Haper and Bush

[gerryhatrick]

I notice some folks on this forum have already started accusing others of being "Harper haters".

Accusations of "hate" have also been made towards anyone who critisized Bush since the beginning of his term as President.

Coincidence, or typical attack by rightwingers?

[scribblet]

I notice some folks on this forum have already started accusing others of being "Harper haters".

Accusations of "hate" have also been made towards anyone who critisized Bush since the beginning of his term as President.

Coincidence, or typical attack by rightwingers?

People only make those accusations when posts bashing Harper and the U.S. become different from normal constructive critique of a government and policies and go well beyond that. It becomes anti Americanism/Harper at its most radical.

It differs from normal constructive criticism in that the goal is not to advise, suggest or fix what is seen as wrong, but to repudiate and destroy. It views every U.S. or Harper action, no matter what, from the beginning until now as oppressive and evil. It does not see the U.S. or even Harper as being wrong in some instances, but everything they do is wrong, no matter what.

There is a mean spirited conviction that the U.S. cannot now or ever do anything right and these convictions hold even when the U.S. is giving aid and helping and their soldiers are dying while peacekeeping.

There is a feigned self righteous intellectual and cultural superiority over Americans and there is no satisfying them. This often results in painting anyone who remotely likes or agrees with anything the U.S. , as being un-Canadian, and anyone who critiques the liberal government and doesn't uphold what is seen as 'liberal values' are now anti-Canadian and should of course 'leave'

This type of knee jerk bashing usually stems from a feeling of inferiority and has resulted in Canada's once proud military being reduced to penury and has prevented Canada from playing a role in the global battle against terrorism.

[shoop]

Concurrent with the mean-spirited attacks is the attempt to make Harper "look bad" by constantly comparing him to Bush...

There is a mean spirited conviction that the U.S. cannot now or ever do anything right and these convictions hold even when the U.S. is giving aid and helping and their soldiers are dying while peacekeeping. There is a feigned self righteous intellectual and cultural superiority over Americans and there is no satisfying them. This often results in painting anyone who remotely likes or agrees with anything the U.S. , as being un-Canadian, and anyone who critiques the liberal government and doesn't uphold what is seen as 'liberal values' are now anti-Canadian and should of course 'leave'

[justcrowing]

Could this be how the anti-American scenario was hatched?

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

March 02, 2006

McKenna Confirms Martin Campaign "Set Up"

On Dec.20, Stephen Taylor and I pulled together posts on evidence that the Paul Martin's spat with the US was orchestrated for campaign purposes. As he leaves his post, former US ambassador Frank McKenna confirms this was the case (and suggests it backfired).

Vancouver Sun;

After being "muzzled" for months as Canada's ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna criticized former prime minister Paul Martin's office Wednesday for stoking anti-U.S. sentiment during the recent federal election campaign.

McKenna, speaking to reporters on his last day as Canada's envoy, called the behaviour "sanctimonious" and said it backfired on Liberals in the Jan. 23 election.

Moreover, the ambassador said, the White House was justifiably angry over politically motivated leaks from Martin's office about private discussions between the prime minister and U.S. President George W. Bush.

"The United States seems very prepared to have us be assertive for Canadian interests and they really respect us when we stand our ground on matters. But when we are judgmental and almost sanctimonious, I find they take offence, and quite rightfully so," McKenna said.

"I don't think [Canadians] buy into the idea of gratuitously being offensive. If I had to speculate, I would say that playing that card during the election was not helpful at all to the electoral prospects of the people doing it."

It was the first time McKenna had commented publicly about the chill that fell over Canada-U.S. relations during the eight-week election campaign, when the Liberals took aim at the Bush White House as part of their election strategy.

The White House was surprised and "frustrated" with Martin for accusing the Bush administration of lacking a global conscience during an international climate-change conference last December in Montreal.

But Martin's office deliberately fanned the flames by spreading a highly exaggerated story about McKenna being summoned to the White House for a reprimand, the outgoing ambassador said.

The conduct extended to leaked details of an earlier telephone conversation between Bush and Martin, in which the prime minister was cast as chastising the U.S. president over the softwood lumber dispute.

It's good to remind everyone every so often just how utterly unimportant Canadian economic and trade interests were to a Paul Martin campaign team intent on retaining power.

[Leafless]

shoop

You wrote- " Concurrent with the mean spirited attacks is the attempt to make Harper "look bad" by constantly comparing him to Bush."

Liberal logic dictates this as they know no other way then to entwine linguistics and culture as a weapon to somehow convince others that it is only Canada in the positon to lead as a cultural multicultural king and prove that the U.S. has failed miserably in this area.

