Normally, I find Zolf pretty well reasoned and I don't disagree with him too much. However, in this case, I think he's missed the mark a little bit.
Zolf's basic reasoning is that if Harper were to "use" a relationship with the Clintons effectively on the public stage, he'd be able to distance himself somewhat from the accusation that he is being a "puppet" to King Bush II. There's a lot of huge ifs in what Zolf is postulating.
Linking Harper to Bush has been a staple of the NDP and the left of the Liberal party since the Harper mission in Afghanistan started. Harper's defence of his war in Afghanistan is that he's not a prisoner of Bush but is simply carrying on a mission started by the Liberals. And he's right.
Here's one of the first places where Zolf hits a sour note with me. I get phenomenally annoyed with the "it's not my fault" stance of Harper. Not only was it Mr. Harper who railroaded an extension of this mission through the house, but he said that even if his motion was defeated, he was going to extend it by at least a year. More recently, he has started to commit more troops, and heavy armor to the mission. This is not the mission that Martin signed Canada up for, and I'm not so impressed with the "I am the decider(tm)" approach that Harper has been using.
In the United States the Clintons are a powerful team. Bill Clinton is probably the most popular president in Canadian eyes since Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. Clinton was the hit of the recent Toronto AIDS conference.
Yes, but like his idol in Washington, Harper is an ideologue. He refuses to work meaningfully with anybody who isn't of his particular political stripe. (Does anybody else remember the fact that Bush blatantly snubbed Canada as long as we had a Liberal PM?) The CPoC, and it's Reform/Alliance incarnations during the Clinton years, have always been phenomenally hostile to Clinton. Harper's non-appearance at the recent AIDS conference in Toronto was as much a snub of Clinton as the conference itself.
The Clintons' arguments on Afghanistan reinforce Harper's view that the Afghan mission is the right and correct one. The Clintons are really saying there's a difference between the war in Iraq, which is a total quagmire, and the war in Afghanistan, which is not only necessary but can end in success.
It's nice to see that Bill and Hillary are admitting that Iraq is a complete FUBAR, while Aghanistan is simply FU. Whether or not any mission in Afghanistan is likely to succeed is an open question. I have my doubts, and history tends to reinforce those doubts. No foreign power has ever successfully "reshaped" Afghanistan's politics - either in the 20th century or before. It seems to me a little over optimistic to assume that we "can" win in Afghanistan.
The Clintons' arguments on Afghanistan are identical to Harper's. Harper can use the Clintons' support for a more robust American presence in Afghanistan to provide him with further claim to being his own man and not a Bush puppet.
I'm afraid that Zolf has fallen flat here. There's a lot more of Harper's behaviour and actions since being sworn in this year that make it pretty clear that he is in fact toadying to the Bush regime. Let's start with the softwood lumber "deal" that he signed us up to for a start - remember, the one with a $450 million dollar slush fund for the White House.
The Clintons are liberals. Harper is a radical conservative.
The Clintons are "liberal" by US political standards. Clinton himself still falls well right of the traditional ideological space of the Canadian Liberal party. I suppose that Clinton would probably be very similar to a Mulroney era Progressive Conservative on the right side of the political center, but not as far right as Harper goes.
That Clinton nod would help to nix the silly argument that Harper is really only a tool of George W. Bush.
I don't agree. Harper has been far too cozy with BushCo since day one - and don't get me started on that revolting behaviour that Mackay has shown towards Rice. Nothing about Harper's stance on anything has differentiated him from Bush significantly, in fact much of his policy and tactics seem to be lifted straight out of the Rethuglican playbook - with a little bit of Ralph Klein arrogance and secrecy rolled in for good measure.
If the only topic on which Harper was looking like a toady to Bush was Afghanistan, Zolf's theory might work - it isn't, and as a consequence, Zolf's idea is doomed to fail.
8 comments:
There is so many things wrong with your assumptions it is almost impossible to know where to start.
"I get phenomenally annoyed with the "it's not my fault" stance of Harper."
The left likes to forget that it was indeed the Liberals that committed us to this mission and they also seem to forget that it was the Liberals that propped up Harper in extending the mission. In other words you always need to be reminded or you will forget again.
"This is not the mission that Martin signed Canada up for, and I'm not so impressed with the "I am the decider(tm)" approach that Harper has been using."
Here is a perfect example of what I stated above. You forget that Harper at least brought it to the house and to a vote. Can you think of anyone that did not do this? I can in very recent times and they did it without debate. The left always seems to forget this as well.
"(Does anybody else remember the fact that Bush blatantly snubbed Canada as long as we had a Liberal PM?)"
This wouldn't have anything to do with Liberal minister comments would it? It seems to me that Bush gets along quite well with the British left pasrty. Why do you think that might be?
"Harper's non-appearance at the recent AIDS conference in Toronto was as much a snub of Clinton as the conference itself."
