Andrew Keyes

“Gore lied! People died!”

It’s quite remarkable how so many people are able to distance themselves from the responsibility of taking action, particularly when that action is in the distant past and the results were not as favorable as had been expected.

I remember the months following the attacks of 9/11, and I recall the sense of outrage felt towards Sadam Hussein and his continued refusal to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq. In today’s National Post Frank Harvey is interviewed regarding his recent study on the Iraq war:

My point is very simple, — when we combine 9/11 with the powerful effects of entrenched institutional and bureaucratic infrastructures that surround the President of the United States (e.g., intelligence organizations), the domestic political and societal pressures Presidents are forced to consider when contemplating big decisions (pre- and post-9/11 consensus on Saddam’s WMD was virtually unanimous), and the complex array of international factors Presidents (and British and Australian Prime Ministers) are compelled to confront, these forces create and shape the conditions AND motivations under which American leaders process information and ultimately act. With respect to the decision to go to war in Iraq, these forces would have compelled Gore to make many of the same interim (generally praised) decisions for many of the same reasons. Momentum would have done the rest. I am still waiting to see a carefully constructed, historically informed case study that supports the alternative (Gore-peace) counterfactual. Until someone comes up with that story the only reasonable conclusion is mine — the most commonly accepted understanding of the Iraq war is just wrong. The really interesting question, which I will address at length in the book manuscript, is why the wrong version of the “truth” remains so popular despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

Source.

I have never been fond of the idea of minority governments. I feel they are far too vulnerable to pandering to interest groups, and the compromises necessary to keep the government alive are seldom in the best interests of the country, and usually in the interest of political survival. But I have heard many fellow Canadians extoll the virtues of the minority government, holding them up as a way to keep power in check. I wonder how they’re liking it now.

I was on a political panel last night debating the recent opposition party attempts to form a coalition government. I was struck by the lengths to which the Liberal and NDP spokespersons would go to deny the involvement of the Bloc in their coalition.

Orwellian, to say the least.

Seeing the photo (below) made me wonder how they could possibly believe Canadians will fall for it. Gilles Duceppe will be the big winner in all of this, regardless of how long a coalition might survive. The Bloc can take not only their perks, their veto, and senate seats back to Quebec, they will also go back with their heads held high, telling the separatist forces “We are winning.”

(Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Source.

So what exactly will come from this coalition?

1. Clearly, separatist sentiment in Quebec will be revived, and potentially stronger than ever. They will have official veto power with a sitting Canadian government, and there are rumors that vacant Senate seats could be filled by Bloc separatists as part of the coalition deal. The separatists in Quebec are laughing.

2. Separatist forces in Western Canada have been awoken. After so many years of feeling neglected and ignored, Canada finally elected a government that represented the national values held by many in the west, and it will be snatched away by three opportunistic political leaders, who, coincidently, are all Quebec-born.

Mark my words, this will NOT be the end of it in western Canada.

I’m betting that, particularly in Alberta, a sleeping giant with a helluva chip on his shoulder has been roused from a long and restless hibernation.

And there will be hell to pay for it.

Hell like no eastern Liberal dared imagine.

3. Just over six weeks ago Canadians went to the polls and soundly rejected the Liberal and NDP parties, in fact the Liberal Party received it’s lowest level of support in it’s history. Immediately following the election the Liberal Party itself acknowledged the weakness of it’s leader and embarked on a leadership review. There is no doubt in any one’s mind that Canadians did not choose to have Stephane Dion as our Prime Minister, yet that is precisely what this coalition will give us.

4. In early May Stephane Dion has agreed that he will be stepping down as Liberal leader, making him a lame-duck leader and a potential lame-duck Prime Minister. Canada would get it’s 3rd Prime Minister in just 5 months. And that 3rd Prime Minister will not have been elected by the people of Canada, he will be appointed by the Liberal Party. Who’s interests does this serve, and how democratic is that?

5. The coalition has committed to “pursue a North American cap-and-trade market” to limit carbon emissions. Even though the Liberals campaigned on the extremely unpopular Green Shift environment plan, under this coalition they promise to pursue a far-reaching environmental policy without a national debate and without a mandate from the people.

6. Political parties will continue to receive millions of tax-payer dollars. The separatist Bloc receives about 80% of it’s funding from Canadian tax payers. Is there not something wrong with that picture? Even though the Conservative government has backed down on it’s plan to scrap the tax-payer funding of political parties – a plan that most Canadians would support – there is no doubt that this measure inspired the self-serving power grab now taking place. Andrew Coyne writes and excellent piece here.

Folks, I will be heading out on Saturday to make sure my voice is heard, and I encourage you to do the same.