New light on an old Chretien administration lie;
This was a government that was so transfixed at all levels with managing relations with Washington — politician to politician, general to general, senior official to senior official — that the foundation of Ottawa’s policy on the war in Iraq was put at risk. The decisions on exchange officers and the command of Task Force 151 needlessly exposed the government’s policy to daily assault and even ridicule in the House of Commons. As McCallum recalled, “That’s when [Stephen] Harper called me an idiot.”
In an almost schizophrenic way, the government bragged publicly about its decision to stand aside from the war in Iraq because it violated core principles of multilateral-ism and support for the United Nations. At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department or the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada’s indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq — three ships and 100 exchange officers — exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition. McCallum himself told Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador in Ottawa, that Canada was “the opposite of Spain,” a country that originally supported the invasion of Iraq but that contributed very little militarily to the war effort.
The CBC National touched on another aspect of just how thoroughly the Chretien government was invested in misleading the Canadian public – while declaring a “principled” position in supposedly staying out of the Iraq war, Canadian troops were in fact, not wanted there. Instead, “Bush puppet” Chretien agreed to an American request to take on a larger role in Afghanistan.
I can’t find a text version of this report on the CBC website, so if someone has the time and technology to capture the National segment linked above to Youtube, let me know and I’ll post it.
Update – ask, and ye shall receive!
Thanks to Mississauga Matt.
J.C. was a pretty crafty political operator.
Makes one wonder what he saw in Dion?
Chretien ruled out supporting the US Irag effort with CDN Navy too, according to that CBC report.
I like Harper’s latest move with panel lead by ex-lib leader hopeful Manley, to recommend post 2009 Afghanistan deployment.
The throne speech will be in prime time soon. an election to follow thereafter? Bloc=yes, NDP=yes, Libs=dion-a-know, CPC=bring er on.
My spidy senses were tingling at the time. I had this gut feeling that Canada was assisting in some way that we wouldn’t actually ever hear about from Chretien’s mouth. The snake and his party had invested way too much in promoting anti-American sentiment to actually do a 180 degree turn, even though it would have been in Canada’s best interests.
What a surprise.
The libranos said one thing, did another and the media in all its curiousity remained unmoved and uninterested.
Welcome to Canada. Where liars are more popular than the principled.
I don’t see this as reflecting negatively on Chretien. As a typical politician who wanted to cling to the PM’s office, he had to tell his constituents what they wanted to hear, but at the same time,he did not turn his back on his Allies, nor breach agreements with them.
Had he sent troops to Iraq, he’d have lost the next election, and Stephen Harper would be stuck with another Liberal war legacy.
Considering how poorly equipped our Forces were at the time of the Iraq war, we are probably better off that they didn’t fight in Iraq.
I never voted for Chretien, but had to admire the way the crafty old sonofabitch knew how to play the political game.
Now, Harper is surprising a lot of his enemies, by demonstrating his own abilities to play the same way, all elbows and sticks in the corners, vicious in front of the net, and WINNING the game.
And, in politics, that is really all that counts.
I can remember in the lead up to the war,Dimaco Canada being asked to speed up delivery of 8,000 C7 assault rifles for the military, in preparation of them being needed in the event we sent soldiers to the region..
No Canadian troops in Iraq… Possibly the best decision Chretien ever made. “Indirectly” sending 3 ships and 100 exchange officers is merely a gesture of political courtesy, hardly newsworthy.
He didn’t make the decision, Charles. They weren’t wanted in the first place.
I recall the uproar over a speech Bush gave way back during the early days of the invasion where he neglected to mention Canada as an ally.
I also recall some sort of covert operation with our special forces performing a rescue operation.
Political history is never what it seems on the surface…on the surface you get the camoflaged picture painted by a sycophant corporate media…realite lies in the power structures supporting the politics in pa;ay.
