The Liberals Strike Back

Chris(tine) says:

Cleary, it would be futile to argue the immorality and illegality of America's "pre-emptive" war with you. It wouldn't matter what I said. And you know very well what I meant when I said Stephen Harper would have marched our troups into Iraq. Instead of the peacekeeping in Afghanistan he would have sent those soldiers with the rest of the very small coalition of the deceived . With the exception of Australia, Britain and the US we could have out-soldiered the other few contributing nations. Are you proud of the letter by Harper (along with the brain power of Stockboy Day) to the Wall Street Journal apologizing on behalf of all Canadians because we didn't want to join them in the desert? Do you really wish we had gone to Iraq? I mean not just for the lucrative contracts.

And comparing World War II with Iraq? I have only ever heard that from the most ardent Bush groupies. They made up lots of great reasons why this war was so just after the "Weapons of Mass Deception" story fell through. Of course Sadam was a monster and who would know better than the Americans. I am sure they still have the receipts for all the weapons (including biological) they sent him. You would think that their policy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" would get old, but along came Osama bin Laden and they didn't hesitate to jump into bed with him either. I wonder how that worked out?

Did the government in Spain get re-elected? Would you have voted for Tony Blair and his Labour party or cast one for Michael Howard and his Tory party? Of course Blair was re-elected!!! The conservative Howard would have been an even more ardent poodle for Bush and his cause. I mean Karl Rove. Honestly, I don't know why John Howard won, despite the lack of support by the majority of Australians for their participation in Iraq.

Have you seen the news lately? Has anyone told the Iraqi people how fortunate they are? Many still have no power, no jobs (who wants to work for the Americans?) and most important of all, no security. That staged little election was a great photo opportunity, but not much more. And please, no lecture on the sanctity of voting rights and democracy. It is easy to wax lyrical when you don't have worry about the safety of your children.

There is something wrong when Stephen Harper is still being criticized despite the scandal-ridden Liberals and it is Stephen Harper himself. Many Canadians are well versed in the Gomery commission. It is easy to underestimate/belittle people just because you don't understand or approve of their opinion. You have to accept that, as well as the fact that most Canadians prefer the tarnished Liberals to the creepy Harper. And moderate?! Have you read the platform of his little National Citizens Coalition? Maybe he is moderate to an ultraconservative, but not to anyone else.

And if you are counting countries for the U.N. oil for food scandal don't forget to add the United States. Selectively reading the news isn't good for anyone. And I am sure that American blog site will get to the exhaustive research on the Bush-Saudi royal family connection right after it finishes investigating the Bush-bin Laden group relationship. And after they get to the bottom of all the prison abuse scandals. Probably on the same night that pigs fly. And who did take that picture of Sadam in his undies?

Have you told Ralph that he isn't a king? He'll need a drink for that kind of news.

And of course the Americans have and need a huge army. They start so much of the trouble!!! Someone is bound to fight back. And after 50 years of foreign policy meddling/bullying I guess they have.




Christopher J. Burton says:

Sorry for delay – I have been overwhelmed trying to make enough money to pay my taxes.

I can empathize in the feeling of futility one must feel if one argues a case without credible evidence. Perhaps consulting ‘moveon.org’ would supply more funny names and leftwing platitudes. It always matters what we say because the first person we must convince is our selves. One can evade reality or accept it.

The fact of the matter is that Canadian’s did serve in Iraq both on the ground and at sea. The Liberals would not support the war but they would send Canadian troops into the war zone. The obscene dishonesty of the Liberals was designed to curry favour with the French and placate the Americans at the same time. I prefer an honest approach where we would have supported the war and at the same time realized the extreme limitations of our armed forces. Rebuilding a credible defence structure would have to be the main priority for Stephen Harper.

I do agree that the UN, the French, and the Russians deceived the coalition by not disclosing their vested interests in Sadam’s Iraq. Many Canadians were embarrassed by the actions of our Government and wanted our allies to know it. We are at war with those who would use militant Islam as a motivation for attacking the West whether we like it or not.

