Harper's 2003 position on Iraq

[normanchateau]

"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion... In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade."

- Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.

"On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country."

- Stephen Harper, letter to the Washington Times, December 11, 2005

The full story appears here including the Hansard link and Harper's appearance on Fox News to endorse the Iraq war on behalf of the "silent majority" of Canadians.

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~dastow/harper.html

Harper's utter and complete flipflop on Iraq is commendable and most Canadians have probably already forgotten his unbridled enthusiasm for Canadian troops invading Iraq.

Now that the evidence is in that a majority of Canadians oppose the combat mission in Afghanistan, the countdown for his flipflop on Afghanistan has begun.

[watching&waiting]

By any chance are you just new to any of this? There were so very distinguishing things that happened between those times. The main one being that the basis for the war in Iraq was very much in doubt and the faulty data was not seen as a cause to go to war.

Something like people tell you that diving off the dock into the ocean is safe and the watter is deep and clear and never any problems. So you dicide to do the dive, but just as you are about to leap off you see the back fin of a great white shark. Do you still go, even though everyone else said it was safe, or do you take the new data and change your mind accordingly.

Now which type of decision maker would you vote for? Before you can start to bring all things from the past into the future, and have real meaning. You need to first study all the things that were part of that way of thinking at the time. I would not have any respect for any leader that got into the Iraq debacle now. There are just so many indicators that show this was not a good move. Which is why you hear some people say "it semed like a good idea at the time"

[Fortunata]

Harper will do and say, as most politicians, whatever will get the vote next time around. It's not about what is good for the country, it is what is good for the next election. Harper is no different than politicians ever have been, no matter how he tries to pretend he is not. Actions speak louder than words and so far he has followed (ig)noble traditions.

[Argus]

"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion... In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade."

- Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.

That is YOUR interpretation on what he said. That is not, however, what he actually said. What I'm reading in what he said is that, like always, we'll wind up going along with everyone else in the end (with the Liberals in power), and do so as nobodies at the back of the pack rather than taking a principaled stand, preparing for what is to come, and taking actual part in discussions, negotiations as part of the leadership of the group. We'll shirk as long as we can, paying close attention to polls, and go along, in the end, because we must. And we would have, too, if the rest of our NATO allies had agreed. Just as we did during the first gulf war. As it happened, since nobody else but the British went, Chretien wound up saying no. But if the Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, etc., had gone in with the Americans, we WOULD have gone too.

"On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country."

- Stephen Harper, letter to the Washington Times, December 11, 2005

So what? You know, this has already been talked about here about six thousand times. Maybe you should review a few posts instead of contributing your usual whiny, information-free crap.

[normanchateau]

"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion... In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade."

- Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.

That is YOUR interpretation on what he said. That is not, however, what he actually said. What I'm reading in what he said is that, like always, we'll wind up going along with everyone else in the end (with the Liberals in power), and do so as nobodies at the back of the pack rather than taking a principaled stand, preparing for what is to come, and taking actual part in discussions, negotiations as part of the leadership of the group. We'll shirk as long as we can, paying close attention to polls, and go along, in the end, because we must. And we would have, too, if the rest of our NATO allies had agreed. Just as we did during the first gulf war. As it happened, since nobody else but the British went, Chretien wound up saying no. But if the Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, etc., had gone in with the Americans, we WOULD have gone too.

And here's Harper and Day in a letter to the Wall Street Journal on March 28, 2003:

"Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.

This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need."

Sure sounds like Harper is opposed to Canada's participation, right?

[Canadian Blue]

I don't think anybody here ever said Harper was against participation in the War on Iraq. I believe that Harper was saying he supports our American allies in Iraq. As I'd imagine most Canadian's would.

The situation was different, and the intelligence was wrong on Iraq. Which I think you will find many concede since the Iraq invasion.

[normanchateau]

Harper will do and say, as most politicians, whatever will get the vote next time around. It's not about what is good for the country, it is what is good for the next election. Harper is no different than politicians ever have been, no matter how he tries to pretend he is not. Actions speak louder than words and so far he has followed (ig)noble traditions.

I think Harper stopped pretending that he was different from other politicians in February, 2006, when he offered to make David Emerson a Cabinet Minister if he switched parties and appointed an unelected Quebecer who had been his personal campaign manager to the Senate then made him a Cabinet Minister.

