shoop Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 Here is an example of how much Martin has flip flopped on Iraq. Funny how CBC never mentions it. (all credited again) "I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible," (North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003) "Once the war in Iraq began, Canada was far from neutral. The only satisfactory outcome was a defeat of Saddam Hussein and his removal from power." (Speech in Toronto, April 30, 2003) "Canada's strongest desire was for a swift and just victory by coalition forces. Thankfully, that occurred." (Paul Martin Times, May 1, 2003) "I don't think there is any doubt, if there ever was . . . that he does have weapons of mass destruction. Biological weapons that they discovered were very clear evidence of not only the fact that he had them, but that he had lied and that he is continuing to lie." (Calgary Herald, March 7 2003) "Canada's position was Saddam Hussein should be disarmed. Now, to be quite honest, I had a lot of difficulty understanding how he was going to be disarmed without being replaced." (Ottawa Citizen, April 28, 2003) "The fact that now we know well that there is proliferation of nuclear weapons and that many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists have access to all that." (Globe and Mail, May 11, 2004) "Canada should be there." (Halifax Daily News, January 15, 2003) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 "Flip-flop" is one of the stupidist concepts in politics. The reverse of a "flip-floppper" would be one who clings to a position regardless of its correctness or even practicality. There's a guy like that in the Oval Office down south and its pretty clear from his track record that "clarity of purpose" is overrated. That said, Paul Martin has never met a principle he wouldn't sacrifice on the alte rof political expediency, so eff him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted December 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 Brilliant, completely agreed. That said, Paul Martin has never met a principle he wouldn't sacrifice on the alte rof political expediency, so eff him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 Not being a Martin fan, I'd like to ask if any of the four party leaders is NOT a flip-flopper. And isn't there some truth to Mulroney's statement that (I'm citing Mulroney???) anybody who never changes his mind is a fool? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 Harper Most DEFINITELY supported attacking Iraq <-- Bad News Martin waffled, but held the party line on Iraq <--- Not good Jack Layton was clearly against invading Iraq <--- Good News the moral of the story..... Vote for Jack Layton if you want a government true to its principles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 Yesterday, Harper says he supports the war but won't send troops. That's flip-flopping in the same sentence! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 Bubber, not really. Martin has so many things coming out of both sides of his mouth you can tell he learned well from Chretien. How can a guy so desperate for votes be doing as well as Martin is. It's sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 Not really flip-flopping or never really said it? Check the Washington Times thread if you need sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 Bubber, not really. Martin has so many things coming out of both sides of his mouth you can tell he learned well from Chretien. How can a guy so desperate for votes be doing as well as Martin is. It's sad. While we're on the topic of big flip floppers, why not bring up about Harper being one of two Reform party members to vote in favour of the Canadian Gun Registry !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Here is an example of how much Martin has flip flopped on Iraq. Funny how CBC never mentions it. (all credited again)"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible," (North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003) "Once the war in Iraq began, Canada was far from neutral. The only satisfactory outcome was a defeat of Saddam Hussein and his removal from power." (Speech in Toronto, April 30, 2003) "Canada's strongest desire was for a swift and just victory by coalition forces. Thankfully, that occurred." (Paul Martin Times, May 1, 2003) "Canada should be there." (Halifax Daily News, January 15, 2003) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> On the debates, just a few minutes ago, Martin chastized Harper saying that he never said he would send troops to Iraq. Jack Layton is suddenly looking more interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted December 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Harper said he doubted the Canada military had the capability to send troops. Martin's outburst was symbolic of the problems with the Liberals. Distorting the truth, and Canada's best interest, to make sad political points that only play to the faithful... On the debates, just a few minutes ago, Martin chastized Harper saying that he never said he would send troops to Iraq. Jack Layton is suddenly looking more interesting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Harper didn't doubt the military's capability in 2003. He said we should send them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted December 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Heck, even the CBC hasn't pulled that one out. Any evidence? Harper didn't doubt the military's capability in 2003. He said we should send them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Heck, even the CBC hasn't pulled that one out. Any evidence?Harper didn't doubt the military's capability in 2003. He said we should send them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> http://www.notacolony.ca/HarperonUSA.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted December 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 From the 'about' page of notacolony.ca "Are you tired of Paul Cellucci's lectures? Do you fantasize about Ralph Klein winning the Green Card Lottery, packing up his trailer and moving to Texas? Have you heard about enough from our Media Elite about how ungrateful we are to the benevolent superpower?" What a fair and balanced news source? They can't even take the time to change the U.S. Ambassador they are attacking? Could you point to a fairer news source? Nothing on that page is any more serious than the quotes of Martin I sourced in the OP. http://www.notacolony.ca/HarperonUSA.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Celucci was the Ambassador at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted December 16, 2005 Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 Shoop, regardless of the source, the credit is specifically given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted December 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2005 So it appears that even the LPC is contributing to Martin contradicting himself on Iraq. Tonight in the debate Martin said: I have never — never once — said that I would send troops to Iraq, or contemplated it. The following is a quote from a news release the Liberal Party of Canada released tonight, after the debate. But shortly before the government's rejection of missile defence was announced (in 2004 long after Canada had decided not to join the war), Prime Minister Martin said he was thinking of putting troop into Iraq to train Iraqi security forces. The very first person to raise objections to this was Stephen Harper Boy that Scott Reid runs a tight ship. Another gaffe by the Liberals media team. The CPC should be thankful for the Liberals pointing out PMs falsehoods so quickly to the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.