Harper's plagiarized 2003 Iraq speech

[independent]

I think it's pretty clear and further thought will not change the facts. The Liberals will say and do anything to wield the power once again in this country.

This had nothing to do with "critical analysis". It has everything to do with the fact that the majority of voters are rejecting the Liberal policies put forward in this campaign as well as a thumbs down on their leader, Dion. It is about the Liberals and how far they will go to claw their way to the top.

Now that the plagiarism charge against Harper has gained international attention and it has been revealed that an aide is the culprit and not Harper, what do you suppose informed Canadians will focus on? They will focus on the fact that a dirty ploy by Liberals for political gain has caused an international embarrassment. IMO the Liberals have shot themselves in the foot with this and voters will be further alienated.

Just a little point of interest. The majority of Canadians have not come out it favour of the conservatives. It is highly unlikely they will get over 50% of the popular vote. In fact if you ask the average guy on the street they will tell you none of the parties can be trusted. The negative cut throat politics is alienating the general public. It is certainly not right for the Liberals to do it and it is not right for the Conservatives to do it. Your clear exagerations will do nothing too help the conservative cause.

[myata]

Now that the plagiarism charge against Harper has gained international attention and it has been revealed that an aide is the culprit and not Harper, what do you suppose informed Canadians will focus on?

I'd suggest to them to think why Harper parrotted ideas put forward by another, foreign politician without contributing anything original from himself. Regardless of who prepared the speach, Harper was supposed to read and understand what he was saying, was he?

I believe they should focus on understanding the position Harper supported in that speech, and how it have affected / would affect Canada if he were to make such a decision again.

Finally, I'd suggest them to consider international acts of Harper's government over their years in power, and ask themselves whether they really want to see this country, that used to have its own independent and respected voice, continue to trail unquestionnably and sheepishly in somebody else's footsteps?

[jdobbin]

Which was only brought up after the election and not before it. You know unlike the Liberals we aren't the thought police.

You said it was known before the election. Sounds like they selected a Tamil in hopes of winning and then threw them under the bus afterwards.

Well, the fact that you think that in an worldwide economic downturn that Canada should reprioritize funding to support Tal Bachman and Avi Lewis so both of those guys can get all expense paid trips to Cuba and Africa.

I have no problems with cuts. The Tories have raised arts 19%. I do oppose political selection of who gets what. The Tories should have just cut overall spending but they pick winners and losers in their conquer and divide politics. Well, it looks like Quebec is reacting strongly against it.

Right, and as we all know Liberals never go personal. Including when they argue that any person who opposes their policy hates all women, supports Canada becoming a part of the United States.

I haven't called you names like you see to have called me in this forum. Why attack me? What have I done to you?

No, I'm simply stating that the Liberal mantra has been to state that any opposition to their party is akin to being a traitor who supports the annexation of Canada into the United States. Needless to say I'd like to see where this new direction takes you where the new conspiracy theory the Liberals put forward is that Canada will one day become annexed into Australia.

More over the top rhetoric. I said Harper takes guidance on the conservative front from his Australian friends.

Which is why the Liberals feel strongly about funding that. That's the reason why they oppose giving the military more funding, so they can fund Young People Fucking. There's nothing wrong with it, it just means that Liberals value Young People Fucking more than they do soldiers lives thats all.

The Liberals increased funding for the military. By quite a lot.

The rhetoric is getting nasty.

[jdobbin]

It's good to note that Liberals are great friends of Israel. That must have been why Denis Coderre marched at a pro-Hezbollah rally, an organization that openly supports destroying the state of Israel.

Thought it was pro-Lebanon rally according to the news story.

[Canadian Blue]

In fact if you ask the average guy on the street they will tell you none of the parties can be trusted. The negative cut throat politics is alienating the general public. It is certainly not right for the Liberals to do it and it is not right for the Conservatives to do it.

Which is why the federal government should be reduced to only deal with Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Trade, and then leave everything else to the provinces. The fact is Ottawa cannot possibly be the answer to every problem and satisfy the needs of Newfoundland just as much as Alberta.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/03/28/...in-switzerland/

[mcrobert]

I think research into other more important key issues would be more prudent with regards to Harper. ie. SPP, Claims of Economic stability when Merril Lynch Canada states we are in serious trouble.

