Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26385

Lots more in this article, about Bush's current obsession with Sharansky's book to the point where he feels the need to recommend it to every world leader, journalist, maid, busboy, etc he sees, to the expecation of many in the world that Bush will surely mature and cool out in his second term and be more receptive to diplomacy.

But this is the funny bit:

quote:

---

When President Bush flew to Canada in his first international trip following his reelection, the White House portrayed it as the beginning of a fence-mending tour to bring allies back into the fold after a tense first term. But after Bush left, the Canadians were more furious than before.

They were stunned when Bush leaned across a table in a private meeting and lectured Prime Minister Paul Martin about opposing the U.S. missile defense system. And they were later taken aback by a speech filled with what they considered the same "old Bush" foreign policy pronouncements that opened the divide with the allies in the first place.

"If he's going to take that speech to Europe," said a top Canadian official who attended the meeting between Bush and Martin, "he's not going to get a good reception."

For all the talk of fresh diplomacy and rebuilding frayed alliances, Bush heads into his second term still demanding that the rest of the world meet him on his terms -- and now he has redefined those terms to an even more provocative degree with an inaugural address articulating a grand vision for spreading democracy and "ending tyranny" in "every nation." With his eye on history, Bush wants to change the world. The rest of the world is not necessarily so eager to be changed.

While administration officials have since tried to tamp down expectations of a radical shift in policy, the inaugural speech reflected a worldview dramatically at odds with that in many parts of Europe and the Middle East, where it has only confirmed the image of Bush as an American unilateralist pursuing his own agenda with messianic fervor.

....

Still, Bush has sent mixed signals in that regard. In a pre-inaugural interview with The Washington Post, he acknowledged the discomfort in Europe, the Muslim world and elsewhere. "We need to work on a public diplomacy effort that explains our motives and explains our intentions," he said.

"That line," said Talbott, "particularly stood out as the interview was read on Embassy Row. The Europeans would like to see more than better explanations of American positions. They would like to see actual dialogue. . . . They want some give and take."

The Canada trip offered a case study in the tension between Bush's ideals and allies' expectations. When Bush agreed to go to Ottawa after the November election, the gesture was seen in Canada as a long-overdue olive branch. Like France and Germany, Canada broke from the United States over the Iraq war and felt alienated from Washington. Martin, the new prime minister, was eager to smooth the waters.

To avoid any unpleasantries, Martin sacked a shrill critic of Bush from his governing party, and Bush aides steered the president away from speaking to Parliament, where he might have been heckled. Canadian officials said their U.S. counterparts assured them that Bush would not put Martin on the spot on his refusal to join the U.S. missile defense system.

But Bush did confront Martin and used the sort of language that sets Canadians on edge. "He leaned across the table and said, 'I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say, 'Why are we paying to defend Canada?' " said the senior Canadian official who was in the room and noted that he had been assured by Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell personally that Bush would avoid the subject.

"Most of our side was trying to explain the politics, how it was difficult to do," the official said. But Bush "waved his hands and said, 'I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defense of Canada it wouldn't be accepted?' "

The next day Bush gave a speech in Halifax that to the Canadians sounded as tough and uncompromising as ever. "We were all looking at each other and saying this is a speech for somebody else. It certainly wasn't for Canadians."

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10438

I expected this to be about Canadian beef imports.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26385

You wish, you dog.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: All East Coast : USA
Posts: 2450

we've all got pussy in the office another 4 years.

Did you think doomsday was a century away, we're just setting a great standard with other countries nowadays

However the good that could come out of this, Canada will be turn and become a superpower overnight, and eventually we'll blame all fault on them

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10438

Why wait?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26385

And yet somehow, Bush's charm didn't work.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15994

The Canadians have existing treaty obligations under Norad, so no real surprise they would agree to this use of radar intercept data. If they don't want the interceptors on their soil, fine says I. If an incoming missile track is terminating in Canada, let it come.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
"They don't want to tell the population that we've got our arm in the wringer of the washing machine and it's sucking us in," charged Bloc Québécois MP Michel Gauthier.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35572

Heh.

Anyhow, NMD isn't looking healthy enough to sign on for it. Particularly not if you are the UK, of course, when it will just serve to make you a target whilst not really providing any protection.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

yeah, canada hates the idea. it was a fairly significant issue when i was doing all that political polling last year.

this was kind of amusing:
Bush "waved his hands and said, 'I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defense of Canada it wouldn't be accepted?' "
because nobody thinks we're in danger. martin could say that, but he'd be roundly ridiculed. no, mr bush, it wouldn't. just saying something doesn't make it true.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26385

quote:

---

Originally posted by buddha's penis
no, mr bush, it wouldn't. just saying something doesn't make it true.

