My Endorsement
After giving much thought to who I would have endorsed, I have finally made up my mind. I would like to say that with the exception of Joe Volpe and Bob Rae, I could happily support any of the other candidates that have a realistic chance at winning. My first choice is Stephane Dion, while mi second choice is Michael Ignatieff should Stephane Dion get eliminated on one of the ballots. I considered supporting Gerard Kennedy, Scott Brison, and Maurizio Bevilacqua, but felt while they were good candidates, now was not the right time to choose them as leader. I was also quite impressed with Martha Hall-Findlay in the debates and feel she has a lot of potential in the future.
I liked Scott Brison's bold new ideas, but I feel he hasn't been a Liberal long enough to lead the party in the next election. After quitting the Tories when Stephen Harper took over since I thought I was an Alliance takeover, I think it would be hypocritical for me to turn around and support Brison. I supported him for the PC leadership race and remain proud of that decision. Due to his age, I have no doubt he will get another chance sometime in the future. I was also very impressed with Maurizio Bevilacqua and his ability to understand the challenges facing the future of Canada. However, due to lack of name recognition, I feel it would be best to wait until next time. Hopefully, he will get a top notch cabinet position in the next Liberal government; my pick would be finance minister. I considered Gerard Kennedy since I feel it would be good to have someone who was originally from the West since after the thrashing we took in Quebec last election, we will need to gain seats in the West if we want to someday win a majority. But I feel he is still too much of a provincial politician and hasn't made the full transition to federal politics yet. I do though hope he considers running in the West in order to help promote Liberalism in Western Canada.
The reason Michael Ignatieff is mi second choice, but not mi first choice is I like his ideas, but I am concerned that the negative perception some have of him could drag him down. We will likely be thrown into another election within months of the leadership race since Harper knows the longer he waits, the less the chance of him being re-elected. I was impressed with his long-term vision of Canada and its role in the World. And was particularly pleased that he is willing to stick to his positions even if they become unpopular, which is unfortunately a rarity today in politics, but definitely a good trait. Finally the fact he has more caucus support than any of other candidate and from all sides of the spectrum shows he has the strong ability to unite people. If I were convinced the Liberals were going to lose the next election, he would be mi first choice, however, I still believe the Liberals can win the next election therefore I will be choosing who I think has the best chance of defeating Stephen Harper in the next general election.
My reasons for not supporting Joe Volpe are pretty obvious so I won't explain any further. As for Bob Rae, my reasons for opposing his candidacy is two-fold (1) I entered politics to put an end to the destructive policies of the BC NDP here in my home province, so I am not going to support a politician who advocated similiar policies in the past (2) Politics is about perception not reality and almost all the non-card carrying Liberals I've met from Ontario would have a tough time voting for Bob Rae in a general election. While many of the problems Ontario faced in the early 90s, were not his fault, if Ontario perceives one is not fit to govern, then it is pretty difficult to win.
Finally here is my reasons for supporting Stephane Dion. He was both a successful environment and intergovernmental affairs minister. His Clarity Act, which put an end to the separtists asking ambiguous questions to get the result they wanted was a strong act of leadership. I also like his combination of economic growth and environmental sustainability. I have been a strong skeptic of the Kyoto Protocol and its effectiveness, but I believe the environment is a serious issue we must as a nation tackle sooner rather than later. Finally if we want to defeat Harper we need to go after him on his weak spots, not issues that split Canadians down the middle. On Childcare, three parties support a national childcare program while only one opposes it, but with Canadians split evenly on this issue, it is a not a winning issue. On the other hand less than 30% support Harper's environmental policies, so this is an area we can beat him on.
Finally to all candidates, best of luck and may the party choose a leader who can unite the party and defeat Stephen Harper in the next general election.
As a side note, I haven't been able to post much recently since I have been busy, but I was very pleased that the BC Government signed a collective agreement with the BCTF for the first-time since province wide bargaining was instituted. Kudos to Carole Taylor and Gordon Campbell for their leadership here.