[Cameron]

So many people are so vocal now. Six months into the CPC mandate and people are "outraged". You know why...because they had 14 years of nothing.

I know this doesn't pertain to this thread. But I'm going to say it anyways.

[normanchateau]

So many people are so vocal now. Six months into the CPC mandate and people are "outraged".

Nothing has really changed except who's in power. When the Liberals were in power, Conservative and NDP supporters were perpetually outraged. Now it's Liberal and NDP supporters who are outraged. I'm guessing after the next election, we'll again see Conservative and NDP outrage.

[Cameron]

So many people are so vocal now. Six months into the CPC mandate and people are "outraged".

Nothing has really changed except who's in power. When the Liberals were in power, Conservative and NDP supporters were perpetually outraged. Now it's Liberal and NDP supporters who are outraged. I'm guessing after the next election, we'll again see Conservative and NDP outrage.

Normie, Normie...you are jumping the gun. You don't have a leader. Do you really want "Bail out Bob" runing the country...I think not....

[normanchateau]

So many people are so vocal now. Six months into the CPC mandate and people are "outraged".

Nothing has really changed except who's in power. When the Liberals were in power, Conservative and NDP supporters were perpetually outraged. Now it's Liberal and NDP supporters who are outraged. I'm guessing after the next election, we'll again see Conservative and NDP outrage.

Normie, Normie...you are jumping the gun. You don't have a leader. Do you really want "Bail out Bob" runing the country...I think not....

I know I don't want so-con Harper running the country but I'd have no problem with a Conservative who's not a so-con. With the right fiscal conservative who's not a so-con, the Conservatives could easily win a majority.

[Canadian Blue]

Harper really ain't that extreme Normie. He is by no means the most socially conservative MP in Ottawa.

What is a social conservative by your definition???

[normanchateau]

Harper really ain't that extreme Normie. He is by no means the most socially conservative MP in Ottawa.

What is a social conservative by your definition???

I don't doubt for a moment that there are others even more socially conservative. Here's one definition:

A social conservative believes in "traditional morality and social mores and the desire to preserve these in present day society, often through civil law or regulation. Social change is generally regarded as suspect, while social values based on tradition are generally regarded as tried, tested and true. It is a view commonly associated with conservative religious groups, militarism and nationalism."

[Canadian Blue]

Did you add on the last part. Close but......

Social conservatism refers to support for traditional morality and social mores and the desire to preserve these in present day society. Social conservatives are not opposed to change per se, but believe that all change should be directed in such a way as to leave supported traditions intact. The opposite of social conservatism is called social progressivism.

Social conservatism is widespread throughout the world, as there are people within each nation and culture who seek to retain what they consider to be an ideal or traditional social structure. However, the meaning of social conservatism varies between locations, depending on the social, religious and national traditions of a particular place. It may be, for instance, socially conservative to promote traditional Western marriage in a Protestant, Catholic, or LDS community, but socially conservative to promote polygamy in a devoutly Muslim community. What is considered to be socially conservative is therefore very much dependent on what is considered traditional.

In addition to supporting traditional mores, social conservatives may also support a degree of government intervention in economic life for the benefit of the community, and as such will tend to support the concept of a social market economy. This concern for material welfare, like advocacy of traditional mores, will often have a basis in the religion of the social conservatives in question. Examples of such social conservatives include the Christian Social Union of Bavaria and the Democratic Labor Party of Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism

[normanchateau]

Did you add on the last part.

No I didn't add on the last part but so what if I had. You asked for my definition of social conservatism.

[geoffrey]

Paul Martin must be a so-con as he did verbally support Iraq initially and voted against gay marriage.

[bradco]

Paul Martin must be a so-con as he did verbally support Iraq initially and voted against gay marriage.

Paul Martin voted against gay marriage??? Was that at first and then he changed his mind??? I remember seeing an interview with him on CBC with I believe Mansbridge where he talked about how he had to really think hard about the issue and his religious values and he said that he came to the conclusion that marriage should be a freedom for everyone.

[normanchateau]

Paul Martin must be a so-con as he did verbally support Iraq initially and voted against gay marriage.

I always did think he'd make a more appropriate Conservative than Liberal leader. And further so-con evidence is that while many Liberals wanted marijuana decriminalization, Paul Martin stalled and stalled and never got the legislation through even though he probably had enough Liberal, NDP and BQ votes to guarantee passage. And he was indeed dragged kicking and screaming into finally supporting ssm.