Friday, November 19, 2004

Last word on Parrish until she moons Bush in the Commons

Babble on.

I apologize to any of you who got an unwanted visual there. I'm sure the nausea will pass quickly.

Jason Hayes makes an excellent point about the pathetic reasoning behind Paul Martin's dismissal of this overstuffed sack of anti-American offal.

However, Stephen Harper nailed Martin’s response for what it was: a self-serving assault on someone who had called him out. Martin didn’t respond to Parrish’s petulant foolishness on principle. He didn’t care that Parrish had once again openly attacked Bush and the Americans, just days before Bush was to arrive in Ottawa in an attempt to heal the rift in US-Canadian relations. Martin was miffed that Parrish had badmouthed him.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper criticized Martin’s motives, saying he only decided to oust Parrish when she attacked the prime minister.

“Carolyn Parrish has not been expelled for violating Liberal policy, for damaging Canadian interests or for insulting our American friends,” Harper said. “In the end, she was expelled only for attacking the prime minister. And I think it shows weak leadership.”

Interestingly enough, Parrish herself agrees with this assessment:

Martin dumped her because their personalities clashed and she refused to toe the party line, she said.
The MP also said that if Martin had a problem with her anti-American comments, he wouldn't have signed her nomination papers in June. (Babbler's italics)

This just reinforces my impression that the prime focus of Paul Martin's 'public service' career involves redefining the term 'public' to mean 'Paul Martin'. And, Pierre Trudeau notwithstanding, hubris leavened with a touch of narcissism is not an attractive quality in a Prime Minister.

Please tell me what karmic old lady the Canadian public tripped in the middle of the crosswalk to deserve Paul Martin's special brand of 'leadership.'

Babble off.

Update: Colby has some wise words that Scott Feschuk should put into Paul Martin's mouth:

"The United States of America is a great nation and, in most respects, a good neighbour. Having such power as it does, it must be held to the highest moral standards, and we have a role to play in that--the role of a friend, not a childish, obsessive harasser. We must never forget, as Ms. Parrish does when her medication runs out, that criticism is easy for countries that have less onerous military responsibilities. U.S. actions in Iraq have led to the destruction of a fascist regime and the capture of its leader. Was the gain worth the human cost? That's a complicated question, not decidable by means of simple mathematics or brute syllogisms. Our answer as a government was 'No,' and that's an answer people will be reassessing forever. But even when we say 'No,' diplomacy between partners must be informed by a presumption of good intentions and shared values. I'm the one who has been chosen to represent Canada and Canadian Liberal ideals to the world. With due respect to the voters of Mississauga-Erindale, I give thanks to a merciful God every day that Carolyn Parrish is not."

Is that so difficult? Like Mr. Cosh says: this stuff writes itself.


At 1:26 p.m., Blogger darcey said...

Sheila Copps? I think I may keep that mooning Bush deal in my back pocket...

At 5:56 p.m., Blogger Gordon Pasha said...

Sweet Jeesuz in a chicken basket, Parrish mooning W? The vomiting won't stop. Someone, please, call a dcotor.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home