I liked Scott Brison's bold new ideas, but I feel he hasn't been a Liberal long enough to lead the party in the next election. After quitting the Tories when Stephen Harper took over since I thought I was an Alliance takeover, I think it would be hypocritical for me to turn around and support Brison. I supported him for the PC leadership race and remain proud of that decision. Due to his age, I have no doubt he will get another chance sometime in the future. I was also very impressed with Maurizio Bevilacqua and his ability to understand the challenges facing the future of Canada. However, due to lack of name recognition, I feel it would be best to wait until next time. Hopefully, he will get a top notch cabinet position in the next Liberal government; my pick would be finance minister. I considered Gerard Kennedy since I feel it would be good to have someone who was originally from the West since after the thrashing we took in Quebec last election, we will need to gain seats in the West if we want to someday win a majority. But I feel he is still too much of a provincial politician and hasn't made the full transition to federal politics yet. I do though hope he considers running in the West in order to help promote Liberalism in Western Canada.
The reason Michael Ignatieff is mi second choice, but not mi first choice is I like his ideas, but I am concerned that the negative perception some have of him could drag him down. We will likely be thrown into another election within months of the leadership race since Harper knows the longer he waits, the less the chance of him being re-elected. I was impressed with his long-term vision of Canada and its role in the World. And was particularly pleased that he is willing to stick to his positions even if they become unpopular, which is unfortunately a rarity today in politics, but definitely a good trait. Finally the fact he has more caucus support than any of other candidate and from all sides of the spectrum shows he has the strong ability to unite people. If I were convinced the Liberals were going to lose the next election, he would be mi first choice, however, I still believe the Liberals can win the next election therefore I will be choosing who I think has the best chance of defeating Stephen Harper in the next general election.
My reasons for not supporting Joe Volpe are pretty obvious so I won't explain any further. As for Bob Rae, my reasons for opposing his candidacy is two-fold (1) I entered politics to put an end to the destructive policies of the BC NDP here in my home province, so I am not going to support a politician who advocated similiar policies in the past (2) Politics is about perception not reality and almost all the non-card carrying Liberals I've met from Ontario would have a tough time voting for Bob Rae in a general election. While many of the problems Ontario faced in the early 90s, were not his fault, if Ontario perceives one is not fit to govern, then it is pretty difficult to win.
Finally here is my reasons for supporting Stephane Dion. He was both a successful environment and intergovernmental affairs minister. His Clarity Act, which put an end to the separtists asking ambiguous questions to get the result they wanted was a strong act of leadership. I also like his combination of economic growth and environmental sustainability. I have been a strong skeptic of the Kyoto Protocol and its effectiveness, but I believe the environment is a serious issue we must as a nation tackle sooner rather than later. Finally if we want to defeat Harper we need to go after him on his weak spots, not issues that split Canadians down the middle. On Childcare, three parties support a national childcare program while only one opposes it, but with Canadians split evenly on this issue, it is a not a winning issue. On the other hand less than 30% support Harper's environmental policies, so this is an area we can beat him on.
Finally to all candidates, best of luck and may the party choose a leader who can unite the party and defeat Stephen Harper in the next general election.
As a side note, I haven't been able to post much recently since I have been busy, but I was very pleased that the BC Government signed a collective agreement with the BCTF for the first-time since province wide bargaining was instituted. Kudos to Carole Taylor and Gordon Campbell for their leadership here.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 7:17 PM
36 Comments:
Miles, good post. I would like to clear up one thing. The Clarity Act was not a Dion brainchild:
""Following the narrow victory for Canada in Quebec's 1995 referendum 10 years ago this past Sunday, Harper and Manning came up with the idea of a Clarity Act.
Initially, their idea -- insisting that any province seeking independence must ask a clear question and have a clear majority -- was ridiculed by Chretien and his cronies.
On the significance of Harper's work in this area, Toronto Star columnist Chantal Hebert wrote: "If one were to trace the federal clarity law on Quebec secession back to its true origins, the exercise would lead straight to Stephen Harper. In the matter of his government's main initiative on the unity front, Prime Minister Jean Chretien is merely a foster parent to Harper's love child."
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2005/11/03/1290183.html
Sorry buddy, but this one is a Reform/Harper legacy.
"If I were convinced the Liberals were going to lose the next election, he would be mi first choice"
- Why, he is sixty, would we run him a second time 4 years down the road?
Not a bad choise. He is probably the only candidate I caan see winning as many seats possibly more for the Liberals in Quebec. Can't see him making gains in much other parts of the country but I could be wrong. I just hope the Conservatives come out with an enviromental policy better then his, this is the only place this government is lacking, although I highly doubt it will change anything in the polls. Then the Cosnervatives got him beat everywhere!
