Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


The National Post: engaging in selective patriotic and partisan outrage

The National Post editorial board decided it is unpatriotic for Canadian opposition MP’s to publicly question the Canadian government’s foreign policy in other countries. They’re specifically riled up about Bob Rae’s statement overseas regarding the spat between Canada and the UAE.

It would be really nice if someone could remind the outraged Posties that they seem to have conveniently forgotten of a little editorial some guys named Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day did on March 29, 2003 in the Wall Street Journal regarding Prime Minister Chretien’s decision not to get involved in Iraq. Actually, someone did – my friend Jeff, who has taken the time to kindly reproduce the entire essay in full. This is and was a lot longer and more critical of the Chretien decision then anything Bob Rae ever said, yet I don’t recall any National Post editorials at the time condemning Harper and Day for doing this.

For good measure, Jeff reminds the National Post that Harper has a habit of going overseas and using press conferences to attack his political rivals – but apparently that’s okay for the Posties as well, since again, I’ve not seen the editorials there condemning Harper for uncouth political behaviour.

Apparently in the Post’s view, IOKIYAC (It’s OK If You’re A Conservative).


20 comments to The National Post: engaging in selective patriotic and partisan outrage

  • ridenrain

    Since we’re out of Chretien’s war soon, the camp is of little value. I see no value to bail out spoiled oil princes who bought airliners too big for their existing markets.

    • Redrum

      @ridenrain, so you’re so slavishly devoted to the cult of Harper that, rather than admit that he’s bungled this file, you’re abandoning all Conservative principles and leaping all the way to the NDP, now, in thinking nothing of writing off the $300-M to relocate the base (which, sorry, we still need for at least 3.5 more years now that it’s been extended as a ‘training’ mission), and disavowing the whole kick-the-real-911-terrorists-out-of Afghanistan mission as “Chretien’s war,” and foresaking the Open Skies free trade position, all to protect Union jobs (in a company that gouges us & gives lousy service)?

      Well, _you_ may think it’s in Canada’s interests to keep insulting our most lucrative trading partner in the region for no good reason, but thankfully, the Conservative gov’t of Alberta doesn’t: www +

  • foottothefire

    I would think the national post readership is made up largely of anyone but conservatives and a smattering of cone capped, jack booted hillbilly’s, so why bother reading it at all. And, bear in mind the np writes to the lowest common denominator.

  • ridenrain

    Wilson! No fair with the facts and stuff.
    The party that will jump into bed with Hezbulla or the LTTE over votes definately isn’t going to shy away from letting Arab Princes have their way with us.

    • Redrum

      @ridenrain, so, given your newfound — and welcome — love for facts, here’s a couple more to try on for size:

      In addition to giving us the free use of their land for nearly ten years for our military base (and letting our military personnel have access to their towns for R&R, even tho’ the locals weren’t too happy with that, since it’s not _their_ war: we’re more like enemies, to them) the UAE also gave FREE MEDICAL CARE to our wounded (which there’s been thousands of) before they got shipped out.

      http + ://

      And: far from it being ‘a takeover’ & the deathknell to Air Canada if the Emirate Airlines could ramp up their Toronto flights, as Wilson makes out, it turns out that Air Canada was only too happy to make that happen — if they could get a 50% cut of the profits (for doing nothing but greasing the wheels to get those landing rights). But that was way too greedy, so understandably, the UAE balked and kept trying to negotiate directly and in good faith with our government (which was foolish, as it turns out).

      www +–siddiqui-air-canada-s-hypocrisy-on-uae-exposed

  • wilson

    This entire issue has been dumbed down to partisan talking points.

    Something that got no media attention is that Ottawa signed an aviation deal with Qatar Airways on Oct 25 ( 6 flights out to the Gulf)
    right in the middle of this dispute with the UAE.
    Canadian airways are open for business,
    Ottawa offered rights in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver
    but the UAE wanted to triple their landing rights in one city, only Toronto,
    and turned down the deal.
    That sounds more like a take over than an expansion. The UAE did this elsewhere too.

    ‘Air carriers in Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands also have strongly objected to the rapid expansion of flights to Europe by Gulf carriers.’

    the rest of the story:

    • Loraine Lamontagne

      Just proves how inept the government is. This should be front-page news (and what about visa requirements BTW?).