-Regards

[Canadian Blue]

I have no problems with cuts. The Tories have raised arts 19%. I do oppose political selection of who gets what. The Tories should have just cut overall spending but they pick winners and losers in their conquer and divide politics.

Hold on, so you're saying that we should vote against the Tories in favour of the Liberals, despite the fact the Liberals would raise arts funding moreso, and give even more money to Avi Lewis for his trip to Cuba.

How exactly do you figure that the Liberals will be more fiscally prudent, is it because they promise to spend more money on the CBC and arts. The idea the we should vote Liberal because they're worse than the CPC won't wash.

I haven't called you names like you see to have called me in this forum. Why attack me? What have I done to you?

I was talking about the Liberal Party which you firmly support. But you can't be so daft as to have not recognized that the entire Liberal campaign consists of saying people to the right of them hate women, want us annexed into the United States, etc.

More over the top rhetoric. I said Harper takes guidance on the conservative front from his Australian friends.

First of all, most 'conservative' parties already have alot of co-ordination with one another through the IDU. While Harper may look at John Howard as an example, it's well known that conservative parties around the world will help one another out. It's the same with social democratic parties and liberal parties.

http://www.idu.org/

http://www.liberal-international.org/

http://www.socialistinternational.org/

The Liberals increased funding for the military. By quite a lot.

Which came only after we were put in Afghanistan, after they disbanded the Airborne Regiment, and after they massively cut expenditures in the 1990's.

Thought it was pro-Lebanon rally according to the news story.

Yes, and you're own Defence Critic was in support of Hezbollah over Israel.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[capricorn]

When a politician in an independent country uses foreign inspiration to their policies to such an extent, it should be a matter of public concern, and yes, most definitely, is a scandal. In a country that values its independence and sovereignty, that is.

What's wrong with being inspired by the policies of foreign countries? Dion brags all the time that Denmark's environment and economic policies are superior and his Green Shift has been implemented there successfully. (Although there is divided opinion on the matter.) Does that threaten our independence and sovereignty?

[jdobbin]

Hold on, so you're saying that we should vote against the Tories in favour of the Liberals, despite the fact the Liberals would raise arts funding moreso, and give even more money to Avi Lewis for his trip to Cuba.

The evidence is quite clear that the Liberals have a better spending record than the present Tories.

I was talking about the Liberal Party which you firmly support. But you can't be so daft as to have not recognized that the entire Liberal campaign consists of saying people to the right of them hate women, want us annexed into the United States, etc.

There is that personal insults again. How long will you keep it up before you end up getting banned? The rules are pretty clear?

First of all, most 'conservative' parties already have alot of co-ordination with one another through the IDU. While Harper may look at John Howard as an example, it's well known that conservative parties around the world will help one another out. It's the same with social democratic parties and liberal parties.

I don't know that is is well known. An election is a good time to see where Tory policies align and who they look to for guidance.

Which came only after we were put in Afghanistan, after they disbanded the Airborne Regiment, and after they massively cut expenditures in the 1990's.

It was Mulroney who sold our heavy lift helicopters. The Tories cancelled the ships last month that Martin had ordered.

Yes, and you're own Defence Critic was in support of Hezbollah over Israel.

Actually came out and supported Hezbollah. Amazing. Must have missed that in the story.

[jdobbin]

What's wrong with being inspired by the policies of foreign countries? Dion brags all the time that Denmark's environment and economic policies are superior and his Green Shift has been implemented there successfully. (Although there is divided opinion on the matter.) Does that threaten our independence and sovereignty?

There's nothing wrong with it. I wonder why Harper shies away from what his party has learned from Bush.

[capricorn]

Some people keep denying that Harper would have gone to Iraq. So obviously, it isn't something everyone knows.

Is it such a concern to Canadians that they would not re-elect Harper? I think not.

I suspect if there is war with Iran, Harper would show the same instinct he did with Iraq. Agree?

