Paul Martin's Flip Flop on BMD

[shoop]

Yet another example of Paul Martin saying one thing, yet doing another when push comes to shove. Here are a number of, credited, quotes when he wasn't *fundamentally opposed* to BMD.

Somebody save us from *another* term or Martin's flip flopping...

"What possible benefit is it for us to stay away from the table?" (Toronto Star, April 29, 2003).

"If there is going to be an American missile going off somewhere over Canadian airspace, I think Canada should be at the table making the decisions." (CBC, May 1, 2003).

"We have to be at the table to essentially make sure that whatever decisions that are going to be taking place are taking place in Canada’s interests." (Ottawa Sun, January 9, 2004).

"In response to a question about why the PM is in talks with U.S. President George Bush regarding the missile defence system, he said Canada can't walk away because it would lose control of its own air space. The PM said that 'nobody should trifle with Canadian air space unless Canadians say it's okay,' he said, making clear that 'I will not sign any agreement that involves the weaponization of space.' (Liberal Party Press Release, June 23, 2004).

[err]

Yet another example of Paul Martin saying one thing, yet doing another when push comes to shove. Here are a number of, credited, quotes when he wasn't *fundamentally opposed* to BMD.

Somebody save us from *another* term or Martin's flip flopping...

"In response to a question about why the PM is in talks with U.S. President George Bush regarding the missile defence system, he said Canada can't walk away because it would lose control of its own air space. The PM said that 'nobody should trifle with Canadian air space unless Canadians say it's okay,' he said, making clear that 'I will not sign any agreement that involves the weaponization of space.' (Liberal Party Press Release, June 23, 2004).

Solution = Vote NDP

[Riverwind]

Solution = Vote NDP

Vote NDP = National Bankruptcy, Healthcare System Collapse

[daniel]

Solution = Vote NDP

Vote NDP = National Bankruptcy, Healthcare System Collapse

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another urban myth.

If there's any consolation, provincial NDP track records are the same as PCs and Liberals - both good and bad.

Federally, the only time I recall National Bankruptcy was right after the Mulroney government.

And speaking of which, I believe Mulroney said that only a fool never changes his mind.

So.... I'm glad Martin decided against BMDs.

[shoop]

Wow, what a random way to explain the generally poorer track record for ND governments.

Thanks for the hijack err, much expected...

Another urban myth.

If there's any consolation, provincial NDP track records are the same as PCs and Liberals - both good and bad.

Federally, the only time I recall National Bankruptcy was right after the Mulroney government.

And speaking of which, I believe Mulroney said that only a fool never changes his mind.

So.... I'm glad Martin decided against BMDs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[daniel]

Wow, what a random way to explain the generally poorer track record for ND governments.

Nice try, but a myth is a myth.

[Leader Circle]

Solution = Vote NDP

Vote NDP = National Bankruptcy, Healthcare System Collapse

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another urban myth.

If there's any consolation, provincial NDP track records are the same as PCs and Liberals - both good and bad.

Federally, the only time I recall National Bankruptcy was right after the Mulroney government.

And speaking of which, I believe Mulroney said that only a fool never changes his mind.

So.... I'm glad Martin decided against BMDs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please enlighten us of the NDP provincial government that was good. We know all the bad ones, but I am apparently too young to remember the good one(s).

Wasn't in Sask, BC or Ont. So where was this mythical beast from?

[shoop]

Uhhh,

Yeah Daniel. That myth is a myth line is pretty weak.

Some evidence. And no I won't bother refuting your evidence till I see some.

Please enlighten us of the NDP provincial government that was good. We know all the bad ones, but I am apparently too young to remember the good one(s).

Wasn't in Sask, BC or Ont. So where was this mythical beast from?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest eureka]

Possibly you could exlain which NDP governments were bad. Your sweeping statement that "er all know them" is no sort of support for the claim.

Then we can all go into which Conservative and which Liberal and which Social Credit and which PQ governments were bad.

The difference might be in why; though that is likely to become no more than partisan; "they are, they aren't."

[daniel]

Uhhh,

Yeah Daniel. That myth is a myth line is pretty weak.

Some evidence. And no I won't bother refuting your evidence till I see some.