Anyone who does not agree with Liberal ideology is labelled indifferent and attacked.

[yorkman]

I find it quite mind boggling that the staunch Harper/NewConservative supporters find criticisms of Harper and/or Bush to be bashing or anti-American or not thoughtful or unfair or whatever. These are the same people who have been bashing all things Liberal or NDP; calling supporters of same names; continually running down all things that have been Canadian in nature or that are different from the way things are done in America; venomously attacking individuals; etc.

The Conservatives are now the Government. So get used to the criticism. That's how democracy works. Fair is fair in my opinion.

[gerryhatrick]

Oh, here's a classic from the other day.

Harper was giving a news conference...and started chastising Canadians about "support" for the troops.

So now - like Bush - supporting the troops requires that you also support the mission. If a person was of the opinion that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, then they're not supporting the troops. This is basically what he said.

Typical rightwing BS, and it's been exemplified over and over again by Bush. Harper is a good student!

[gerryhatrick]

This type of knee jerk bashing usually stems from a feeling of inferiority and has resulted in Canada's once proud military being reduced to penury and has prevented Canada from playing a role in the global battle against terrorism.

So our long-standing involvement in Afghanistan is not a role in the "global battle against terrorism", in your opinion.

Now THAT'S supporting the troops!

[quinton]

Here's one of the most annoying similarities between Harper and Bush.

They both encourage fanatic religious propagation of irrational thought.

For example, at the end of their speech,

Bush says:

"God bless America"

Harper says:

"God bless Canada"

Maybe this is why they only care about economic growth and not protecting the environment because after all, nothing can go wrong when you have a supernatural power watching over us in the sky.

If only that were true. I just hope North Americans will wake up before it's too late... If there was a big daddy in the sky who could protect us from our sins then why would have he let us destroy so much natural habitat and extinct so many species?

I think it is hard to encourage saving the world when religion is still spreading like a pandemic virus. This is because religious people and rational thought are like pigs that can fly.

[justcrowing]

I find it quite mind boggling that the staunch Harper/NewConservative supporters find criticisms of Harper and/or Bush to be bashing or anti-American or not thoughtful or unfair or whatever. These are the same people who have been bashing all things Liberal or NDP; calling supporters of same names; continually running down all things that have been Canadian in nature or that are different from the way things are done in America; venomously attacking individuals; etc.

The Conservatives are now the Government. So get used to the criticism. That's how democracy works. Fair is fair in my opinion.

And your point to the discussion is or are you here to inflame????

[Argus]

Oh, here's a classic from the other day.

Harper was giving a news conference...and started chastising Canadians about "support" for the troops.

So now - like Bush - supporting the troops requires that you also support the mission. If a person was of the opinion that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, then they're not supporting the troops. This is basically what he said.

Typical rightwing BS, and it's been exemplified over and over again by Bush. Harper is a good student!

Typical leftwing BS. What Harper said was that it was pretty damned sad that the Liberals, who sent the troops to Afghanistan in the first place, now want to hold a debate - now that they're actually there - on whether Canada should support their mission. He's right. It's ludicrous. If the Liberals had doubts about the wisdom of sending them there they shouldn't have sent them in the first place. Now that they're in place the Liberals owe it to them to support them and not get up in the House and start talking about what a waste of time it was to send them and how the mission is pointless and not worth our while, etc. etc. That isn't, imho, the kind of thing which should go on when they're comiited to a mission.

[cybercoma]

Oh, here's a classic from the other day.

Harper was giving a news conference...and started chastising Canadians about "support" for the troops.

So now - like Bush - supporting the troops requires that you also support the mission. If a person was of the opinion that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, then they're not supporting the troops. This is basically what he said.

Typical rightwing BS, and it's been exemplified over and over again by Bush. Harper is a good student!

Typical leftwing BS. What Harper said was that it was pretty damned sad that the Liberals, who sent the troops to Afghanistan in the first place, now want to hold a debate - now that they're actually there - on whether Canada should support their mission. He's right. It's ludicrous. If the Liberals had doubts about the wisdom of sending them there they shouldn't have sent them in the first place. Now that they're in place the Liberals owe it to them to support them and not get up in the House and start talking about what a waste of time it was to send them and how the mission is pointless and not worth our while, etc. etc. That isn't, imho, the kind of thing which should go on when they're comiited to a mission.

Y'know what, I feel sorry for the message this Liberal tactic sends to the troops.

"I know we sent you there, but we're not so sure it was a good idea...."

Yikes.

[gerryhatrick]

Typical leftwing BS. What Harper said was that it was pretty damned sad that the Liberals, who sent the troops to Afghanistan in the first place, now want to hold a debate

What's "typical leftwing BS"? The truth?