In the Cretien-Bush era both administrations were run by deep corporate insiders…the bUsh dynasty attached to the CFR cartel fortunes, and old line US aristocracy…Chretien deeply attached to the Upstart Powercorp Cartel who owed its fortune to global profiteering through the Euro-centerd Bilderbergs, Trilateral commission and various UB financial institutes.
Bush family gold was in Saudi/Kuwayti oil, Chretien family fortune rode with Powercorp’s investment in Iraqi oil…Iraq was destabilizing ME production and world prices.
When Bush decided to take out Saddam who had destroyed their Saudi and Quate oil field investments through his first invasion and was low balling oil to fund his personal lifestyle after the UN sanctions, Chretien fought to keep Saddam in place to keep the cheap oil cash flowing from concessions Powercorp’s French oil and banks had with him.
Bush knew Chretien had business with the Iraqi dictatorship and this motivated Canadian foreign policy on Iraq…of course the air was chilly between them they had conflicting interests in ME agendas.
The Chretien-Bush feud had nothing what so ever to do with anything as trite as political partisan idealism clash…it was more base than that ir was about business concerns.
d.morris, you give cretin too much credit.Just because our lazy media who were terrified that cretin could at ant time remove them individually from the gravy train thus giving him a free ride does not make him crafty,I thought he was a sideways speaking idiot that the media could have taken to task easily.
Although this is not exactly news … it’s good to see that someone has kept the story alive!
Just another of the multitude of baldfaced lies told to the Nation by Chretien and his gang!
Not an isolated occurrence … but just the daily SOP of that bunch of lying thieves.
Actually, the report and all of the people interviewed made it clear that Rumsfeld was not interested in Canada’s military support, Kate. They still wanted the support.
As pretty much every single conservative shouted loud and clear and repeatedly in 2003 – that Canada should be there even if we aren’t sending soldiers – including Opposition Leader Stephen Harper who stated explicitly that Canada should be supporting the US in Iraq.
My problem with Chretien’s decision back then was that he didn’t make it… he allowed the UN to make it for him. He was publicly explicity in his support for enforcing the UN resolutions and taking military action against Saddam, provided the UN backed the action. Only after the UN failed to support military action did he try to turn his stand into a principled and moral stand. If it was principled and moral to oppose going to war with Iraq, they why do you need a foreign entity like the UN to tell you it is ok or not?
…Opposition Leader Stephen Harper who stated explicitly that Canada should be supporting the US in Iraq.
At least he took a position and stood by it. Chretien pretended to make a decision that had already been made for him. And even that wasn’t true, given the participation of our Naval task force and exchange officers in the war itself (one of whom was wounded). Canadian Brigadier-General Walt Natynczyk was the deputy-commander of U.S. III Corps, which led the ground invasion.
Actually, Belisarius, no. Harper has tried to deny he supported the Iraq War when his own statements at the time clearly contradict his current position. Like on so many other positions he now takes, Harper would rather we all just simply forgot all of those statements and principles he claimed to espouse before he got elected.
Just call him Deceivin’ Stephen or The Right Honourable Lyin’ Brian Jean Harper.
“As pretty much every single conservative shouted loud and clear and repeatedly in 2003 – that Canada should be there even if we aren’t sending soldiers”
Source, please. Within the context of barely half of Conservative supporters supporting the much less controversial Afghanistan mission we can logically infer that support for invading Iraq was significantly lower than 50%, and certainly could not honestly be described as “pretty much every single conservative”.
I also remind you that Paul Martin Defence Minister David Pratt said Canada made a “mistake” by not invading Iraq, and Paul Martin’s support of the Iraq invasion is well documented.
Any quotes on that Ted.IMHO that was too easy to spout off.
Please include the one where Harper called McCallum ‘stupid’.
The “stupid” quote wasn’t one I cited Bluetech, but here’s the easy stuff, much repeated with even stronger wording in the House:
“Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.”
“I don’t know all the facts o-n Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.”
