and other third world countries to exploit the captive slave market sweatshops in these countries, should have huge tariffs imposed on their good just to be able to export them to the West.

[eyeball]

Chretien didn't keep us out of Iraq out of brilliance. He dithered and polled, and dithered, and polled, and decided that the best political advantage could be obtained by saying no. It wasn't because he knew it would be a mess, or had any moral objections to it.

He went into Afghanistan because he thought that would be a lot easier, a lot less politically difficult with his leftist base, and would be a sop to the Americans for abandoning them on Iraq.

But why do you think this was the right way to go anyway? Australia went into Iraq, and they took far fewer casualties than we have in Afghanistan. They're out too, while we're still commited.

Australia's government seems to have taken the biggest hit.

[Moonbox]

All I can say is if the the Canadian Bar Association has to ask Jean Chretien to speak at their luncheon, they are really scarping the bottom of the barrel. Chretien with his anti-US stance has done more harm to Canada that China could ever do. Remember it is China that need Canada and the U.S to peddle their inferior products, we don't need them. In fact every multinational corporation who ahs moved their factories to China and other third world countries to exploit the captive slave market sweatshops in these countries, should have huge tariffs imposed on their good just to be able to export them to the West.

I completely agree with this. There's a completely unfair playing field here and China should not have the advantage they do.

[Topaz]

Today, a radio station asked the question "Is it the DUTY of a PM to attend the Olympics?" 60% said yes and 40 % said no but I think that a PM should at least attend the opening and the closing ceremony. The more I hear about Harper in the news the more it appears he stayed home to spend a little money and to campaign for an election he seems to want and so he stayed home to work on getting a majority gov't. Harper is never there for the people, it always for himself and I think he'll have more people voting against him than voting for!

[jefferiah]

Today, a radio station asked the question "Is it the DUTY of a PM to attend the Olympics?" 60% said yes and 40 % said no but I think that a PM should at least attend the opening and the closing ceremony. The more I hear about Harper in the news the more it appears he stayed home to spend a little money and to campaign for an election he seems to want and so he stayed home to work on getting a majority gov't. Harper is never there for the people, it always for himself and I think he'll have more people voting against him than voting for!

"a radio station", "60 percent said yes"....

So in essence, when you say "Harper is never there for the people", you mean he is not there for those "people" who listened to this radio station, when the question was asked.

I've listened to radio call in shows on days where 90 percent of the callers identified themselves as Layton voters.

Edited August 21, 2008 by jefferiah

[M.Dancer]

I've listened to radio call in shows on days where 90 percent of the callers identified themselves as Layton voters.

Don't....his toaster will tell him that the reason Layton lost was because their votes weren't counted....after all, he will say he heard that 90% of the votes were for layton........

[normanchateau]

Also, when our level of military resources is so low Chretien must have realized that we just couldn't participate in both actions!

After all the criticism of the Liberal cuts to the forces there's no way he would have set himself up for the embarrassment.

If our level of military resources was so low, why did Harper go on US television to tell Americans that Canada should join in invading Iraq? Was it Harper's lack of accountability, his ignorance or his usual incompetence which made him take this ludicrous action?

[M.Dancer]

If our level of military resources was so low, why did Harper go on US television to tell Americans that Canada should join in invading Iraq? Was it Harper's lack of accountability, his ignorance or his usual incompetence which made him take this ludicrous action?

Because he didn't. He said we wouldn't be able to ...

[Guest American Woman]

If our level of military resources was so low, why did Harper go on US television to tell Americans that Canada should join in invading Iraq? Was it Harper's lack of accountability, his ignorance or his usual incompetence which made him take this ludicrous action?

Maybe all of the above?

IT sounds as if he took both stands."...he told Fox News that most Canadians outside Quebec support the U.S.-led invasion. He also introduced a motion in the Commons asking Canada to support the war.." That was when he was supporting the war effort. "There are many news clips showing Harper's support of the war during that period. One has him saying, 'We should have been there, shoulder to shoulder with our allies.'" Later when he changed his position, "he said that while he supported the war earlier, he always had doubts about Canada's ability to actually contribute any soldiers."

link

Edited August 25, 2008 by American Woman

[Fortunata]

One has him saying, 'We should have been there, shoulder to shoulder with our allies[/i].'"

This is the statement the Harperites always conveniently forget. Of course if they neglect this then there is no flip-flop in their minds either.