Again, you forget that other Prime Ministers did not attend the conference. Can you name them? Why do you forget to mention that not one Canadian Prime Minister has ever attended this conference? Why should a Prime Minister attend a fund raiser for a disease that is not in the top ten killers in his country? Why should a PM attend this when they have not attended the cancer/heart and stroke/MADD conferences? All of these are bigger problems in Canada than AIDS.
"It's nice to see that Bill and Hillary are admitting that Iraq is a complete FUBAR, while Aghanistan is simply FU. Whether or not any mission in Afghanistan is likely to succeed is an open question. I have my doubts, and history tends to reinforce those doubts. No foreign power has ever successfully "reshaped" Afghanistan's politics - either in the 20th century or before. It seems to me a little over optimistic to assume that we "can" win in Afghanistan."
The lack of historical knowledge here is almost laughable. Did you think that Afghanistan was always an Islamic country? It wasn't! Numerous armies have succeeded in taking over Afghanistan. You should have stated "No army, in revent times, has been able to control Afghanistan."
Isn't Clinton the one that had problems with Osama first? Why did he do nothing? Why did he only drop bombs on Afghanistan when his BJ became front page news?
"I'm afraid that Zolf has fallen flat here. There's a lot more of Harper's behaviour and actions since being sworn in this year that make it pretty clear that he is in fact toadying to the Bush regime. Let's start with the softwood lumber "deal" that he signed us up to for a start - remember, the one with a $450 million dollar slush fund for the White House."
Why does the left have such trouble understanding economics? Is it because they were to busy protesting?
With the softwood lumber deal going on for over 12 years the softwood companies have lost many billions more. If the Liberals were a little more diplomatic and could hold their tongues (remember the comments about Americans?) long enough these companies would have had the ability to invest these lost billions and made many more billions. Harper got the deal done! Harper knows that a lose of 1 billion now is not as hard a hit as losing 6 billion (with investment this will be a lot more) for another 10 years.
"The Clintons are liberals. Harper is a radical conservative."
I think he was trying to make a funny.
"If the only topic on which Harper was looking like a toady to Bush was Afghanistan, Zolf's theory might work - it isn't, and as a consequence, Zolf's idea is doomed to fail."
Where do you get this "toady" stuff? It seems like a far stretch, but I am sure you will reach for it. Agreeing with someone at times does not make anyone a "toady". Disagreeing with everything one person stands for does make you a lacky for the left.
The left likes to forget that it was indeed the Liberals that committed us to this mission and they also seem to forget that it was the Liberals that propped up Harper in extending the mission. In other words you always need to be reminded or you will forget again.
I think I stated my objections related to Afghanistan already - you just chose to not read them. I am fully aware of the Martin government's commitments, and I have objections to it as well. However, where Harper is concerned, it is how he went about arbitrarily extending the mission, and railroading it through Parliament with virtually no debate on a complex topic.
The lack of historical knowledge here is almost laughable. Did you think that Afghanistan was always an Islamic country? It wasn't! Numerous armies have succeeded in taking over Afghanistan.
I wasn't talking about armies "taking over" Afghanistan. I was talking about the long term success of those occupations in changing the political landscape of that region. History backs my assertion that the odds of success are limited at best: It also has been invaded by a host of peoples, including the Greeks, Mauryans, Kushans, Hepthalites, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, British, Soviets, and most recently has been "liberated" by the
United States. Rarely, though, have these groups managed to exert complete control over the region.
Harper got the deal done! Harper knows that a lose of 1 billion now is not as hard a hit as losing 6 billion (with investment this will be a lot more) for another 10 years.
No. Harper struck a deal that puts the Canadian taxpayer on the hook for all of the $1 billion ($450 million of which is essentially a political donation to the White House).
If you wish to bitch about economics, please explain why taxpayers are on the hook for $1 billion, payable to Washington? How is that a "good use" of taxpayer's money - especially when every court case in question was being won by Canada - even in US courts? I'm less than impressed by what I see as a giveaway, and I'm even less impressed to see taxpayers being held up on the hook for anyone in industry who doesn't agree to go along with Harper's grand scam.
Where do you get this "toady" stuff?
How about Harper's own behaviour and record, for a start. I've documented what I don't like about it time and again, and see no need to justify my opinion to you further.
Disagreeing with everything one person stands for does make you a lacky for the left.
When Harper starts representing something I can support, I'll think about it. So far that hasn't happened.
One last point... my blog, my opinions - I don't particularly care if you like them or not.
Your last comment is fair enough.
I will leave you with two last comments.
1. The Muslims conquered Afghanistan. Sine the extremist Muslim has run the country for the last 15 years and 98% of the population is Muslim, don't you think they had a "successful" take-over of Afghanistan?
2. "If you wish to bitch about economics, please explain why taxpayers are on the hook for $1 billion, payable to Washington?"
There is nothing "payable to Washington". They have been holding the money for well over a decade. They will be forwarding a cheque for 5 billion dollars to the softwood lumber industries. Get it right! You don't get it right too often around here, but you could start anytime you opt to.