      • wilson

        Curiously the opposition and the media didn’t jump on it.

        ‘UAE loses out to Qatar Airlines, retaliates by kicking out our military’

        But then that story does not paint Harper as a meanie.

        • Redrum

          @wilson, Hmm, so how ’bout a comparison b/w what’s involved & at stake the bilateral reln’s b/w Canada & Qatar vs. Canada & the UAE, such that:

          — we’d give the first — which, what, big whoop, employs 450 Canadians at a trade school — so much more of what they were asking for;

          — but totally spit in the face of the other, who employs about 20,000 of us, & has $15-B in bilateral trade with us; & had given us free use of & unrestricted landing rights to land for our own militaty base there for nearly ten years, at some political cost to themselves (we being western infidels, and all)?

          Still feel aggrieved for the PM getting criticized for his pig-headed & short-sighted approach to international negotiations & relations? Cuz even your Peter McKay thinks we should “Fly UAE”!

        • Redrum

          ok, so I misremembered / inflated the trade figures: it’s now about $2B Cndn a year; see, eg., their ambassador’s statement:

          “With 27,000 Canadians living in the UAE, and a significant trade relationship as the UAE is Canada’s largest trade partner in the Middle East and North Africa with bilateral trade figures of over $1.5 billion, of which 95 per cent is Canadian exports as well as 200 Canadian companies active in the UAE today, six flights per week do not service the economic needs of both countries or the potential for growth”

          www +

    • Redrum

      @wilson, re: “This entire issue has been dumbed down to partisan talking points.”

      gee, isn’t that usually when you come IN — and where your ‘contribution’ ENDS?

      Ok, so, why is the Harper gov’t ok with Qatar siphoning off (the Gernam airline Lufthana’s) Canadian travellers’ business but not the UAE?

      • wilson

        Qatar agreed to 3 passenger and 3 cargo flights per week,
        the UAE wanted ONLY flights out of Toronto, and turned down the offer of flights out of Vcr and Calgary too.
        The UAE demanded and expansion from the 6 flights per week to triple that,
        ( each carrier, one extra flight per day) 20 flight per week out of Toronto ONLY.
        That’s a take over.

        ‘The two UAE airlines currently operate six flights a week to Toronto from Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
        A deal could have been done if each carrier had got one more flight per day to Toronto (14 more). But that was never on the table so the talks collapsed, the source close to the talks said.’

        Read more:

        • Redrum

          @wilson, that’s all you got? “an unnamed gov’t source”? Like, er, you? That was reported, at the time. As was the fact that the Canadian gov’t counter-offer represented less than they already had, which was an insult. And that the Canadian gov’t refused to negotiate any further. To protect German, not Canadian jobs (it’s Lufthana, AC’s partner, which does that run), and shield Air Canada from the kickbacks they get from that, the same airline which the Canadian gov’t has been both subsidizing and gouging at the same time, and to keep rates for Canadian travellers very high. Aye, clearly cut & dry.

  • Loraine Lamontagne

    I never thought it was wrong for Harper to do this – I thought he was wrong in his analysis of the situation, and I still think so. The thought never crossed my mind that he was unpatriotic for holding views that contracted the government of the time. Did the government or newspaper editorials called him unpatriotic for disagreeing with the government?

  • Kring

    If it was wrong for Harper to do this back in the day, then why is it right for Rae to do it now?

    Oh I get it……..if it’s wrong for Rae to do it today, why was it right for Harper to do it back in the day?

    Partisan politics. I just love it.

    • Redrum

      @Kring, “Partisan politics. I just love it.” — So much so that apparently it’s the only lens you can see through, which is why you’re tilting at a windmill here, Kontwistador.

      Because the target and conclusion of Scott’s post _was_ the (National) Post, for being so hypocritical & selective; he was scrupulously neutral on whether _either_ party was wrong.

      So, no, you don’t “get it” at all.

  • ridenrain

    At the time, wasn’t Ignatieff also in the US praising G.W.Bush, American exceptionalism and the war in Iraq?

    • Jon Pertwee

      @ridenrain, yes but he was a private citizen and not the then leader of the Opposition. Pick up the pace ridofbrain! Your falling behind.

  • Perhaps someone should remind them that it is the oppositions JOB to criticize and hold to account the government of the day!

  • Kring

    So it was wrong for Harper to do it then as well. Gotcha.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.