[Motorcycleboy]

Well, it appears that it's not only the evil Stephen Harper who has a dreaded "Hidden Agenda."

Former Liberal Cabinet Minister and long time party stalwart Sheila Copps has revealed the truth!

That Paul Martin worked actively behind the scenes during the early part of 2003 to UNDERMINE Prime Minister Chretien's decision not to join the US in the Iraq War!

$1:

TORONTO SUN
December 18, 2005

Sheila Copps

Paul Martin vs. the old Paul Martin

HOW THE LIBERAL LEADER'S VIEWS 'EVOLVED' SINCE A PREVIOUS DEBATE
By SHEILA COPPS




MONTREAL -- Watching the federal leaders' debates this week left me with a strange sense of deja vu. It seems such a long time ago that John Manley and I squared off against Paul Martin in the Liberal leadership debate -- also in Vancouver.

It is hard to believe those debates were only 2 1/2 years ago. Since then, I have crossed over to the "dark side" (that's how politicians and journalists refer to each other), Manley has left public life and Martin is the leader of a divided party with internal hemorrhaging that continues to this day.

I felt it important to provide you with this backdrop so you might be in a better position to analyze the veracity of the messages that arose from the latest debates.

Normally in a debate, a key moment crystallizes the campaign; a fiery exchange helps viewers understand the differences in policies proposed by the candidates.

The new rules for last week's debates -- which were similar to those used in the Liberal leadership -- rendered such a moment impossible. There was little chance of a "breakout moment" where the public could get a glimpse of the real truth behind the carefully scripted statements and rebuttals.

Even the timing of the English debate -- on Friday night just before Christmas -- pretty much guaranteed that the majority of Canadians, rushing to get ready for the holiday season, wouldn't even see it.

A format which permits little interaction, in which leaders are admonished about debating each other and where microphones are conveniently cut off before challenges take place, leaves viewers hungering for a deeper understanding of the differences in views. Inconsistencies about past positions are left unchallenged and generally the leaders repeat their partisan view of the facts. We witness a kind of political infomercial in which each leader, unchallenged, tries to hammer away at the issues that will get him votes.

In French and English, the Prime Minister repeatedly tried to score points against the U.S., in a bid to move the debate onto ground that he knows is a fertile Liberal vote-getter.

Two and a half years ago, the same prime minister stood on another stage in Vancouver and took the exact opposite position! In fact, so critical was he of the era of Chretien-Bush relations that he endorsed the "perimeter North America" concept proposed by the Business Council on National Issues, which would essentially keep a common fence around, not between, Canada and the U.S. I also recall him working behind the scenes to undermine then-PM Jean Chretien's decision not to send troops to Iraq.

During that same Liberal debate, he also refused to support gay marriage and remained ambiguous about whether he would even sign the Kyoto accord.

Now, he obviously has changed his mind. In last week's debates, he emerged as pro-Kyoto, anti-Iraq-war and a booster of the Charter equality provisions which guarantee non-discrimination in civil marriage. A cynic might wonder what happened between Vancouver 2003 and Vancouver 2005.

If Martin's views have evolved, then we should give him credit for approaching issues with an open mind. (He did, of course, support gay marriage in a House of Commons vote.)

As well, in a party leadership debate, the target audience is different from that of an election debate.

But if Paul Martin is to be forgiven for changing his mind on three major issues in the space of less than three years, why do Liberals think can they score political points by dredging up Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's statements of eight years ago?

And why do certain media outlets think it is relevant to cover Harper's eight-year-old flip-flops but blank out when it comes to Martin's about-face on Kyoto, Iraq and gay marriage? Double standard, anyone?

So I guess, applying the same standard to old news that the Libs seem to relish in when bashing Harper, we can expect that if re-elected, Martin will send Canadian troops to Iraq, repeal gay marriage and tear up Kyoto?

Ruserious, I apologize if the fact I actually source my articles makes it a bit hard for you to refute.

[Zipperfish]

Ooh, Sheila twists the knife as only she can.

[ridenrain]

Good find: MotoBoy.

