Harper flubs the Israeli/Lebanon crisis.

[gerryhatrick]

According to Angus Reid the people who say Harper made the wrong decision on Israel/Lebanon outnumber those who say he made the correct decision by a whopping 13%!!

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/12630

It's obvious that his "measured response" comment made on Friday the 13th was pre-mature.

Shortly after we discovered that eight Canadians were killed in this "measured response".

His comment also included the encouragement to Israel to defend itself, characterizing as all of it's actions as just that. Canadians are recognizing that this has gone a little beyond self-defense. One has to wonder if Israel could level Lebanon with nuclear weapons and have Harper call it self-defense.

Harper must have realized he'd dug himself a hole, because he didn't comment again on the crisis until returning from the G8. Then he dug the hole a little deeper:

"Obviously, there's been an ongoing escalation and, frankly, ongoing escalation is inevitable once conflict begins"

Obviously, frankly, things will escalate. Certainly, while there are world leaders roaming around cheering it on so much you'd expect to see pom-poms in their hands.

Harper has failed this test, and this poll is indicitive of that. And consider this poll was done last week, before the current scope of 500,000 displaced Lebanese came into focus.

[jdobbin]

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/12630

I think it was Angus Reid's take on the Leger poll that came out. Reid no longer does polling himself.

[gerryhatrick]

I think was Angus Reid's take on the Leger poll that came out. Reid no longer does polling himself.

Ok thanks. I'm getting the information from the Angus Reid website, so your point is moot.

tip for U: when you quote you can delete some of the post your quoting. If the post you're quoting immedietaly preceeds your post then it's not necessary to repeat it all.

[jbg]

For once, someone's basing policy on what's right, not what's politically expedient. Harper gets very few Jewish votes, but he's doing the right thing.

[gerryhatrick]

For once, someone's basing policy on what's right, not what's politically expedient. Harper gets very few Jewish votes, but he's doing the right thing.

What is he doing that's the right thing, exactly?

You mean by calling the wholesale demolition of Lebanon a "measured response"?

Or by claiming that once violence starts "escallation is inevitable"?

Which of these idiotic comments do you consider laudable?

Or are you just characterizing support of Israel in general as "the right thing", all details asside?

[Leafless]

What is he doing that's the right thing, exactly?

You mean by calling the wholesale demolition of Lebanon a "measured response"?

Or by claiming that once violence starts "escalation is inevitable"?

Which of these idiotic comments do you consider laudable?

Or are you just characterizing support of Israel in general as "the right thing", all details asside?

Stephen Harper has no control concerning the wholesale demolition of Lebanon as a "measured response".

Stephen Harper cannot assume responsibility that once violence starts "escalation is inevitable".

Mr. Harper as indicated he supports Israel in defending itself.

It is Israel that is trying to make Hezbollah inoperable in Lebanon in order to save their own country.

Your questions should be directed to Lebanon and Hezbollah.

[gerryhatrick]

Stephen Harper has no control concerning the wholesale demolition of Lebanon as a "measured response".

Stephen Harper cannot assume responsibility that once violence starts "escalation is inevitable".

Then maybe Stephen Harper should keep his mouth shut.

He is a world leader, and his indiscriminate acceptance of Israels actions - labeling it a "measured response" - will only embolden Israel to continue in their endevour.

When he says "escalation is inevitable" it absolves Israel of all responsibility for escalation.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Harper's moral clarity

At least the pm doesn't mince words when it comes to the Mideast, despite the political cost

L. IAN MACDONALD, Freelance

Published: Monday, July 24, 2006

Even staunch supporters of Israel have been troubled by its disproportionate response to the provocation by Hezbollah. It's one thing to take down a terrorist organization based in southern Lebanon, and quite another to take out the airport in Beirut.

Among other consequences, this precluded an airlift of civilians, including tens of thousands of Lebanese Canadians seeking an exit from a war zone.

There was nothing measured about the Israeli response. Stephen Harper had that part of it wrong.

