Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Apt Description

Responding to Harper's embarrassing habit of not recognizing inappropriate venues to launch partisan attacks, Ignatieff offered an apt description of the Prime Minister. Harper is so devoid of TACT, he found it necessary to use a humanitarian crisis for potential political gain:
Michael Ignatieff is complaining that every time Stephen Harper gets near a tank, helicopter or a destroyer, he can’t resist firing at the Liberals. This time, in using earthquake-ravaged Haiti as the backdrop, the Prime Minister took partisanship too far, he says.

On a two-day trip to Haiti to survey relief efforts, Mr. Harper took a shot at the Liberals, insisting they never understood how Canada needs “hard power” military equipment like the huge C-17 cargo planes that allowed the Forces to land major relief shipments two days after the January earthquake.

“Every time Mr. Harper gets within a mile of Canadian military equipment, he takes a swipe at the Liberal Party. It’s like Pavlov’s dog,” Mr. Ignatieff told reporters in Ottawa today. “A prime minister should be the prime minister of all Canadians. It’s inappropriate to use Haiti, to use a Canadian military base, to make an attack on a political party.”

Canadians and all political parties came together to support efforts to help Haiti, so it’s the wrong stage for the Prime Minister to use the disaster for partisan attacks, he said. “But that’s the way he is,” the Liberal Leader added.

Dogs everywhere are offended.

One minor quibble with the piece, this line:
Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberals have been trying hard to portray Mr. Harper as “hyper-partisan,”

Really, trying hard? That's the equivalent of saying people are trying hard to portray Tiger Woods as an adulterer. The behavior speaks for itself, NO EFFORT is required, other than to simple listen.

Only a petty little man introduces domestic nonsense to a horrific human tragedy. The man has NO shame.

19 comments:

bubba said...

He could have picked a much better venue. I think there is still some venom about the false attacks he has endured in the past "soldiers with Guns in our street---we are not making this up" He is not about to let people forget which party supports the troops. Probably preaching to the choir but it is nice to see he touched a couple of nerves.Each appearance like this will make it harder for future Govt's to dismantle what he has done with the military.

Steve V said...

" Probably preaching to the choir but it is nice to see he touched a couple of nerves."

Yes, because the people of Haiti truly care about asshat's political posturing.

I'm embarrassed FOR you.

JimmE said...

Steve,
The man does have shame; he is ashamed of Canada's past good works around the world. Were he in Mike Pearson's shoes we would have sent troops to fight with the Brits in Suez.

bubba,
Please tell me what "supports the troops" means? Does it mean single source sweetheart deals with US defense contractors? (Just so you know, we paid significantly more for the C-17s than the US Air Force did.) Perhaps it means marching troops out for a mandatory photo op announcing new APC's then every so quietly canceling those very APC's a few months later? Perhaps you could tell me how an "appearance" makes anything harder (or softer for that matter)?
BTW, about those new whirlybirds the present PM had a woody for, you remember, about the time he broke his word on Income Trusts - funny story; United Technologies was 'post to be pay'n you & me a big whack o' cash cause they be L-8; like 2, 3 or 4 years late. But that's not the funny part, the funny part is we may not see choppers until 2012 & they can't deliver the specs they promised & your troopie-supportie-party-thingie, feels UT needs more money to get them out of this jam, well in excess of $100million or more.
Why do folks like you & the present PM get a boner every time they want to play Armyman? Pity this person's parents didn't get him the Gi-Joe-with-life-like-hair-&-Kung-fu-grip like he wanted for his 11th birthday. Perhaps if they had, we could be getting along with civilization, rather than having to listen to what new embarrassment this person can come up with.

Annie... said...

Could someone tell me why the Con.s think that they are they are the only ones that care about the Armed Forces. All good Canadians care about our Forces, but do not hide behind them, as Harper uses them. What he has almost destroyed is our Peacekeepers that Mike Pearson started up.

Rotterdam said...

I read Harper pointing out that the Haiti operation was made possible with the help of the C-17 (hard power), something his government procured.


This is offensive?

Get a life Liberals.

Lenny said...

"He is not about to let people forget which party supports the troops. "

That being the party that hides behind the troops when their own conduct is questioned?

rockfish said...

How is it possible that this repeat-trip down assinine lane from our so-called leader is even registering negatively on Liberals? Here's a PM who's talking big balls about his military mite but no one in the media (or even from our party) is highlighting the cancelled contracts, single-source contracts, reneged deals and just general ridiculous nature of Harper's statements? How do we continuously get tagged with these, while the fatman with no plan waltzes around untouched? When as Steve so vividly pointed out Harper 'invents' a compassionate plan to deal with women and children's health issues around the globe and Ignatieff rightly points out that this should include funding towards reproductive issues, suddenly a few voices in the media and the typical CONbot letter campaign about 'Liberals should leave abortion alone' becomes the headlines? How is that? Who among the media is Harper buying or/and holding compromising photos on?
Let's all laugh together when the tinfoil brigade uses the flimsy 'leftwing media' tripe as a deflector.

