Thread for All the Negative Things the Liberals Did as Government

[Moonlight Graham]

We don't condone these scandals, but we accept that they are politics as usual.

First of all, who is "we"? You don't speak for a bloc, you speak for yourself on this subject.

You, me, nor anyone, should ever take unacceptable behaviour by government as acceptable, no matter how many of them have done it in the past.

We don't bring up the liberals to condone the conservatives, but rather to demonstrate that every government does these types of things.

A bunch of bologna. You put up with it, even defend it, because your "team" is in power so you don't mind it as much. I'm quite certain you wouldn't be saying "oh well, it's ok, everyone does it" to scandals if the Liberals or NDP were in power and doing it.

That's the problem with citizens thinking on partisan lines. People start defending, or ignoring, nonsense just because it's their "team" doing it. All parties and governments lie to us, they must all be held to account with vigilance.

[CPCFTW]

The reason we don't care about these "scandals" is because we know that any other party will have similar "scandals".

Scandal-plagued Tories become the new Liberals

Chris Selley and the National Post disagree with you, including the use of the word 'scandal.'

See Chris Selley and the National Post, above.

See Chris... oh nevermind.

LOFL!

God? PLEASE! Bring back the Progressive Conservatives!

Oh chris selley and the national post disagrees with me? My bad.

Who else disagrees with me? The star, cbc, and the huffington post?

Edited December 10, 2011 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

First of all, who is "we"? You don't speak for a bloc, you speak for yourself on this subject.

You, me, nor anyone, should ever take unacceptable behaviour by government as acceptable, no matter how many of them have done it in the past.

A bunch of bologna. You put up with it, even defend it, because your "team" is in power so you don't mind it as much. I'm quite certain you wouldn't be saying "oh well, it's ok, everyone does it" to scandals if the Liberals or NDP were in power and doing it.

That's the problem with citizens thinking on partisan lines. People start defending, or ignoring, nonsense just because it's their "team" doing it. All parties and governments lie to us, they must all be held to account with vigilance.

You completely missed the point. I don't condone these scandals but I accept them because it is a foregone conclusion that people in the government will waste money and use sneaky political tricks to try to stay in power.

I don't consider the calling constituents in a riding with a rumour any worse than forcing an election because of a no confidence motion. Just more bureaucrats trying to get power and cushy government jobs/pensions. Obviously Canadian voters saw things the same way as they gave the conservatives a majority after the "scandal" of a no confidence motion.

[CPCFTW]

And to be clear, I actually do appreciate the media bringing these "scandals" to light. It at least gives some sort of check on government wastage. But I don't think it will affect voters opinions much, and I think it's hilarious to read lefties going batshit crazy over tories destroying democracy and Canada over these minor scandals.

[Evening Star]

I don't consider the calling constituents in a riding with a rumour any worse than forcing an election because of a no confidence motion.

!!!

One of those two things is standard procedure in Parliamentary democracy; it's a part of how the system actually functions as, you know, a democracy. The other one is blatant dishonesty and manipulation. I don't see the slightest equivalence.

Obviously Canadian voters saw things the same way as they gave the conservatives a majority after the "scandal" of a no confidence motion.

Uh, what? I don't think anyone claimed the confidence motion itself was a scandal.

[cybercoma]

They pretended to balance the budget by cutting transfer payments and gutting the provinces/municipalities of funds in the 90s.

Wait a minute... you support the CPC making cuts and still going into debt, but when the Liberals make cuts and balance the budget that's a bad thing?

edit: I think I may have you confused for another poster.

Edited December 10, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Can't we all just accept that CPCFTW is a troll, ignore its posts and move on?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Liberal, Conservative, or whatever stripe you want, once forming a government a political party changes. Day to day governance is the order of the day, and nothing looks the same from that little perch over the world. The responsibility of governing takes precedence over all other matters.

[Shwa]

Who else disagrees with me?

Everyone except dumb Canadians.

[Evening Star]

If we're going back to the Trudeau years, it's worth mentioning Canada's support for Indonesia when they invaded and committed mass murder in East Timor. The Chretien Liberals did almost nothing to change the relationship. Mulroney/Clark might have been better when it comes to international human rights, although I'll give Axworthy credit for the landmines treaty (and I'll give Chretien's Liberals credit for staying out of Iraq).

Chretien's attitude towards protesters was appalling as well, most obviously in the case of the 'Shawinigan Handshake'.

They heartlessly slashed health and education transfers, beyond anything the PCs or CPC have attempted, and somehow still managed to receive the label 'centre-left'. To their credit, though, they really did at least manage to balance the budget and turn economic growth around at the end of it: they were true fiscal conservatives, unlike most political parties that carry the name.