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

i'm either with you or against you.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Still Orygun
Posts: 10256

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs For all the talk of fresh diplomacy and rebuilding frayed alliances, Bush heads into his second term still demanding that the rest of the world meet him on his terms -- and now he has redefined those terms to an even more provocative degree with an inaugural address articulating a grand vision for spreading democracy and "ending tyranny" in "every nation." . . .

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7686

Bush chided Harper on missile defence: CP report

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...1440?hub=Canada

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — George W. Bush scolded Conservative Leader Stephen Harper for his silence on missile defence and asked him to help secure Canadian involvement in the U.S. plan, The Canadian Press has learned.

The U.S. president used his trip to Canada late last year to bluntly voice irritation with Harper's enigmatic position on missile defence, sources on both sides of the border say.

One U.S. official described Bush's reproach to Harper as: "Please don't play partisan politics with this.''

"I would hope you're looking at this in Canada's national interest and not in terms of partisan politics,'' Bush reportedly told Harper.

Recent polls have shown a majority of Canadians oppose Canada's participation in missile defence.

That opposition has mounted in the vacuum of any vocal support for the program from anyone in the Liberal government apart from Defence Minister Bill Graham and Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan.

Prime Minister Paul Martin supported Canadian involvement in the initiative when he was a leadership candidate, but has avoided moving forward without Conservative support.

Bush unexpectedly asked Martin pointed questions about Canada's refusal to sign during their meeting, but it's now clear the prime minister wasn't the only Canadian political leader to get the Bush treatment.

Harper didn't deny being pressured by Bush last Nov. 30 during their half-hour meeting. But he said it appeared someone had misled the president about Conservative policy.

"It was clear to me at the outset of our conversation that the president had been misinformed about our position,'' Harper said in an interview.

That position, Harper replied, is not hostile to missile defence. But it will force the Liberals to properly explain the plan before bringing it to Parliament.

"We're not going to agree to a proposal we don't have the details for,'' Harper said.

"While we're all very open in the Conservative party to this kind of initiative we don't really trust the Liberals to just negotiate with a blank cheque.''

Another Conservative offered a far blunter explanation for why a military-friendly and staunchly pro-U.S. Official Opposition is suddenly mute on missile defence: it makes Liberals sweat.

"Let's see them govern and make a decision for once, instead of relying on us.''

Now two party leaders who previously supported missile defence -- Harper and Martin -- are entangled in a cautious dance with nobody's feet moving and everyone's eyes glued to public opinion.

The Liberals are frozen at the thought of being forced to fight a future election campaign as the only federal party officially in support of the missile project.

Polls suggest the program is supported by only about one-third of Canadians, and is especially unpopular with key electoral constituencies: Quebecers, urban, and female voters are especially hostile to the plan.

The controversial project has also divided the governing party and is expected to overshadow the Liberal policy convention next month in Ottawa. The party's youth and Quebec wings plan to table motions against BMD.

"We know we're going to get destroyed (on missile defence) at the convention,'' said one senior Liberal.

That kind of hostility had Liberal brass hoping they could use the Conservatives to carry a symbolic vote on missile defence in the House of Commons.

With the support of his foes, the prime minister could then sign on to missile defence shielded against attacks from rivals, especially from Harper.

Martin has been frustrated by Harper's refusal to play along _ so frustrated that during his own meeting with Bush, the prime minister tried blaming his opponent for the missile defence standstill, according to one account.

One of Bush's interlocuters said Martin told the U.S. president he had shown Harper a "proposal'' for missile defence that the Conservative leader refused to support.

Conservatives say they were told of Martin's complaint to Bush. They say Harper has seen no formal proposal and are accusing the prime minister of misleading the president.

But the decision to raise missile defence with Harper was made weeks in advance and had nothing to do with anything Martin said, according to U.S. officials.

"The president might not be following Canada that closely -- but there are people (in Ottawa) and in Washington paid to do that,'' said one U.S. official.

"The president was getting his information from U.S. sources. . . (And) there was concern.''
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesu Christos,

The closest thing Bush has to a Canadian ally (he's Albertan) and he gives him the "If you don't agree and back us 100%, you're being an evil partisan" speech. Man, with friends like that...

Cognitive dissonance.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26385

So, apparantly according to the Bush administration, the result of Canada not signing onto the treaty is they no longer have sovereignty over their airspace.

The PR campaign continues.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35572

This spin seems predicated on the Canadians being retarded. They might have been dealing with the American electorate for too long.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26385

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv.../BNStory/Front/

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7686

McKenna's militia takes on America's `Fox factor'
Ambassador arms Canadians in U.S. with facts, figures

Begins campaign against negative image of Canada

Jul. 2, 2005. 08:15 AM
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...tarSource=email
TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON—Canada's ambassador to the United States marked Canada Day by embarking on an ambitious new goal — mobilizing more than a million Canadians in the U.S. to take their country's message to Americans.

