Fatal attraction?

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, is a piece by Lawrence Martin – staying well within his land, this time - from today’s (14 Sep 06) Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060914.wmartin14/BNStory/National/home

An attraction that could prove politically fatal
Canadians are not enamoured of the Tories cozying up to the Bush administration

LAWRENCE MARTIN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

The trap door opens. The Prime Minister stumbles in. Like a blind man.

It's extraordinary to witness this. Stephen Harper is a brainy guy. He has a reputation as an acute political strategist.

So how can he let himself get caught inside the tent of a President who is widely considered one of the worst in history, and who is viewed in Canada like the plague.

To begin the summer, Mr. Harper was flying high. To end it, he is on a slide. The leading cause of the descent? Too tight with the Bush administration, say an SES Research poll and other soundings.

In his early months in office, Mr. Harper kept his distance from Washington and smartly avoided the trap. But lately, he has allowed himself to be cast as a Bush-styled hawk. The image is set. It's not an easy one to undo.

It can be difficult for a Canadian PM — as Brian Mulroney would surely testify — even if the president he gets too close to is highly popular, like Ronald Reagan. G.W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Free trade then. The undoing of free trade — by way of a controversial, if defensible, softwood lumber deal — now.

Our Prime Minister missed an opportunity to carve out his own turf this week. His address to the nation made it sound like he is wholly at one with the Bush administration's divisive post-9/11 strategy.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Peter MacKay continued his comely courting of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. All smiles. Like a disciple when Canadians don't want a disciple.

In the spring, at his first meeting with Ms. Rice at the White House, Mr. MacKay drew much criticism for a fawning and submissive performance. He clearly didn't take the heat to heart. This time, during a meeting in Nova Scotia, he is featured at closer quarters in photos that even made The New York Times — and that touched off racy (baseless) rumours to the effect that Condi is the new Belinda.

Sometimes you get the impression that Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay have forgotten the Bush record: The invasion on the basis of a lie and the ongoing deadly occupation of Iraq. The massive indebtedness of the American treasury. The widespread human-rights abuses including torture, illegal military tribunals, secret prisons. The post-Katrina debacle. The extensive spying on his own people without warrant or legal basis. The thumbing of his nose at the international treaty system and multilateralism. The worldwide decline in respect for the United States that Mr. Bush's polarizing policies have generated.

Do Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay really think Canadians are enamoured of this? Are they ever going to breathe a hint of dissatisfaction? For reasons of pride and self-respect, if not politics.

Iraq? Where do our leaders stand? We're in Afghanistan losing lives, largely because of Iraq. If Mr. Bush had not got disastrously sidetracked, moving his arsenal to Baghdad while leaving Afghanistan exposed, would there be any need for Canadians to be there in a warrior role?

On the weekend, NDP Leader Jack Layton, who in some ways has been prophetic on the Bush war party, came forward to harshly denounce its direction. He was pilloried by conservative critics, many of whom have had to eat their words on WMD and Mr. Bush. They were, one imagines, emboldened by their track record.

Mr. Layton's call for a withdrawal from Afghanistan is ill-advised in my view, given that our Parliament voted in a two-year extension. But maybe his idea of exploring other possible solutions — as opposed to the Bush-Harper approach of killing one another ad infinitum — has some merit. Several reports have suggested the Taliban, elements of which the West once supported against the Soviets, have almost as much support among Afghans — strange as it sounds — as the present government.

It is still possible for the Harper government to steer a course clear of Washington's on foreign policy, but don't bet on it. This is a stubborn, tough-minded Prime Minister who, weak on foreign policy background, is quite susceptible to seeing the world in black-and-white Dick-Cheney terms.

In coming to power, one of Mr. Harper's goals was to enhance the quality of the Canada-U.S. relationship. Given Canada's economic dependence on the United States, the idea — though our trade volumes tend to rise no matter who is in power — was understandable. He has catered well to the goal and has impressed the business community in so doing. But it is the people the Prime Minister has to win over and he won't do that by being in league with a U.S. government as dark and divisive as this one.

Mr. Harper can and should be a big supporter of core American values. But he must realize how the Bush administration has sullied those values. He must realize that, in this sense, it is Mr. Bush who is the anti-American, not those in Canada who challenge him. He must realize that to troll around in the shadows of this President's wreckage is tantamount to a political death wish.

lawrencemartin9@yahoo.ca

I remain convince that Lawrence Martin is anti-Conservative and that he allows his bias to show but, in this column, he has a couple of sound points:

• George W. Bush IS the most unpopular US President in living memory – far more deeply and thoroughly detested that either Reagan or Johnson (sorry, Mr. Martin, Ronald Reagan was not popular in Canada.  He was quite unpopular, especially with the left-Liberal glitterati.)  No Canadian PM since St Laurent has ever made good, close relations with a US President (both Truman and Eisenhower in Uncle Louis’ case) into a political advantage.  Some, Chrétien for example, have gained from their public disdain for the US President.  There is a long, strong streak of knee-jerk anti-Americanism in the Canadian character and politicians do, as Martin says, need to pander to the electorate; and

• As Martin says, it is possible to be a strong supporter of America and American values while being distant, at best, from President Bush.  Harper should consider that.

