How Chrétien’s gutsy call on Iraq put him on the right side of history

[BeaverFever]

How Chrétien’s gutsy call on Iraq put him on the right side of history

BOB PLAMONDON

CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL

PUBLISHED YESTERDAY
 

Twenty years ago – and a mere six weeks after the launch of the Iraq War – U.S. president George Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln under a “Mission Accomplished” banner.

Canada would have been fighting with the United States, Britain, Australia and others but for one man: the prime minister, Jean Chrétien. What did he know that others did not? And what were the qualities of leadership that put Mr. Chrétien and Canada on the right side of history?

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Chrétien told Mr. Bush that Canada would join the war provided there was proof Iraq held weapons of mass destruction sufficient to convince the United Nations that military action was justified. Mr. Chrétien added that the evidence he had seen was so shaky it would not have convinced a municipal court judge in Shawinigan, Que.

When pressed by reporters about the kind of evidence he needed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Chrétien responded: “A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It’s a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it’s because it’s proven.” The quote was the subject of ridicule, but it has aged well.

Mr. Bush offered to send his experts to Ottawa, but Mr. Chrétien declined, believing the CIA evidence was biased. Besides, he preferred to rely on the views of Canadian intelligence agencies. Mr. Chrétien also thought that Canada should not be in the business of removing dictators, especially in a turbulent, non-democratic part of the world. “If we’re getting into the business of replacing leaders we don’t like,” Mr. Chrétien asked British prime minister Tony Blair, “who’s next?”

Several of Mr. Chrétien’s cabinet ministers wanted Canada on the front lines, as did a significant number of Liberal MPs who thought it was time for the prime minister to make way for another leader. According to senior federal bureaucrats, the three key departments – defence, foreign affairs and finance – assumed that Canada would send troops to Iraq.

Story continues below advertisement

Business leaders warned Mr. Chrétien of economic reprisals for rejecting a war that was sanctioned by the U.S. Congress. “Give me a list,” Mr. Chrétien challenged them, “of all the goods and services that the Americans buy from us just because they love us.”

When a deadline given by the British Foreign Office for Canada to declare its final position on Iraq loomed, Mr. Chrétien responded not in a diplomatic communiqué, but in Parliament. Moments before he rose in the House of Commons, he summoned his ministers of foreign affairs and defence to seek their views, not on the decision, but on the wording of his statement. The decision on Iraq was Mr. Chrétien’s alone.

Mr. Chrétien did not have better information about the existence of weapons of mass destruction than any other world leader. The difference was that Mr. Chrétien was more objective and independent-minded. Drawing upon his nearly 40 years of political experience, his instincts were to challenge rather than simply accept what he was told. He did not believe in groupthink and had no need or desire to impress the powerful or join a club. He could not be intimidated, even when pressed by our most important allies.

Having made the decision, Mr. Chrétien did not admonish or criticize Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair. Instead he used the United Nations as Canada’s armour against criticism and possible retaliation from the American and British governments. Mr. Chrétien had suggested to Mr. Blair he could play a role at the UN in seeking a resolution. But the wily Mr. Chrétien knew that even if a resolution passed in plenary, it would be vetoed at the Security Council. His offer to mediate an agreement was, at best, gratuitous.

Story continues below advertisement

LAWRENCE MARTIN: On the 20th anniversary of Iraq’s invasion, Canada’s record on war and peace stands firm

In retirement, people Mr. Chrétien meets on the street thank him for keeping Canada out of the Iraq war. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are shunned in public. The leaders of Mexico and Chile thanked Mr. Chrétien in 2003 for giving them cover for staying out of Iraq, and have many times thereafter. In 2019, the former prime minister of Singapore publicly expressed his regret that he did not have Mr. Chretien’s guts to say no to Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair on Iraq. Mr. Chrétien’s instincts have been validated over time. As he suspected, the evidence of weapons of mass destruction was distorted, if not fabricated. Regime change did not produce greater political stability in Iraq or the region.

To say that the choice was easy ignores the condemnation Mr. Chrétien faced in 2003. According to The Globe and Mail, he used pretzel-like logic to make the wrong choice. The Sudbury Star saw Mr. Chrétien as aligning Canada with nations more concerned about their financial interests than saving the Iraqi people from torture, murder, rape and oppression. The Ottawa Citizen accused Mr. Chrétien of surrendering Canada’s sovereignty to China and Russia. The Windsor Star called Mr. Chretien an embarrassment.

The Conservative opposition supported the Americans, a case Stephen Harper ultimately made in the pages of The Wall Street Journal. The business community was near-unanimous in siding with the Americans. And then Mr. Chrétien needed to contend with those in the Liberal caucus who thought it was a mistake to keep our troops at home.

Mr. Chrétien kept Canada out of a war that today has almost no defenders. He followed his instincts, confounded the experts, asserted Canadian independence and saved lives. Before he became prime minister, we were told le petits gars de Shawinigan would embarrass Canada on the world stage. In the final analysis, it was Mr. Chrétien who gave the master class on leadership and foreign policy.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-how-chretiens-gutsy-call-on-iraq-put-him-on-the-right-side-of-history/

[BeaverFever]

You know I really resent Chretien’s gutting of public services and corporate tax giveaways that would make any conservative jealous and we’re still paying the price for those today….but his take on Iraq was bang on and took shrewdness, morality and balls of pure steel, while the other side while then other side displayed the exact opposite qualities 

[sharkman]

For a completely different rationale I came to realize that the Iraqi war was wrong.  Chretien was indeed right on that one.  Bush has blood on his hands for using the lie about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

….but his take on Iraq was bang on and took shrewdness, morality and balls of pure steel, while the other side while then other side displayed the exact opposite qualities 

That other side is still alive and just about as unwell.

It'll probably take twice as long to accept they were out to lunch on COVID and twice as long again to come around on climate change.

It's been encouraging however to see them getting all woke about huge corporations and gargantuan governments getting together. They used to think anyone trying to wake people up to that deserved to be lumped in with terrorist sympathizers too.

[myata]

Just to throw some cold water on the subject: Liberals kicked and screamed to get drawn into the war. I remember because got involved at some point with my local MP couldn't get a straight answer no chance. Then Chretien was snubbed at some important meeting, these days you can see why. That tipped the hand. Nothing glorious, as far as I can see.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

but his take on Iraq was bang on and took shrewdness, morality and balls of pure steel while the other side while then other side displayed the exact opposite qualities 

it took none of those things of course.

But what's more interesting is that you've decided to take a topic that most people from across the political spectrum could probably come together and say 'arguably it was the right call' and have a discussion over and instead decided to turn it into a confrontation.

THat's kind of pathetic.

Harper was wrong, but for all the right reasons. He believed the us and  if bush had turned out to be telling the truth we'd be singing a very different tune.  He wanted to stand with our allies, which is actually a very correct thing to do in most cases.  We lose prestige and a lot of power when we don't show up.  And hussein was a bad guy for sure - and irag hasn't tried to bomb the us since.

So. While harper probably made the wrong call it's not due to a lack of any moral character at all. It could have gone either way.  And at least the right has the nuts to say he got something right when he did, your pathetic lot can never do the same when the situation is reversed.

[myata]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He believed..

But of course, that's what you do in professional politics. Five credibility points!

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, myata said:

But of course, that's what you do in professional politics. Five credibility points!

Believe your ally? Makes more sense than believing your enemy

[myata]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Believe your ally?

Sure explains everything that has transpired here, and will. Just believe... and see what happens.

[myata]

A perfect excuse though, for any underachievement or failure. Like, who would question beliefs? Should go straight into the government prerogative, if not there already. Something like this:

"Your good government is entitled to believe whatever it likes no scratch that, sees appropriate. And as a good citizen you should always believe your good government and never ask any questions".