Wilson61 - The Reform Party may have had the odd idea, but on national unity their no more Quebec prime-ministers ad, Harper's comment on bilingualism being the God that failed, Harper saying he didn't care whether Canada ended up as 2, 5, or 10 nations, makes their commitment to national unity questionable. Stephane Dion's is not.
Frank Garth - You are assuming the Tories would win a majority and besides Paul Martin was 63 when he first ran, Ronald Reagan was 70, so I think he would. Anyways if Ignatieff is chosen, I will stand fully behind him in helping him become the next PM.
I generally agree with you here Brad.
Canadians aren't split down the middle on childcare. Recent polls have showed Canadians prefered the Liberal plan and disapprove of Harper's government on the issue.
I haven't seen the exact numbers, although my point is even if it is a 60/40 split in favour of the Liberal plan we cannot win, we need a 70/30 split, which we have on the environment. Also the polls done were by groups that had a bias towards the Liberal plan. Most unbiased polls have showed it pretty even, perhaps a slim majority in favour of the Liberal plan.
Here is one showing them split down the middle: http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=605. Ironically Quebec is where Harper's plan was the most popular, since they already have their own childcare program, so with Quebec out of the picture, probably a slim majority support the Liberals but close either way. I generally don't trust polls commissioned by any group with a bias towards one particular side as polling companies don't choose the questions, they just ask the questions supplied. Those on the other side of the equation have commissioned polls showing Canadians overwhelmingly supporting the Tory plan, which is off course nonsense.
However, on the environment all independent polls show Harper is weak here and weak enough that even with vote splitting between the NDP, Liberals, Green Party, and Bloc Quebecois, he would still lose on the issue.
A wise choice.
Too many people get caught up in supporting candidates who have no senior level cabinet experience, or could not win the french debate.
How does that make sense?
"He was both a successful environment and intergovernmental affairs minister. "
Calling Dion a successful environment minister is a reach. He made no progress on obtaining Kyoto targets so successful is not an appropriate word. At least there was the Species at Risk Act so 'spotty' may be a better term.
I would disagree wityou anonymous. The Sierra Club gave the 2005 budget an A on the environment while the most recent Tory budget, an F. It is true his predecessors did a lousy job, but lets remember he only had 18 months and that really isn't enough time to make the necessary changes.
Solid first choice. Lousy second choice.
Kyle - At least you agree with my first choice. Besides hopefully the party will be united behind whoever wins, since if we are not, we will lose again. If we are united we can win. Part of the reason the Liberals are usually in government and the Tories in opposition is in-fighting is usually more prevalent amongst the Tories than Liberals.
Miles,
Which is why I think that Ignatieff cant win. He is the most divisive candidate. Several Liberals have told me that they could stay home from the polls, and not involve themselves in the campaign if he wins.
You maybe right Kyle. I just know that he has the most caucus support and not all his caucus supporters are right-leaning Liberals. Some like Wayne Easter and Maria Minna generally come from the left side of the caucus. I think the one who would turn off the most Liberals is Joe Volpe. Hopefully we can at least agree that he is the worst choice of them all.
Kennedy is from the West like Harper is from Toronto.
...and another thing: better for the Liberal Party to win back Quebec than the west, because there are more seats in Quebec, and because the party's real base in Ontario likes Quebec more than the west. A garden variety Toronto Liberal doesn't give a shit if anyone in the west likes him or not; but he wants to be feel loved by Quebec. So keeping Quebec helps keep Ontario - and if the Liberals lose Ontario, they can't win at all. Rae has the best chance in Quebec. Or maybe Dion.
So, yeah, good choice with Dion! Maybe! We'll see.
Miles,
There can be more than one "worst choice"... unfortunately one of those "worst" choices is a frontrunner.
Anonymous - Harper still cheers for the Maple Leafs so he is in some ways a Torontonian, just not in his political beliefs. As for the West, the older generation may still be mad at the Liberals for the NEP and the middle finger PET gave in Salmon Arm, but the younger generation has moved on. The Liberals despite losing seats nationally in the last two elections, gained seats in BC in both elections, so there is room for growth in the West.
Kyle - I guess you could have two worsts although I don't think Michael Ignatieff is as bad as you say. I disagree with his stance on the Iraq War, but at least he is doing it in the view that the Kurds needed to be liberated from Saddam after seeing them in 1992 and what they suffered from, whereas Harper supported it because he doesn't believe there should be any difference between Canadian and American foreign policy.