Frank McKenna wants the "Canadian diaspora'' to be armed with facts, to debate Americans, to lobby when Washington makes decisions that can hurt Canadians and to try to counter the "Fox factor," referring to the U.S. television network, which often spreads disinformation and feeds a negative perception of its neighbour to the north.

McKenna is enlisting Florida snowbirds, northern exiles in Arizona, Hollywood comedians and actors, investment bankers in New York and professors and students at universities across the United States.

He sent out 6,000 missives to his grassroots pioneers yesterday and plans to have distributed 100,000 by the end of next week.

The scheme has won applause from former diplomats and those who deal in bilateral affairs, but at the same time the enormity of the idea is staggering because it would entail turning a largely invisible, quiescent expatriate community into more aggressive cheerleaders.

For starters, McKenna wants his new recruits to tell their American neighbours and co-workers that:

# Canada is the largest source of imported crude oil in the U.S., bigger than Saudi Arabia or the yet untested reserves of Iraq.

# The country has rotated 13,500 troops in the war on terror, has committed $300 million to rebuilding Iraq and is about to deploy a reconstruction team to Afghanistan.

# None of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada.

# Canada-U.S. trade supports more than five million American jobs.

In an interview with the Toronto Star before playing host to Canada Day celebrations at the Canadian embassy in the shadow of Capitol Hill, McKenna said he is emulating efforts of other countries that have called on their citizens abroad to educate local citizens and change perceptions.

It has worked for India, Ireland and Greece, he said, and Australia is embarking on a similar program.

"It's not novel,'' he said. "But it is for Canada."

McKenna even mused about the need for a Canadian cabinet minister in charge of the expatriate community, but said that was "a big step down the road."

"Over time, I'm hoping this network will be in the millions," he said. "Then all of a sudden we've multiplied our efforts exponentially and we have a lot more people out there armed with information.

"We want them to be armed with facts so if they are in a debate with Americans they can provide the Canadian perspective," McKenna said.

"We know we're a bit of prey for the Fox News type of shows."

In the interview, he said he has been "daunted and stunned" by the complexity of the U.S. government system and has learned that lobbyists are the navigators in Washington.

McKenna said he would like to use his newfound Canadian army as lobbyists themselves. He cited the need for travellers who frequently cross the Canada-U.S. border to let Washington know that a proposal to require passports for such travel would hurt local border businesses and tourism in both countries.

In short, McKenna wants Canadians here to follow his lead.

Even though he has begun his tenure here with a blitz of U.S. media, he concedes his message would need almost infinite repetition to make a dent in such a noisy media market.

The federal government has made his job easier, he said.

"You can't sell a bad product," he said. "It doesn't matter whether you're a good salesperson or not.

"Canada's product has improved."

He said more spending on the military at home, the Canadian presence in Afghanistan and its role in providing help to Sudan have improved Ottawa's standing and "gives us more credibility" with the administration.

The former New Brunswick premier also had a message for Canadians at home as both countries celebrate independence holidays this weekend.

"We have to be very careful about overblown rhetoric," he said. "We don't get a lot of attention here, but we can get attention here for the wrong reasons.

"We have to be careful that we're not sanctimonious. We have to recognize the United States has assumed a different role in the world than us and it's a role we're not prepared to play.

"So we shouldn't be so judgmental about a country that has chosen to play that role."

Canada may have made the proper decision to stay out of Iraq, McKenna said, but Canadians shouldn't be judgmental about a country that is losing its young in a war every day.

He said he was surprised about the lack of knowledge Americans show about Canadians, but says the feeling toward the country here is one of warmth.

"They don't often know why, but that seems to be the case."

McKenna spoke bluntly about the complexity of the U.S. government and the multiplicity of media as two things which have surprised him in his first four months on the job.

"Having dinner every month or two with some interesting people is not enough to move this city," he said. "You've got to have a multi-faceted strategy that involves everything from a constant presence on Capitol Hill to a relationship with the administration to using allies within the United States effectively."

The "sheer magnitude" of the media in the United States makes it very difficult to get any share of public mind in this country, McKenna said.


"I see potential scandals which surface here every single day which flash across the television screen and disappear into the ether,'' he said. "In Canada (they) would have been enough to bring down the government.''

He cited a newspaper account of Homeland Security spending waste, a story which barely lasted a single news cycle.

"In Canada, that would have been the subject of a multi-year commission of inquiry and would have brought the government to its knees.''

"It was a one-hour story here."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged