I think I've now read enough Canadian rants about the USA's ambassador to Canada's attempt to interfere in our general election.
The rants are as you may image all over the map both for and against the schoolboy lecture delivered yesterday by the USA's envoy.
My view is that what PM PM said at the Montreal meeting was classic rhetoric and appropriate for him to deliver as the senior representative of the Government of Canada at the big conference the country was hosting.
The New York Times seemed to appreciate some of what went on there and indicated so in their Monday morning editorial -America's Shame in Montreal.
For some reason the Bush administration had been trying to sabotage the whole conference. The fact that Bush's blustering had no effect other than to show himself again as someone who consistently misreads or try's to bully the facts made him and his administration look foolish and weak.
Lots of people outside our big box seem to understand this and also seem to understand the position and words used by PM PM.
Bush through his intermediary the Ambassador for the USA is doing what I would have though most know by now as his characteristic modus operandi having a temper tantrum and trying to get revenge. Any one heard about the Valerie Plaime thingy?
I mean he made this great speech yesterday on regime change and likely only forgot to mention Canada. Remember he forgot to mention the assistance given by Canada to ordinary citizens of the USA on 9/11.
Just not to be too impolite, here is the second paragraph from GWBs speech:
"The long run in this war is going to require a change of governments in parts of the world," Bush told the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, a nonpartisan educational group, on Monday. He didn't name names but noted that Iran and Syria have become obstacles to freedom in "a tough neighborhood."
I had hoped that the other two heads of national parties would respond in something like an independent Canadian way and, boy would it be nice, in a true potential leader's fashion.
But no, too much to hope for from these two characters.
They seemed to have missed the overall point of the Ambassador's comments - interference in our domestic affairs - and demonstrated their unsuitableness for any senior Government of Canada role.
Bill Blaikie, the NDP defense critic, yesterday afternoon on the CBC, made what I think was an appropriate comment - got his partisan digs in but made it clear this is our country thank very much USA.
He was asked by Don Newman (sp ?) about the Ambassador's comments.
He responded, as I remember, by saying he was discouraged by Canada's difficulty with living up to its Kyoto commitment - blamed the Liberal gov't - but said in effect PM PM can say what he wishes without interference from the USA.
Technorati Tags: Canada, News and Politic, Politics, Stupidity
Comments