Links to the sources are here: http://www.quotesandpoem.com/quotes/listquotes/author/stephen-harper
From The Tyee: http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/05/20/So_What_DID_Harper_Say/
“On Iraq: In April, 2003, Harper went on Fox News in the U.S. and attacked the Chretien government’s failure to support the war in Iraq. At the time, CTV.ca reported his remarks this way: “Harper said he endorsed the war and said he was speaking ‘for the silent majority’ of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its ‘pacifist tradition,’ are most people opposed to the war, Harper said. ‘Outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive,’ the Canadian Alliance leader says.”He and the then-foreign affairs critic for the Alliance, Stockwell Day, also wrote The Wall Street Journal denouncing Canada’s decision to “stay neutral” in the war.
On March 26, 2003, six days after the U.S.-led coalition began bombing Iraq, Harper told the House of Commons: “We should be there with our allies when it counts against Saddam Hussein.” In August, 2003, Harper told Maclean’s that Canada’s refusal to support the coalition meant that “Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.
How’s that for a start?
“How’s that for a start?”
Not too shabby. I’ll see your non-story and raise you Liberal Paul Martin’s explicit support of the Iraq invasion:
OTTAWA – While Liberal Leader Paul Martin continues to obfuscate his position on Iraq, here are some interesting comments from others on what Martin’s original position on Iraq was.
* “There is no doubt in my mind that if Paul Martin had been the leader, we would have gone to Iraq with the United States. – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 182)
* “When the Liberal government had to make a decision on Iraq, Mr. Martin did not speak. Those of us on the inside knew that he had been working very hard to get Prime Minister Chrétien to join the Americans in the war. – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 211)
* “Prime Minister Martin said that he was thinking of putting troops into Iraq to help train Iraqi security forces. The very first person to raise objections was Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister ended up beating a hasty retreat and said that the Canadian military trainers would only do their job outside of Iraq. – Former U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci (Unquiet Diplomacy, 2005, pg. 165)
* “I think we made the wrong decision in not supporting them, and we’re obviously encountering the fallout from that in terms of various aspects of Canadian-American relations, which is not healthy. – Former Liberal Defense Minister under Paul Martin, David Pratt, (Hansard, March 29, 2003)
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2459/35145
And then their is your hero Michael Ignatieff, who supports war crimes and torture:
“My own work on “lesser evils” brings me close to the Elshtain position. I agree with her that necessity may require the commission of bad acts, which necessity, nevertheless, cannot absolve of their morally problematic character—but I still have a problem. If one enumerates the forms of coercive interrogation that have been judged to be inhuman and degrading by the Israeli and the European courts—hooding, holding subjects in painful positions, exposing them to cold or heat or ear-splitting noise—these techniques also seem unacceptable, though at a lower threshold of awfulness, than torture. Like Elshtain, I am willing to get my hands dirty, but unlike her, I have practical difficulty enumerating a list of coercive techniques that I would be willing to have a democratic society inflict in my name. I accept, for example, that a slap is not the same thing as a beating, but I still don’t want interrogators to slap detainees because I cannot see how to prevent the occasional slap deteriorating into a regular practice of beating. The issue is not, as Elshtain implies, that I care overmuch about my own moral purity but rather that I cannot see any clear way to manage coercive interrogation institutionally so that it does not degenerate into torture.”
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7374
Good. So we agree, Andrew, that Harper was FOR the US war on Iraq before he was against it.
And perhaps also that conservatives whining about Chretien’s reasons for not supporting the war, when like Harper they wanted us to go to war, are kinda silly?
Okay, so in 2003 Harper supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Nothing new there. Were he in charge, Canada would have participated, probably with Naval Forces and possibly CF-18s since we had no ground forces available. Chretien was in charge, said we wouldn’t participate even as we actually did.
Two years later, Harper said:
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. I must admit great disappointment at the failure to substantiate pre-war intelligence information regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.
