Not-SoProPolVille
Last night we noted that the Conservative Party of Canada's National Campaign Co-Chair, John Reynolds, told the Moonies that it was time to patch things up with the armed and dangerous Elephant next door:
Mr. Reynolds said the first practical step in improving security cooperation between Canada and the United States would be to restart discussions about joining the anti-ballistic missile program.
"We've got to sit down and discuss this. There is a quid pro quo for everything," he said.
Which got us to wondering - just what might be in that "everything"?
Now, being from British Columbia, we know a lot about Mr. Reynolds and what he has said and done in the past.
And a lot of it gives us the willies.
But, at this moment in time, maybe what scares us most is something he had to say when he was briefly (thankfully) the Leader of the Opposition.
The following is from Hansard (ie. statements made in Canuckistan's House of Commons) in the run-up to George Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.
Mr. John Reynolds (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that it was hypothetical, which I think is his new word when he does not know the answer.
There was no broad international consensus in support of strikes against Saddam Hussein in 1998, but Canada stood with its allies regardless of the hue and cry from the left. It is not doing that today.
Again, to quote what the Prime Minister said in 1998:
| Make no mistake, Saddam's behaviour to date indicates that he will not honour diplomatic solutions so long as they are not accompanied by a threat of intervention...Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in such a moment. |
So, now will it be same for Iran?
____
With sincerest apologies to Dalton Trumbo
No comments:
Post a Comment