The Leaders

[MMMike]

Re: RE: The Leaders

BTW- Paul Martin was at the high school across the street yesterday. I should of gone over and made a scene or something. :twisted:

Yeah, go throw rotten tomatoes at him and ask why he is "pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, and anti-Kyoto"!

 

[Reverend Blair]

Yeah, go throw rotten tomatoes at him and ask why he is "pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, and anti-Kyoto"!

Because he lives in many of the same pocketsa as Stephen Harper.

 

[Karlin]

You seem to have some logical views on all the candidates.

However, "There is something about that guy that I don't like. He looks sinister and seems like he would be a real jackass if I met him."

is not a "legitimate" reason.

The fact of the matter is, the Conservatives could have Brad Pitt as their leader and some people would portray him as sinister and evil.

Harper isn't trustworthy. We hear him say things like
"Canadian troops won't be dispatched to fight on Iraqi soil if the Conservatives form government in January, Stephen Harper declared"
http://tinyurl.com/9lte4

But then, we see "a recent column in the right-wing Washington Times declaring that Harper is a true "social conservative," would be Bush's best ally if he became prime minister, and is "pro-Iraq war."

See? Harper would have sent troops to help the USA's illegal and imoral incursion in Iraq. Now he says he won't, but changing his mind once means he can do it again.

No doubt, Harper is a Hawk. He doesn't come out and say the Iraq War is a bad thing, but he did say this:
"I must admit great disappointment at the failure to substantiate pre-war intelligence information regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction," he wrote
.... so, he KNOWS there was trickery, but doesn't add two and two and get the result of criminals in the White House, he just feels some "disappointment".

Harper on several occasions in 2003 blasted Chretien's decision to not join the U.S. and Britain in Iraq. But he maintained Tuesday, as he did in last year's campaign, that he never believed Canada had the military capacity at that time to actually join U.S. and British forces.
...and he'd support Canada joining Bush's missile shield initiative.

Just that Canada doesn't have "the capacity", but otherwise he would have sent them?
No wonder we don't trust him.

one last quote:
Prime Minister Paul Martin said there are clear distinctions between what his party and the Tories would do with a strong military, suggesting that Harper is too prone to follow the U.S. lead on defence policy, and that he [Harper] would support the Americans on ballistic missile defence."

 

[MMMike]

But then, we see "a recent column in the right-wing Washington Times declaring that Harper is a true "social conservative," would be Bush's best ally if he became prime minister, and is "pro-Iraq war."

See? Harper would have sent troops to help the USA's illegal and imoral incursion in Iraq. Now he says he won't, but changing his mind once means he can do it again.

Prime Minister Paul Martin said there are clear distinctions between what his party and the Tories would do with a strong military, suggesting that Harper is too prone to follow the U.S. lead on defence policy, and that he [Harper] would support the Americans on ballistic missile defence."

There is a big difference between what people say while they're in opposition or not in power to what they actually do when they are in power. Take Martin for example. Previous comments of his suggest that he would have preferred Chretien go to Iraq as well. Same on BMD: Martin supported Canada's involvement. Once he got the reins of power he switched to a different tune because of public opinion.

If Harper is 'scary', or a 'hypocrit', or has a 'hidden agenda', so does Martin!

 

[DasFX]

Once he got the reins of power he switched to a different tune because of public opinion.

What is wrong with that? He is a civil servant; that means his role is to serve the public and their wishes (so long as it doesn't violate the constitution and charter). I mean in a democracy, don't the people rule?