So France is trying to get back on Bush's good side once again. So is Canada. I was listening to a radio show about this subject featuring a political analyst earlier this morning. It was mentioned that while France would be more successful, Canada's attempt will end as a dismal failure and will remain so until at least February 2004, when Canada's PM Chretien steps down.
The political analyst (forgot the name) claims to be one on the inside track of Bush's policies. What he has noted that the idea to discredit France did not originate from Bush, but from Condolezza Rice. It just so happened that the idea caught on with many politicians, and Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast was born. Don't know whether or not this will change in light of recent events. Apparently, Bush did not like the idea that France was to take all the blame in not endorsing a resolution to invade Iraq.
In fact, it would appear that Bush has extended invitations to the leaders of Germany, Russia, and China to Washington. France may get one of its own at a later date.
However, the situation about Canada is significantly different. According to the analyst, Bush is said to be "extremely frustrated" with the Canadian PM, and relations between Canada and the U.S. will only get worse, not better. Noted is the following: - that Bush never liked Chretien from the start, stating that Chretien is not what he defines an ideal politician. No wonder why he considers Mexico more of an ideal trading partner than Canada. (Mexico has received invitations to Washington, and Bush I believe has visited Mexico City at least once). - that Bush considers Canada to be the "little brother" to the U.S., a spoiled brat that needs to be taught a lesson in "ideal behaviour", and economics. - the softwood lumber dispute, Canadians acting like "whiners". (I think the WTO sided with Canada on this dispute) - the belief that the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada and if Canada became like the states, than this would have never happened. I guess this explains the missing "thank you" from the U.S. to Canada, right? - the only Canadian that Bush would like to talk to is Stephen Harper, leader of the Canadian Alliance (neo-conservative political party), and has stated at one point that he would like to see Harper as the next Canadian PM.
What do you think? Does Canada deserve to be condemned like this? Should such treatment be worse than what France received, or better?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
*shrug* Darn. I think the fact that he wants to speak to Stephen Harper speaks for itself Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: Bush never liked Chretien from the start, stating that Chretien is not what he defines an ideal politician.
Said the pot to the kettle.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
double post, don't know what happened.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Bush is an ass but unfortunately we will have to deal with the little jerk for a year another year and a half. Bush teaching us economics, give me a break, he took a 500 billion dollar surplus and turned it into a 500 billion dollar deficit in less than 3 years. US economy is in the slumps and the Canadian economy is firing on all cylinders. Jeez I sure hope he doesn't teach us economics, we couldn't afford to lose that much money.
Any leader who lets his personal feelings dictate his foreign policy is not only hurting the countries he decides to snub but he also hurts his own country. Bush just seems like a very small person and perhaps once Chretien is gone he will, Bush will somehow become a man instead of a child and start having friendly relations with us again. Or he might be too busy making up facts and stuff to invade another country, takes a lot of his limited brainpower to make up that many lies.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...Chretien is not what he defines an ideal politician."
Well, assuming that Bush considers himself an ideal politician, Chretien should ake that as an outright compliment.
"No wonder why he considers Mexico more of an ideal trading partner than Canada."
Yeah. It's called "the cheapest labor this side of China".
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
No, Canada does not deserve to be condemned. They're too inoffensive to be condemned. Like those skin-eating mites you never notice live in your mattress.
Our economy is improving, whoever gave Grocka his surplus/deficit data was obviously taking premature advantage of Canada's soon-to-be-relaxed drug laws. We've touched 9K recently, and I suspect we'll be back to 10K by the end of the year.
Canada's economy is indeed firing on all cylinders. Both of them.
More Canadians dislike Chretien than Americans dislike Bush, but it's more FUN, for Canadians, to dislike Bush, mostly because they don't have to shoulder the blame for voting for the guy they're criticizing. And because Canadian national identity is wrapped up in being "NOT TEH US, DAMMIT!" (despite the fact that their most recent nationalistic spokesman, Joe, moved to the US shortly thereafter). Since they are, in fact, politically, economically, and socially dominated by their oft-irrational-seeming neighbor to the south, and reap the advantages of so being (from NORAD to cross-border shopping), it's an understandable reaction.
I like Canada. I think, in some ways, the US should try to be more like Canada. Especially with the Harp Seal thing.
Oh, and Grocka? It's FIVE and a half years.
[ June 04, 2003, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Oh, and Grocka? It's FIVE and a half years.
You mean he is still going to be annoying after he is voted out?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Bush is an idiot. I have the George W Bush quote calende. A different idiotic saying every day from the 'leader of the free world' [sic].
I'm on Canada's side all the way.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yeah? I have the 'Bill Clinton Fibs' calendar. It's perpetual.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Yeah? I have the 'Bill Clinton Fibs' calendar. It's perpetual.
Lol, sounds good!! I have very little respect for Clinton either BTW. Just cos a guy in the other party is a bit of a prick doesn't make it OK for your guy to be retarded and possible unbalenced... Posted by EvilTree (Member # 1027) on :
Well, since the Libs will be in power for some time, the relations between Canada and US will be sour for some time. I don't know what Martin's stance about US are, but since he was Cretin's right hand man for long time before turning on Cretin, I think he still shares many things with him.
The other parties can't get act straight to give the Libs a challenge for power. At least until Ontario stops voting for Libs.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
I dunno. While Martin isn't stupid enough to push Alliance-style social conservative policies, he does seem to be rather right of Chretien. His stance during this run for Liberal leadership makes it look like he's putting himself in position to really lick American jackboots. He might actually get a minority government because of this. I for one will probably vote NDP or Progressive Conservative simply as a protest vote......unless there's the odd chance that the Alliance actually does well...in which case I'd vote Liberal.
Posted by EvilTree (Member # 1027) on :
Note that by the second week of Asskicking of Iraq, popular vote supporting Yanks was up to around 50%.
A lot of Canadians do resent Cretin's lack of support of Yanks, though they are more from the right. He'll have to do a lot to patch up US-Canada relations, though Bush snubbing Canada doesn't help much at all.
If he does promote pro US policy, then he may just suck up a lot of Tory-Ca votes.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)