That being said, there is something refreshing, a quality of moral clarity, about the way Harper has taken Israel's side in the latest outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East....

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/colu...80-9dce77af5035

[Argus]

According to Angus Reid the people who say Harper made the wrong decision on Israel/Lebanon outnumber those who say he made the correct decision by a whopping 13%!!

I know it's hard to get used to, GH, but Harper is not basing all his decisions on polling data. Besides, the poll is essentially meaningless. Taken in the midst of a tremendous media campaign against the PM over the alleged "slow" evacuation of Lebanon, and amidst sob stories about the bombing of Lebanon, initial poor reaction is understandable. However, an Ipsos Reid poll released yesterday shows Canadians are almost evenly split Ipsos Reid

[gerryhatrick]

According to Angus Reid the people who say Harper made the wrong decision on Israel/Lebanon outnumber those who say he made the correct decision by a whopping 13%!!

I know it's hard to get used to, GH, but Harper is not basing all his decisions on polling data.

I'm not suggesting that. Obviously his words were based on nothing more than inexperience and ignorance.

[jbg]

According to Angus Reid the people who say Harper made the wrong decision on Israel/Lebanon outnumber those who say he made the correct decision by a whopping 13%!!

I know it's hard to get used to, GH, but Harper is not basing all his decisions on polling data.

I'm not suggesting that. Obviously his words were based on nothing more than inexperience and ignorance.

Maybe it's having a moral compass (I know, strange these days), not inexperience and ignorance.

[gerryhatrick]

Maybe it's having a moral compass (I know, strange these days), not inexperience and ignorance.

Riiiight. Moral compass. Like Bush, huh?

I think I'll stick with the inexperience and ignorance thingy, it makes more sense.

Stating that the violence will escalate is not a "moral compass", it's the ramblings of an imbecile.

[Leader Circle]

Maybe it's having a moral compass (I know, strange these days), not inexperience and ignorance.

Riiiight. Moral compass. Like Bush, huh?

I think I'll stick with the inexperience and ignorance thingy, it makes more sense.

Stating that the violence will escalate is not a "moral compass", it's the ramblings of an imbecile.

Does this mean you support the Hezbollahs? You think what they are doing in Lebanon is ok?

You beelding hearts cannot be pleased ever. You always need something to whine about.

[MightyAC]

Does this mean you support the Hezbollahs? You think what they are doing in Lebanon is ok?

You beelding hearts cannot be pleased ever. You always need something to whine about.

Really?!?! According to the big blue machine anything negative said about the Cons is media bias or a media campaign against Harper. Who is whining?

Sometimes I like our PM and sometimes I want to beat him with a bat. He is decisive, which is a good thing...provide the right decision was made. In this case I think his "measured response" comments were decisive but wrong. He should not have chosen a team...especially when one side is a terrorist group and the other is slaughtering innocents to get at the terrorists. IMO, the right decision would have been to condemn the violence on both sides.

[gerryhatrick]

You beelding hearts cannot be pleased ever. You always need something to whine about.

You rightwingnuts cannot be pleased ever. You always need something to whine about.

Harper did a bad job in reacting to this situation, and he's continuing to do a bad job. He should shut up if he can only comment about how it's "inevitable violence will escalate" and making excuses and apologies for an israeli response that's clearly not even close to measured.

You can be a sheep and swallow everything you're told by your little cult master, but the rest of us will watch and read the news and form intelligent opinions. It's quite obvious that Israel is engaged in a punitive exercise against the economic and social infrastructure of Lebanon. All they have to do is simultaneously go after Hezbollah and the sheep ignore their ears and eyes and fall in line. Bah bah.

[Hicksey]

Stephen Harper has no control concerning the wholesale demolition of Lebanon as a "measured response".

Stephen Harper cannot assume responsibility that once violence starts "escalation is inevitable".

Then maybe Stephen Harper should keep his mouth shut.