I listened to what Rae said. His argument was that Harper takes his cues from Bush and people like Howard? Agree?

If Harper displayed poor judgment, so did Ignatieff, a Liberal star who may one day be Prime Minister.

"What I felt was disappointing about a lot of Canadian opposition to the war was that very few people seemed to give a damn about the human-rights situation," Ignatieff says. "Very few seemed to care that peace had the consequence of leaving 26 million people inside a really odious tyranny."

What makes Ignatieff's chiding of Canadians more than a tiff between a cerebral media star and his home crowd is the way he links the war debate to a much deeper critique of Canada's place in the world. His concern is not so much that Canada should have fought in Iraq, but that Canadians may be fooling themselves into believing that by staying on the sidelines their nation was holding true to its principles. Those values might be summed up as United Nations-based multilateralism, backed by a glorious tradition of peacekeeping and generosity toward poor countries. In fact, Ignatieff argues, Ottawa's stingy foreign aid budgets and eroded contribution to UN peacekeeping - a result of perennially low defence spending - have long since rendered that glowing image of Canada's profile abroad more myth than reality. "You can't be a multilateralist on the cheap," he said. "You can't sit there bleating about the legitimacy of the UN being jeopardized over Iraq if your overseas development assistance numbers are as lousy as ours are."

---

The convictions of most academics for or against the war were, well, academic. But Ignatieff has a way of making himself heard beyond the ivory tower. He staked out a nuanced pro-war position last January in a controversial New York Times Magazine essay that generated a torrent of reaction, including a lot of shock among his friends and colleagues. He says he had trouble sleeping. While he rejects charges that he sounded like an apologist for George W. Bush's policy, Ignatieff did write that the new U.S. empire's "grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known."

Hard to imagine Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld quibbling with that. Suddenly Ignatieff, a self-declared "very cautious, pragmatic, liberal centrist," found himself helping the conservatives make their case. He'd come a long way from his days demonstrating against the Vietnam War at the University of Toronto. "This time over Iraq, I don't like the company I am keeping, but I think they are right on the issue," he wrote while U.S. tanks rolled through the desert.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0012484

It appears that Ignatieff, regardless of his subsequent mea culpa, was in lock-step with Bush on the Iraq war back in 2003. Should Ignatieff one day become the Liberal leader or Prime Minister, there is a ton of material available to resurrect his prior views on the Iraq war. In addition, those words were his own, not words plagiarized by a speechwriter.

[capricorn]

Usually they wins because the Tories mismanage things such. I suspect that is where the economy is headed now.

Canada's gross domestic product rose above projected expectation in July based largely on the strength of the energy sector.

Statistics Canada reported Tuesday that the economy grew 0.7 per cent, surpassing the 0.2 per cent increase that economists in the private sector had expected.

It's the fastest growth rate since March 2004.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

For the April to July period, Ottawa recorded a surplus of $2.9 billion, greater than its projected $2.3 billion. The government raised $4.25 billion from the sale of wireless spectrum this year that was not accounted for in the budget.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/bu...26-98cc1968a713

Not bad.

What were you saying about mismanagement?

[capricorn]

Just a little point of interest. The majority of Canadians have not come out it favour of the conservatives. It is highly unlikely they will get over 50% of the popular vote.

I agree. I never said they would.

In fact if you ask the average guy on the street they will tell you none of the parties can be trusted. The negative cut throat politics is alienating the general public. It is certainly not right for the Liberals to do it and it is not right for the Conservatives to do it.

That's why they tune out. It's the political junkies who tune in.

Your clear exagerations will do nothing too help the conservative cause.

We'll see if I'm exaggerating the reaction of voters. Future polls will be an indication.

[capricorn]

I'd suggest to them to think why Harper parrotted ideas put forward by another, foreign politician without contributing anything original from himself. Regardless of who prepared the speach, Harper was supposed to read and understand what he was saying, was he?

I believe they should focus on understanding the position Harper supported in that speech, and how it have affected / would affect Canada if he were to make such a decision again.

Finally, I'd suggest them to consider international acts of Harper's government over their years in power, and ask themselves whether they really want to see this country, that used to have its own independent and respected voice, continue to trail unquestionnably and sheepishly in somebody else's footsteps?