Once again, Canadians security and good government takes a back seat to the Fiberal civil war and sleasy politics. Just another example of Liberal Values.
Now we'll here "yeah, but Mulroney was still worst.."
12 years ago!

[Ruserious]

I love the double standards here..

Belinda criticises Harper and the conservatives and the Harper clique say that she has no credibiility but when Copps (who's obviously still very bitter that she didn't win the leadership campaign) decides to switch her allegiances, she somehow now has credibility whereas before, when she was still a Liberal MP, you all would have claimed she wouldn't have.

You cons sure are a narrow minded bunch. :lol:

[AngloAngst]

Folks,

don't feed the troll. Ruserious is trying to sideline the thread into one of the mudslinging sessions he so loves. He cannot discuss/refute the points raised, so he'll try to get a reaction via some "your mother wears army boots" level of comment. Do not feed the troll.

[Ruserious]

AngloAngst AngloAngst:

Folks,

don't feed the troll. Ruserious is trying to sideline the thread into one of the mudslinging sessions he so loves. He cannot discuss/refute the points raised, so he'll try to get a reaction via some "your mother wears army boots" level of comment. Do not feed the troll.

As opposed to your denial of the truth to my statement.

Your move there dodgefan.

[PluggyRug]

Well I'm a Con but I sure don't trust Sheila Copps. Ship jumper.

She makes me feel all squirmy...

[AngloAngst]

[quote="Ruserious]As opposed to your denial of the truth to my statement.

Your move there dodgefan.[/quote]

At the risk of ignoring my own advice you have missed my point. The thread concerns comments by Sheila Copps. They do not concern Belinda Stronach. If you want to talk about conservatives being beastly to Belinda, start a new thread, don't hijack this one.

Now do you have any comments about what Sheila said? Not me. Not MCB. Sheila Copps. She wrote the article; do you wish to refute HER.

[Motorcycleboy]

Ruserious Ruserious:

I love the double standards here..

Belinda criticises Harper and the conservatives and the Harper clique say that she has no credibiility but when Copps (who's obviously still very bitter that she didn't win the leadership campaign) decides to switch her allegiances, she somehow now has credibility whereas before, when she was still a Liberal MP, you all would have claimed she wouldn't have.

You cons sure are a narrow minded bunch. :lol:

Belinda didn't like Harper's leadership and claimed to split with the party over the gay marriage issue. Whether you agree with him or not, Harper's stance on gay marriage is consistent and on the public record. The same goes for Kyoto. And on Iraq, while he was on record as being for it, he has now changed position and clearly stated Canada will not be getting involved in Iraq under a Conservative government.

You can agree with him or not, but you can't argue he has a "hidden agenda." At least he's man enough to take a clear position on the issues.

Now Martin on the other hand, has bent over backwards to warn us that Harper would send Canadians to Iraq, tear up Kyoto and repeal gay marriage.

Yet Copps has just pointed out that only two years ago he was planning to do the exact same thing! He just doesn't have the balls to stand behind his convictions.

So once again Ruserious, who has the REAL "Hidden Agenda" here?

Who is the one with clear, transparent principles?

What exactly, does your hero Paul Martin stand for? (Other than having a job he rather likes and wanting to keep it?)

[Ruserious]

AngloAngst AngloAngst:

[quote="Ruserious]As opposed to your denial of the truth to my statement.

Your move there dodgefan.

At the risk of ignoring my own advice you have missed my point. The thread concerns comments by Sheila Copps. They do not concern Belinda Stronach. If you want to talk about conservatives being beastly to Belinda, start a new thread, don't hijack this one.[/quote]On the contrary, this thread does concern Belinda because it points out the glaring hypocricy that the cons are showing here.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious to you.. take a closer look at who's largely responsible for the hijacking of threads.

I'll even give you a clue, it's not the Liberal supporters

$1:

Now do you have any comments about what Sheila said? Not me. Not MCB. Sheila Copps. She wrote the article; do you wish to refute HER.

Absolutely.

She fails to provide any proof of such actions. In other words, that's her own personal opinion and nothing else.

