An exchange with Robert Fulford on George Bush
Last Saturday, December 31, Robert Fulford wrote an editorial in the National Post expressing a positive view of George Bush and his successes in Iraq. I wrote Fulford about his column, and he replied. Herewith our exchange:
I used to think that George Jonas had the handle on political insight, but your column today about Islamism, Iraq and Bush puts you on the same pedestal.
I suppose that so many Canadians believe the canard that "Bush lied" because anyone who says so tends to get reported in the media. People who say that Bush is honest and has achieved good results, don't get nearly as much attention from the press.
I suppose that we are ignoring the Islamic jihad because our leaders, specifically Martin, are ignoring it. We are also ignoring it because we haven't been hit yet, of course. If any kind of attack takes place against political figures in Canada, the government will go into high gear to protect itself, and if there is time and manpower left over, other Canadians.
You have written today against the flow of conventional belief. Here is another conventional belief for you to think about. Trudeau was hailed in October 1970 for imposing the War Measures Act in response to the kidnapping of Cross and Laporte. (Note that I say kidnapping. Laporte's murder was not discovered until the day after the War Measures Act was imposed.) Trudeau was considered to be tough and resolute for imposing martial law against the "apprehended insurrection" arising out of the two kidnappings.
I don't see it that way at all. I think Trudeau was a coward. There had been dozens of political murders in Quebec by the FLQ over the previous decade, but since they only killed ordinary people, there was no apprehended insurrection. As soon as politicians were targetted, with the possibility that they might go after Trudeau himself, or Stanfield, all of a sudden, in an instant, there is justification to put soldiers on every street corner. I think Trudeau, and to his shame Stanfield, were just protecting themselves. Naturally my analysis of this isn't accepted by many, since it posits a dark side to Trudeau that tarnishes his chrome plated image, but on the other hand, most thinking people now do not see that there was justification for the War Measures Act to be imposed.
As you point out, both the American and Canadian Left have a hatred for Bush. I suspect that is because Bush has been successful in dealing with the Islamic jihad. There have been no terrorist acts on American soil since 9/11. Saddam is on trial by the Iraqis, and Iraq has had democratic elections. Khadaffi can visualize himself in a prisoner's box too, so Libya has become a relatively good citizen. There will be a fall of democratic ash from the Iraq volcano through the Arab world as a result of Bush's policy and actions. What the Left really hates is that Bush hasn't failed.
You do a good job of explaining the real truth, instead of the conventional truth, in your column today. I will clip it and insist that a judge friend of mine, who believes Bush lied about the WMDs, read it through.
Brian Purdy
Calgary
Fulford replied:
Thank you for your kind words about my piece in Saturday's paper and for the notion that the Islamists will have to kill Canadian politicians, not just Canadians, to get our attention. A brilliant insight.
Perhaps Canadians follow their leaders when despising Bush but they do it also because they feel good about it. They love to think they are intellectually superior to him. Most of them, of course, couldn't get into Yale, much less out (neither could I), and many would find a Harvard MBA program too tough. But somehow they think Bush dumb.
Early in the first term David Frum was promoting his book on Bush and was sometimes asked by a journalist or politician: "Is he smart?"
He always wanted to say, "Well, he's smarter than you," but he never did.
No matter what they say, the kid's a Canadian.
Best wishes for the New Year--and thank you for the mail you've sent me in 2005. I may not always respond appropriately, but I'm always grateful.
Regards
Bob
I used to think that George Jonas had the handle on political insight, but your column today about Islamism, Iraq and Bush puts you on the same pedestal.
I suppose that so many Canadians believe the canard that "Bush lied" because anyone who says so tends to get reported in the media. People who say that Bush is honest and has achieved good results, don't get nearly as much attention from the press.
I suppose that we are ignoring the Islamic jihad because our leaders, specifically Martin, are ignoring it. We are also ignoring it because we haven't been hit yet, of course. If any kind of attack takes place against political figures in Canada, the government will go into high gear to protect itself, and if there is time and manpower left over, other Canadians.
You have written today against the flow of conventional belief. Here is another conventional belief for you to think about. Trudeau was hailed in October 1970 for imposing the War Measures Act in response to the kidnapping of Cross and Laporte. (Note that I say kidnapping. Laporte's murder was not discovered until the day after the War Measures Act was imposed.) Trudeau was considered to be tough and resolute for imposing martial law against the "apprehended insurrection" arising out of the two kidnappings.
I don't see it that way at all. I think Trudeau was a coward. There had been dozens of political murders in Quebec by the FLQ over the previous decade, but since they only killed ordinary people, there was no apprehended insurrection. As soon as politicians were targetted, with the possibility that they might go after Trudeau himself, or Stanfield, all of a sudden, in an instant, there is justification to put soldiers on every street corner. I think Trudeau, and to his shame Stanfield, were just protecting themselves. Naturally my analysis of this isn't accepted by many, since it posits a dark side to Trudeau that tarnishes his chrome plated image, but on the other hand, most thinking people now do not see that there was justification for the War Measures Act to be imposed.
As you point out, both the American and Canadian Left have a hatred for Bush. I suspect that is because Bush has been successful in dealing with the Islamic jihad. There have been no terrorist acts on American soil since 9/11. Saddam is on trial by the Iraqis, and Iraq has had democratic elections. Khadaffi can visualize himself in a prisoner's box too, so Libya has become a relatively good citizen. There will be a fall of democratic ash from the Iraq volcano through the Arab world as a result of Bush's policy and actions. What the Left really hates is that Bush hasn't failed.
You do a good job of explaining the real truth, instead of the conventional truth, in your column today. I will clip it and insist that a judge friend of mine, who believes Bush lied about the WMDs, read it through.
Brian Purdy
Calgary
Fulford replied:
Thank you for your kind words about my piece in Saturday's paper and for the notion that the Islamists will have to kill Canadian politicians, not just Canadians, to get our attention. A brilliant insight.
Perhaps Canadians follow their leaders when despising Bush but they do it also because they feel good about it. They love to think they are intellectually superior to him. Most of them, of course, couldn't get into Yale, much less out (neither could I), and many would find a Harvard MBA program too tough. But somehow they think Bush dumb.
Early in the first term David Frum was promoting his book on Bush and was sometimes asked by a journalist or politician: "Is he smart?"
He always wanted to say, "Well, he's smarter than you," but he never did.
No matter what they say, the kid's a Canadian.
Best wishes for the New Year--and thank you for the mail you've sent me in 2005. I may not always respond appropriately, but I'm always grateful.
Regards
Bob
posted by Brian Purdy, Calgary at 9:59 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home