Tuesday, August 01, 2006

How can you tell when MacKay is speaking?

Because Condi's lips are moving.

At first it was funny, followed by embarrassing, then alarming, and now it's just plain creepy :

July 21 (Bloomberg) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she wants a "robust international military force" to try to oust Hezbollah forces from southern Lebanon.

Aug 1 Globe&Mail --Mr. MacKay said Canada wants the United Nations to approve a "robust international military force" to police a ceasefire if one can be established.

MacKay went on to tell Opposition MPs that "Canada cannot be neutral on fundamental issues" and that is why the Conservative government condemns Hezbollah as a terrorist group that attacked a democracy.

As opposed to, say, condemning Israel as a terrorist group that attacked a democracy.

Funny he should mention that neutral business though.
A poll on the front page of the same paper states:
  • 77 % of Canadians surveyed say Canada should be neutral in the current conflict and
  • 53 % say they believe Mr. Harper has backed Israel because the position is in line with that of Mr. Bush.

Say, how's that 37% public approval rating working out for ya?

5 comments:

Q said...

He must be mezmerized by her virtuoso ineptitude. Incompetence doth not a robust role model make. There, I said it, robust. That's one of those words that really irritate me. Like the knights that say nee? You're right, the whole thing is disturbing.

Olaf said...

So, once an individual says anything, such as calling for a "robust international force", they forever have copyrighted that phrase, and any others who use it or express similar opinions are necessarily just mindless parrots.

Read this from ABC news on the 18th of July:

"U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for a bigger, better armed and more robust international force to stabilize southern Lebanon and buy time for the Lebanese government to disarm Hizbollah guerrillas."

Is Condi parroting, of all people, Kofi Annan? I know it makes you feel good to equate Harper/MacKay and Bush/Rice, and insist that the former is just following the latter, but is there any possibility that they could just agree?

bruce said...

There’s every possibility they could just agree, that’s the point. Our elected officials are so bent on hanging out with “cool crowd” that the values that Canada has nurtured for so long are meaningless to them.

I don’t understand why MacKay still goes on after being kicked in the privates so long by people like Steve & Belinda. Guess you can’t put a conservative down no matter how hard you try. It’s impossible to overcome stupidity.

Q said...

I stand by my neurosis that robust should only describe great coffee beans. Robust also means rough, simple and unsophisticated. "So if the bad dudes are like behind an apartment building, we can just like take it down right? Oops, sorry about the women and children man."

Alison said...

awOlaf :
You might also have mentioned that most of delegates from G8 also used the phrase "utmost restraint".

Regardless of whether you agree with the 77% of Canadians polled who wish to remain neutral, I think you would concede that most Canadians do not support recent US foreign policy decisions. Harper and MacKay do support a good deal of US policy, both foreign and domestic, and to the detriment of Canada. This is why they are comfortable using the same language. My complaint is not that they are parrots; it is that they are quislings.

Q : The management deeply regrets the gratuitous use of the word 'robust' and hopes you will accept this as a small token of our esteem.

Blog Archive