« Resigned to immigration amnesty article | Main | Aren't you just a little bit curious? »

January 12, 2004


seems to me that the article was an attack on chretien first and foremost. It appears that Erick Stakelbeck thinks Canada's questioning of the Isreali and US policing techniques applied to suspected terrorists who are also Canadian citizens are suspect at best.

the fact that Arar was tortured doesnt help his arguement. and pointing out that Akkal is an admitted member of Hamas who received weapons only furthers Stakelbeck's main point - the Canadians havent a clue what they are doing and thank god Chretien is gone so now maybe the US can bully Canada into doing what Bush wants.

didnt mean to post this as I get your point on all the interesting details simply skipped over in order to compose that article. I was just trying to avoid the work calling my name.

Just want to echo the thanks in the comments to an earlier Arar post - good work, the arrest and deportation were shameful, and shouldn't be swept under the rug.

A note about Chretien's departure - Paul Martin, while more conservative, and possibly more liked by the whitehouse crew, has a dilemna. It's necessary to improve relations with America, but he also needs to get elected. IMO, most Canadians feel angry/resentful about Bush and co., and were glad that Chretien was standing up to them. If Martin starts acting like a toadie, he's going to get a rough ride at the polls.

I imagine that there are a few other democracies where the wrath of the electorate about insults delivered by Bush is fueling public posturing by their leaders.

The comments to this entry are closed.