It was Harper who PROMISED during the election that Parliament would be responsible for overseas deployments. That means the issue is discussed in Parliament.

Another broken promise by Harper on the heals of Emerson and that other guy...the one he appointed to the Senate AND the Cabinet.

He's looking to distract small minds from his hypocrisy, so he gets up on his soapbox and acts like he's outraged over his own lie of Liberals not supporting troops.

Cheap American-style politik.

[geoffrey]

Typical leftwing BS. What Harper said was that it was pretty damned sad that the Liberals, who sent the troops to Afghanistan in the first place, now want to hold a debate

What's "typical leftwing BS"? The truth?

It was Harper who PROMISED during the election that Parliament would be responsible for overseas deployments. That means the issue is discussed in Parliament.

Another broken promise by Harper on the heals of Emerson and that other guy...the one he appointed to the Senate AND the Cabinet.

He's looking to distract small minds from his hypocrisy, so he gets up on his soapbox and acts like he's outraged over his own lie of Liberals not supporting troops.

Cheap American-style politik.

Harper hasn't deployed anyone overseas, what the hell are you talking about?

[gerryhatrick]

Harper hasn't deployed anyone overseas, what the hell are you talking about?

Good try Geoffrey, but it's not really relavent.

Harper promised discussion in Parliament about deployments. He's breaking that promise also.

What's wrong about discussion, hmm?

[geoffrey]

Harper hasn't deployed anyone overseas, what the hell are you talking about?

Good try Geoffrey, but it's not really relavent.

Harper promised discussion in Parliament about deployments. He's breaking that promise also.

What's wrong about discussion, hmm?

We haven't even had parliment yet... or deployments.

Am I missing something here?

[shoop]

geoff,

The problem isn't really yours. Debating with gerry is a pointless endeavour.

He makes wild pronouncements - like Harper breaking a promise on discussing deployments in Parliament when Parliament hasn't even sat since he got elected.

You find yourself frustrated by Gerry's obstinance.

Just let it go. He clearly makes no sense and will never give up attacking Harper ever.

For whatever reason he is out to attack, attack, attack. Logic, common decency or humanity be damned.

best to just ignore the types of gerry...

We haven't even had parliment yet... or deployments.

Am I missing something here?

[gerryhatrick]

We haven't even had parliment yet... or deployments.

Am I missing something here?

Yes.

The comment was not concerning something that hadn't happened in Parliament yet.

The comment was about a caucus meeting.

Try to keep up.

[shoop]

wow, only ten minutes for gerry to prove my point. Thanks for helping big guy!

somehow *geoff* missed the point when he pointed out Gerry's logical inconsistencies clouded by obstinance and venal hatred for Harper.

sad, sad, sad

[scribblet]

Here's one of the most annoying similarities between Harper and Bush.

They both encourage fanatic religious propagation of irrational thought.

For example, at the end of their speech,

Bush says:

"God bless America"

Harper says:

"God bless Canada"

Good Lord thats hardly 'fanatical religious propagation of irrational thought', if thats all you can come up with I guess can breath a sigh of relief.

[Hicksey]

I notice some folks on this forum have already started accusing others of being "Harper haters".

Accusations of "hate" have also been made towards anyone who critisized Bush since the beginning of his term as President.

Coincidence, or typical attack by rightwingers?

Anymore, anyone that doesn't subscribe to PC or doesn't blindly support the latest Liberal cause gets labelled as a racist, homophobic, bigot hiding behind their religion.

It goes both ways.

[Argus]

Typical leftwing BS. What Harper said was that it was pretty damned sad that the Liberals, who sent the troops to Afghanistan in the first place, now want to hold a debate

What's "typical leftwing BS"? The truth?

I think you're too blinded by ideological zealotry to even know the term.

It was Harper who PROMISED during the election that Parliament would be responsible for overseas deployments. That means the issue is discussed in Parliament.

Certainly correct - BEFORE you send troops overseas. Yes, indeed. Parliament should discuss it whenever Canadian troops are going to be sent overseas. But there's no point to be served in having a discussion after they're already there and facing attacks. This is just another ham-handed effort at scoring cheap political points with their core of anti-military, anti-American dullards by the Liberals. Even their own former ambassador was disgusted with how craven and self serving such behaviour was during the election.

You, apparently, have considerably less shame than he.

[gerryhatrick]

Certainly correct - BEFORE you send troops overseas.

Now you're adding qualifiers to what Harper said? Get real.

He made a promise, and now that he's been reminded of it he lashes out at Canadians for not "supporting the troops".

Typical Bush-style Orwellian bullsh#t. Should be a fun 18 months.