[quidnunc]

Quote:

"If France had said 'give him three months' and the U.S. tomorrow said 'give him five days,' we wouldn't say that. What we would say is 'let's create a system, let's work with the inspectors' — I think Dr. Blix has created a good system — to find out what are the timelines necessary to get a good response and work within that system."

Straight from the Axis-of-Weasel playbook, no doubt about it.

[geedee]

I still say Chretien and Chirac were hatched from the same egg.

[SAMWolf]

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. .

[NativeNewYorker]

Financially, economically and militarily, Canada is a flea.

The notion that they have ANY leverage in ANY process regarding what the US deems to be a vital interest is laughable on its face.

[SAMWolf]

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.

[NativeNewYorker]

Quick math: Canada's BROAD money supply is equal to Citicorp's loan book + cash on hand.

[WOSG]

Disarming Iraq without Liberating it from Saddam is like
taking drinks away form an alcholic but leaving him in a bar.

no no no: Better analogy: It's like taking *some* weapons from a mass murderer but leaving him in charge of his remaining victims.

wait, that's not an analogy at all.

[jriemer]

What's Canada?

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

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.