August 27, 2006


The Americanization of Canada by Harper (Haroon Siddiqui, Aug. 27, 2006, Toronto Star)

You may like or dislike his act as the chief cheerleader for Israel and the United States. You may even feel cheated that he had kept his ideology well concealed prior to and during the last election. But at least you know where he stands now.

What you do not know, except in a vague way, is where the main Liberal leadership aspirants stand. They stand in different spots, on different days.

Harper's assertion that the Israeli actions in Lebanon were a measured response to the provocations of Hezbollah was only the start of his reading from the American script.

Bush stalled a ceasefire. So did Harper.

Bush said no to American troops in a multinational force. Harper said no to Canadian participation.

Bush cast the Israeli offensive as a "struggle between the forces of freedom and the force of terror." So did Harper.

Bush tied Lebanon to the larger (failed) war on terrorism. So did Harper.

At times, Harper sounded more hawkish than the Republican neocon hawks.

Mr. Harper understands that Canada has no future if it continues to become French, but must return to being English instead.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 27, 2006 9:21 AM

As British Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells put it: "If they are chasing Hezbollah, then go for Hezbollah. You don't go for the entire Lebanese nation."

This is where it all starts to get very ugly. Israel understands well that wiping out Hezbollah does not wipe out Hezbollah and that, as with all guerilla wars, the key is support of the local population. Whether Israel should be bombing them or showering money on them is an interesting strategic question, but those who prattle on about innocent little Lebanon and disproportionality don't understand and don't want to understand what a war between guerillas happy to inflict terror and death on their "supporters" and a state determined to protect theirs is all about.

Unfortunately, Western public opinion just won't grasp this and thus Israel's supporters like Harper and Bush have limited time and scope to play with and are forced into less than honest rhetoric about what is going on and why.

Posted by: Peter B at August 27, 2006 11:08 AM

In other words, they're on the side of truth, justice, and the American-Canadian way?

Posted by: RC at August 27, 2006 11:39 AM

The war on terrorism is a failure... why, because it hasn't furthered Marxism one bit.

Posted by: lebeaux at August 27, 2006 12:08 PM

"The war on terrorism is a failure... why, because it hasn't furthered Marxism one bit." Failure, to whom? Notice the author's name? The War is very successful in breaking up terrorist cells in western countries: the Toronto cells, the Florida cells, the German and Brit cells. The War also has recruited new leaders, such as Merkel, and Harper. The War is a success to the West, a failure to the Islamists.

Posted by: ic at August 27, 2006 3:54 PM

Is there anyone with an Anglo name like Stephen Harper and has carte blanche to write whatever drivel he wants on the staff of a major newspaper in all the Moslem world? Not likely.

Posted by: erp at August 28, 2006 11:15 AM