Terrorists have Iraq's WMD: (Canadian) PM - Winnipeg Sun.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2004/05/11/454532.html

Prime Minister Paul Martin says he believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they've fallen into the hands of terrorists. Martin said the threat of terrorism is even greater now than it was following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the U.S. because terrorists have acquired nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the toppled Iraqi leader.

"The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don't know where they are," Martin told a crowd of about 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal.

"That means terrorists have access to all of that."

The PM's comments run counter to leaders in countries such as France and Germany who have accused the U.S. and Britain of fudging evidence of WMDs in Iraq to justify the war.

-And here was me thinking a one-armed man had taken the WMD's and only Dr. Richard Kimble could find them.

If this is true why is Bush not telling us?

Still, speculation seems to be good grounds for a war these days.

Martin has been trying extra hard to get * to notice him. Jealousy is such an awful thing.

(poor attempt at humour)

Martin disagreed with former prime minister Jean Chretien, who publicly blamed poverty for terrorism and the Sept. 11 attacks. "The cause of terrorism is not poverty, it is hatred."

I heard one.
If he can say that I'll say that the cause of terrorism is the CIA, particularly in Osama's case.

'they hate us for our freedoms' :eyes: where d'you think the hatred comes from pm martin? surely it couldn't be because decades of military hegemony, empire-building and economic sanctions against countries run by people who won't prostrate themselves fast enough for the liking of those in power have created incredible poverty and despair...

He can't really have believed that there were WMD's in Iraq, can he? Maybe he meant the nuclear material which has been left unguarded at Iraq's sites?

If he really said this about WMD's, bet you a Tim's double-double that he backtracks pretty quickly.

Sid

Still, it all seems to be there in the story. Maybe he was just trying to keep up with Ralph Klein after Ralph's bizarre General Pinochet outburst last week.

Thanks, this one missed me.

In the Alberta legislature, dismissing a public auto insurance plan, the Premier said

"It sounds like Allende in Chile, you know, when he took over all the copper mines and said, 'The Americans are out, the government now owns all the copper mines, all the minerals, all the resources, all the mining....'

"Pinochet came in, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not saying that Pinochet was any better, but because of the only elected communist in Chile, Allende, and the socialist reforms he put in, Pinochet was forced, I would say, to mount a coup."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040508/KLEIN08/TPNational/Canada

My sympathies, Lord Byron.

But he has been known to be fond of the devil's drink in the past.

I hear that alcohol can impair your judgement...wouldn't know about that myself, of course.

Sid

If he picks a fight over healthcare in the upcoming election, we're ready for him. Who knows? Maybe he'll discover that Idi Amin's rule in Uganda teaches us much about Universal Medicare. Perhaps Ralph wrote a paper on that too.
You should check out the rabble thread on the subject. There's more to this than meets the eye.

On Monday, Klein tabled in the legislature a rambling 13-page school essay he once wrote called Allende, Pinochet and the Chilean Media. Klein noted he received 77 per cent for the paper and invited Chileans and opposition members to read it.

New Democrat Brian Mason called it "another day in Bizzaroland" with "the premier refusing to apologize to the Chilean community for his comments and asking us to read his term paper."

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=003158

...and invited Chileans and opposition members to read it.
Considering Ralph is in his early sixties, and Allende was deposed in 1974, when did Ralph write this? Is he back in nightschool studying Chilean politics? Could you make this shit up?

What an over-achiever!

He wouldn't have been younger than his early 30s when he wrote this, probably during his stint as a TV reporter.

He was elected Mayor of Calgary in 1980, so it's probably contemporary to the events. A thirty year old school essay!

I have to wonder what the heck is going on with him, he has always been, to me anyway, eccentric but this is bizarre!

I believe it's called dain bramage...

:evilgrin:

Only fitting, eh?

and some yeLLow cake. mmmmmm yeLLow cake.

Martin said the threat of terrorism is even greater now than it was following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the U.S. because terrorists have acquired nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the toppled Iraqi leader.

And whose fault is that, eh?

and I hope this is simply empty rhetoric to try and draw some voters from the faux Conservatives, if not, I will have to rethink my support because this is utter tripe!

It definitely seems like a bizarre thing to say going into an election.

this needs to be in the open, does he believe it, was he misquoted, what the hell is he talking about, where is the evidence. Harper sure as hell won't question it, that I know!

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040511.wxterr11/BNStory/Front/

I find the sun to be a bit too conservative for my liking. The Globe isn't much better but they don't give his comments quite the prominence the Sun did. The Globe also include this graf, which the Sun didn't:

"Aides to Mr. Martin insisted later that his answer was not an assertion that Mr. Hussein had nuclear weapons that might now be in the hands of terrorists. The reference to the "proliferation of nuclear weapons" and "the weapons that Saddam Hussein had" were meant to be separate notions, they said."

I'm not a big Martin fan, but I don't believe that ANY Canadian PM would try to support Bush's case for the invasion of Iraq, given the very high level of anti-Bush sentiment here. It would be political suicide.

My take on the speech was that he was saying the invasion of Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place, not a safer one. A not so subtle criticism of Bush's actions.

Sid

not just have his handlers "clarify" for him. He will have lost my vote if he, in any way, supports bush in his megalomaniacal agenda.