Yea Miles thats it. Harper, the multi-generation Canadian, was baising his view on that we should be just like America. But the guy who was living in Boston, and had lived in the States the past 20 years was basing his view on a more Canadian path?
I really think the whole debate on the Iraq war is forgotten. Before the debate MP's were given photo's of Iraqi civilians being burried alive in cement, ect. ect. Conservatives gave from the heart speaches again and again, like Jafer talked about how his family was forced out of his country because of a rouge leader, and the Liberals rarely ever even gave a rebutal, yet alone one that was 1/10th as spirited as the conservatives.
This was because at the time it was fairly well rumoured that the Liberal caucus mainly supported the wars goals. Chretien didnt and he ran the party on a rope. Chretien didnt even support the first Gulf War though, so what do you expect with that joke.
Actually Brad, Chretien backed off going to war mainly because of the opposition within his own caucus. By some estimates as many as 50 Liberals were prepared to vote against the government and some were even willing to go as far as risking being kicked out of caucus. In fact I think many Liberals such as Bill Graham, John McCallum, Gar Knutson, and John Manley gave very strong rebuttals that were well reasoned.
Yes I read the transcript of Rahim Jaffer and I don't doubt his intent, but I think he is wrong. The war in Iraq was never launched with good intentions. 85% of Canadians agree the war was wrong and even the majority of Americans now think the war is wrong, so you are a minority Brad, not just here in Canada, but in the US too. Even 67% of Conservative voters disagreed with the war and this was taken when they were in single digits in Quebec, so the number is probably higher now considering how strongly opposed Quebec was to the war.
Harper was quoted as saying that Canada should never again abandon its American and British allies. I disagree here. We should never base our decision to go to war or not go to war on the decisions of others. And yes that also doesn't mean blindly following the UN either although I would rather we oppose a UN sanctioned war than participate and/or support a non-UN sanctioned one.
Ignatieff is a very bright intellectual who has a deep understanding of foreign policy. He also has the support of some strong critics of American foreign policy. My parents' MP Stephen Owen was one of the stronger opponents of the Iraq War, yet he is supporting Michael Ignatieff. Keith Martin stated the Iraq war was one of the reasons for leaving the Conservatives and he also supports Michael Ignatieff.
I trust your judgement that the Liberals could make inroads in the West, BUT - they can't afford to pick up seats there at the expense of Quebec. And here in Ontario, winning Quebec is a lot more psychologically important for Liberals (and Ontarians). It makes Ontario feel like its keeping the country together. For the reason, the Liberals need the strongest Quebec candidate in order to keep Ontario. So the west just falls way down the priority list. That was my point, more than "western ailenation".
Great site though.
I agree they cannot pick up seats in the West at the expense of Quebec, but I don't think that will happen. If anything 13 seats in Quebec is probably the floor in support, so I think they can regain some of the lost seats although it will probably take a few elections before we win as many seats as we did in 2000 in Quebec. I believe that Stephane Dion can do both and I think Michael Ignatieff could do both as well.
I think if you take off your Bill vander zalm button and Rita Johnston decoder ring Miles you may be able to see some other things too, tho I doubt it.
I like your first choice, Dion, although his record in office isn't exactly sterling -- kyoto specifically. And while you may not trust many polls, you seem to be trusting a few ontario voters who in the heat of a leadership race consider bob Rae as the anti-christ. You've got to come to grips on this -- his track record, both as an elected official and as someone who has worked on the public's behalf, is pretty strong. That there are some Ontarians think of him in the same vein as we think of Glen Clark isn't so odd -- but I also know a few Ont liberals and they've warmed up to the idea -- two are now working on his team. And while you take the word of a few ontarians, don't forget that there's a poll out there that shows Dion is viewed unfavourable in his own province. Do I believe that? No. But it does exist. Ignatieff is a rookie. I hope to see him tomorrow but really, how many issues do we need implode on us (Iraq, torture, quebec as a nation, carbon tax) to clinch opposition status? Hey, i even support the possibility of a carbon tax but i'm not foolish enuf to throw it in the bull's face when that bull happens to be the econonmic engine to our success at this time.
