Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Is Martin really standing up for Canada?

Even conservative bloggers had difficulty with the US envoy's speech to the Canadian Club, most believing that he hovered very close to the line of interfering with an election. Some even believe Watkins' remarks will do the Liberals more good than harm, because Martin is seen as standing up to the US, playing into the anti-American sentiments that seem to surge at election time.

In response to the rebuke, Paul Martin says:
"I will defend Canada -- period. I will defend the Canadian position, and I will defend our values, and I will defend our interests against anybody."
But he's not defending Canada. He's defending himself -- and what's more, he's defending himself with yet another lie.

Martin is trying to pretend that the envoy was calling him out for talking about the softwood lumber issue:
He (Martin) acknowledged he has been critical on two issues -- the U.S. refusal to accept a panel decision in favour of Canada in the softwood-lumber dispute, and the Americans' foot-dragging on climate control. However, he denied he's raising the issues to score political points.
"The position that I have taken on softwood lumber -- that the Americans ought to honour their agreement [in the Free Trade Agreement] -- is a position that I took, that I have taken for some time, long before any election campaign was contemplated."
Now, please correct me if I'm wrong -- but since the beginning of the election campaign, I haven't heard Paul Martin mention softwood lumber -- not until now. And now it is only being brought up to deflect from the fact that last week he very publically insulted the US on the global stage at the UN conference on global climate change.

Not once after the PM's quote in this news article, nor in any other coverage I've read, does the reporter make his/her way back to the point that Martin's speech on the US environmental record created this animus in the first place. They just let him blither on about softwood lumber as though it had something to do with anything.

None of the quotes I've seen from Wilkins' speech even contain the words: softwood lumber. Wilkins made no defense of the US's actions or stands on this -- but he vigorously pumped their environmental record compared to ours. But Martin's comments to the media in response to this speech shows he is trying to dodge the bullet. He's pretending that Wilkins' remarks to the Canadian Club were in response to something Martin might have said back in October about softwood lumber -- and much of the media coverage has just let that slip by as though it were true.

Surprisingly, the Globe & Mail editoral makes the point well.

The US envoy has no place in our politics, but Martin doesn't deserve a pass for the very public ripping he gave them last week. He used innuendo, lies and evasion to promote a negative image of the US on the world stage. It might get him the votes he wanted, but it has also drawn negative attention from the US -- not just government, but the public as well. That's hardly the way to defend Canada's interests.

If Paul Martin is going to defend Canada's interests, who is going to defend our interests from him?



ferrethouse said...

Paul Martin states that “[he] will defend Canada – period. [He] will defend the Canadian position”. But the reality is that Paul Martin has not been defending anything. Instead, he has been attacking our American friends for political gain. This is precisely the point that David Wilkins is making. Defend your positions Mr. Martin but don’t pull yourself up by dragging other people down.

Mitch said...

Well, he'll get a lot of grief in 2007 when Canadians will need a passport to cross into the U.S. If he is still PM next year, I highly doubt it that it will be relaxed. So there is a $100 cost per taxpayer who wants to cross into the U.S., with no thanks to PMPM.

Myrddin Wyllt said...

I notice the MSM tries to tell us he's rebuking Canadians rather than Paul Martin and the Anti-democracy Libranos.

Mark said...

If Paul Martin is going to defend Canada's interests, who is going to defend our interests from him?

To PMPM they are one and the same. The PM's interests are Liberal interests and therefore Canada's interest, as the Liberals are the "natural governing party", bla, bla, bla.

Hence the reason he can't see the legitimate argument made by the US Ambassador. To PMPM, defending himself is defending Canada.

Candace said...

Canadianna, Mike Duffy had a number of guests on his shows these past few days regarding this, Martin isn't getting a pass. In fact, today they discussed at length (okay, about 3 minutes, but come on, work with me already) about how this could backfire.

And Allan (?) Gregg the pollster also stated this could backfire, as "Canadians have a nose for anti-Americanisms for personal gain" or some such nonsense.

CTV even joked about the Liberals pulling out a Harper speech from 97.

Go figure.

Martin's going to get hammered at the debates.

'Peg City Kid said...

No, your way off Canadianna, you can say and believe what you want, that doesn't make it true.

The Americans, deserve that insult, as yes, they are one of the worlds biggest polluters and have absolutley no care for the enviroment. Seriously, They're trying to drill for oil in an Alaskan wildlife reserve.

Martin, and yes, Harper for once, are bang on. The Americans have no business making comments about our election topics.


Our American friends!??!?

With friends like these, who needs enemies.


The Liberals are the naturaul governing party because that's who people have always voted for.


Passports are required to get into the states, this is an AMERICAN desicion. If you cross the border into the States, you will not need a passport to return to Canada. Just as an American will not need a passport to cross into Canada, but will need one to get back. And as seeing as you currently reside in the States (unless your profile is not up to date) you will surely have known that there was also alot of outcry on the American side of the border as they will lose much of our tourist dollars and vice versa.

As in my case, I WAS going to go to the States for my birthday, which is in January, to spend my hard earned dollars. But alas, as of January 1st 2006, becuase the AMERICANS are security freaks, I need a passport, which I'm not going to get.

Look to your own government for answers, not ours.


Have you even read this beauty??

Whether it from 97 or today, this little peice describes in great detail exactly what Harper stands for. He hasn't changed.
He is pathetic, he's an idiot, and he is also toast. Both the Liberals and the NDP (and probably the Bloq) are going to jump all over this. It's not Martin I'd be worried about at the debates. I'd would be amazed if they even got past this topic.

Although I DO NOT speak for a majority of Canadians, I can assure with great certainty that a majority of Canadians, do not share his opinion of this country, nor his vision of it.

ndp nadine said...

I read that speech by Harper and forgive me for being underwhelmed. It's typical Reform party mantra and it doesn't surprise me that he said it whether he was being serious or tongue-in-cheek. The Libs will try and use it even though Paul Martin's Liberals are nothing more than Reform-lite.

As for the US, it's clear that Bush is bad news but we have to deal with him for at least another 3 years. The Libs have bungled US relations and they're now trying to use it for their benefit knowing most Canadians don't like Bush. Martin has soft-pedalled on every issue because he and most of his cabinet are in bed with US corporate interests. Why isn't it more well-known that Martin waffled on Iraq and in fact even said he supported sending Canadian troops?!?

As for leadership, both Harper and Martin are finished as of Jan. 23. I don't think the Tories will miss Harper all that much considering he failed to win even a minority gov. despite the Liberals' horrible scandal-plagued performance in office. And Martin, maybe after he's lynched, he'll move to Barbados and work out of the CSL office there.

Anonymous said...

that sounds to me like just an excuse to run around naked.