He is a world leader, and his indiscriminate acceptance of Israels actions - labeling it a "measured response" - will only embolden Israel to continue in their endevour.

When he says "escalation is inevitable" it absolves Israel of all responsibility for escalation.

There seems to be a legion of Liberals that Stephen Harper can do no right for.

If Harper gave you everything you want delivered on a silver platter, you'd still find reason to complain about what he'd done.

Please explain how Harper failed. What didn't he do that he should? What did he do that he shouldn't have?

Tell me its more that a knee-jerk reaction because he supports the opposite side of the conflict that you do.

Should the Canadian military be there fighting against Israel on behalf of Hezbollah?

What did he do wrong?

[jdobbin]

There seems to be a legion of Liberals that Stephen Harper can do no right for.

Which Liberals have been speaking against Harper personally? I haven't heard too many of them through this except to express their own opinion for the most part.

[Leafless]

Please explain how Harper failed. What didn't he do that he should? What did he do that he shouldn't have?

I think your wasting your breath.

Harper can't win.

The point is as long as their are two types of Lebanese some who refer as real Lebanese as being Christian who Israel traditionally supported and the other type of Lebanese being Muslim and supporters of Hezbollah.

Lebanese against Harper's stance are supporters of the terrorist organization Hezbollah.

There is no Lebanese Christian militia that can take on Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Lebanese that are making the noise in Canada are Hezbollah supporters.

The Liberals, multiculturalism, and Quebec's independent immigration policy is the root cause of Harper's dilemma and has the potential to cause serious problems in Canada.

[Shady]

Fails his first foreign affairs test

A statement to the press? That's his first foreign affairs test? In which he failed? Too funny.

[jbg]

IMO, the right decision would have been to condemn the violence on both sides.

The trouble with that false neutrality, the Kofi Anan/Paul Martin/Jean Chretien/Bill Graham approach, is that the terrorists are deliberately hiding among innocents to force just such condemnation. If these "innocents" wer truly such, they wouldn't tolerate fighters hiding among their midst.

Remember, most of the votes for Hezbollah in the Lebanese elections came from the southern part of the country. Can you imagine residents of upstate New York electing to the New York State Assembly or Senate people bent on suicide attacks in Montreal, Kingston or Niagara? Would you then say that the Canadian Army was wrong to attack through "human shield" civilians?

I think not.

[Argus]

Maybe it's having a moral compass (I know, strange these days), not inexperience and ignorance.

Riiiight. Moral compass. Like Bush, huh?

I think I'll stick with the inexperience and ignorance thingy, it makes more sense.

Stating that the violence will escalate is not a "moral compass", it's the ramblings of an imbecile.

Uh, I'd say it's more like an obvious truth. But then, obvious truths tend to elude those without a moral compass.

[jdobbin]

Canadians raises $6 million for Israel.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...lly-israel.html

[jdobbin]

The trouble with that false neutrality, the Kofi Anan/Paul Martin/Jean Chretien/Bill Graham approach, is that the terrorists are deliberately hiding among innocents to force just such condemnation. If these "innocents" wer truly such, they wouldn't tolerate fighters hiding among their midst.

And the terrorists will continue to hide amongst civilians. Always. Is the solution always "Shoot the hostage?"

Israel could have used a friend that understood but also tried to restrain Israel from getting mired down in Lebanon once again. Many Israelis were initially sympathetic to the government but are now questioning the wisdom of the government's strategy.

Some American journalists are now suggesting that Bush should have moved to restrain the Israelis from repeating 1982.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1002877968

[gerryhatrick]

As time marches on it becomes apparent that Harper goofed on this issue.

Lebanon has been completely wrecked. It's coastline is smothered with oil and it's population is existing on humanitarian aid. Thousands of homes have been destroyed.

This was "measured"??? :angry:

[jbg]

The one thing the West should have learned from bitter experience is how to fight these "people". These "people" often times take advantage of the very civilized tradition of not attacking a retreating army; and then they counter-attack.

Civilization is a stranger to their culture.