No doubt the Liberal war room would be interested in your observations. It could make for a new attack ad.

[Moonbox]

The evidence is quite clear that the Liberals have a better spending record than the present Tories.

No, there is ZERO evidence of this. There is evidence that the Tories reduced over taxation on the country and that they have consistently delivered balanced budgets while doing so. The present Liberals have NO spending record other than the fact that they are proposing to increase spending by something like 80 billion.

You and a lot of the other Tory bashers like to bring this up all the time. You say the Tories are fiscally irresponsible BUT you fail at EVERY chance to explain how the alternatives (who are promising spending increases WAY above and beyond the Tories) would be any more responsible.

The fact that Chretien/Martin Liberals maintained the highest taxes pretty much ever, bogarted EI and crippled provincial governments with unfair reductions in transfer payments doesn't really count as a good public record btw.

[myata]

What's wrong ... ?

Nothing in particular, as long as the source of their inspiration is clearly presented and explained. E.g. if Harper said, openly, transparently and honestly "we should go in Iraq because G.Bush and J.Howard think so", rather than passing it for his own pondering on the matter, I'd have no problem with that. Of course, I'd then raise concern whether a politician taking cues from leaders of other countries would be fit adequately represent his own.

No doubt the Liberal war room would be interested in your observations. It could make for a new attack ad.

Did you mean that independent critical thinking should be an exclusive trait of a Liberal? Please do not offend many citizens of this country (myself included) who did or do not vote for Liberals, but still wouldn't relinqiush their right (or should it be made responsibility, for everybody's good?) to use their own brain to decide on matters of importance for the country.

[capricorn]

Did you mean that independent critical thinking should be an exclusive trait of a Liberal? Please do not offend many citizens of this country (myself included) who did or do not vote for Liberals, but still wouldn't relinqiush their right (or should it be made responsibility, for everybody's good?) to use their own brain to decide on matters of importance for the country.

Where did I insult you or Canadians? Where did I say you are a Liberal supporter? What I said is that your observations could form the basis for a Liberal attack ad. When I say attack ad I don't mean an ad full of unfounded facts and fear mongering. An attack ad that addresses the issues can be very powerful. The Liberal Party, as well as other parties, would do well to gear their ads toward stimulating thought among the electorate.

[myata]

What I said is that your observations could form the basis for a Liberal attack ad. When I say attack ad I don't mean an ad full of unfounded facts and fear mongering. An attack ad that addresses the issues can be very powerful.

I wouldn't care to argue about what constitutes an attack ad, no would I bother if Liberals say something like that or not. If I misunderstood something in your post, then apologies.

What I do care about is for Canada to have it's own independent voice among the nations, and to avoid getting drawn into disastrous adventures like those in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Something that I can't be sure about with Harper in power. Neither by his track record, nor through revelations in the speech.

Edited October 1, 2008 by myata

[Canadian Blue]

There is that personal insults again. How long will you keep it up before you end up getting banned? The rules are pretty clear?

So you're stating that any attack on the Liberal Party is a personal attack on you. Just because people don't buy into your little notion that Canada was a utopic paradise under the Liberal Party doesn't mean we're attacking you.

By the way I should thank you for not even talking about the LPC's support of the Tamil Tigers, and then you're hope that those whom you disagree with are banned for attacking the sacred and infallible Liberal Party of Canada.

The evidence is quite clear that the Liberals have a better spending record than the present Tories.

As has been stated before NAFTA and the GST were the main reasons the deficit was reduced. I know that you like to play historical revisionism by saying that the Liberals were in favour of NAFTA in '88, but it doesn't work for those of us who pay attention to politics.

I don't know that is is well known.

Yes it is, why do you think the Liberals utilized the services of Carville.

It was Mulroney who sold our heavy lift helicopters. The Tories cancelled the ships last month that Martin had ordered.

Hold on, now for those of us who don't follow bizarro history Jean Chretien cancelled the helicopter contract after the 1993 election. This is on par with your belief that Brian Mulroney was opposed to free trade and John Turner was in favour of it.

