Posted on 04/04/2003 8:02:45 AM PST by saluki_in_ohio
Liberals pay homage to special 'bond' with U.S. Motion follows weeks of sniping
Sheldon Alberts, Deputy Ottawa Bureau Chief, with files from Anne Dawson National Post
Friday, April 04, 2003
CREDIT: Peter Redman, National Post
OTTAWA - The Liberal government intends to seek House of Commons approval next week for a motion declaring Canada's support for a U.S. victory in toppling Saddam Hussein and affirming the "unbreakable bond" between the two nations.
Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, is expected to speak in favour of the motion and possibly deliver a speech in Parliament. And yesterday, Paul Martin, the front-runner to succeed Mr. Chrétien, publicly endorsed the U.S. goal of regime change.
The Liberals' decision to seek formal parliamentary support for a U.S. victory -- after weeks of sending mixed signals -- is also aimed at repairing relations with the Bush administration after a series of anti-American remarks by government MPs and Cabinet ministers.
"I do not want to hear another story about people booing each other's national anthems at sporting events. I do not want to hear about Canadians and Americans cancelling business transactions. I do not want to hear voices of disrespect at any level," John Manley, the Deputy Prime Minister, said yesterday in the Commons.
"Let there be no mistake, however, as to the sympathies of Canadians and their government at this time.
"Our friends are at war. Our friends are putting their lives on the line for their beliefs," Mr. Manley said.
"I want it understood with absolute clarity that Canada stands with its friends, even if we cannot engage with them in this conflict."
He announced that the government will table a motion in the Commons, possibly as early as today, that affirms Canada-U.S. ties and backs a quick victory in Iraq by American and British forces.
It will reaffirm Canada's decision to stay out of the war. But the motion asks MPs to endorse "the unbreakable bonds of values, family, friendship and mutual respect that will always characterize Canada's relationship with the United States and the United Kingdom" and signal "our hope that the U.S. led coalition accomplishes its mission as quickly as possible with the fewest casualties."
Ottawa has repeatedly said it opposes the U.S. doctrine of regime change but now appears to accept that will be the outcome of the war.
"There should be no mistaking the sympathy that we have for the ultimate success of the coalition forces. Saddam Hussein should take no comfort for his own brutal regime in the principles that we have espoused at the United Nations," Mr. Manley said.
Mr. Martin, appearing on CBC Newsworld, echoed Mr. Manley's sentiments about the war but went a step further.
"You reach out to your friends when they are in need," the former finance minister said. "The fact is we are not neutral in this war. What we want is to see it brought to an end. We want to see a new government put in place, and we want to see economic reconstruction of Iraq begin as quickly as possible."
Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Manley have already made public statements in favour of U.S. victory in Iraq, but the government believes a formal endorsement by the Commons adds the stamp of legitimacy to those remarks.
The White House, through Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, has expressed disappointment with Canada's decision to stay out of the war. But senior U.S. officials have been more angered by anti-U.S. remarks made by Liberal MPs and a personal insult to George W. Bush by Herb Dhaliwal, the Natural Resources Minister.
The White House is still seeking a clear statement from Mr. Chrétien offering support for Mr. Bush and the war effort, sources told the National Post.
Geoff Regan, the deputy government House leader, said Mr. Chrétien will address the issue next week.
"You'll actually be hearing from the Prime Minister on this on Monday -- speaking on the issue of Canada U.S. relations," Mr. Regan said. "I'm convinced the Prime Minister will be expressing on Monday ... the importance of the relationship we have with the U.S. I think he'll be reiterating that very strongly in the next few days."
The U.S. President is scheduled to make a state visit to Ottawa on May 5, but the war in Iraq and Canada-U.S. tensions have put that visit in jeopardy.
Mr. Cellucci admitted yesterday the trip may be postponed, and U.S. sources say White House planning for Mr. Bush's visit has ground to a halt.
"He's a wartime President right now, whether that means having the trip at a later date remains to be seen," the ambassador said in Montreal. "If the war is still pretty strong, and we don't know how long it's going to take, I think we're talking about a different day [for the trip]."
The Liberals' pro-U.S. motion comes on the heels of a Canadian Alliance attempt to win Commons approval for its own declaration of support for America. The Alliance motion called on Parliament to "express its regret and apologize for offensive and inappropriate statements made against the United States of America by certain members of this House."
It expresses "hope that the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is successful in removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
Stephen Harper, the Alliance leader, said anti-American remarks diminish Canadians and said the United States' friendship with Canada improves the country's image in the war.
"We know that Americans can sometimes be, if I can be honest, loud, boastful, aggressive, maybe overbearing and certainly overwhelming. But we also know that they have hearts as big as this planet," Mr. Harper said.
"But if the Americans can occasionally be overbearing and overwhelming, we in this country, if we want to be frank, can sometimes be a little underwhelming."
Mr. Manley said he "shares the regret and the distaste" over anti-U.S. remarks made by Liberals prior to the war, and since it began.
"It is regrettable that at a time of conflict, disrespect may have been shown for the people, the President and the government of the United States," Mr. Manley said.
"At this point, given that most if not all of the people who have made those remarks have sought to apologize, the best thing we can do is stop repeating them. That would be a good start."
The New Democrats plan to oppose the Liberal motion, which also states support for Canadian military personnel deployed in the Persian Gulf and Ottawa's commitment to the reconstruction of Iraq.
Jack Layton, the NDP leader, said the government motion brings Canada "more in tune with the George Bush strategy of preemptive strikes and illegal wars and cluster bombs and what we see unfolding in the Iraqi theatre right now."
Well, I'm afraid, Jean-boy, the only thing that is going to satisfy us American bastards is REGIME CHANGE IN CANADA!
Don't expect things to be warm and cozy between our governments until conservative Canadians rule once more!
Bush: "My son, I will forgive but I will not forget. Someday, I will ask a favor of you, and you give me what I ask."
Seems like there's going to be a lot of ring-kissing going on when this is all over.
That was a few weeks ago don't you think? The war is almost over. Our friends have already been counted. You missed the vote.
Really.
We sided with the enemy
You know I really hate people who mislead like this.
A lot of Canadians were killed at the WTC and we came out officially in support of the Americans - is that siding with the enemy?
We held big rallies in New York if memory serves and raised millions of our own friggen dollars to help out the victims - is that siding with the enemy?
After that, we sent our troops, thousands of them to Halfganistan and have worked closely with the Americans on our porous borders - Is that siding with the enemy?.
After that we supported resolution 1441 - is that siding with the enemy?
We have held big rallies during this war - is that siding with the enemy?
We are in the process of sending 2,000 Canadian soldiers to hafganistan this year siding with the enemy? Our troops have been working on those AWACS planes directing the bombing runs in this war, our ships with more than a thousand naval troops are protecting the American ships out at sea and bringing supplies to the British troops - is that supporting the enemy? I could go on and on.
Quite frankly if you are following events in this country you would know that the government is supporting the war effort but couching it to keep its political base - the left votes. Of course that pi$$es me off seeing I think at a time of war we should be supporting our troops that are in combat on the ground and at sea
Go read some of the stories at the National Post (www.nationalpost.com) or the Toronto Star (www.thestar.com) if you need some proof. Typing "AWACS" in the search engines will get you to some of the stories.
There have been countless threads on this board discussing these issue but yet, people like you continue to mislead.
I don't know why you continue to do this but I don't you think it needs to stop.
hawk
Says lots.
hawk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.