(Stephen Harper, letter to the Washington Times, December 11, 2005)
I don’t see any contradiction, Ted. Why would we commit troops to Iraq well after the invasion, when we were already heavily committed in Afghanistan?
It’s called a flip flop, Belisarius. One would think that fans of Harper would be familiar with that pattern by now.
“So we agree, Andrew, that Harper was FOR the US war on Iraq before he was against it.”
No, that would be another case of you being wrong 🙂 I might respond by saying we can agree that you and Michael Ignatieff support torture and war crimes.
Harper’s been PM for nearly 2 years now and he has invaded exactly zero Muslim countries, unlike the warmongering Liberals who invaded and occupied at least one that we know about, namely Afghanistan. So you can drop the fearmongering any time now, bub; if Harper were really the warmonger you make him out to be he would’ve dropped the hammer by now. He hasn’t.
It’s a flip flop and he also denies/evades his prior position. Now that’s leadership!
Like I said, I don’t think he is any more a reptilian kitten eater than any of the other career politicians. It’s just that too many still feign surprise when it is revealed that Deceivin’ Stephen is just as poll-driven, just as hungry for power, just as much a liar, just as quick to abandon the fundamental principles that got him into power… as any other career politician.
The Right Honourable Lyin’ Brian Jean Harper.
It’s called a flip flop, Belisarius…
I don’t see how. Harper explicitly re-states his support for the 2003 invasion, but goes on to state that Canada will not be sending troops to Iraq if he takes power in 2006. This is a recognition of reality, not a flip flop. Our military is tiny, and was already stretched meeting the Afghanistan commitment. Further, as the stories at the top of this thread clearly indicate, the U.S. didn’t want us there. They much preferred us to increase our commitment to the equally critical conflict in Afghanistan. As you know, this was done under the Liberals and continued by the Conservatives.
I suspect Stephen Harper is drooling at the opportunity to take his promise keeping record to the Canadian people due to the fact that it is quantifiably superior to that of his Liberal and Progressive Conservative predecessors.
The economy is growing at a mind blowing 5.2% and inflation is low, national unity is better than at any point in 40 years, and unemployment is at a 30 year low.
Easily the greatest Prime Minister in my lifetime, and there are several million Canadians who would not hesitate to agree. You and your broke-assed fringe party and Fisher-Price leader can pound sand, Ted; it’s Harper Time until 2010 at least.
ted – I agree with belisarius; there’s no evidence of Harper lying or ‘flipping’. His original support for the Iraq War is on record, and his knowledge that our small Canadian military can’t be in two areas, is also on record.
Equally, it is well-known that the US didn’t require any Canadian military assistance in Iraq. What they wanted from us, was political support for that war. And Chretien, with his oil interests in Iraq, and his alliance with Chirac and France’s oil interests – refused.
Janice Gross Stein has been saying for years (on TVO) that there were Canadian military involved in working with the US military right from the beginning of the war. However, an important component of Liberal strategy for controlling the Canadian electorate, is anti-Americanism. This has always been a key part of their platform.
Falsifying reality to maintain anti-American emotions was evident in Chretien’s action re the Iraq War. After all, to claim that Canada is not sovereign but subject to the UN is quite a claim. Especially when Canada supported NATO going into Bosnia – after the UN’s utter failure to do anything about the slaughter going on there.
And, Chretien and Martin’s tactic of anti-Americanism within the softwood lumber deal was another platform strategy. The public was deliberately kept ignorant of the truth of this situation – which was that yes, Canada WAS subsidizing its lumber, by its ridiculously low ‘stumpage fees’ which enabled Canadian foresters to ‘cut cheap and sell high’, thus undercutting the American foresters who didn’t cut lumber on public land but had to pay high private costs.
Canadians were NEVER informed about stumpage fees and instead, were led to believe the American tariffs were due to Evil Greedy Americans.
So, ted, – apart from your continual Harper-Bashing, what’s your point?
