Bush Chided Harper Over BMD

Posted on Sunday, February 20 at 15:36 by whelan costen
Prime Minister Paul Martin supported Canadian involvement in the initiative when he was a leadership candidate, but has avoided moving forward without Conservative support. Bush unexpectedly asked Martin pointed questions about Canada's refusal to sign during their meeting, but it's now clear the prime minister wasn't the only Canadian political leader to get the Bush treatment. Harper didn't deny being pressured by Bush last Nov. 30 during their half-hour meeting. But he said it appeared someone had misled the president about Conservative policy. "It was clear to me at the outset of our conversation that the president had been misinformed about our position," Harper said in an interview. That position, Harper replied, is not hostile to missile defence. But it will force the Liberals to properly explain the plan before bringing it to Parliament. Read More: http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=news_home&articleID=1851346 [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on February 20, 2005]

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:40 pm
    Pushovers.

  2. Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:32 am
    Buck Fush.

  3. Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:28 am
    Chapeau to Harper then! BTW did Harper ever apologize for suggesting way back that Canada should have been in Iraq alongside the Americans? It would also be useful to know the PC stance on softwood duties retaliation.

    ---
    "We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

  4. Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:29 am
    Thanks for the post Whelan BTW.

    ---
    "We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

  5. Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:46 am
    He's not a PC.

  6. by avatar canuck
    Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:41 am
    I agree, it's good that Harper is trying to get Martin to provide a proper explanation for BMD in Canada.

    Moreover, the fact bush has stuck his cocaine encrusted nose into our affairs in a weak and ill-informed attempt to peddle influence among these two party leaders simply can not make neither Martin's nor Harper's job at selling this to us any easier.

    In short, bush in himself is the most effective example why BMD is of no benefit to Canada... How do people manage to listen to anything he says without pulling out their hair?

  7. by gorian
    Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:23 am
    Well, we'd hate to be a country of baldies.... some of us simply stopped listening to his nonesense many moons ago!

    G

  8. by hoopoe
    Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:41 am
    This was supposedly Bush's fence mending tour. It will be interesting to see if any of the European leaders got the same treatment.

  9. by hoopoe
    Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:44 am
    It's no wonder Canada and it "leaders" are losing or have already lost respect in the world. They don't even have enough self-respect to tell Bush where to go. I bet they just sat there and took it in the ass when he said these things.

  10. Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:47 am
    Gee, Bush hassling his chief Canuck bumboy. Guess you can never be enough of a traitor for the Bushites...

  11. Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:01 am
    What I see

    * the politics behind Canada BMD fails, by design. Another chapter added re: the above from "CP"

    * North Korea has nukes and missile technology, but they are left alone.

    * At some point in the future, at the conveniance of the USA/UK/Israel, a guided, nuclear tipped missile enters Canada from the Arctic.

    * Targets are many. Certainly USA targets. In Canada, the most likely city to be nuked, is Calgary. Why Calgary? Because this city is the administrative capital in Canada for oil/gas. The work being done in this city can be easily performed in Houston.

    * N Korea gets blamed.
    * Canada gets blamed for not having BMD
    * USA and Israel benefits.
    * Who is responsible? Israel. The nuke comes from one of their subs.

    ps: I refuse to live in Calgary because of this 'fear'

  12. Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:25 am
    What does this have to do with BMD which does not work?

    Why would Calgary be nuked when the U.S. already owns the oil?

    Are you insane?

  13. Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:26 am
    <a href="http://www.hazegray.org">www.hazegray.org</a><br />
    <br />
    <br />
    Israel does not have nuclear-armed subs. They have German-built diesel subs.

  14. Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:56 am
    BMD is like the Guided Missile test of the 80's, only in reverse. Remember those missiles cruising along the Mackenzie river? Each test was a 'success'. Well, that same technology was used by Israel and USA to 'fly' airplanes into the WTC. So, to take this one step further, I'm suggesting BMD is a red herring, designed to 'fail' and thus allow a N.Korean nuke to get through, or supposed N.Korean missile. Likely the missile will come from a sub off the coast of Korea, and probably American or Israeli, or, if you will, Amero-Israeli, all the same shiet to me.

    As to the insane comment, yeah, i'm a nutter. so what



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news