35

Hilarious! Video! Bloopers!


 

Which of the following is more hilarious?

1. Stephane Dion misunderstands a question asked by ATV’s Steve Murphy during this fall’s election.

2. Stephen Harper, asked by ATV’s Steve Murphy about whether the deaths of Canadian soldiers ever stirs regret in the Prime Minister, responds, “I don’t feel responsible for the war.”


 

Hilarious! Video! Bloopers!

  1. You’re just going to get pilloried again, Aaron.

  2. I’ll deflect it.

    *ahem*….Stephen Harper is a liar and a tyrant.

  3. “Hilarious” isn’t the word that leaps to mind

  4. Harper looked like he was trying to stifle a laugh when he spoke about the dead soldiers. El Jefe Supremo is really enjoying this.

  5. Funny, I followed your link. I read the piece. I read it again. I did a “Find” on the word “responsible” to get to the spot I must have missed on two attempts. All I get to is a comment by someone named “Manchild.”

    I guess I will have to watch the 16+ minute video sometime. For anyone who did watch it (including, I presume, our intrepid correspondent), was there any other reply beyond that sentence? Any, shall we say, context missing from a short quote? If not, Harper deserves to apologize to our soldiers. He may not be responsible for having started the Canadian mission, but if he does not want responsibility for managing it now, he should resign immediately. If there is anything missing, then Harper is owed an apology for such a silly selective quotation.

    Hilarious? Sorry, there’s nothing particularly funny about Canada’s mission in A’stan.

  6. It is the first part of that video that deals with soldier’s deaths. I found Harper’s grin during that part off-putting. I know that people can smile at inappropriate times when nervous, but after being PM for years, you think Harper would have more control than that. Also, Harper’s comment that his troubles as PM did not compare to dying in Afghanistan. WHAT??? Did his brain disengage or does he actually think his political life should even be mentioned in the same sentence as soldiers dying? A very strange man.

  7. I don’t get it.
    Can you please elaborate Aaron.

  8. OK, all you Aaron critics — why do you have a problem with irony?

    Perhaps he’s engaging us in pondering a kind of moral equivalence.

  9. A very strange man.

    Narcissistic personality disorder. Or Asbergers.

  10. I’m just surprised to finally see someone in the national media actually use Steve Murphy’s name. I’ve found it amusing each time I read an article that refers to him simply as “the interviewer.” Here in Halifax, we (and by “we” I mean “Frank Magazine”) prefer “Couchpotato.”

  11. “Narcissistic personality disorder.”

    That’s probably it. I watched that part again, and you can sort of see Harper’s mind working. He’s being asked about dead soldiers, but he is thinking of his own political problems. He doesn’t have very good control, but he knows enough to keep his head down so half the time his facial expressions are obscured.

  12. Check out Harper’s reaction to a kid passing out here.

    Emotionally dead.

  13. Take a walk outside, or unplug your laptop for a while would you Ti-Guy. Maybe you should be renamed B&W-Guy,

    What would you have done? Rushed over to give mouth-to-mouth?

    The guy fainted. Big f*ing deal.

    You’re an idiot.

  14. I will not tolerate attacks upon my personal dignity, Miss Dot.

  15. Well, a noble sentiment if I thought you retained any from your previous cheap shot.

  16. For the record, Harper did in fact say “I don’t feel responsible for the war”, at about the 2:07 mark. Shockingly, Wherry took it a bit out of context, and I don’t recall anyone suggesting that Dion’s interview was “hilarious”, but there you have it.

  17. I thought it might have meant that Harper couldn’t understand English and needed a translator or something.

    But after reading the comments I think I have a better understanding, so maybe I can join in with a comment fo my own.
    Ignatieff is pure Evil. If beezlebub had a right hand man, Ignatieff be thy name.
    Did you know he supports torture? What a “despicable human being”. (remember that one, although he is clearly not fat).
    Here is what human rights watch had to say:
    “Torture degrades the torturer and those who condone it; acceptance of torture undermines the very foundations—and thus the security—of our society. Rules do matter, even if some of our politicians seem reluctant to confront that truth. ”

    And this despicable human being wants to be PM…………..Hilarious.
    How’d I do?

