So chretien is at it again.

[sharkman]

What a bitter pill for him to swallow. He destroyed the Liberal Party and now he has to resort to begging for money so his party doesn't go extinct. How the mighty have fallen.

This has been my observation as well, he really did bring the party down and now has sunk to the level of a side show.

I don't know what was in his mind during the 'proof' thing, but a simple answer to the question of what a proof is would go something like this: "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth". He was always pretty rough around the edges and got a pass from the media many different times.

My favorite occasion was the time he suggested that a reporter should get pregnant so she could take advantage of the maternity leave program his government had passed.

[cybercoma]

I see what you mean, but I think the reporter was asking him to speculate on what evidence that would be, not asking him to define proof. It was a really stupid question by the reporter, imo. There's plenty of things to criticize Chretien for, I don't think the proof thing is one of them. I think the reporter needs to be criticized there.

[jbg]

I see what you mean, but I think the reporter was asking him to speculate on what evidence that would be, not asking him to define proof. It was a really stupid question by the reporter, imo. There's plenty of things to criticize Chretien for, I don't think the proof thing is one of them. I think the reporter needs to be criticized there.

During July 2003, I was trying a case in the bankruptcy court, representing a defendant. The burden of proof was the Plaintiff's. I was going to say, at closing arguments:

As a very great leader of a very great democracy so eloquently said last fall, "a proof is a proof". And I respectfully submit, Plaintiff has proven nothing.

I didn't do that for two reasons:

1. I couldn't keep a straight face; and
   
2. My Shawinigan accent failed me.
   

[cybercoma]

That would have been priceless. To the point at hand, the US was the plaintiff in the case and it was up to Chretien whether or not they provided sufficient "proof" for the WMDs in Iraq before lending support. He believed they hadn't and was waiting to see proof. You have to understand that the United States didn't even care that Iraq had allowed weapons inspectors in. They weren't giving any more time. 9/11 was a pretext to gain public support and the window was closing quickly. Chretien made the right decision. However, he should not have even sent the ships to protect US carriers, imo.

[sharkman]

That's an inaccurate assessment of the US response, but this is the wrong thread for it.

Cyber, did you find any fault with the above story where Chretien invited the female reporter to get pregnant?

[jbg]

You have to understand that the United States didn't even care that Iraq had allowed weapons inspectors in. They weren't giving any more time.

The inspectors' work was materially hampered. On one occasion they were briefly taken hostage. In no sense was Iraq weapons-free.

Even if Iraq had no WMD's they spent two decades trumpeting that they did. It's akin to someone standing on scaffolding threatening to jump. Even if they don't mean their threats, but are just looking for attention, who in their right mind wouldn't pull the person off the scaffolding?

[segnosaur]

I see what you mean, but I think the reporter was asking him to speculate on what evidence that would be, not asking him to define proof. It was a really stupid question by the reporter, imo.

Why exactly was it a "stupid question"?

There are a lot of things that could have been considered evidence that Iraq was working on WMD:

- Actually discovering the weapons themselves

- Documentation (a hand-written note by Saddam saying "hide the nukes in the desert")

- Testimony by Iraqis that had been working on the program

Obviously Iraq didn't have an active weapons program. But at the time there was no definitive proof either way. Knowing whether the government might accept something like written documentation as "proof" (even if the weapons themselves were not found) would have been relevant at the time.

[cybercoma]

The inspectors' work was materially hampered. On one occasion they were briefly taken hostage. In no sense was Iraq weapons-free.

Even if Iraq had no WMD's they spent two decades trumpeting that they did. It's akin to someone standing on scaffolding threatening to jump. Even if they don't mean their threats, but are just looking for attention, who in their right mind wouldn't pull the person off the scaffolding?

And the United States trumpets its military might and they've been known to exercise it regularly as well. That doesn't mean its a pretext for invading the US.

[cybercoma]

Why exactly was it a "stupid question"?

There are a lot of things that could have been considered evidence that Iraq was working on WMD:

- Actually discovering the weapons themselves

- Documentation (a hand-written note by Saddam saying "hide the nukes in the desert")

- Testimony by Iraqis that had been working on the program

Obviously Iraq didn't have an active weapons program. But at the time there was no definitive proof either way. Knowing whether the government might accept something like written documentation as "proof" (even if the weapons themselves were not found) would have been relevant at the time.