Andrew:
No doubt you are right about what would happen in an election. I used to say that the best thing going for Dion was Stephen Harper and the ONLY thing going for Harper was Dion. Now I think the reverse is true.
I think Liberals are taking the wrong lesson from the Ontario election. While it does show the strength of the Liberal brand in Ontario, I think the real lesson is how a good, decent man with a tin ear for politics can take an even in the polls situation and lose so horribly because voters tend to favour the bland, uncharismatic devil they know to the bland, uncharismatic devil they don’t. The only thing that changes at the federal level is the colour of the bland.
Easily the greatest Prime Minister in my lifetime
While that may be true for you, it is an incredibly sad sad comment on the quality of the politicians we elect to office.
and there are several million Canadians who would not hesitate to agree
With that I disagree. I bet either (a) you would find it hard to find many who think he is the greatest PM ever, especially conservatives, or (b) you are asking everyone who 4 years old and younger.
50.2%.
The only reason Chretien didn’t lose the country in 1995 is because he and his Liberal government cheated like hell to barely win the referendum.
A guy who came 0.2 percentage points from breaking up Canada, gutted the military, trashed our relationship with the USA, had to have the obsequious media translate his unintelligible Chretienese to English and French, and who Forest Gumped his way to 3 accidental majorities via a decade long divided right and Mulroney’s GST revenue can’t reasonably be considered great.
The fact French oil company Total Elf Fina was given drilling rights in Iraq by Saddam certainly has to be an indirect reason Chretien did not committ troops to Iraq.
Other than the fact France did not want to go in because of oil interests and Chretien continued in the Trudeau tradition of turning Canada into New France.
Just so happens one of the major shareholders of Total Elf Fina happens to be the Power Corporation.
That particular modern-day version of the Family Compact has a CEO by the name of Paul Desmarais, who happens to be married to a gal that just happens to be Chretien’s daughter.
Papa Chretien would have some serious explaining to do to his daughter had he send in troops and impoverished her when the Total Elf Fina shares plummeted.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It was a case of vested interest by Chretien.
Kills me how PM Harper is jumped on over What he said years back Re:Iraq
But Nothing was ever,ever said about what PM Martin said when he was PM, Nothing on How he wanted in Iraq sooner then later. Sorry i do not have the exact quotes anymore
BTW: good work andrew
Andrew:
How does Chretien being a great, good, bad or horrible PM have anything to do with Harper being “the greatest PM”? I can understand why a minority of Canadians like him or want to vote for him – like Dalton McGuinty, he’s not horribly bad and he has some good points – but how can you call someone who regularly abandons principles for power and politics, breaks significant promises, has increased the federal budget more than any other PM in the history of Canada, says no to distinct society one day and yes to nation the next, etc. etc. etc. is not just the “greatest PM” but “easily the greatest PM”????
Bizarre.
“How does Chretien being a great, good, bad or horrible PM have anything to do with Harper being “the greatest PM”?”
You suggested passive aggressively in your comment above that Chretien was greater and I provided arguments and data to the contrary.
“I can understand why a minority of Canadians like him or want to vote for him – like Dalton McGuinty, he’s not horribly bad and he has some good points”
Comparing McGuinty and Harper in any way is risible and only exposes you as a moral relativist. Big surprise there, Toronto boy.
“but how can you call someone who regularly abandons principles for power and politics”
Provide data like I did or STFU, special flowery language is not acceptable, am I clear?
“breaks significant promises”
Within the context of governing Canada his non-commitmitments have been trivial. Anyone who has taken Econ 101 – I strongly suspect this excludes you or any Liberal – will tell you that the income trust decision implemented by Mark Carney, our new BOC governor, was the right one.
“has increased the federal budget more than any other PM in the history of Canada”
He gets to do that because the economy is booming, he is paying down debt, and he has in fact cut taxes as a % of GDP. The surplus is due to unexpected corporate taxes due entirely to Harper’s economic genius.