Rumour mongering a romance between Rice and Peter McKay is yellow journalism – but par for the course for the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

 

[George Wallace]

I remain convince that Lawrence Martin is anti-Conservative and that he allows his bias to show but, .....

I am convinced the man is wrong, and the only reason he is still employed is for the controversy he raises in the readership of that rag.

 

[Reccesoldier]

"We're in Afghanistan losing lives, largely because of Iraq."

Bu!!shit.  We are in Afghanistan because of 4 UN resolutions, the Taliban's harbouring of the 9/11 terrorists and OBL, because under NATO agreements an attack on one member of the organization is an attack on all, and we are in Afghanistan because it is the right thing to do!

This guy is wrong.

 

[Infanteer]

Tout le monde, let's refrain from name calling - keep your criticisms aimed on the content and not the origin....

 

[-Marauder-]

Ms. Blatchford also writes opinion pieces for the GM.  Oddly we don't hear too many people crying for her blood.  Must be because we agree with (most) of what she writes.  She too has been accused of bias, but her counter is she is employed as a columnist who is paid to write her opinion.  I suspect his would be the same. 

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Kirkhill]

Ms. Blatchford also writes opinion pieces for the GM.  Oddly we don't hear too many people crying for her blood.  Must be because we agree with (most) of what she writes.  She too has been accused of bias, but her counter is she is employed as a columnist who is paid to write her opinion.  I suspect his would be the same. 

Cheers,

Mike

As a result I tend to read Christie Blatchford and resent giving Lawrence Martin the satisfaction of having his on-line count increased by my click on any subject he cares to address.

 

[Infanteer]

Ms. Blatchford also writes opinion pieces for the GM.  Oddly we don't hear too many people crying for her blood.

Christine Blatchford has got her boots dirty with our guys in the Sandbox.

Lawrence who?

 

[-Marauder-]

Don't get me wrong.  I have the utmost respect for her and I greatly enjoy her articles.  All I am saying is that rather than accuse this gentleman as being biased (as we so obviously are as well), perhaps well articualted and thought out counters would serve us better.

 

[IrishCanuck]

WE need to ask ourselves..

WWRMD?

(What would Rex Murphy do? )

 

[Infanteer]

perhaps well articualted and thought out counters would serve us better.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44855.0.html

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Well as far as I'm concerned this is his opinion and as we all know opinions are like rectums....everybody's got one!
I disagree with just about everything he says but of course the rag that he works for doesn't publish much that I agree with anyway. Christie Blatchford is cool though.
This whole "Peter loves Condi" thing is such a pile of media fabricated BS it just isn't even funny. If two male politicians connected on a professional level and strove to improve relationships with each others countries this wouldn't even be an issue but because she's a woman and he's a bachelor they have to start inventing crap worthy of the National Enquirer....enough to make me lose the very good lunch I had at the GCWCC kick off campaign!  :rage:

 

[-Marauder-]

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44855.0.html

 
Ahhhh.... Like a breath of fresh air.  Sadly it is not so well framed and I suspect that the true value of its words (to its intended audience) are muted by this fact.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>All I am saying is that rather than accuse this gentleman as being biased (as we so obviously are as well), perhaps well articualted and thought out counters would serve us better.

It's an editorial piece, and the biases are clear.  Since the biases negate any possibility of the report being "objective" or "neutral", it's basically an echo chamber article for the pleasure of whoever shares the biases.

 

[paracowboy]

 
Ahhhh.... Like a breath of fresh air.  Sadly it is not so well framed and I suspect that the true value of its words (to its intended audience) are muted by this fact.

my goodness, aren't we the pompous one? Feel free to "frame" it better, then. We wait with baited breath and heaving bosoms.  :

 

[-Marauder-]

my goodness, aren't we the pompous one? Feel free to "frame" it better, then. We wait with baited breath and heaving bosoms.  :

Yikes! 

After re-reading my post, I can see how it comes off as pompous.  My apologies to all and thanks to paracowboy for pointing it out.

To clarify:

I do find the Ruxted editorials to be a breath of fresh air.  I thouroughly enjoy reading them and it is due to them that I over come my initial reluctance and decided to become an active member, rather than just checking in and reading the forums.

As for the second bit, on how they are framed.  This is what I mean...

