Harper acuses Liberals as being Anti Israel

[August1991]

The problem I find is that Ignatieff did a a huge flip flop on the issue. He believes that saying what happened in Lebanon was a war crime will get him more votes in the leadership race, which is pretty typical of most Liberals unfortunately since they have become corrupted by the belief only they deserve to run this country. Harper has supported Israel, but lets think for one minute here, if a country kidnapped our soldiers how exactly would you want to respond. Especially if this country wanted to wipe you off the face of the earth. Israel has gone through more pressure then most democratic countries, and is the one singled out and attacked constantly.

CB, IMV, you've touched on the two key issues here.

First, Ignatieff first said he didn't "lose any sleep" over Qana. Now he says it's a "war crime". In another thread, I called Ignatieff a flake and I stand by that assessment. The guy has mastered the aplomb of an intellectual but lacks the substance. (The modern world, image concious, has too many people like Ignatieff but I digress.)

Second, when push comes to shove, and we have to decide, whose side are we on? Too many people in too many western countries prefer to avoid choosing sides because they have been raised to consider always the other point of view. (The modern world has commitment issues but I digress.)

[jbg]

First, a spelling error in the title of this thread should be fixed (I've made typos too, so my disagreement is not with the use of the Canadian language).

I greatly admire a PM that "says it like it is". Frankly, the Jews (of which I am proudly one) have, for a long time, been supported by the US Democratic Party. That started to change ever so slightlywith the Olympic Massacre, and Democratic support for Israel has hemmorhaged since the early 1990's.

I know that the Liberal PM King was anti-Jewish, and that subsequent PM's, except Pearson and to a lesser extent Trudeau, were not much of an improvement. I also kow that Chretien moved the Liberal Party sharply against Israel.

The Jews have a habit of maintaining allegiances long after they make sense. Harper did the CPC and the Jews a service by spelling out, in clear Canadian, that the CPC is the true friend of Israel, not the waffling, dithering Liberals.

[jbg]

In another thread, I called Ignatieff a flake and I stand by that assessment. The guy has mastered the aplomb of an intellectual but lacks the substance.

Ignatieff is more of a Yank than I am.

[August1991]

I would like to pose a question to posters. Does anyone here actually believe Israel to be completely innocent and to have no blood on their hands?

I suppose Winston Churchill and Harry Truman died with alot of blood on their hands.

The perfect is the enemy of the good and one way to decide is to consider the alternatives since the true cost of a decision is what you have to give up.

In the case of Israel, I suppose it wasn't fair for some people to show up and then claim the place as theirs. In a similar sense, it wasn't fair when Europeans showed up in America. OTOH, if we spend our lives arguing about what is fair, our children will have nothing. Would that be fair?

[Leader Circle]

First, a spelling error in the title of this thread should be fixed

You need to remember jbg, that the person starting this thread is half retarded anyway!(if you read what he wrote, it will all make sense!)

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Second, when push comes to shove, and we have to decide, whose side are we on? Too many people in too many western countries prefer to avoid choosing sides because they have been raised to consider always the other point of view. (The modern world has commitment issues but I digress.)

You'll have to make clear the choices. You will also have to reject the notion that there are only two. As it stands, we are generally presented a choice (with us or agin' us) between a lying, backstabbing crackwhore and a deranged, violent, self-centred a*#hole. If they both disappeared, the world would likely be a better place. I'll pick neither side, thank you.

[August1991]

Dear Thelonious,

As it stands, we are generally presented a choice (with us or agin' us) between a lying, backstabbing crackwhore and a deranged, violent, self-centred a*#hole. If they both disappeared, the world would likely be a better place. I'll pick neither side, thank you.

I'm reminded of Kissinger's comment about the Iran-Iraq War. "Can they both lose?"

Sorry, but that's not an option. I'll put it in terms you may understand: Between a hanging and life imprisonment, I'd choose prison because that offers hope. The Ayatollah will be with us until he dies. In two years, Bush Jnr will be gone.

[August1991]

Cats? Pigeons? Harper is achieving his goal:

The Liberal leadership race is getting ugly with Michael Ignatieff's camp urging the party to negate most of chief rival Bob Rae's delegate support in British Columbia.

In an appeal filed Friday and obtained by The Canadian Press, Mr. Ignatieff operations director Sachin Aggarwal accuses Mr. Rae's senior B.C. organizer of perpetrating "systematic fraud" during the sign-up of potential delegates in the province.

Mr. Aggarwal contends that fully 78 of Mr. Rae's 111 B.C. delegates are tainted by the fraud and he urges the party to strip Mr. Rae of those delegate spots.