“says no to distinct society one day and yes to nation the next”
Different words, different concepts. I can see why this confuses you, being a Liberal and all.
Brian Mulroney, whose ego exceeds his capacity for blarney, recently opined Harper is off to the best start of any PM in memory. There are others, millions of others, who would agree.
Bryan:
Are you kidding me? This is how The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy myth gets created folks. There’s your evidence right there. All you have to do with this conspiracy myth is ignore reality.
The media repeatedly highlighted Martin’s apparent reversal on Iraq, just they highlighted his apparent reversal on equal marriage and a whole host of other matters. Certainly the Chretien leaning columnists and the many conservative-leaning columnists didn’t let up on that. Where were you from 2004-2006? Just google “I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible” and see how many hits you get for a starter. Golly, gee, CBC is the first media hit. Whatcha know?
Canada was always involved in the Iraq war.
Cf-18’s regularly escorted American ships going to the gulf. The fact that knowone engaged them doesn’t change the fact that we were participating.
I’m disappointed with Canadians for not seeing the truth of the matter. We would rather alienate the good-guys on some B.S. moral stance, than own up to our actions.
Actually, ted, though I rarely agree with andrew, I agree on this point. I think that Harper is quite possibly the greatest PM we’ve had in a century. And more. And, I’m not alone in that conclusion.
Ted then answer me this then: why is that no one remembers those comments other then a few, was it that the media only splashed them for a miniscule instant & why is that when people talk about Iraq & Canada then the attack is on Harper. Why is it that the martin campaign used that in there attacks on harper, It was orchestrated to scare the little old ladies & coffee shop dwellers, Ya the media made mention of those comments from martin but like i said No one remembers them.
Let’s take an example, Andrew.
Ultimately, I don’t think Brian Mulroney is one of our greatest PMs – his corruption made Chretien look like a nun, the way he blamed Canadians opposed to “distinct society” as destroyers of Canada was even worse than Martin’s silly “Canadian values” campaign against Harper – but he tried to accomplish things, set high goals, failed miserably on some but gave us free trade, fixed up an archaic tax system and replaced it with the GST, opposed apartheid when other conservatives supported the South African government, etc.
What of real significance has Harper even tried to do in nearing in on 2 years of government?
Ever since the Liberals fixed our finances, we’ve had rudderless, visionless government. That applies to all three of our most recent PMs, not just Harper. It’s all just tinkering around wedge issues trying to get the next vote for the next election. No one governs on principle.
Just watch: in the next year, Campbell will allow extra billing and Harper will turn around and slam him because, ever the poll watcher, he knows if he doesn’t he might lose a seat or two.
Hell, give me Harris or the original Harper any day. At least you knew where they stood and where they were going. At least they said what they did and did what they said. At least they energized Canadians, made us realize that getting elected is not just an end unto itself.
Why is it that the martin campaign used that in there attacks on harper
Because he had nothing of his own to run on and refused to run on Chretien’s record. And guess what? We the voters didn’t buy it.
It was orchestrated to scare the little old ladies & coffee shop dwellers
Well, duh.
Ya the media made mention of those comments from martin but like i said No one remembers them.
No, you don’t remember them. No one talks about it now because – and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you hadn’t noticed – but he lost the election and has resigned from leader of the Liberal Party. So no one care about Martin anymore. And clearly, he gave lots of people lots of reasons not to vote for him in the last election so his changing stances on Iraq or ballistic missile defence got lost among these and in the media stampede to help Harper get elected and kick out the Liberals.
Facts escape when someone is desperately trying to make up a shaggy dog rant.
Harper said at the beginning of the Iraq war that we should stand with our traditional allies who were going on the information available at that point, Iraq had WMD’s.
No mention is made of the fact our Armed Forces were barely armed let alone equipped to fight to even protect our sovereignty let alone fight a war in a far off land thanks to Liberal neglect for decades.
