protest

The Globe and Mail: Bush has Ottawa buzzing — The Canadians do not want Bush in the country. And they’ve made Ottawa a no-fly zone during the visit. But what got my attention was the following paragraph:

Outlining the agenda for the overnight visit, White House spokesman Scott McClellan called it “an opportunity to build upon our successful efforts to fight terrorism and enhance security of our two countries while expanding trade and economic opportunity.” Mr. McClellan seemed to put particular emphasis on Mr. Bush’s planned visit this morning to Halifax, where he is to address about 300 invited guests at Pier 21, the historic gateway for hundreds of thousands of newcomers to Canada. He called it “an opportunity for the President to personally thank Canadians” for helping 33,000 airline passengers stranded in Canada when North American air space was shut in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Oh, brother. Disrupt an entire city for that??? More American goodwill.

via E. Campbell



  1. N says:

    There’s an interesting group of people, Lawyers Against the War (http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/) that want Bush prosecuted with war crimes. They feel that this should happen the moment Bush sets foot in this country.

    Obviously, this would never happen so instead they would like for us to cancel his visit. (We obviously didn’t do that.)

    It’s an interesting take. Bush probably is guilty of war crimes, but I wouldn’t want to live in the country that proved that. It would not be a smart idea to piss off our biggest trading partner and big brother to the world.

    Of course, that’s the trouble with the US, isn’t it? They’re big enough not to have to care about what anyone thinks of what they do. A bunch of lawyers notwithstanding, most of the rest of us are prepared simply to kiss ass for our own wellbeing.

    Sad isn’t it?

  2. Jamie says:

    Awesome site!

    Lovely french taunting! Now go away before I taunt you some more!

  3. K B says:

    “Of course, that’s the trouble with the US, isn’t it? They’re big enough not to have to care about what anyone thinks of what they do.” – N

    I remember worrying for the U.S. when the Soviet Union fell apart. Not that I didn’t welcome the U.S.S.R.’s collapse, only I feared what would happen to the U.S. as a result. The existence of the Soviet Union always forced the U.S. to compare itself with the Soviets. If we infringed on the liberty of citizens, people would always jump up and say “Aha!” because a parallel would be seen between it and the way the Soviets treated its own citizens (domestic spying, for example). Same way regarding foreign policy. Does anyone believe that we could or would have overthrown Saddam Hussein had the Soviet Union still been intact? Likewise on the domestic front: Would the Patriot Act have ever come into existence with the U.S.S.R. still intact? Or would comparisons of its provisions with Soviet procedures have prevented its passage? (I’m betting that Congressmen would at least have *read* it.)
    The chess master Nmzowitsch suggested choosing a “born enemy” to topple from his throne in order to improve oneself. In his psychological and over-the-board battles with Tarrasch, he was always trying to show that Tarrasch really understood nothing about the game, and in the process uncovered many new and innovative ideas. Sometimes I think that the U.S.S.R.’s existence helped keep America’s eye on the ball. There are plenty of other bad guys out there whom we could look upon as examples of what not to be like, but for some reason they do not capture our imagination like the Soviets did. They were definitely our “born enemy,” to use Nimzowitsch’s term.
    Of course, some would say that terrorists are our new “born enemy,” but that doesn’t work, because people who cut other people’s heads off for no particular reason are entirely too vile to provide any moral comparison whatsoever. We are not even tempted to cut heads off of innocent people. It was more instructive to have an enemy who, for example, followed its citizens around on the street for no good reason, just for purposes of, well, homeland security…. (A Russian professor I knew once told how he and others would actually play games mocking and then eluding these law enforcement ninnies.)
    I know that we are supposed to believe that “the world changed after 9/11,” but I’m not buying it. In fact, I find the statement repulsive. It’s the same world, with the same challenge: How do you achieve safety while maintaining liberty? Whenever the politicians and the media repeat the mantra “The World Changed After 9/11,” I always worry what grand ideas they are about to introduce next….

  4. Christopher Coulter says:

    Ahhhh, but that Benedict Arnold was as successful at Quebec City, as he had been in Ticonderoga and Crown Point. What could have been on Dec 31st, 1775, where it not for the long hard journey up the Kennebec and Chaudière rivers in Maine and Montgomery’s subsequent fall, well British North America, would have been spared from all things British, and “Canada” would have become the 14th State. Alas.

  5. Justin says:

    This President is one of the best presidents the United States has ever had the privelege to have! And for people like yourself who ignore the truth and pervert the public with this idiotic ideology is just plain wrong. You’re only jealous of this individual and how dare you criticize him the way you’re doing. You don’t even have the decency to RESPECTFULLY disagree with him via that sign you proudly hold. We got so many Michael Moore people in this world and when John Kerry told us to bring it on, well, guess what, us Republicans did and look what happened? Looks like the majority of the nation was for this guy, after all, right?

    So, get over it, in closing. I, along with millions upon millions of people feel safer because of what he did, does and what he’s about to do 🙂

    God bless America!

    -Justin


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5238 access attempts in the last 7 days.