I suspect that although these editorials are written and posted here on Army.ca, we, the regular membership are not the primary target audience.  After all there are a number of individuals here who have written (and continue to do so) many well articulated posts in regular topic threads that receive further discussion, props, comments etc and we carry on, usually a little more informed.  So I suspect that these editorials are aimed at a different audience, one that may have the ability to effect change or sway opinion.  If this is the case (and it may not be, but it would be a waste of such carefully crafted writing) then I would recommend that the Ruxted Group leave this site for its own... (this is not to say that it should not have its editorials posted/linked here and commented on).

Why?   Because if the target audience is not us then it needs to become separate from a site that is so obviously pro military in the general sense and rightly so.  However, one does not have to dig to deeply to find pejorative comments to dissenting or differing views on a whole range of subjects (from politics, to the media, to the military, etc.), which of course is fine and normal but they can take away from the editorials and lead critics to find easy ways to dismiss them and thus miss a chance at learning something.   

Who cares?  I believe we all should, because the people who want to effect change or have influence may not heed, refer to, or take seriously such editorials, no matter how well crafted they are, simply because they exist here.  Where as if they were on their own site, they might enjoy a wider acceptance.  Even if this new site were to be sponsored by Army.ca, it receives a certain amount of separation that I believe would allow it to become a truly permanent perspective that is reviewed (and ideally referred to) by the press, by other 'think-tanks', political/military analysts and perhaps senior staff.  Detractors from their editorials will always condemn the pieces as pro-whatever, but those on the fence and those of an academic bent (who ususally are quite picky concerning internet sources) might not be so ready to dismiss them.

So that is what I meant, and again I apologise for the incomplete nature of my original post and its tone.  For this most recent post, I'll borrow paracowboy's signature... well in spirit.  ^-^

Cheers,

Mike

 

[paracowboy]

now, that makes more sense, and fits your usual posting style a bit better. Now, as for the Ruxted fogies starting their own site, I think that BECAUSE they're on this site, which is known to be populated BY soldiers, FOR soldiers, and is ABOUT soldiers it gives the editorials a bit more 'street-cred'. Mike wouldn't allow non-military types to participate in something like that, with the capability to backfire on troops, so, therefore, it HAS to be legitimately staffed by soldiers.

We know that a number of blogs run with the editorials, and we also know that the mainstream carrion-feeders read this site daily, having quoted Ruxted, me, and other geniuses (geniusi? geniusususus?), and even had the site up in the background while on-air.

You've a good point, though.

 

[-Marauder-]

Roger.  Street cred is definitely something not easily gained.  It is what dragged a rockape like me into participating.  Though I still stand by the recommendation, I would then highlight the 'sponsored by Army.ca' bit.

Thanks again for the poke,

Mike

 

[George Wallace]

Well, with the amount of members from the media openly and covertly visiting the site, I would say that the Ruxted Group is doing fine in building up its' 'Street Creds'.  They (Street Creds) don't appear with the waving of a magic wand and poof you are now the 'Expert'; although one would tend to wonder at what some of the Media has called in as 'Experts' lately.  The Ruxted Editorials are posted in a separate forum, (rather than a separate site) keeping them close to home and accessable to all who visit, yet at the same time free from 'contamination' or 'hijacking' by trolls or other persons with agendas.  To create a separate site for these editorials may lead them down the path to obscurity and a drop in their quality.  It also lets Army.ca sort of earn a 'Think-Tankish' rep. 

 

[-Marauder-]

Well said. 

In my opinion Army.ca has the reputation of a place where members of the military and civilian community can speak candidly.  Most importantly, in my view, is the fact that real soldiers can talk frankly and publicly about subjects that under ordinary circumstances they wouldn't.  This is rep of of Army.ca.  I sense in the Ruxted Group (RG - pardon my laziness) a desire for something more than this.  Perhaps to take this reputation and use it to comment on subjects that impact our lives and seek to project this voice in coherent, succinct and carefully crafted editorials to specific audiences.

I'm not proposing that Army.ca change its layout, and remove the RG from its central position, nor change the manner in which comments are made here, not at all.  I'm simply proposing it gets it own site, outlining what it is, it's vision/aim/mission/effects desired/ and all that good stuff...  I'm no webpage designer, nor forum creator but I suspect that if it were to get it's own site, it would be sharp, professional and still retain it's foundational and close ties to it's home site and any affiliates that would like to host it's editorials or link it.  Again, nothing need change here on Army.ca and I doubt that the RG would abandon it's principles (and selection process of members) just because they got a fancy-schmancy and shiny new site.

Anyway, my apologies for hijacking this topic and I submit the above ideas for consideration only.

Cheers,


Mike

 

[Brad Sallows]

I sense in the Ruxted Group a desire to take others to task for their own lack of intellectual rigour.  No-one is perfect, but there sure are some interesting myths masquerading as received wisdom out there, and a whole hockey-sock of unwarranted conclusions borne on pillars of unlikely assumptions and short-circuited lines of reason.