Canadian Minister: Yes, We're on Fence Over Iraq War (Daft weaselings from a weasely weasel)

Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham admits Canada is sitting on the fence in the international debate over Iraq, but argues that is the best place to be to negotiate a compromise solution that disarms Saddam Hussein without a war.

A day after Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the United Nations, said Canada must take a position on whether it would support a war against Iraq to force compliance with Security Council resolutions that it rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Graham admitted Canada has not taken sides.

However, far from signifying weakness and indecision, Mr. Graham said yesterday that this positions Canada to break the diplomatic impasse between the two sides — one led by the United States and Britain, which are advocating quick military action, and the other led by France, Germany and Russia, which want to give Iraq more time to comply.

"Canada is on the fence of the United Nations process, which some people don't like because it doesn't give the sense of whether we're going to go one way or another way," Mr. Graham said. "(This is) where we can be useful in working with others to bring the process to a positive conclusion. That's where we've been. That's what we seek to do."

"That's why it may be frustrating to some that we haven't already staked out our terrain," Mr. Graham said, "but if you stake out your terrain at the beginning, you don't have the room to bring others with you in making the compromise which will enable it to work. So that's why we stay where we are."

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien noted that in November it was the French who were pushing for a two-resolution process before authorizing war while the U.S. wanted only one, while now it is France leading the resistance to a second Anglo-American resolution.

During a speech last night in Halifax, Mr. Chrétien repeated statements from his recent speech in Chicago, urging the United States to seek the approval of the United Nations before invading Iraq.

"We face threats of global terrorism, crime, corruption and environmental damage on a vast scale, and other challenges which cannot, cannot be successfully met by one nation, however powerful, acting alone."

Mr. Graham's admission came at the end of an unusual day in which the government was at pains to shoot down media reports that Mr. Chrétien was working behind the scenes to broker a UN deal that would give Iraq more time, but also make clear that, should it not take advantage of this final chance, military consequences would follow.

Mr. Graham would say only that Mr. Chrétien had made "suggestions" in his conversations with a half-dozen world leaders last weekend.

"We don't want to exaggerate what the prime minister has been trying to do in the last few days," he said. "We're not trying to take over the Security Council role."

Mr. Chrétien downplayed his involvement, saying he was playing no special role. "I'm the leader of a country and a member of the G-8 and the Canadian people and Canadian government are always seen as a moderate nation and we are very committed to the UN process," he said.

Minister Bill Graham is an insult to these men's memory.

Fallen Warriors

Canadian Army

• Sgt. Marc D. Leger Age 29, of Lancaster, Ontario.

Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer Age 24, of Montreal, Quebec

• Pte. Richard Green Age 21, of Mill Cove, Nova Scotia.

• Pte. Nathan Smith Age 27 of Porter's Lake, Nova Scotia. .

Bill Graham: Canada’s Latest Shame
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 14, 2002

SOMETIMES I am so embarrassed to live in Canada. I really think I might have to move to the U.S. soon.

We just had a new Minister of Foreign Affairs appointed by the Liberal government. His name is Bill Graham.

Guess who Bill Graham is?

He is a Member of Parliament and a former Law Professor at the University of Toronto who is notorious for having been involved in the gay sex trade. And he engaged in this activity as a married man with two children.

Lawrence Metherel, a former teen male prostitute, has long ago disclosed that he had a sexual relationship with Graham dating back to 1980, when Metherel was 15 years old. In a recent interview with a Canadian magazine, Metherel said that, for 15 years, Graham provided him with regular support payments of up to $1,500 a month.

Like how do you even take a guy like Graham seriously?

How does an individual like this even get appointed to his position?

Does the Prime Minister sit in Cabinet and say: “Ok, we need Bill Graham to be the new Foreign Affairs Minister.”

And then someone says, “You mean Bill Graham who was involved in the gay sex trade?”

And then the Prime Minister says, “Yeah.”

And then everyone nods and agrees?

I don’t get it.

Oh yeah, I forgot: Canada is really tolerant.