Such delegates, he argues "are the uncurable poisoned fruit of fraudulent activity, which the Rae campaign should not be entitled to benefit from."

G & M

Rae's response:

Mr. Rae's camp reacted to the appeal, and its leak to CP, with barely restrained fury.

"All campaigns should work through the processes set up to examine such claims rather than simply go to the media with appeals filled with hyperbole and allegations not rooted in the rules," said Alex Swann, a Rae campaign spokesman.

He said the timing of the appeal is "odd if not suspicious," coming just as Mr. Ignatieff is mired in controversy after accusing Israel of war crimes.

Make some popcorn. This is going to be fun to watch.

[jbg]

Make some popcorn. This is going to be fun to watch.

Beer & popcorn, maybe?

[Borg]

In response to the original comment.

Well Libs - if the shoe fits - wear it.

Rather than crying and moaning why not prove Harper wrong?

If you can.

Good on ya' Steve!

Borg

[gerryhatrick]

In response to the original comment.

Well Libs - if the shoe fits - wear it.

Rather than crying and moaning why not prove Harper wrong?

All Conservatives are child molesters.

Hey, if the shoe fits!

And don't cry, prove me wrong!

[Argus]

In response to the original comment.

Well Libs - if the shoe fits - wear it.

Rather than crying and moaning why not prove Harper wrong?

All Conservatives are child molesters.

Hey, if the shoe fits!

And don't cry, prove me wrong!

Well, the Conservatives tried their best to raise the age of consent when in opposition. The Liberals opposed this, apparently believing there was nothing wrong with fourteen year olds having sex with forty year olds. Now in power, the Conservatives are set to raise the age of consent.

The Conservatives have also demanded a crack down on child porn, on child molesters, etc., while the opposition has been, shall we say, lukewarm at best.

And there are strong rumours out there that the leader of the opposition kept a boy prostitute in a Sussex street apartment as his boy-toy.

[jbg]

And there are strong rumours out there that the leader of the opposition kept a boy prostitute in a Sussex street apartment as his boy-toy.

I knew we the CPC should have pulled the election trigger when that gentleman was the interim leader. (edited to reflect that I should not be saying "we" since I am not a CPC member, not being Canadian).

[Figleaf]

And there are strong rumours out there that the leader of the opposition kept a boy prostitute in a Sussex street apartment as his boy-toy.

I knew we the CPC should have pulled the election trigger when that gentleman was the interim leader. (edited to reflect that I should not be saying "we" since I am not a CPC member, not being Canadian).

Why would you want to say 'we' about the Conservatves anyway, since you claim on another thread to be left-wing? You sound increasingly full of the brown-and-smelly.

[jbg]

And there are strong rumours out there that the leader of the opposition kept a boy prostitute in a Sussex street apartment as his boy-toy.

I knew we the CPC should have pulled the election trigger when that gentleman was the interim leader. (edited to reflect that I should not be saying "we" since I am not a CPC member, not being Canadian).

Why would you want to say 'we' about the Conservatves anyway, since you claim on another thread to be left-wing? You sound increasingly full of the brown-and-smelly.

My point is that on helping the poor,minorities and lower middle class, I walk the walk. GWB has more minorities and women at policy making levels in his administration than any feel-good Democrat has ever had.

What poor people have you helped?

[jdobbin]

My point is that on helping the poor,minorities and lower middle class, I walk the walk. GWB has more minorities and women at policy making levels in his administration than any feel-good Democrat has ever had.

What poor people have you helped?

What does this have to do with fighting an election against the interim leader using smear tactics not substantiated? You think an election should be built around a whisper campaign suggesting somone is gay or a pedophile? What kind of liberal are you?

[sharkman]

And there are strong rumours out there that the leader of the opposition kept a boy prostitute in a Sussex street apartment as his boy-toy.

I knew we the CPC should have pulled the election trigger when that gentleman was the interim leader. (edited to reflect that I should not be saying "we" since I am not a CPC member, not being Canadian).

Yeah, it would have been a walk in the park, but Harper's doing pretty good and I haven't seen that any of the Liberal contenders have anything to offer, other that the usual Israel put down stuff.

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Argus]

My point is that on helping the poor,minorities and lower middle class, I walk the walk. GWB has more minorities and women at policy making levels in his administration than any feel-good Democrat has ever had.

What poor people have you helped?

What does this have to do with fighting an election against the interim leader using smear tactics not substantiated? You think an election should be built around a whisper campaign suggesting somone is gay or a pedophile? What kind of liberal are you?

Uh, there is virtually no question whatever that Bill Graham is a homosexual. He is out to family, friends and party, and he has been outed in a number of gay magazines.

But he continues to keep it quiet around the general public.