Hey d*@khead, before you post an obviously erroneous comment like your last one indicating that there is "nothing payable to Washington" I would recommend that you research first and then reply. I'm not going to get into the details, but the softwood lumber agreement definitly does spell out the FACT that washington is getting 1 billion dollars of money that belongs to Canadians NOT the U.S. and the FACT that 450 million dollars is going directly to the Whitehouse without any oversite by congress.
And one last point...you RIGHT WING freaks obviously don't know how to think independantly...
SB
Hey d*@khead, ...
Please, let's not degenerate to name calling and ad hominem attacks.
Is negotiating a softwood lumber deal that gets Canada back five billion (instead of the six billion owed) good or bad? Well if you believed (as I do) that the Americans would never have paid us, regardless of how many court cases won or who was in the White House, then it is a good deal. If you think that we'd have gotten our money eventually, then losing one billion is a bad thing.
If we ever get that five billion dollar cheque from Washington I'll (grudgingly) give credit to Stephen Harper for making the best of a bad situation. I should point out that two of the biggest lies ever spoken are "I'm from the govenment, I'm here to help"" and ""The cheque is in the mail"". Until that five billion dollar cheque is in our hot little hands, it doesn't exist and Harper certainly doesn't deserve any credit for it.
Cynically, I think some of that money will see the light of day: The 450 million dollar campaign contribution to the GOP will certainly be paid out quickly. Canada's share, I'm not so sure about.
Quixote
"Hey d*@khead, before you post an obviously erroneous comment like your last one indicating that there is "nothing payable to Washington" I would recommend that you research first and then reply. I'm not going to get into the details, but the softwood lumber agreement definitly does spell out the FACT that washington is getting 1 billion dollars of money that belongs to Canadians NOT the U.S. and the FACT that 450 million dollars is going directly to the Whitehouse without any oversite by congress.
And one last point...you RIGHT WING freaks obviously don't know how to think independantly..."
They already have the money! Why would we be paying them another billion? They are going to keep the billion and return 5 billion. There will be a 5 billion dollar cheque payable to Canadian business not a billion dollar cheque payable to the U.S.
I know that name calling is a trait of the left and can understand that you get frustrated when someone does not understand your non-logic, but take a clue from grog and calm down or no one will ever listen to what you have to say.
okay anonymous, I apologize for the d!@khead comment.....not fair, I'm not seeing you in person.
On to a bit of analysis on the numbers being thrown about.
1) First off the sum in dispute is a total of 5 billion not 6 billion. Yes we are getting 5 billion back BUT we are sending 1 billion back to the U.S.
2) Here is a quote from public sources on the deal that was reached
– $4 billion dollars from the account [tarriff money and “stumpage fees” that were under dispute] will be returned to Canada. $1 billion will be returned to the United States. Of the $1 billion dollars that will remain in the United States, half is designated to the U.S. lumber industry.
– The remaining $500 million is to be split between “a joint initiative benefiting the North American lumber market” and “meritorious initiatives in the United States” such as “Katrina reconstruction.”
3) A quick look at a report on canada.com will give the highlights to the deal, Link here:http://www.canada.com/globaltv/saskatoon/story.html?id=c47cf66d-8bd5-4470-9c80-84a5db4b6d35&k=60162&page=2
4) Stephen Harper has also implemented a levy on the Canadian Lumber companies to force them to pay 20 percent of their duty refunds back to the U.S. On top of that there is no provision for that levy to be returned once the 20 percent is paid. As well the entire duty refund is taxed at the gross amount not the amount that remains after the 20 percent is paid back.
5) There is also a lengthy article on cbc with details on how the money is going to get moved around, here is a short quote from that article:
_Klager said the delay should not affect the government's plans to start distributing more than $4 billion US in American duty refunds by December.
The agreement makes Ottawa responsible for the process, which includes funnelling $1 billion US in duties back to the U.S. government and American lumber producers._
You can see here that yes we are indeed giving back to the U.S. 1 billion dollars. Here is the link to the cbc article: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/27/softwood-deal.html
6) Here is a link to the SLA pdf for your perusal, I would recommend that you read it: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/pdfs/SLA-en.pdf
7) Here is a link to the testimony given by Elliot Feldman, a D.C. trade lawyer, before the Standing Committee on International Trade: http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/08/29/SlushFund/
In the transcripts you will find a lot of information on the SLA.
As you can see Canada is paying the U.S. 1 billion dollars to which they have absolutely no business getting, we have won in the courts on this issue numerous times (some of those rulings were by U.S. courts). We are giving 450 million dollars to the Whitehouse without any oversight for the use of that money. We are giving 500 million to the U.S. lumber lobby (you can probably guess how that will be spent).
And then to top it off we would have been in a position to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in interest on that 5 billion dollars if we had hung tough.
SB
Post a Comment