It's stupid because it's all speculation what kind of proof they could provide. Chretien didn't need to tell the US how to do their job of proving their case.

[segnosaur]

And the United States trumpets its military might and they've been known to exercise it regularly as well. That doesn't mean its a pretext for invading the US.

The difference is, there was (in theory) a chapter VII resolution put forward by the U.N. security council which required Iraq to not only be disarmed, but to comply with inspections. (Unfortunately, this resolution did not give any specific remedies for non-compliance.)

On the other hand, there is no such resolution in force against the U.S. telling it to "disarm"(either from the U.N., or any significant body that would have it under its jurisdiction).

[segnosaur]

It's stupid because it's all speculation what kind of proof they could provide. Chretien didn't need to tell the US how to do their job of proving their case.

First of all, while it is true that Canada couldn't tell a priori what evidence would be found, that does not make such "speculation" worthless. After all, when you're dealing with something like weapons inspections, you basically have 2 "levels" of proof... direct and indirect. It would not be too difficult to state which "level" of proof that would be needed.

If Chretien didn't want to answer the question, a more appropriate answer would have been to say something like "We'll make a determination based on the validity of the evidence".

Secondly, how the U.S. "does its job" is not the issue, its how Canada would have responded to whatever evidence was brought up.

[cybercoma]

Chretien was brash and arrogant, that's for sure. I'm not denying that at all. He rarely handled thing properly. Perhaps he could have answered the question differently, but asking the Prime Minister "what is a proof" is a stupid question. The reporter was trying to "school" him and Chretien basically called the reporter an idiot.

[segnosaur]

Chretien was brash and arrogant, that's for sure. I'm not denying that at all. He rarely handled thing properly. Perhaps he could have answered the question differently, but asking the Prime Minister "what is a proof" is a stupid question. The reporter was trying to "school" him and Chretien basically called the reporter an idiot.

Once again...

No, it is not a stupid question. It is relevant because many Canadians may have wanted to know whether Canada's stance on the war might have changed on indirect or direct evidence. (If you don't care, fine, but that doesn't mean that others wouldn't have had an interest in the answer.)

[Evening Star]

T

I don't know what was in his mind during the 'proof' thing, but a simple answer to the question of what a proof is would go something like this: "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth". He was always pretty rough around the edges and got a pass from the media many different times.

IOW, "a proof is a proof"?

[Vendetta]

Chretien was a great Prime Minister. As per usual our economy fared far better when we weren't under Conservative rule. Canada was far better off with Jean than Harper in every imagineable way.

[sharkman]

And you have a bridge to sell me, right? Sorry, I'm not buying.

Chretien gutted our military after canceling a Sea King replacement contract which cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions. He then spent the next decade pretending to select a different chopper while the Sea Kings crashed and burned repeatedly. He never did authorize replacements, he just played with our pilots' lives instead.

He also gutted our medical system and under him Canadians learned a then new concept: the waiting list. And of course it was he who brought in the GST after promising he wouldn't. We experienced the highest tax burden we'd ever had under him, while billions were lost or wasted on the Gun Registry and Human Resource money pits. There's many more boondoggles I could dig up, but I'd prefer to leave them as repressed memories!

A great PM? Not even close. He was good at playing the game of politics, which fooled enough of the people some of the time.

[Evening Star]

And of course it was he who brought in the GST after promising he wouldn't.

Actually, the GST was introduced in 1991 under Mulroney, two years before the Liberal government was elected. Chretien did promise to scrap it, which he reneged on. (I personally think it's good that he didn't scrap it and tend to think that Harper shouldn't have reduced it.)

[sharkman]

Oh that's right, I was a couple of years off on the GST. What Chretien did was capitalize on the anger over the GST and probably never intended to scrap it. A liar who manipulated the voter anger to his advantage. And left of center Canadians shrugged their shoulders and kept voting him in because he may have been a scoundrel, but he was their scoundrel, damnit!

[dre]

A liar who manipulated the voter anger to his advantage.

We call those politicians.

[sharkman]

That is why I tend to prefer non-politicians running for office.

[PIK]

Chretien was a great Prime Minister. As per usual our economy fared far better when we weren't under Conservative rule. Canada was far better off with Jean than Harper in every imagineable way.

For criminals and thugs.