Now stop pretending that the Liberal Party was always a friend of the military because they aren't, and according to John MacCallum the first budget he'd cut if the LPC wins power is the Defence budget. That might placate the current viewpoint you hold which is that "Young People Fucking" deserves more money than the military, but I'm certain the average Canadian doesn't share it.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...gn-pledges.aspx

There's nothing wrong with it. I wonder why Harper shies away from what his party has learned from Bush.

Because they haven't. The only reason the Liberals are using it is because they hope it can create a general revulsion towards America in general. The same thing happened in the 2000 election when they stated the opposition supported American style two-tier healthcare. The stupidity of course is that America doesn't have a two-tier system, both New Zealand and Australia do. However I doubt stating the opposition wants us all to become Kiwis would create as much of a stir as saying they want us to become America.

But please, I beg of you don't ban me because I insulted the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Canadian Blue]

What I do care about is for Canada to have it's own independent voice among the nations, and to avoid getting drawn into disastrous adventures like those in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Out of curiosity, when 9/11 happened what did those on the left wish for the west to do?

Afghanistan is hardly a disasterous adventure, and we've lost more lives in both Korea and World War 2, however I'd still say they were both worth it.

[capricorn]

If I misunderstood something in your post, then apologies.

I certainly did not mean to slight you.

What I do care about is for Canada to have it's own independent voice among the nations, and to avoid getting drawn into disastrous adventures like those in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I agree about Iraq. As for Afghanistan, all I can say is that we are members of the UN and NATO and the Liberals and Conservatives decided to join with our allies. I should point out that our very vocal criticism of NATO's approach has paid dividends. Our voice was heard.

[Truth]

Liberal Attack Site

[eyeball]

Some people keep denying that Harper would have gone to Iraq. So obviously, it isn't something everyone knows.

I suspect if there is war with Iran, Harper would show the same instinct he did with Iraq. Agree?

I listened to what Rae said. His argument was that Harper takes his cues from Bush and people like Howard? Agree?

In spades. Harper would have raced Howard into Iraq. He's a poodle that takes his military and quite likely his economic cues too, from the same neo-con sources that have driven the world to the brink of collapse on just about every front - socio-economic, ecological and geo-political. Between these and the advice he gets from the likes of Charles McVety, its obvious Harper is an ideological whack-job of the worst kind. Canadians should be extremely concerned about giving him a majority.

The fact he took advice from Mulroney for so long should have been Canadians first clue especially the moron's that hated Mulroney so bad they consigned the Tories to the wilderness for so long. What the hell were you people thinking?

[Moonbox]

In spades. Harper would have raced Howard into Iraq. He's a poodle that takes his military and quite likely his economic cues too, from the same neo-con sources that have driven the world to the brink of collapse on just about every front - socio-economic, ecological and geo-political.

I challenge you to find ANY specific economic policies Harper has initiated that are in any way similar to those of Bush, because I know that you're just making that up. Tax cuts don't count by the way, because they have nothing to do with the collapse.

Between these and the advice he gets from the likes of Charles McVety, its obvious Harper is an ideological whack-job of the worst kind. Canadians should be extremely concerned about giving him a majority.

Because he and his party members would all be thrilled with the idea of acting on unpopular ideologies and committing political suicide right? These are the scare tactics that failed the Liberals in 2006 and they'll do so again. The whole 'hidden agenda' crap is so tired and old and you have nothing to base it on.

The fact he took advice from Mulroney for so long should have been Canadians first clue especially the moron's that hated Mulroney so bad they consigned the Tories to the wilderness for so long. What the hell were you people thinking?

Kind of like the moron Trudeau who consigned the Liberals to the wilderness for 11 years or something while Mulroney inherited his mess?

Do you remember how Harper quit from the progressive conservative party in disgust back in the 80's at Mulroney's policies?

Get a clue Eyeball. Nothing you said here has any substance.

[jdobbin]

What were you saying about mismanagement?

In the huge overspending the Tories have been doing for the last number of years and especially in the last months when evidence was shown that the economy was headed for troubled waters.