  18. Why would the current Prime Minister feel responsible for a war that started before he was in (the PM) office? And that is NATO-led and UN-sanctioned, and was entered into, and our role escalated, by a previous government?

    Catherine – smile? what smile are you talking about when discussing dead soldiers?

  19. Candace,

    Perhaps you haven’t noticed — Mr. Harper has a curious tendency to exhibit a sort of drop-mouthed tentative grin when confronted with particular questions. He drops his gaze (a rather untrustworthy-seeming body language trait of his) then assumes his own meek version of the “Heath Ledger as Joker” face.

  20. Candace,

    More.

    Sometimes his two front teeth are in evidence, making him look like an imp (lively but having small stature). I admit a dislike for Mr. Harper that might be colouring my interpretation of his persona, so I urge you to look for the characteristics I have described and judge for yourself.

    As the titular head of government, Mr. Harper is indeed responsible for the war. His statement is, to me, the most treacherous thing I have ever heard a Canadian Prime Minister utter. I have known people with attitudes like his. They are simply not to be trusted.

  21. Candace,

    Even more.

    He doesn’t feel responsible for the war? So he doesn’t make up his own mind? He follows the dictates of the predecessor Liberal Party, and NATO and the UN? Not a leader?

    The man is sure a piece of work. I’ll say it again — beneath contempt.

  22. “Catherine – smile? what smile are you talking about when discussing dead soldiers?”

    Watch the tape. Particularly near the segment where he compares his own woes to dying in Afghanistan.

  23. Geez, if the eyes are truly the mirror of the soul – this is frightening.

    Is this Murphy a terrible interviewer or what. What ever happened to a clear voice in the media? He mumbles and I thought he was so gentle with Harper the next step was a gift of chocolates and Christmas roses.

    C’mon – you know nothing is ever Harper’s fault.

  24. I was going to say I expect better from you, Aaron, but when I thought it about I actually don’t. I don’t understand how you decided to compare the two and then use very selective editing to make your case. He says doesn’t feel responsible for the war in the sense that he didn’t start it personally but he does say he’s saddened by the deaths of the soldiers a couple of times. Harper also says his political problems are nothing compared to what the soldiers face in Afghan.

    Catherine

    Smile is a bit much in description but he does ‘smile’ for a moment when he talks about how the soldiers over there are the best people we have in society, they our are best and brightest. Not sure why that bothers you.

  25. jwl, Harper smiles throughout much of his ‘these deaths remind us things could be worse than being in Ottawa’ response to the question of “how do you cope with the news that young Canadians have died…”.

  26. Murphy: Does it give you some sense of regret about the war?

    Harper: Well, you know, not in the sense that I…I don’t feel responsible for the war, obviously. We’re in Afghanistan because of the United Nations, and Canada was part of the decision to go there, after 2001. I think success there in the long term is vital to the security interests of the planet and therefore to our own security interests. But obviously this mission has proven to be far more difficult than I think anybody who initiated it thought.

    Only the most partisan hack could apply the spin that Aaron has put on this. Clearly Harper was talking about not feeling responsible for starting the war. He had already discussed his regrets about the death of Canadian soldiers, at length, in the first 2 minutes of the interview.

    Wherry, you’ve completely disgraced yourself with this post. Any criticism you have of Harper simply cannot be taken seriously, as it’s clearly the writing of yet another journalist with Harper Derangement Syndrome. There is not one article in the media about this, and it’s not like they are kind to Harper. There is not, as I write this, even ONE post on liblogs.ca critical of this comment in the interview. Not even one Aaron. Even the most partisan of Liberals (other than the peanut gallery here obviously) see nothing wrong with this, but here you are.

    I can’t believe Macleans allows you to pretend to be a non partisan observer while writing torqued garbage like this.

  27. john g, Harper’s first reaction to that question (the “I didn’t start this war” reaction) is an about face for him. In the past he has been quite passionate about us being in Afghanistan and outraged that we were not in Iraq. Now, he immediately thinks we are there because of others?

    In 2006, Harper had a different take on soldiers dying: “For a lot of the last 30 or 40 years, we were the ones hanging back.” “I can tell you it’s certainly engaged our military. It’s, I think, made them a better military notwithstanding — and maybe in some way because of — the casualties.” I would have liked Murphy to ask Harper if he still thinks our military is better is some ways because of the casualties.