Dylan said...

"That's the equivalent of saying people are trying hard to portray Tiger Woods as an adulterer."

And boom goes the dynamite.

Spot on Steve. Spot on.

RuralSandi said...

Hmmm...the facts don't even count for the likes of "bubba" it seems.

Trudeau spent more on the military than any other PM. Then comes Mulroney who had the "white papers" promising to build up our military - he didn't do it.

Then, because of Mulroney, we were on the verge of losing our credit rating as a country. "bubba" - do you know what that means? Canada had no power to borrow. We were in a financial mess.

Comes Chretien who had no choice but to cut back and here's what Harper said about that:

"I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. …I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions."

- Stephen Harper, Hansard, May 23rd 1995. Harper has since roundly criticized spending cuts in the mid-1990s.


The the Liberals started to spend when Bill Graham was Min of Defence and big mouth Hillier couldn't say enough good things about Bill Graham - the Liberals were then pulled down by the Cons and NDP and Harper had this wonderful silver tray of money to work with. Hillier, being the schmoozer he is (and was appointed by the Liberals) started to kiss Harper's ass.

So, bubba, you've been made a fool of by Harper by believing everything he says.

Gene Rayburn said...

Why do I get the feeling this is the kind of hard power rotterdam is into? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQwEsKQRHxE

Tof KW said...

Rotterdam has obviously never heard one of the kernels of operating a small business - losers don't buy, they lease. If you're running a money losing enterprise (arguably that would be the military - armies never make money) it does not make a lot of sense buying expensive equipment that sees little use. It is wiser to lease heavy equipment from others (the US) when required. Canada is one of only 3 nations now to own C-17’s. Please someone tell me how the other smaller NATO militaries get their troops & equipment across the seas? And even if we ourselves lease out the C-17’s to other NATO nation’s militaries, they will still be a money pit.

Simpler moral here (for Rotterdam) even if you change homes every few years, it still makes no sense to own a U-Haul truck. This difference in thinking is what distinguishes a fiscal conservative from, well, the Harper conservatives. They would rather throw our money away on wars and jails, rather than on public services (roads, schools, hospitals, firemen, police, courts, technical standards for everything from food safety to telecommunications, etc) which are actually investments towards our standard of living.

Gene Rayburn said...

Rotterdam strikes me as the sort of person who brags about the features on his new TV as the repo-men collect his car and everything else.

Or maybe he's just easy fascinated by shiny things...

Malcolm Barry said...

Harper is a mean spirited person and a leopard never changes it spots. We have to remember what some of his agendae is when the next election arrives. I heard Mark Kelly on his summation on cbc news last night being uncomplimentary of Harper.

Tomm said...

There is no place that Harper can go, no thing he can say, nor a thing he can do that isn't attacked by you and other hyper partisans.

And you have the gaul? the unmitigated gaul, to call HIM hyper partisan.

Be careful Steve, not only are your fangs showing, but you are drooling on your shirt.

Canadian's see the arrogance and viciousness Liberal's attack others with and it ultimately works against you.

Tell Ignatieff to cut back on the cute little witticisms and relax. Have a wine and enjoy the games.

Steve V said...

Oh Tomm, little touchy today?

As for you and the other apologists actually rationalizing this, you're fully missing the point. If Harpo wants to pound his chest at some local event, that's fair game. What you hyper-partisan apologists can't seem to grasp, you don't use a humanitarian backdrop to score political points. If you can't recognize the ISSUE here, it speaks volumes about your own sorry of an excuse for a bias.


Get a clue, stop being sheep.

Tof KW said...

Tomm, there is a difference between partisan and hyper-partisan. For all the views of the early 60’s government being some sort of Camelot, the reality is that the Chief and Pearson got into it pretty good back in the day. The difference is I have never seen a prime minister (and I really mean never) who went out of his way to attack his domestic political opponents while on an overseas diplomatic trip …until Harper. I was too young to remember Diefenbaker (who oozed class so I really doubt he did), but I challenge you to find any instance of Pearson, Trudeau, Mulroney, Chr├ętien, or Martin ever doing that on the international stage. And this is one aspect of Harper’s hyper-partisan nature, I could list more but it would probably be a waste of pixels.

900ft Jesus said...

you have a Gaul, Steve V.? An unmitigated one at that? Does he come he come with an obelisk?

Gene Rayburn said...

Tomm keep it in your pants. Harper wasn't talking about that kind of Hard power.

Gayle said...

"There is no place that Harper can go, no thing he can say, nor a thing he can do that isn't attacked by you and other hyper partisans."

So let me get this straight. Harper can go to a place that suffered one of the worst natural disasters, if not the worst natual disaster of our lifetimes, use that disaster as a backdrop for some petty partisan shots at the liberals, and those of us who point it out are in the wrong.

Really?

I know you worship at the altar of Harper, but I always thought you had some degree of common sense.

I'm disappointed in you Tomm.