Harper is the best PM we could have the good fortune to have at this time. Actually, he is proving to be the best in decades on a daily basis. Only comatose Moonbats could miss that fact.
A little off-topic here,but just a few short minutes ago I watched cbc’s newsworld program where they did a story on the new afghan committee announced today by Harper. And this is what really pisses me off about cbc,as soon as they were done with the bit that had Harper making the announcement,they went and got some dipshit to tell us all that is wrong with it for about 5 minutes.Every frigging time there is any announcement from the conservatives it is followed by some leftard denouncing it. They never find anyone who agrees ,it is always someone who is against the gov’t.Is it any wonder that Harper is not attending thier little dinner/lovefest.
“Greatest” is a highly subjective term at the best of times and that many commenters here would say so is hardly surprising.
I’ll never vote Tory ever, but I’m not so unhappy generally with Harper’s adminstration. However I note that minority status keeps him on a pretty short leash. If he evers gets a majority and starts introducing loony social policies etc all the goodwill will evaporate overnight. Remember the Liberal party was in a mess last election and Martin well disliked and the best the CPC could manage was a minority. Popularity for Harper may be broad right now but is not structurally very deep.
As to the OP so what if Chretien told some porkies to stickhandle an obviously contentious policy particularly if he was trying to do the right thing? That is hardly news and I’ll give Harper the same pass.
Ted wrote: “Ever since the Liberals fixed our finances …”
I hear this so often, but Ted’s forgetting two contributors: the taxpayer, who provided all that cash in the first place, and the Mulroney govt., which made elimination of the deficit possible through GST revenue and the free trade agreement which expanded Canada’s economy and tax revenue. And let’s not forget the Reform Party, which kept the Liberals’ convictionless feet to the fire on this issue.
I still remember PM Chretien early in his first term complaining that elimination of the deficit according to the Reform schedule would produce “revolution” in Canada (his word). In fact he beat their schedule by a year. The reason why he could do it so fast is that it really wasn’t difficult once the first deficit-elimination budget was enacted. After that it simply required the magic of compound interest.
But it was only after a scathing Wall Street Journal article here and a frightening credit agency report brought the reality home to Joe average that the govt. had the political cover to do what it took.
The Liberals have gotten entirely too much credit for deficit elimination.
Gray, you know why he could only manage a minority? Because Canada is loaded with granite-headed people like you that would never vote for the best person just blindly give their mandate to their party know matter how corrupt or devoid of policies it may be. That is why Mulroney ended up with only 2 seats and Tory lost in Ontario, conservatives think about their vote and their leaders have to earn it whereas Liberals just stupidly give it away.
Now the afghan panel has come up on cbc “politics” and lo and behold we have Bob Rae and taliban jack,along with newman, crapping all over the panel and Harper for 15 minutes. I guess cbc could not find any who supports the move or Harper on thier approved “expert” list.
MJ:
No single government can do it all on its own. A lot of credit does go to Mulroney who could have done it if he had kept financing from ballooning as much as it did.
But I deliberately chose the words “fixed our finances” and not simply balanced the budget. It wasn’t just floating off of GST revenues (which, frankly, are exaggerated: the GST consolidated a lot of existing tax revenues and made it a much more efficient system. The aggregate tax revenue from GST was easier to see but was far from enough to dent the deficit that Mulroney had increased. And the GST had nothing to do with the incredible fix of CPP or the cutting of spending programs all of the provinces whined about then (but of course, now that we enjoy Liberal supluses they whine about too much federal spending). The Mulroney years didn’t cause the tax cuts that the Liberals implemented and certainly not the income tax cuts that they implemented and Harper cancelled. Say what you will about Chretien’s corruption, rudderless years, poor military spending, anti-Americanism – all things I’ll agree with you on – but the Liberals were good managers of the economy.
After 13 years, 8 balanced budgets, 6 surpluses, it’s a little silly to give Mulroney and Manning credit.