Please enlighten us of the NDP provincial government that was good. We know all the bad ones, but I am apparently too young to remember the good one(s).

Wasn't in Sask, BC or Ont. So where was this mythical beast from?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good examples of PC/Socred run provinces and deficits under Bennett/Van Der Zalm, Devine, & Harris/Eves.

[apollo19]

Possibly you could exlain which NDP governments were bad. Your sweeping statement that "er all know them" is no sort of support for the claim.

Then we can all go into which Conservative and which Liberal and which Social Credit and which PQ governments were bad.

The difference might be in why; though that is likely to become no more than partisan; "they are, they aren't."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I can only speak of experience of the BC NDP government during the '90s. They pissed away money, they gave too much to unions, they did a terrible job of making the Island Highway, they let the Lower Mainland infrastructure rot and decay because it was Liberal/Conservative. Heck, they wouldn't even have won their second term if it went according to popular vote -- the Liberals beat them in that, but NDP got more seats. Basically, this is the logic of the NDP: let's start an industry of our own (fast-ferry building) where only unions are allowed to work, make pro-union laws so everyone else gets screwed, spend a couple hundred million to keep our supporters happy, and let our opponents supporters drown in the debt we make.

[Guest eureka]

I am sure that there would be many who would argue whether that was all bad. However, what about the Social Credit under the Bennets and VanderZalm.

The time when the qualification for Premier was to be a Grade Ten dropout? I recall an awful lot of insanity and not a little corruption on those heady days.

[shoop]

Hmmm,

Harris/Eves ran smaller deficits than Rae.

Gordon Campbell (who is a "Liberal" in name only) has corrected the fiscal misfortunes in BC, despite years of mismanagment under the NDs.

Any questions?

Good examples of PC/Socred run provinces and deficits under Bennett/Van Der Zalm, Devine, & Harris/Eves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[daniel]

Hmmm,

Harris/Eves ran smaller deficits than Rae.

Gordon Campbell (who is a "Liberal" in name only) has corrected the fiscal misfortunes in BC, despite years of mismanagment under the NDs.

Any questions?

Correction: mismanagement under the Socreds. Guess why they no longer exist?

And guess what Rae inherited?

BTW Alberta never had an NDP government. So what was that deficit cutting all about?

Is the Liberal idea well that dry they have to reach back six years for an attack?

Not limited to Liberals, I see. Running dry?

[shoop]

Nice try pal. Simply replying to your false statements. There is a big difference between that and what you accused me of. If you don't see the difference, oh well such is life.

Not limited to Liberals, I see.  Running dry?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[daniel]

...your false statements. ...you accused me of.

Who's making the accusations? Not me. Just stating that the NDP as fiscally irresponsible is a myth supported by the track records of Liberal and PC governments (that others had provided).

[shoop]

There is nothing *mythical* to the record of the NDs under Rae in Ontario or the BC NDs prior to Gordon Campbell.

Why avoid the issue or try and divert it elsewhere. Those are two very clearcut examples of ND governments behaving irresponsibly with taxpayer money.

Whose making the accusations?  Not me.  Just stating that the NDP as fiscally irresponsible is a myth supported by the track records of Liberal and PC governments (that others had provided).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[daniel]

There is nothing *mythical* to the record of the NDs under Rae in Ontario or the BC NDs prior to Gordon Campbell.

Why avoid the issue or try and divert it elsewhere. Those are two very clearcut examples of ND governments behaving irresponsibly with taxpayer money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who's avoiding or diverting the issue? Not me. My statement was the NDP governments have the same track record as Liberals and PCs. And I have shown that for every bad NDP government presented to me, I have presented similarly bad Liberal and PC governments to prove my point.

So the perception or statement that (only) the NDP is fiscally irresponsible is mythical as I had shown with real examples.

And speaking of avoidance, you never replied to the Devine Government or Alberta's deficit.

[CoachCartman]

I'd love to see an example of a good NDP government

[shoop]

That's because Grant Devine was Premier of Saskatchewan, not Alberta.

And speaking of avoidance, you never replied to the Devine Government or Alberta's deficit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Black Dog]

That's because Grant Devine was Premier of Saskatchewan, not Alberta.

QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 14 2005, 01:49 PM)

And speaking of avoidance, you never replied to the Devine Government or Alberta's deficit.

TWEET! Two minutes for obtuseness. It's pretty clear that daniel was talking about the Devine governmnet and Alberta's deficit as two sperate issues.

[The Honest Politician]

Yet another example of Paul Martin saying one thing, yet doing another when push comes to shove. Here are a number of, credited, quotes when he wasn't *fundamentally opposed* to BMD.

Somebody save us from *another* term or Martin's flip flopping...

"What possible benefit is it for us to stay away from the table?" (Toronto Star, April 29, 2003).

"If there is going to be an American missile going off somewhere over Canadian airspace, I think Canada should be at the table making the decisions." (CBC, May 1, 2003).

"We have to be at the table to essentially make sure that whatever decisions that are going to be taking place are taking place in Canada’s interests." (Ottawa Sun, January 9, 2004).

"In response to a question about why the PM is in talks with U.S. President George Bush regarding the missile defence system, he said Canada can't walk away because it would lose control of its own air space. The PM said that 'nobody should trifle with Canadian air space unless Canadians say it's okay,' he said, making clear that 'I will not sign any agreement that involves the weaponization of space.' (Liberal Party Press Release, June 23, 2004).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about these statements says he is in favour of BMD?

All the statements say to me is that eventhough they don't like what is going on if no one is at the table to speak up for Canada we will ultimately lose control of our airspace. I would have to say the statements in fact show a general opposition to the idea from the start.

"What possible benefit is it for us to stay away from the table?" (Toronto Star, April 29, 2003).

If we aren't there they will do whatever they want.

"If there is going to be an American missile going off somewhere over Canadian airspace, I think Canada should be at the table making the decisions." (CBC, May 1, 2003).

If these guys are going to be doing something over or near our airspace we should have first hand knowledge of what it is.

"We have to be at the table to essentially make sure that whatever decisions that are going to be taking place are taking place in Canada’s interests." (Ottawa Sun, January 9, 2004).

What do you know. It the same thing again. The only way to protect our interests is to be involved.

"In response to a question about why the PM is in talks with U.S. President George Bush regarding the missile defence system, he said Canada can't walk away because it would lose control of its own air space. The PM said that 'nobody should trifle with Canadian air space unless Canadians say it's okay,' he said, making clear that 'I will not sign any agreement that involves the weaponization of space.' (Liberal Party Press Release, June 23, 2004).

And again. We have to be involved to protect ourselves.

The underlying tone of these quotes is not one of support for BMD but one of wariness. If I had to judge if Martin was for or against BMD just from these quotes, I would say that the quotes point to someone who did not approve of what was being discussed but knew that if he didn't particpate he would get screwed. I fail to see any flip-flop judging from these quotes, because I fail to see where any of these quotes actually shows support for BMD.

[sharkman]

The Liberals have perfected this technique of coming out in favour of something, then later coming out against it, and it's usually to do with the U.S. In this particular case, I remember hearing the end result of us not participating being that if a missile from China or elsewhere were to enter Canadian airspace, the Canadian military would have to leave the room while the Americans would decide what should be done, since we aren't involved. We could do our own defense strategy, but since we have nothing to shoot missiles down with we would be at the U.S.'s whims. All because the Liberals never let an opportunity to jerk the Americans around go by.

[shoop]

I can defend both Black Dog, but only one at a time. And only after he deals with Rae and BC. Which would you like me to deal with first?

P.S. kiss my arse for the obtuseness line you ignant jerk.

TWEET! Two minutes for obtuseness. It's pretty clear that daniel was talking about the Devine governmnet and Alberta's deficit as two sperate issues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[daniel]

The Liberals have perfected this technique of coming out in favour of something, then later coming out against it, and it's usually to do with the U.S...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, the Liberals usually have a technique of sitting on the fence and then after alot of feedback from public sentiment, come out with a decision satisfactory to the majority - usually.

I cite, the Bank Mergers - but the door is still open;

of course, the BMD rejection was when Martin found himself in the minority government position with a lot of public opposition to it.