He'll need to clarify this himself. And Parliament is the place it should happen.

Sid

I thought I'd give you guys just a little crap - for once. He he. It's terrible always being on the team everyone hates.

Some journalist conflated two comments trying for a "sound bite".

Saddam Hussein had the phantom weapons of mass destruction.

How can the people who spout this and lead countries be so fucking stupid?

with only a bit of his comments about Terrorism buried in the last paragraph. The speech was mostly about the $100 million being pledged to the WHO to help AIDS/HIV.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1084227010639&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968705899037

Sid

What alternative is there to this moron? Is a vote for a progressive third party like a vote for the right? Or are things as bad there as they are here?

I would bet that Martin will be backtracking so fast on this that it will make everyone's head spin. Martin is a mix of liberal and conservative views, this is a BIG anomaly and will be hammered on by the left party, the NDP, I have NO doubt.

If Martin veers right, he will end up with a minority government with the NDP holding the balance of power in the votes.

I just did a quick search and found the New Democratic Party is something stronger than US Greens.

How much power does the NDP have? I see polls where the NDP draws about 20% of the vote (Liberals 40 and Conservatives 30). I know the right has pretty well been out of favor with Canadian voters since the days of Mulroney and that is encouraging.

Is it fair to call the NDP a player, at least to the extent that the LibDems are players in Britain? How does the situation in Canada compare to the one in Britain?

The Liberals operate in the same area as New Labour. The Conservatives are equivalent to the UK Conservatives. The NDP are to the left of the Liberal Democrats, but share a similar position and radical perspective. The NDP is likely to double it's vote in the next election, but they are starting from a base of 8.5%. It will take an upwards trajectory over a couple of elections for the NDP to be in a position to challenge for government. The conservatives will not be able to form a government due to their weakness in Quebec (which the NDP currently shares) and their over-dogmatic neo-con views which are out of step with the Canadian mainstream.

(centrist)Libs in the high 30s
(neo)Conservatives mid to high 20s
(socialist)NDP high teens to 20
(social democratic)Bloc Quebecois about 10

This has been the picture for months. Since the union of the two conservative parties, the Conservative vote has dropped about a dozen points, and has not been able to capitalize on a recent Liberal money scandal. Meanwhile, the NDP are up about a dozen points.

The Libs are going to be chastened in the election, but the worst they will do is form a minority government. Conservatives stand no chance of forming a government, because they will not elect a single candidate in Quebec. And the NDP stand to make great gains - possibly best showing ever - which should help keep Martin's feet to the fire on progressive issues.

I think I like Canadian New Democrats a lot better than US New Democrats.

The Liberal party would be considered centrist to left
The Conservative party would be considered repub lite right
The NDP party would be considered left
The Green party would be considered ultra left
The Parti Quebecois is a limited provincial party but because Quebec is allocated many seats, they carry greater clout than they should, imo

(I have tried to define the parties in comparison to US politics and it is only my take on it)

The Greens don't seem particularly leftist under their new set-up. Their leader is a former Conservative who is very keen on fiscal conservatism. They're an enigma.
The Liberals occupy the broad centre and shift to the left or right depending on percieved trends and public opinion.

and that of most other democracies is that the U.S. has an all-or-none approach. It's the main reason that we have ended up with only two parties (which seem identical sometimes).

I wish that we could move toward the Canadian system of allocating seats on the basis of percent of votes. We'd have a government that is more representative of our people, imo.

Most Americans are not as crazed as our politicians lead the world to think. If we had a more representative approach to allocating election results, we would have a wider range of politicians represented in Congress - from the far left to the far right. They'd be forced to cooperate with one another, and no one party would dominate industry and the media, as we are seeing with the Republican Party now.

A breakdown of American politics is probably closer to the following:

10% Libertarian (far right)
20% Conservative
40% Moderate on both social and fiscal issues
20% Liberal
10% Far left (Green Party, Socialist)

Prop rep may be coming, eventually - it's the NDP's demand for participating in a coalition - but we're still first past the post.

With an election coming, now is the time for us like minded progressive non-biological entities to band together against corporate oppression! Or something.

Yeah, they just threw a couple nukes Saddam didn't have, threw them in the bed of a Tacoma, and drove them over to Syria...

he may sleep better at night and not be so wound up.


Years after Iraq was defeated in the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein secretly decided in the mid-'90s to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, mostly chemical stockpiles, because they were too easy to find and could be rebuilt after world sanctions lapsed, Kay said.

Saddam kept up a policy of deception against weapons inspectors because he feared that the Iraqi people and his own army might overthrow him if they were not convinced he still had the weapons, Kay said. Every Iraqi general who has been interrogated was convinced the weapons were still in Iraq but had not seen them for years, he said.

American intelligence agencies remained fooled because Iraqis who wanted Saddam toppled kept feeding them false stories about his hidden stockpiles of chemical and other weapons, Kay said.

"They told us about weapons in order to get us to invade Iraq," he said. "They moved U.S. policy, and we didn't catch it." http://www.morningnewsonline.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=FMN/MGArticle/FMN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031775300094&path=!news

Warn your local leaders: don't go into the White House!