Jump to content

Secret Mulroney Tapes


August1991

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

August, Mulroney was a compulsive liar. His problem was that he believed what he said.

I have observed Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien, and Martin.

All of them are/were fluent liars. Compulsion suggests a mental disorders, which is silly. They lied whenever it was in their interest, or thought it was, to lie. Of the four, Chretien was the most dishonest in every respect. He would not only lie in campaigns, not only lie to the people on issues of importance, he would lie very casually, at the drop of a hat, over nothing. Remember his "I frequently talk to the homeless" when some reporter suggested he didn't care? Remember "I often stop at the local bars in my riding to talk with the people" when it was suggested he was an out-of-touch elitist? Remember how he tried to blame the military for not going to the funeral of the King of Jordan? In addition, while Mulroney's government was repeatedly accused of corruption, Chretien's actually was corrupt, and to a far, far greater degree than Mulroney's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And oh, lest we forget, Chretien kept Canada from losing perhaps hundreds of lives by staying out of Bush's illegal invasion. That act alone borders on heroism.

Chretien was always the most venal and self-serving of politicians. He had no ideology to speak of, and always blew with the wind. If the polls had told him it would be more popular to send troops to Iraq he'd have done it. In this case we had few troops to send of any real substance, even fewer who were equipped for actual combat operations against even a third rate military. Chretien was afraid of them being humiliated over there, and what that would cost his "legacy". He opted to send them to Afghanistan instead, where the enemy had already been conquered, and all they'd possibly have to face would be a disorganized rabble. And he made sure they were in one of the safer areas.

To suggest his actions deserved a term like "heroic" is absurd. They were the antithesis of heroic. I'd say Tony Blair would be more deserving of that term. He went against the grain, he took the hard road, knowning that his citizenry, and particularly the ones on the left, which were his party's mainstay, were against the war. He acted like a leader, and went anyway. The easiest thing for him to have done would have been to go by the polls, like Chretien did. But he stood up for what he believed in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taken from a blog http://www.boundbygravity.com/

Duffy on Newman

Mike Duffy spoke with Steve Madely on CFRA this morning and had two interesting observations regarding Peter C. Newman's new book that are worth sharing:

1. Peter C. Newman attempted to get Lawrence Martin to co-author The Secret Mulroney Tapes, however he backed out after reading the letter of agreement that Mulroney and Newman had hammered out all those years ago. Might there be a legitimate legal case in the works against Mr. Newman?

2. All we've heard so far are the musings of Brian Mulroney - Newman has not published the questions he asked to garner the answers he received. An interview, as we know, is all about the back and forth exchanges. Since Mr. Mulroney was usually fairly careful about what he said (and often asked if he was being recorded, according to Duffy) just how much of a role did Peter C. Newman play in riling up the former Prime Minister to the point where he would be so open about his loathing?!?

Food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear August

Three consecutive Chretien majority governments isn't a bad track record. What have the Conservatives done recently?  :rolleyes:

Cheers

That is true, but Chretien was also perhaps the luckiest politician to have ever been PM. His 3 terms were due as much to the fact that the Conservatives imploded. Its fairly unlikely that Chretien would not have one 3 terms if there was a credible opposition in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the book actually out yet?  If so, anybody read it?

I'm reading it now. (For the record, Im also reading L'Évangile selon Pilate and Growing Public. Greg, we really should have a culture/sport/book/movie category.)

As to the Newman/Mulroney book, it is very, very good. The excerpts don't do it justice. It provides a fascinating glimpse into Canadian politics. I still think Crosbie's No Holds Barred is better. The Mulroney/Newman book contains raw quotes. Crosbie was direct and honest but had given some thought before expressing himself.

1. Peter C. Newman attempted to get Lawrence Martin to co-author The Secret Mulroney Tapes, however he backed out after reading the letter of agreement that Mulroney and Newman had hammered out all those years ago. Might there be a legitimate legal case in the works against Mr. Newman?
Who knows, but I think this is a red herring. If you read the book, you'll understand why. And Lawrence Martin? Martin wrote a puff piece (as Mulroney would say) on Chretien. I doubt somehow this story.
2. All we've heard so far are the musings of Brian Mulroney - Newman has not published the questions he asked to garner the answers he received. An interview, as we know, is all about the back and forth exchanges. Since Mr. Mulroney was usually fairly careful about what he said (and often asked if he was being recorded, according to Duffy) just how much of a role did Peter C. Newman play in riling up the former Prime Minister to the point where he would be so open about his loathing?!?
The book includes Newman's interjections. But it is clear that these are Mulroney monologues. (Rants might be the modern term). Mulroney was no more riled up than calm posters to this forum - the difference being that Mulroney knew what he was talking about.

I am rather surprised by the inclusion of third party quotes: Stanley Hartt, Michael Pitfield, Peter Lougheed etc. I wonder how they feel about being included.

----

Chantal Hebert wrote that the book contains nothing new:

Those who covered Mulroney's Ottawa will not be surprised by the gist of the contents of Newman's book. As secret as they may have been, his tapes contained few real secrets.
She's right, sort of. (I think too there is sour grapes that she didn't get the scoop - like the Lawrence Martin column linked above).

The book is new and important because it is so direct and vital. Canadians now have a chance to read in one place the opinions of someone who truly understands our country.

The French press has picked up on different quotes from the English press but overall, the book has attracted less attention in French than English. I suspect that is because Newman doesn't speak French and is virtually unknown in Quebec. It is too bad Mulroney didn't choose a bilingual confidant. (BTW, Mulroney tells us that he always spoke in French with Trudeau and refers to "cordial" relations. I'll assume they used the formal vous.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And oh, lest we forget, Chretien kept Canada from losing perhaps hundreds of lives by staying out of Bush's illegal invasion. That act alone borders on heroism.

To suggest his actions deserved a term like "heroic" is absurd. They were the antithesis of heroic.

I don't know. Saving lives always seems heroic to me. Chretien had the cahones (as did most of the world) to stand up to the mighty U.S. and refuse participation in Bush's illegal war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading it now. (For the record, Im also reading L'Évangile selon Pilate and Growing Public. Greg, we really should have a culture/sport/book/movie category.)
I agree, but I would have to review Memoirs by Trudeau and My Life by Clinton.

BTW, I liked Trudeau in many ways, but could anyone else on earth be more arrogant than him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And oh, lest we forget, Chretien kept Canada from losing perhaps hundreds of lives by staying out of Bush's illegal invasion. That act alone borders on heroism.

To suggest his actions deserved a term like "heroic" is absurd. They were the antithesis of heroic.

I don't know. Saving lives always seems heroic to me. Chretien had the cahones (as did most of the world) to stand up to the mighty U.S. and refuse participation in Bush's illegal war.

You don't know he saved any lives. Have any Australians died in Iraq? Meanwhile, we lost 5 people in Afghanistan.

And to repeat, it's not heroic when you do something out of self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...