Oops have I just done a department's job, with bonuses?

[August1991]

I met Chretien on several occasions.

I agree. He's a gutsy guy.

=====

1. As a bureaucrat, I was working for Mulroney. Chretien showed up in an official function. I recall his cold blue eyes. WTF?

2. Chretien talking to a staffer while crossing the street. His hands were moving.

3. Children. I recall him one time coming out of parliament (Centre Block) and saying, "Ok, where are the kids... ",

IMHO, Chretien?  He was tough. But he cared.     

[August1991]

Imagine the pressure Bush Jnr put on Chretien in 2002 to join his invasion of Iraq.

Blair folded.

======

At the time, I was reminded of his cold blue eyes.

I argued with my American friends that I was right and they were wrong.

I argued, "Imagine if you Americans invaded Canada. Which side would you take - English or French?"

[myata]

A fairy tale (there's a b-word too). They could have stated a clear principled position. Instead they wobbled and scrambled till the last minute and the decision point was a personal snub. Liberals at their normal and natural, 100% or add one more, self-serving self.

[myata]

Whenever one gets into the chair where they can make important for the others decisions with zero accountability something shoots straight into their brain. The god complex, or at least demi-. There has to be something special about me to get me here, definitely not like them, the little ones down below.

That explains everything and no need to create extra entities, supreme intellect, managerial prowess. You've got a bottomless bucket at your disposal, only token and defunct controls, most opponents effectively excluded from the competition by the insidious process and you still win it, the election". Wow. Isn't that brilliant. A genius born to lead and save us. There's a reason for the pomp and the noise of the spectacle. Guess.

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

it took none of those things of course.

But what's more interesting is that you've decided to take a topic that most people from across the political spectrum could probably come together and say 'arguably it was the right call' and have a discussion over and instead decided to turn it into a confrontation.

THat's kind of pathetic.

Harper was wrong, but for all the right reasons. He believed the us and  if bush had turned out to be telling the truth we'd be singing a very different tune.  He wanted to stand with our allies, which is actually a very correct thing to do in most cases.  We lose prestige and a lot of power when we don't show up.  And hussein was a bad guy for sure - and irag hasn't tried to bomb the us since.

So. While harper probably made the wrong call it's not due to a lack of any moral character at all. It could have gone either way.  And at least the right has the nuts to say he got something right when he did, your pathetic lot can never do the same when the situation is reversed.

It absolutely took balls of stell to defy the US, UK and the Canadian business community. Only with 20 years of hindsight with the people responsible long out of office does the right begrudgingly admit (to themselves) that they were wrong and Chretien was right. I’ve never seen a Tory say that to the public.  Given all the shrieking and screaming and insulting the right did over the decision not to go to war and Harper’s pathetic grovelling and debasement to Republicans in the Wall Street journal we haven’t really hears a peep of an apology or even a public admission of being wrong about the epic humanitarian disaster they wanted to help perpetrate out of mere loyalty. 
 

The WMD and 9-11 conspiracy claims being made about Iraq at the time were quite obviously false. While loyalty can be an admirable trait, blind loyalty and willful ignorance are not.

The right always frames issues as simply “whose side are you on” as you suggest with your reference to the ‘allies vs the bad guy.’  That is always a recipe for injustice and wrongdoing. Instead they should frame the issue the facts and moral principles as opposed to blind loyalty. A saying Republicans liked to repeat at the time was “my country, right or wrong.”  They needed to get rid of the “or wrong” part, that’s not how democracy is supposed to work. 

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, myata said:

A fairy tale (there's a b-word too). They could have stated a clear principled position. Instead they wobbled and scrambled till the last minute and the decision point was a personal snub. Liberals at their normal and natural, 100% or add one more, self-serving self.