The 1995 referendum came much closer than it had any right to.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Evening Star

[Guest American Woman]

(and I'll give Chretien's Liberals credit for staying out of Iraq).

link

[Evening Star]

link

They "discussed Canada's involvement"? We ended up staying out, right?

[Guest American Woman]

They "discussed Canada's involvement"? We ended up staying out, right?

Nope. That was the public stance, but the reality was different.

[Evening Star]

Nope. That was the public stance, but the reality was different.

Different how? Did we send troops? Provide funding?

[Guest American Woman]

Different how? Did we send troops? Provide funding?

Both.

On March 25, 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.

”As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing.... And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

Canada’s secret war in Iraq

The article tells of Canada's involvement.

[Evening Star]

If that information is correct, then they were even more cynical than I thought (and I thought they were plenty cynical).

I will say, though, that I'm more convinced by the reports of actual troops, warships, and officers being involved than by e.g. the export of uranium or the testing of missiles over Canadian space.

[edit: Seems like most of this can be substantiated.]

Edited December 11, 2011 by Evening Star

[Guest American Woman]

If that information is correct,

There are plenty of other sources out there to back it up.

then they were even more cynical than I thought (and I thought they were plenty cynical).

I'm not following .... who was more cynical?

[Evening Star]

I'm not following .... who was more cynical?

The Chretien-era Liberals

[Guest American Woman]

The Chretien-era Liberals

Oh, ok....I see where you are coming from. Thanks for the clarification.

[olp1fan]

Yeah Canada helped in Iraq a bit but not to the amount AW wants everyone to believe

We sent 'em a hundred or so troops and personnel and let them take off on some of our ships and gave them money

that is all we basically did

[Evening Star]

Yeah Canada helped in Iraq a bit but not to the amount AW wants everyone to believe

We sent 'em a hundred or so troops and personnel and let them take off on some of our ships and gave them money

that is all we basically did

It's still a little half-assed to talk about the importance of international law etc if you're still going to participate "just a little".

[olp1fan]

It's still a little half-assed to talk about the importance of international law etc if you're still going to participate "just a little".

Yeah, and it makes me wonder if the Bush snubbing Chretien for the few years after was really just meant for the Canadian public's perception

like just for show..I read a wikileaks cable that talked of someone telling Bush not to be too friendly to Harper because it would rub Canada the wrong way to be so buddy buddy with the U.S

Edited December 11, 2011 by olp1fan

[cybercoma]

It has more to do with us being a completely insignifcant international player and a state that most Americans know absolutely nothing "aboot". Bush was the Governor of Texas, which makes it even less likely that he was paying attention to Canada in any significant way.

[cybercoma]

On a side note, we weren't always this way.

While Canada Slept: How We Lost Our Place in the World by Andrew Cohen is a good read on the subject.

edit: added subtitle to the book.

edit 2: added link to the book on Indigo's website for anyone interested.

Edited December 11, 2011 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

It's still a little half-assed to talk about the importance of international law etc if you're still going to participate "just a little".

This is really a refreshing attitude. So often I just hear from a number of Canadians about the U.S. breaking international law while Canada took the moral high road and refrained from involvement in the war. But as the U.S. said, there was the coalition of the willing who were open about their involvement/support and then there were those pledging their 'hush hush' support/involvement - such as Canada.

Fact is, Chretien lied to the Canadian public.

What amazes me is that Canadians who wonder where the outrage from Americans over being lied to about Iraq's WMD are ok with their country's lie; they are outraged over the U.S. breaking international law but dismiss their country doing the same thing, either because they deny it or because it 'wasn't as bad.' That nonsensical thinking aside, I believe Canada gave as much as it was able to at the time. Canada doesn't have the military resources or the 'power' that the U.S. has, so basically even though it did 'just a little,' if that's truly what one believes, it amounted to all it had - same as the U.S. There is no difference. Canada still gave the war it's all - and it's involvement wasn't insignificant.

But at least the U.S. was upfront about it - unlike the 'holier-than-thou' Canadian government.

I've spent years criticizing my government for what I perceive as its wrongs regarding Iraq, only to hear from so many Canadians how terrible my country is as they dismiss their country's wrongs when I bring it up - when I try to have a two sided discussion about it. "It's not as bad," they say - as they polish their hypocritical halo. Of course it is. The only difference is they are hiding behind the U.S. - getting some sort of self-satisfaction because the are 'not as bad' - as Canada (Shhhhh!) gives it's all.

Edited December 11, 2011 by American Woman