[Motorcycleboy]

Ruserious Ruserious:

Absolutely.

She fails to provide any proof of such actions. In other words, that's her own personal opinion and nothing else.

So you're saying that a woman who was a Liberal party stalwart for over 20 years, a long serving Liberal cabinet minister, a member of the "Brat Pack" in the 80's, daughter of Vic Copps, the stout, Liberal mayor of Hamilton Ontario for over a decade, is nothing more than a liar?

One more reason to ditch the party if that's the case.

[AngloAngst]

Ruspurious

she was in cabinet with Martin. And got kicked out by Martin. So surely you can agree that her opinion is not unbiased, but is informed. As such, surely you need to refute her analysis with something more compelling than "it's her personal opinion". Enlighten us, where is she wrong in point of fact? Or indeed, where is her analysis clearly biased?

Hint; I'm not looking for you to say "all of it", " 'cos" or "yeah, what he said".

[OnTheIce]

Ruserious Ruserious:

I love the double standards here..

Belinda criticises Harper and the conservatives and the Harper clique say that she has no credibiility but when Copps (who's obviously still very bitter that she didn't win the leadership campaign) decides to switch her allegiances, she somehow now has credibility whereas before, when she was still a Liberal MP, you all would have claimed she wouldn't have.

You cons sure are a narrow minded bunch. :lol:

You're a funny stump.

Comparing Copps to Stronach is only something you'd do.

Copps, coming from a political family, has been in politics her entire life.

Stronach, an opportunist, jumped into politics in 2004.

She tried to win a leadership race. She lost.

She barely gets voted in.

She sleeps with the deputy leader.

Realises that she has no future of the leader of the CPC.

She jumps ship because she thinks she has a better chance and Martin bribes her with a cabinet post.

She has no credibility to stand next to anyone with decades of experience.

Comparing the knowledge that Copps has of the Liberals to that of Stronach and the CPC is laughable.

She probably knows more about the details of McKay's bedroom than anything else involving the CPC.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Ruserious Ruserious:

AngloAngst AngloAngst:

Now do you have any comments about what Sheila said? Not me. Not MCB. Sheila Copps. She wrote the article; do you wish to refute HER.

Absolutely.

She fails to provide any proof of such actions. In other words, that's her
own personal opinion and nothing else.

What??? She's citing his positions in 2003 and 2005. That isn't her opinion.

$1:

In last week's debates, he emerged as pro-Kyoto, anti-Iraq-war and a booster of the Charter equality provisions which guarantee non-discrimination in civil marriage. A cynic might wonder what happened between Vancouver 2003 and Vancouver 2005.

Are you saying this is wrong?

Are you saying anything?

[GunPlumber]

Ruserious Ruserious:

I love the double standards here..

Belinda criticises Harper and the conservatives and the Harper clique say that she has no credibiility but when Copps (who's obviously still very bitter that she didn't win the leadership campaign) decides to switch her allegiances, she somehow now has credibility whereas before, when she was still a Liberal MP, you all would have claimed she wouldn't have.

You cons sure are a narrow minded bunch. :lol:

Cons are a narrow-minded bunch?

You can't see the forest for the tree you're banging your head against.

You compare Stronach against Copps as a way to divert attention away from what Copps said in that column, yet conveniently overlook the dissimiliarities between them. Stronach has a well established pattern of unzipping her way to where she is going. She did it at Magna, she did it within the CPC (when she thought McKay might stage a palace coup from which she intended to benefit), then she pretends to switch sides (the only side she'd ever be loyal to is her own vanity) and now she intends to unzip her way up the LPC ranks. Copps, to the best of my knowledge, is still a card-carrying Liberal, and hasn't made known any intention to switch sides. So she's using the platform available to her, to undermine Martin's leadership (or the profound lack thereof). How is that any different than how Martin pushed Chretien off the stage, and then attempted to use the Gomery farce to tarnish his old adversaries reputation?

I'd say that, if you want to believe that Sheila's unwillingness to parrot Martin's lies or join his fan club disqualifies her from being a Liberal, then you've admitted who is the truly narrow-minded, convenient-idiot around here.