Well somewhere in there he still managed to call Bush “a mor-n” and it leaked to the press  while one of his MPs went unpunished for saying on a hot mic “damn Americans I hate those bast*rds” over the issue and later she referred to a military coalition with Bush as a “coalition of idi*ts”   

Given America’s angry mood and the internal pressure from the 5th column business community it’s totally understandable that Chretien used the UN as a fig leaf of an excuse instead starting a war of words with the USA  

 

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by BeaverFever

[myata]

38 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Given America’s angry mood and the internal pressure from the 5th column business community it’s totally understandable that Chretien used the UN as a fig leaf of an excuse instead starting a war of words with the USA  

So Chretien figured it out for us. Another turn of the leaf it could have been different, like the opposite. What does it make of us, the democracy?

Yes, Britain was pretty much saved by the U.S. in WWII, had no choice. And Canada, what? How long it would stand, should Russia or China decide to test the grounds? You can do what you have to and admit the mistake later. You can stand on the principle, some would understand. Liberals did it the worst way. Kind of got it right but for entirely wrong reasons.

[BeaverFever]

36 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Personally, it seems you like to rant daily. I just showed you an example, of a centrist right President in Europe, France that managed to say no. And also, some had to follow as close allies, it was not an easy decision, you keep wanting to find this purity in politicians here in the West, that is because you have not seen directly or indirectly the other side, there is no such thing, come to reality, and anarchism will not deliver this. 

Maybe in 100 years when AI will take over due to humans being too weak, then that perfect system might come, until then, maybe a better approach would be to accept reality, find some compromise, AND VOTE, become active, and do something instead of looking at flaws daily and ranting like a commoner towards the perceived Castle!

Yeah but then Republicans renamed french fries to freedom fries, boycotted American businesses they mistakenly thought were French, and then bought expensive bottles of French wine and smashed them in protest. France nearly went bankrupt from that,  according to Fox News and “the Paris Business Review”

?

[BeaverFever]

12 minutes ago, myata said:

So Chretien figured it out for us. Another turn of the leaf it could have been different, like the opposite. What does it make of us, the democracy?

Yes, Britain was pretty much saved by the U.S. in WWII, had no choice. And Canada, what? How long it would stand, should Russia or China decide to test the grounds? You can do what you have to and admit the mistake later. You can stand on the principle, some would understand. Liberals did it the worst way. Kind of got it right but for entirely wrong reasons.

What wrong reasons?  They knew the Republicans’ argument for war was total BS lies and were philosophically opposed to invading countries simply to depose dictators we don’t like and without a UN mandate.   Those sound like the right reasons 

 

Yes we dodged a bullet in that if Harper had been in power …or even members of the Liberal party’s right wing…it would have been a decade of Canadian troops coming home in body bags daily while self-radicalized terrorists kill people in Canadian streets. All for Bush and Blair’s lie, not an error or miscalculation but a blatant bald-faced deliberate and obvious lie. It’s no small feat what Chretien did

Edited April 30, 2023 by BeaverFever

[myata]

Did you run some therapy on your memory? Till the last moment nobody in the country knew what the Libs will decide. My MP never broke a word like those WWII heroes in a Gestapo cell (that's your representative"" democracy in action). And if he was invited to that meeting, which way would this happy history go? Don't tell me you know, because Universe itself may not. The UN was much later.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

It absolutely took balls of stell to defy the US, UK and the Canadian business community.

Not really.  He was arrogant and felt that the liberals coudn't be defeated (which was true for most of his time in office for sure).  Arrogance can sometimes look like 'balls of steel' but it isn't.  There's little doubt he was tough but his real issue is that he thought whatever he did he was untouchable. As we would see elsewhere.

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Only with 20 years of hindsight with the people responsible long out of office does the right begrudgingly admit (to themselves) that they were wrong and Chretien was right. I’ve never seen a Tory say that to the public.