As for comparisons with WWII – Let’s see: Totalitarian Dictator, mass murder of civilians, Invasions of neighbouring countries – the motivation sounds the same to me.
The great fallacy perpetrated by the left is that the sole reason for invading Iraq was to find weapons of mass destruction. It has been shown over and over again that the US government has proposed a democratic “Domino Theory” to solve the Middle East conundrum. Even the main stream media’s quintessence of left wing bias; Time Magazine stated on Feb. 27, 2003 that “President Bush wants sceptics at home and abroad to believe that a war to depose Saddam Hussein would spread democracy and peace in the troubled Middle East.” That’s before the war started people.

Yes Sadam was a monster, just ask the Iraqis that suffered under his tyranny – they are glad that he is gone. Many on the left believe that the Iraqis are not ready for democracy, that stability is more important. Better to have a bloodthirsty dictator in charge to safeguard those French and Russian oil contracts. It is strange how you claim that the Americans supplied Sadam with his weapons as the whole world watched his Russian tanks and aircraft get blown away while he hid in his German and French built bunkers.

I know the left will never forgive the Americans for winning the Cold War and destroying their little experiment in Soviet Russia, but to say that it was folly to support the Mujahdeen in Afghanistan is bizarre. Certainly the left did not feel any reluctance jumping into bed with the North Vietnamese to create that workers paradise – just ask Jane Fonda.

I would gladly stand aside and let you have Spain – to their everlasting shame they buckled and surrendered to terrorism. What would Winston have said? As for Michael Howard and his Tories I don’t know why you have a problem with them. They agree with you. Michael Howard is nothing more than a mushy middle liberal who seems to be more Europe oriented than American. I have to give full marks to Tony Bair who had the courage to stand up to the naysayers in his own party and do the right thing. You seem to have intimate knowledge of who runs the United States – please pray tell where you get these inside scoops. Silly me, I always thought George Bush was President, but you seem to think a guy named Karl Rove is in charge. Other than regurgitating another left wing platitude why do you believe this? I suggest you don’t know why George Bush and John Howard were re-elected and you can’t figure out how Tony Blair stays in control of the Labour Party.

Perhaps another time we can discuss the motivations of the mainstream media, but if you broaden your news sources you will find an incredible amount of good news coming out of Iraq. Check here as an example: Good news from Iraq. You seem to prefer the wonderful security of Sadam’s Iraq where children were so safe. Who is waxing lyrical? Surely all those smiling Iraqis holding up purple fingers, after they voted, were just pawns of the oppressor. Even the lefty press was surprised by the courage displayed by Iraqis but it seems not you.

So the scandal ridden Liberals are merely tarnished and the Conservatives under Harper are creepy? Perhaps you can explain what you mean by creepy. Could it mean that you think the reduction in the influence of government in our lives is wrong? Could it mean that you want more social programs? Could it mean that you believe the end justifies the means? Again I wish you would explain what it is that you have a problem with instead of just spewing left wing platitudes.
What parts of the National Citizens Coalition’s program do you disagree with? What do you mean by an ultraconservative? All of your platitudes mean nothing until you explain what it is you are talking about.

As for the UN “oil for food” scandal – I am counting countries. It would appear that if it were not for investigations demanded by the US senate the details of this abomination would not have come to light. The corruption is being exposed in a fair and detailed investigation. You know, like the fair and detailed examination of the Bush-Saudi royal family relationship or the Bush-bin Laden love fest that was explored so convincingly by Michael Moore. I am sorry if I am distracted by the head hacking terrorists and didn’t notice the embarrassing positions that the inmates at Abu Ghraib prison were arranged in. Also I couldn’t care less what Sadam was wearing when that murderous scum was photographed.

Back to Canada – What is it about Ralph Klein that you don’t like? He seems to be somewhat of a free spending liberal to me. Could it be that you disapprove of private healthcare clinics like the ones that have been operating in Quebec for years? I don’t get the King reference – what do you mean? I presume that you were making fun of his drinking problem when you said that he would need a drink if someone told him he was not a king. That sounds a lot like making fun of Jean Chrétien’s mouth to me. Oh Liberals have such short memories.

Peace and Love