Let us storm the beaches of Sudan, Iran and Guantanamo


 

Apropos of all sorts of things, here is Stephen Harper’s answer to a National Post questionnaire in 2004 that asked “What have we learned from the William Sampson affair?”

Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance: “We’ve learned that “soft power” doesn’t work when dealing with regimes that only understand hard power. Liberals cling to this doctrine, but in practice it has failed time and again. The highest duty of government is the protection of its citizens. Canada must ensure consequences when foreign governments torture or kill our people.”


 

Let us storm the beaches of Sudan, Iran and Guantanamo

  1. Pretty well sums it up and right on point!

    • So you are in favour of invading Sudan, Iran and Guantanamo?

      That is just crazy, Straw Man.

  2. gotta love when harper the economist tries to demonstrate any knowledge outside economics. And even thats not very admiring.

    • A negative reputation score? It must be your sunny disposition.

  3. So that leaves the question. Will he really pull out of Afghan in 2011?

    • Pointing out apparent contradictions between recent actions and somewhat recent statements is fair game; you could call it a form of political accountability. But your examples are not all equally valid.

      The Abdelrazik case (the second link) provides a strong example of contradiction between statement and action, while the other two cases are not at all as clear cut. In those cases Harper has taken the defensible position that Canada will not intervene in situations where Canadians have (had) access to a fair trial.

      You may not agree with the merits of that distinction but it does put those two contradictions in a different light than the Abdelrazik case.

  4. Don't forget the beaches of Montana.

  5. "Canada must ensure consequences when foreign governments torture or kill our people.”

    Harper was correct in 2004. Too bad that Harper no longer exists.

    • You're right. That Harper was only just visiting.