Its fine to stick to an ideological bent Miles, but the Liberal party isn't about riding an ideology until its burnt crisp. From Laurier, Pearson and Chretien, there is a serious stream of pragmatism, flexibility and vision involved that often takes us from what we didn't believe could be to what is now reality. I think Rae, Dion, Kennedy, Dryden could all deliver.
I know many Liberal Party members have warmed up to Bob Rae being leader and I'll admit some of his views aren't that bad. However, it is not what Liberal party members think that matters, it is what your average swing voter out there thinks, since those are the people who win or lose elections. Bob Rae didn't get absolutely clobbered in the 1995 election for no reason. The average Ontarioan doesn't follow politics outside the writ period very closely. I am almost positive if Rae wins the Conservatives will roll out their attack ads on high deficits, Rae Days and I don't think a 36 day campaign is enough to overcome this. We need someone with zero baggage who the Tories will find impossible to attack.
As for Dion's high negatives in Quebec, this is mostly amongst the separtists who will not vote Liberal no matter what. With Rae I am not worried about Toronto or Northern Ontario, but I am worried about the 905 belt and we cannot afford to lose anymore seats in the 905 belt. Rural Ontario will be difficult to win back no matter who we choose, but choosing Rae will make it that much more difficult.
Well, i agree with you more than i like to admit, but we'll disagree on the rae theory you've got. however, i am eager to test out your theory that no matter who wins, we have to be united in the end. I'm ready to back that up at the end of the day. I'm going to hold you to that should my candidate wins, tho;^)
...am eager to test out your theory.that no matter who wins, we have to be united in the end.
I certainly am not willing to make that guarantee. If Ignatieff or Volpe won I would have to reevaluate whether or not I will vote in the next election.
I'm going to hold you to that should my candidate wins, tho
If Rae wins I plan to take a wait and see attitude. I am not a hardcore Liberal partisan, rather a moderate in political perspectives and I choose to join the Liberal Party since they were closest to my values. I worked hard in 2001 and 2005 to make sure the NDP wasn't elected provincially, so Rae needs to show he is no longer a socialist. Had he been an MP for the last few years, I would be a lot more open to him rather than joining the party a week before entering the leadership race. Stephane Dion and Gerard Kennedy are the only two candidates who I have yet to meet or read of one Liberal saying they would tear up their membership card, which is partly why I choose Dion.
Kyle - I would happily support Ignatieff should he win, but since I know some Liberals are uncomfortable with him, that is why he wasn't my first choice. As for Joe Volpe: if he wins I will tear up my membership card immediately. I will vote for the best local candidate whatever party that may be should he win. Quite frankly, if the party is dumb enough to choose Joe Volpe they don't deserve to win. Almost all the Liberals I have talked to have said they would quit the party if Volpe wins, so Volpe would definitely be the worse choice for party unity.
85% of Canadians agree the war was wrong and even the majority of Americans now think the war is wrong, so you are a minority Brad, not just here in Canada, but in the US too. Even 67% of Conservative voters disagreed with the war and this was taken when they were in single digits in Quebec, so the number is probably higher now considering how strongly opposed Quebec was to the war.
Actually I was in the majority when the war started and initially took place in both countries. However, this war has had its holes and the media only now plays the negative, and yes I am in the minority now.
Actually Brad, Chretien backed off going to war mainly because of the opposition within his own caucus. By some estimates as many as 50 Liberals were prepared to vote against the government and some were even willing to go as far as risking being kicked out of caucus. In fact I think many Liberals such as Bill Graham, John McCallum, Gar Knutson, and John Manley gave very strong rebuttals that were well reasoned. This is one of the things we can argue, but its all speculation. Ill just say that Cretien was one of the biggest critics of the Liberation of Kuwait. And Id imagine the Liberal party was heavily divided during that time. It is widley reported by people inside and out that Paul Martin was heavily in favour of the war.
Harper was quoted as saying that Canada should never again abandon its American and British allies. This is one of many quotes, but it wasnt his or the partys main arguments for the war.
Actually Brad the majority of Canadians never supported the war. The highest any poll put support at was a 50/50 split, but if you take the average of the polls in March/April 2003, it was about a 60/40 split against the war. It is true the majority of Americans and conservative voters initially supported the war, but not Canadians as a whole.
The reason Canadians overwhelmingly oppose it today is they realize how stupid a conflict it was and how unnecessary it was. I would argue nothing good has come out of the Iraq invasion, if anything it has made the Middle East less stable. That is not to say Saddam Hussein didn't need to go, but that should have been done internally, not through external force.