But that’s not nearly as silly as giving Stephen “How ELSE can I increase spending to buy votes?” Harper credit for the employment rate, trade surplus and budget surplus (the same one he promised we wouldn’t see under his government). But the ET’s and Andrew’s of the world will be the kool-aid drinking sheeple they allow themselves to be.
Ted, Mulroney reversed the growth of programmed spending, which got the ball rolling for deficit reduction, along with the GST and Free Trade.
Let’s be honest here, government takes far too much credit for good things and not enough blame when they screw things up. Productive economies make politicians look good. Harper cannot take full credit for fiscal surpluses any more than Chretien or Martin could. Canadians worked their a***s off, paid a whole bunch of tax, which overcame the profligacy and waste of Chretien era. Programmed spending under Chretien, Martin and Harper has increased.
BTW, I’m still waiting for your quote that Harper wanted to send in combat troops to Iraq. Anyway, it doesn’t matter because the point is moot – Harper wasn’t in power so we can’t know for sure what specifically he would have done v.v. invasion. Martin wanted us in too but, again, was not specific as to how, if memory serves correct. Maybe if we had gone in we could have helped bring other allies together instead of hardheadedness of Bush and Europe/UN, and even helped in nationbuilding.
I had no objection to Chretien beggin off combat troops in Iraq. There was no popular support to do that. It was how he handled it, basically sticking an stick in Bush’s eye, acting juvenile like Europeans (at least they has excuse, being in bed with Saddam), and letting cabmins shoot off their yaps too. That’s what damaged Canadian credibility, not to mention Chretien’s inconsistent Iraq position, evidenced by Stein’s book.
Ted – The only things the Liberals did to fix the finances were their decision not to defend the Canadian Dollar and download to the provinces. As stated all of the economic policies put in place by the Mulroney Government were the biggest factor in bring the finances of the country in order. As for the deficits run by Mulroney I would say the mess Trudeau left and 15% ++ Bank of Canada interest rates would have to take more of the credit than Mulroney.
Ted, just so we are on the same page. The Liberals under Chretien were not “good managers of money”, they fed off what Mulroney had set up with NAFTA and the GST, starved the provinces and vital areas like our military and spent billions on stupid programs like the Gun Registry. Of course being good Liberals they promised everything and delivered nothing, as an example they promised VIA rail $700 million to upgrade, never delivered and now Harper is making good on this promise.
As Mulroney took over:
• David Peterson said: “Brian Mulroney inherited one hell of a mess.”
• Jean Chretien , ‘We left the cupboard bare,'”
• Under Trudeau
o $1.23 spent on programs for every dollar it took in taxes
o debt grew by 1,100% and interest rates peaked at 22.75%.
o National Energy Program and its Foreign Investment Review Agency meant Canada was closed for business and turned Alberta’s boom into a bust overnight.
o deficit was 8.7% of GDP, the largest in Canadian history
• When Mulroney left
o deficit was 5.9% of GDP — down one-third
o prime rate was 6% — the lowest in 20 years
o inflation was down to 1.5%, the lowest in 30 years
o GST and the North America Free Trade Agreement in place
o program spending was reduced to 97 cents for every dollar of revenues.
o Still large deficit because of the huge interest payments (33 cents on every tax dollar) Canada had to pay to service Trudeau debt
• Chretien/Martin
o 6 years to balance deficit
Isn’t it strange how Mulroney takes all the crap for the GST but the Liberals are against scrapping it to this day, even by 2 lousy cents.
Remember too Liberals would like us not to mention the BIG LIE by Chretien prior to his last majority win. When asked if he would scrap the GST he replied “it’s gone”. Guess what? We still have it and the Liberals are crying about dropping it by 2 cents!
Between the lies and trickery, to say othing of the corruption of the Liberals even a borderline moron could figure out they’re not in a position to offer any advice to anyone.