As to the boy-toy allegations printed in a now infamous issue of Frank Magazine featuring a photoshopped picture of Graham in a tutu, well, they are out there and widely known in Ottawa.

[jbg]

2-suggesting that GWB is left-wing; or

My position that Bush and Harper are the true liberals and the people calling themselves "Liberals" are reactionary guardians of the status quo is extremely well known.

Please, keep posting ... I havn't laughed so well for days!

There is nothing humorous about those posts. People calling themselves "Liberals" who are willing to take steps extremely damaging to the disadvantaged and struggling would be hilarious if the results weren't so tragic.

[jdobbin]

As to the boy-toy allegations printed in a now infamous issue of Frank Magazine featuring a photoshopped picture of Graham in a tutu, well, they are out there and widely known in Ottawa.

I could care less if Graham was gay or not. If you think it is worth running an election on calling someone gay then you probably don't have any ideas worthy of election.

[jdobbin]

There is nothing humorous about those posts. People calling themselves "Liberals" who are willing to take steps extremely damaging to the disadvantaged and struggling would be hilarious if the results weren't so tragic.

And yet you think a campaign should have been mounted on gaybashing or on smears against someone's character that are not based on actual legal claims?

[Ricki Bobbi]

And yet you think a campaign should have been mounted on gaybashing or on smears against someone's character that are not based on actual legal claims?

What are the *legal claims* involved with calling right wing parties: scary, nazis, GW Bush's toadies etc, etc, etc?

Politics are dirty if you are going to play dirty it is pretty weak when peopole cry about the other guys playing dirty.

[rover1]

I can't help feeling that these boys are being hoisted(hoist?) by their own petards, and in a sense are getting what they deserve.

When did extremist language become the norm? Things like 'War Crime' to describe cruel or overactive or inhuman and generally wrong bomb attacks used to be confined to tabloid newspapers and polemics at fringe political meetings. I am not addressing just how I would characterise the attacks myself, but rather to public expression of a situation as seen by a public mainstream figure, Mr Ignatieff, in this case . I sincerely doubt that he is 'anti-Israeli' in general. My impression is that he is quite the contrary a bit too pro Israeli, or has been, at times. Mr Ignatieff is not really a single villain in this case, everybody does it, he just got caught.

This whole 'war crime' thing is getting out of hand anyway. Originally dreamed up as a way to charge the Nazis with what they did, it constituted a violation of the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1923( I think this was the year) which 'outlawed' war as an instrument of national policy. Kellog-Briand has been observed in the breach since about 1924 by just about everybody, including the Nazis The way that 'war crimes'( a snappy sounding word-bite) has been expanded in recent times, as some kind of an obvious moral imperative is truly amazing. The concept is nether particularly moral, nor imperative, in my view.

I'm not sure just where and how being 'pro-Israeli' came in as being the hallmark of being legitimate in Canadian discourse. It probably relates to the confusion, in many minds, about the difference between being anti-Jewish, and being anti-Israeli. In other words, some people use 'pro-Israeli' to show that they are not anti-Semite. If anybody were to point out that Arabs are Semites too, it would be disregarded, because it doesn't fit. Sure, we are generally sympathetic to the Israelis because they are essentially a western culture, whatever history may say, and we understand them. When they are wicked or good, we more or less at least think that we understand 'where they are coming from'. The Arabs, on the other hand, seem to express themselves from a 'foreign' way of thinking, and we are not too sure, just what they mean, especially morally. Nothing I can see justifies abandoning the traditional, slack-jawed, moderate and uncertain, attempts to be fair and see things in a neutral way, from both sides, characteristic of Canada, at least up to now.

How must all this affect the largely assimilated or becoming assimilated Arab-Canadian community? Here they are, having adopted Canada as their home, many second and third generation, having accepted Canadian ideas of fairness and balance, and yes uncertainty, and thinking Canadian thoughts-'I just don't understand how to solve a problem like this-oh well I hope they work something out-to hell with them all'etc- and they are told they must be 'pro-Israeli' to be decent. Not good. Perhaps not intended, but not good.

Well, they got themselves into a mess. It will be interesting to see how they get themselves out of it, if they can.

Until Canadians can remember how to speak at least to one another, about things which they consider important, debate in this country will be a sorry spectacle.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Until Canadians can remember how to speak at least to one another, about things which they consider important, debate in this country will be a sorry spectacle.

That's a pretty tall order. Look at this board. It degenerates into partisan name-calling all the time. Who starts it really isn't material. Until all parties agree to stop it will continue. Such is life in politics. The higher ground is usually bandoned very quickly. A big reason is that as much as people say they hate "attack ads" or attacking one's opponents ... suich tactics are very effective.