I do remember polls putting most Canadians in favour of the war in May of 03. If I remember right, in a 55/45 split. I remember a poll done in Alberta that had it at 74% aproval if I remember right. I cant find any polls from the start of the war, so ill just cede the point to you Miles, but I do admit I am down in the minority in still supporting the war.
I do not believe this war brought any more violence to Iraq. Before the USA invaded there were still suicide attacks, skirmishes in the South between Saddam and the people he had not killed or put enough fear into yet after the uprisings in the 90's. Saddams men were taking people prisioner and doing things such as drilling holes through prisioners ankles, making people watch their families be burried in cement ect. And on top of all this, there was a daily all out war in Northern Iraq that was much bigger and bloodier then any uprising against American forces. It was a much more war torn and opressed place then it is today.
One thing that does bother me is when people blame America for 'starting' a war in Iraq. A war in Iraq started in May of 2003, only as much as WWII started on December 7th 1941.
The highest scientific poll I saw on the Iraq war was 52% in favour and this was just one poll, if you take the average of all the polls in that period, it was around 40%. In Alberta the highest I saw was 60% and even amongst Alliance supporters, at all times at least 1/3 opposed the war.
I do not believe this war brought any more violence to Iraq. Before the USA invaded there were still suicide attacks, skirmishes in the South between Saddam and the people he had not killed or put enough fear into yet after the uprisings in the 90's. Saddams men were taking people prisioner and doing things such as drilling holes through prisioners ankles, making people watch their families be burried in cement ect. And on top of all this, there was a daily all out war in Northern Iraq that was much bigger and bloodier then any uprising against American forces. It was a much more war torn and opressed place then it is today.
I think it is difficult to say whether Iraq is worse or better off since there is no accurate tally of the number of civilian deaths. My opposition is I oppose the principle of pre-emptive strikes and attacking countries unilaterally if not done in legitimate self defence. There are many brutal dictators and I don't think it is realistic to take every one of them out. In addition it is a blatant violation of Iraqi sovereignty. Lets remember most Third world countries including Iraq were once colonies and so most of the people in these countries don't appreciate foreign invaders coming in regardless of their stated reasons.
One thing that does bother me is when people blame America for 'starting' a war in Iraq. A war in Iraq started in May of 2003, only as much as WWII started on December 7th 1941.
The United States did start the Iraq war. There was no immediate reason for invading Iraq. You could argue the United States didn't start the war in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. Afghanistan is a tough one since the US was attacked by terrorists stationed in Afghanistan not an actual government so it doesn't fit the traditional definition of a conventional war.
The United States joined the war in Iraq is what I am saying, because there was always a war in Iraq, just western troops werent there, so nobody gave a damn about the peeople dying.
Actually Brad that was an internal dispute or a civil war, but the United States invaded Iraq and attacked it unprovoked. They didn't join in a war, they started it. In my books, whichever country attacks first starts the war.
Miles,
If I understand you correctly, given the alternatives (between regime change and soft diplomacy) you are OK with Hussein hacking his own people into pieces for fun?
Doesn't sound much like the Liberal humanitarian ideals that I have known for so many years...
If I understand you correctly, given the alternatives (between regime change and soft diplomacy) you are OK with Hussein hacking his own people into pieces for fun?
The reality is Iraq is no better off now without Hussein. It was a lose-lose situation in my view. Leave Saddam Hussein in power who would kill many innocent Iraqis or start a war and also kill thousands of innocent Iraqis and de-stabilize the whole Middle East.
However, for me the bigger issue is I oppose pre-emptive strikes. If the US can go overthrow Saddam because they don't like him, what is to stop some other leader from overthrowing someone else they don't like. This sets a dangerous precedent. We can have the rule of law or the law of the jungle. As a small country like Canada, the law of the jungle would not benefit us at all.
Doesn't sound much like the Liberal humanitarian ideals that I have known for so many years...
Actually it very much falls within the Liberal humanitarian ideals. Liberals oppose wars of aggression, which the Iraq war was, they oppose imperialism and occupation, and they oppose intervention without UN sanction unless done in legitimate self-defence. This is very much about following the Pearsonian foreign policy. And even pre-Pearson, Canada was never an aggressor nation.
Post a Comment
<< Home