What I still respect about America is that, despite the reality of Bill Clinton, Bill Graham would never be appointed Secretary of State. Graham knows that – and that’s why he hates America. That explains why, immediately upon taking office, he announced that Americans were bad and Canadians were good. He boasted that, "We have been able to become a multicultural society where we are able to be more tolerant with one another than the Americans ever have had to do, inside their own country, and when it comes to outside they feel that they can have their will."

Wow, I bet that old Bill never minds when someone tries to interfere in his personal “will” in his private life, right?

Canada now has a Foreign Affairs Minister whose credentials basically involve an undying obsession with promoting same-sex marriage legislation. In his latest round of activism, Graham supported a same-sex marriage bill that emphasized that Valentine's Day was “a perfect time to remind Parliament that the relationships of gay and lesbian people are just as strong, just as loving, just as worthy of full recognition and respect and celebration as those of heterosexuals.”

Let me get this straight: Valentine’s Day is a “perfect time” to trivialize the sacredness of the nuclear family unit? It’s a perfect time to minimize the importance of children having, as an optimum ideal, both a father and a mother in their lives?

I just don’t get it.

So who is actually going to take Graham seriously? Picture being the President of the United States and meeting with this guy to discuss some international crisis. When Graham starts talking about Palestine or something, could you even pay attention to what he was saying? How seriously can you take an old man who is married and has two children but has simultaneously had, and still might have, a 15-year-old boyfriend?

If you were sitting in a room with Graham and he was going on about nuclear weapons proliferation, wouldn’t you be nervously eyeing the various emergency exits – just in case you had to make a run for it if, well, you know, Bill made a move on you or something like that? Wouldn’t it also be ridiculous that you had to wear running shoes with your suit? And you’d have to wear running shoes because, well, you know, just to make sure that you got away as fast as you could in case Billy ran after you.

And what kind of small talk would you make with this guy between foreign policy talks? If he asked you about your wife and kids, would you ask him about his wife and kids – or about some guy named Jerome? What if he actually started talking about Jerome? Would you want to hear it?

I can see it now, Bill saying to Colin Powell, “Oh, I kicked Jerome out. I didn’t feel he was contributing enough, and besides, he was very verbally abusive.”

What would Powell say after Graham said this? Would he nod like he understood?

I just don’t know.

But Canada has a new Foreign Affairs Minister.

Wonderful.

Wow, and I thought the Old European beaurocrates were dithering and too cowardly to say what they mean.

You Canadians better get organized to get rid of this Cretien or you risk making your nation permanently irrelevant when this socialists pops off one time too many publiclly and certain unpleasant facts are released just like they were the other day about Chirac and Hussein.

And another thing, there was a bold face lie by Cretein in this that needs to be spoken of;
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien noted that in November it was the French who were pushing for a two-resolution process before authorizing war while the U.S. wanted only one, while now it is France leading the resistance to a second Anglo-American resolution.

Now anyone with long term memory spanning more than a few months remembers this wasn't true. The US wanted 1 resolution meaning it would give us the power to go to war. We had to argue with the French, because we took them seriously, to get 1441 out with the ambigious language "material breach" was a cause to war. Because we capitulated to the French drive for vagueness, also called dithering room, it has been decided we should go back again for another.

Cretien knows this full well, he is purposely misleading anyone who is listening, that he is fulfilling the role of objective observer. He is actually dithering too much to side with dither-ers (?) Quite a statement for the people of Canada.

I read today that Canada's economy is one of the few that was performing well in the world

Performing rather well and our dollar has been rising against the US dollar, which has been falling for several months now. The province of Ontario's is one of the strongest in the world.

The crouton is in his final year. A leadership convention next November and his announced retirement in February 2004 will see him gone. Canadians are all aware of his desire to build a legacy and some have even suggested he'd be good as the chairman of the UN. What better way for the sob to gain recognition and status than brokering an agreement , and at the same time constantly maintaining faith in the UN ? He's sitting on the fence for his own gain. Graham doesn't deserve mention. imho

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.