  28. John g said: I can’t believe Macleans allows you to pretend to be a non partisan observer while writing torqued garbage like this.

    John, I’m not sure how the code of ethics at Macleans works, but I do know that describing someone as a despica— er, ah, the “d” word, guarantees that the post vanishes forever (said in an ominous voice) with no explanation or apology whatsoever.

    And by “forever” I mean “without using the help of Google cache.”

  29. john g,

    I hope Aaron forgives me if I fail to interpret his intent with this post — yet I want to say again — I think it’s kind of an equivalence challenge for both sides.

    The right criticizes Dion for misunderstanding a question and requesting clarification.

    The left criticizes Harper on what appears to be his greater concern with how people perceive him than his concern for how and why those soldiers died.

    Perhaps the word ‘hilarious’ disturbs you. How about substituting the word ‘self-centred’ or the word ‘insincere’ or the word ‘inept’. Or any number of other words that might cause you to erupt in a fit of indignation and rabid cynical criticism.

  30. Stephen Harper may be an entirely inappropriate individual to serve as our prime minister. He certainly has demonstrated a ready ability to be a dick. He has accused decent politicians of supporting the Taliban, and even of child pornography. Even in the most charitable light, he seems unconcerned with the long-term ramifications of his actions – instead vacillating between ideological experimentation and crass power plays.

    In short, an encyclopedia of Stephen Harper’s shortcomings and damaging legacy wouldn’t be too hard to draft.

    But in watching the interview in question, all I saw was a man trying to honestly talk about a war that turned into something far more onerous than most predicted. And to grapple with the reality of responsibility that includes dead soldiers. His style doesn’t ooze empathy, but we know that about him. To deliberately twist his limitations of rapport into anything more than that is dishonest. And it’s as reprehensible as making fun of Dion’s poor English.

    Smile? He was smiling at himself. And not out of pleasure – out of uncomfortable self-judgment. He was ruefully reflecting on the folly of treating political arguments as life and death affairs, while we have soldiers dying weekly. That smile was one of the most honest things we’ve ever seen him do.

    I wish for nothing else than to see Stephen Harper be crushed politicially. For this bastardized neo-con nonsense to be relegated to the margins of public discourse. For his name to become a punch line alongside Turner and Clark. I truly believe the man, and those who support him, are wrecking my country. But turning him into a heartless, cartoonish falshood won’t help.

    And given the wealth of substantive material he’s given those of us who oppose him to work with, such a childish and contrived attempt at character assassination is both unecessary and shameful.

    Mr. Wherry, do you really want to become like Duffy?

  31. Sean Stockholm:

    Thanks.

  32. Agreed. Very well put, Sean.

  33. Sean is correct; Wherry is wrong. Publicly hating on the PM is pointless — it was lame when conservatives did it, it’s just as lame now. There’s such a thing as reasoned opposition – this is just (very pathetic) straw-grabbing.

  34. Wherry, this should be beneath even you. This is on the level of FOX News “terrorist fist bump” level of partisan garbage looking for something negative to report that simply isn’t there. Of course, when I saw this post on my reader, I simply rolled my eyes and said “Wherry” before moving on to something of value. It’s only when I went back and watched the CTV interview did my disgust with you register. As Sean Stockholm said, there’s plenty of things to criticize Harper on, you only diminuish yourself when creating something out of nothing as you have here.

  35. Candace @ 2:06 wrote:

    “Why would the current Prime Minister feel responsible for a war that started before he was in (the PM) office? And that is NATO-led and UN-sanctioned, and was entered into, and our role escalated, by a previous government?”

    That is true BUT it was Harper who wanted the mission EXTENDED. We would have been out of Afghanistan in 2009, this soon-to-be New Year. He also stated, when it was brought before the House, that even if the proposal was voted down he was still going to extend the mission for 2 more years no matter what. In the end, as we know, he actually worked with the opposition to have his desired plan & it was extended for much longer than 2 years.

    So in that he most definitely IS responsible. He would have his way no matter which way it went. How conveniently he, & everyone else, seem to forget that.

Sign in to comment.