Awww muffin. Frankly when does it ever come up in public? And to be entirely honest if they HAD gone it would not have been seen as a bad thing. History wouldn't be recording it as some disaster. Hussein WAS defeated and he WAS a problem - the us didn't lie about THAT.  So its not like it's a case of 'thank god we avoided disaster" its more like 'Well, its probably best we didn't go.

 

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

 

 Given all the shrieking and screaming and insulting the right did over the decision not to go to war and Harper’s pathetic grovelling and debasement to Republicans in the Wall Street journal we haven’t really hears a peep of an apology or even a public admission of being wrong about the epic humanitarian disaster they wanted to help perpetrate out of mere loyalty.

 

This is the guy who screamed at every camera he found that the GST was evil and was gone the day he got in office. Yet it wiped out our deficit and he kept it. Any appologies there?  The left out and out LIES about many of the great decisions harper made, while quietly doing them in the background.  Remember how we were 'muzzling scientists'? Those same laws are still in place but now it's fine because it's trudeau.  Remember when they bought mortgages from the banks using the CMHC and the libs said it was so terrible? Saved hte country and guess who did it himself when covid hit.

On and on it goes.  Frankly like i said, it's probably the best decision but NOT BY MUCH. Going would not have been a bad decision either.  I think this was the best but there you go.

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

The WMD and 9-11 conspiracy claims being made about Iraq at the time were quite obviously false. While loyalty can be an admirable trait, blind loyalty and willful ignorance are not.

They weren't quite obviously fake. They were actually relatively plausible. It's easy to say that after the fact but there was a fair bit of evidence presented.

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The right always frames issues as simply “whose side are you on” as you suggest with your reference to the ‘allies vs the bad guy.’  That is always a recipe for injustice and wrongdoing. Instead they should frame the issue the facts and moral principles as opposed to blind loyalty. A saying Republicans liked to repeat at the time was “my country, right or wrong.”  They needed to get rid of the “or wrong” part, that’s not how democracy is supposed to work. 

The left operates on morals? Chretien was the same guy who presided over the whole sponsorship mess, gave his friends illegal gov't loans, strangled a  protester and raided the ei fund for 70 billion dollars and pretended it was 'surpluses'.  He HAD no morals. He was a scumbag who was SO arrogant that HIS OWN PEOPLE REVOLTED AND THREW HIM OUT.

And the same liberal party that now has been in front of the ethics commissioner and found guilty of major breeches (criminal ones at that) numerous times, tried to interfere with the justice system, funnels cash to their friends through single sourced contracts, and who's leader groped a woman and blew it off as 'sometimes women experience things differently'.

Yeah - i'll take 'stick by your allies' over THAT kind of "Morality'.

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Did you run some therapy on your memory? Till the last moment nobody in the country knew what the Libs will decide. My MP never broke a word like those WWII heroes in a Gestapo cell (that's your representative"" democracy in action). And if he was invited to that meeting, which way would this happy history go? Don't tell me you know, because Universe itself may not. The UN was much later.

So what is your point? Your bankbench MP probably didn’t know or if he knew he wasn’t spilling the beans to the public yet. Why do you assume that just because YOU PERSONALLY didn’t know what the policy was until the last minute, that the Prime Minister of Canada didn’t either?

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

it took none of those things of course.

But what's more interesting is that you've decided to take a topic that most people from across the political spectrum could probably come together and say 'arguably it was the right call' and have a discussion over and instead decided to turn it into a confrontation.

THat's kind of pathetic.

Hey bozo, you're confronting the wrong guy.

[BeaverFever]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not really.  He was arrogant and felt that the liberals coudn't be defeated (which was true for most of his time in office for sure).  Arrogance can sometimes look like 'balls of steel' but it isn't.  There's little doubt he was tough but his real issue is that he thought whatever he did he was untouchable. As we would see elsewhere.

