The Many Positions of Stephen Harper

[jdobbin]

Something kinda weird happened on my last post, computer when crazy. Sorry.

The Poles & Aussies are very well equipped. As for the CF wanting to go, perhaps, I never saw that. I saw great concern about what we could do, about what we would be getting ourselves into due to our equip & manpower probs. It is easier & cheaper to equip an amry to fight the talibs, then the RG.

The Canadian military brass reacted with anger when Chretien sent them to Afghanistan. They fully expected to go to Iraq. They must have thought they were capable of it.

[Keepitsimple]

By accident or not, Canada made the right move in staying out of Iraq...but let's not be so smug. It's easy to bash bush through a revisionist view of Iraq. I would have liked the US to give the UN another 2 or 3 months to make Hussein comply with detailed inspections but in fact Iraq had many, many chances. While there were some inspectors who were still sceptical that Iraq had WMD, all the major countries were positive that he did have them - and they stated that fact time and time again. Coupled with the intelligence was the reasoning that if he didn't have them, why not let the UN have an unrestricted look at everything? It made no sense and enforced the intelligence community's view that he had them - now proven to be wrong. So let's not get caught up in saying "Lies, lies, all lies". It was intel shortcomings and Hussein being a cutthroat buffoon. All very unfortunate. I don't think there would be as many naysayers if Bush had made better decisions and Iraqis were in full control of their own free country. But it didn't work out that way. The UK, Australia, US and Canada have been allies through World Wars and other conflicts. September 11th - lest we forget - took over 30 Canadian lives - murdered. Our first instinct should always be to stand by our allies - that's where Stephen Harper was coming from. It's pretty easy to look back and say he's changed positions - but things have chnaged - information that was not available then is common knowledge now. Isn't it interesting that Paul Wells drags this story out now?

There were 24 Canadians killed on September 11. Canada was not smug at the time. We tried to get deadlines for compliance and a U.N. resolution that would have authorized the use of further force. The U.S. was moving with unseemly haste and there were a number of people who asked what the outcome would be for Iraq as a nation following invasion.

There *were* questions about the intelligence leading up the the invasion. They were shouted down.

Canada did stand by its ally. We did all we could do gather support for their position but in the end the U.S. decided to invade without the same level of support that George Bush Sr had expertly gathered together for the first Gulf war.

Chretien acted in Canada's best interest and was attacked for the position by Harper. Now, Harper tries to brush aside what he would have done as prime minister.

Why is Wells bringing it up now? Because Harper is convinced that Khan has the correct policy. What that policy is is anyone's guess because Harper won't make it public.

It's utterly rediculous for anyone to think that Canada's foreighn policy is going to be shaped by Wajid Khan. The man took a junket and spoke to a variety of people on a shoestring budget of $13,000 and no entourage. His report provided just another one of many insights into the Middle East situation. Khan's mistake was saying up front that he would make his report public when in fact, he should not have. Many people and organizations provide "advice" to the government - some is considered, some is discarded. Can you imagine if the media actually got hold of Khan's report? They would spin it as "policy" emphasizing anything that seemed out of place - even though it was "advice" and may have been discarded. Let's not fool ourselves, most media are looking for ammunition to tar Harper. After all, this is a Liberal country. The Conservatives should not be in power, damn it. It's just not fair.

[Saturn]

Let's not fool ourselves, most media are looking for ammunition to tar Harper. After all, this is a Liberal country. The Conservatives should not be in power, damn it. It's just not fair.

Don't fool yourself, if most media did not fully support Harper, he would have never made it to the PMs chair. Asper of CanWest went campaigning with Harper in the last election, not with Martin, and all major papers and TV channels were on Harper's side (with The Star and the CBC being the only ones that did not endorse him).

[Keepitsimple]

Let's not fool ourselves, most media are looking for ammunition to tar Harper. After all, this is a Liberal country. The Conservatives should not be in power, damn it. It's just not fair.

Don't fool yourself, if most media did not fully support Harper, he would have never made it to the PMs chair. Asper of CanWest went campaigning with Harper in the last election, not with Martin, and all major papers and TV channels were on Harper's side (with The Star and the CBC being the only ones that did not endorse him).

Perhaps the Post does offer more support to Harper than other media.....but other reputable papers really had no choice but to support Harper - mostly to "clean up" Ottawa - not necessarily for all their policies. This remark sounds partisan but it's not meant to be....rightly or wrongly, there was too much immoral stink to the Liberals. The Star, God bless 'em, held their nose and stuck by their buddies to the end.

[jdobbin]

It's utterly rediculous for anyone to think that Canada's foreighn policy is going to be shaped by Wajid Khan. The man took a junket and spoke to a variety of people on a shoestring budget of $13,000 and no entourage. His report provided just another one of many insights into the Middle East situation. Khan's mistake was saying up front that he would make his report public when in fact, he should not have. Many people and organizations provide "advice" to the government - some is considered, some is discarded. Can you imagine if the media actually got hold of Khan's report? They would spin it as "policy" emphasizing anything that seemed out of place - even though it was "advice" and may have been discarded. Let's not fool ourselves, most media are looking for ammunition to tar Harper. After all, this is a Liberal country. The Conservatives should not be in power, damn it. It's just not fair.

You have no questions as to what is in the report and whether the government is acting on it? You have no problems with it not being releases when it was promised that it would be?

Your attack on the media and the Liberals doesn't answer those questions. If the advice is just one more piece of information for the government, why won't they release it?

[tml12]

Let's not fool ourselves, most media are looking for ammunition to tar Harper. After all, this is a Liberal country. The Conservatives should not be in power, damn it. It's just not fair.

Don't fool yourself, if most media did not fully support Harper, he would have never made it to the PMs chair. Asper of CanWest went campaigning with Harper in the last election, not with Martin, and all major papers and TV channels were on Harper's side (with The Star and the CBC being the only ones that did not endorse him).

Most of the LIBERAL MSM does NOT support. Perhaps CanWest is not run by the TO Liberal establishment but the rest are.