But there was already a slow-moving coup by Paul Martin and the “business Liberals” many of whom who supported Iraq invasion to protect their US business interests, which bore fruit when Martin became leas and PM that same year   Also resisting pressure from US and UK during the post 911 terrorism hysteria of the time was no small thing 

 

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Awww muffin. Frankly when does it ever come up in public? And to be entirely honest if they HAD gone it would not have been seen as a bad thing. History wouldn't be recording it as some disaster. Hussein WAS defeated and he WAS a problem - the us didn't lie about THAT.  So its not like it's a case of 'thank god we avoided disaster" its more like 'Well, its probably best we didn't go.

Lol yeah nobody’s ever mentioned the war in Iraq, totally uncontroversial , hardly ever made the news!   Maybe in your conservative bubble lol.  Everyone today understands that war was a disaster for the history books. 
 

Republicans and their conservative mouthpieces blatantly lied about the reasons for invading and that the troops would be welcomed as liberators and be home in a fee months with minimal casualties. Th fact that Saddam is a “bad guy” is irrelevant to the justification, the world is full of “bad guys”.  As Chretien himself asked if that is the main reason then who is next?

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This is the guy who screamed at every camera he found that the GST was evil and was gone the day he got in office. Yet it wiped out our deficit and he kept it. Any appologies there?  The left out and out LIES about many of the great decisions harper made, while quietly doing them in the background.  Remember how we were 'muzzling scientists'? Those same laws are still in place but now it's fine because it's trudeau.  Remember when they bought mortgages from the banks using the CMHC and the libs said it was so terrible? Saved hte country and guess who did it himself when covid hit.

On and on it goes.  Frankly like i said, it's probably the best decision but NOT BY MUCH. Going would not have been a bad decision either.  I think this was the best but there you go.

I don’t think you compare amy of that to a fraudulent illegal invasion that destroyed a country killed hundreds of thousands and gave birth to the world’s most evil super terrorist group that briefly formed its own sovereign “caliphate”.  The “Pobody’s Nerfect” t-shirt just doesn’t fit. I’m also skeptical of your muzzling scientist claims and the claim that LPC opposed CMHC shoring up FIs during the financial crisis. 

 

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They weren't quite obviously fake. They were actually relatively plausible. It's easy to say that after the fact but there was a fair bit of evidence presented.

False, the supposed “evidence” were openly criticized at the time and the people who did so were viscously attacked by Republicans. . Remember the Valerie Plame affair? A senior Bush official actual went to jail for that (spoiler alert Bush pardoned him) Remember Hans Blix? Remember the “sixteen words” controversy  Remember Michael Moore getting booed by Republicans at the 2003 Oscars for speaking out about the Iraq lies? Maybe you need to watch his 2004 movie Fahrenheit 9/11 because you seem to be under the impression that the Iraq invasion was non-controversial and nobody really cared. 
 

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The left operates on morals? Chretien was the same guy who presided over the whole sponsorship mess, gave his friends illegal gov't loans, strangled a  protester and raided the ei fund for 70 billion dollars and pretended it was 'surpluses'.  He HAD no morals. He was a scumbag who was SO arrogant that HIS OWN PEOPLE REVOLTED AND THREW HIM OUT.

And the same liberal party that now has been in front of the ethics commissioner and found guilty of major breeches (criminal ones at that) numerous times, tried to interfere with the justice system, funnels cash to their friends through single sourced contracts, and who's leader groped a woman and blew it off as 'sometimes women experience things differently'.

Yeah - i'll take 'stick by your allies' over THAT kind of "Morality'.

 Blah blah blah I’m not defending any of that but unfortunately it’s what happens in every party  
 

On Iraq, the easier thing for Chretien to do would have been to go along with the war and send a small force like he had just recently done in Kosovo and Afghanistan. There was no upside to refusing to participate, he just knew it was wrong. 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Hey bozo, you're confronting the wrong guy.

Hey bozo - i'm not - and i see your comprehension and reading skills are as poor as always

But lying is your stock and trade so....