Fuck off, David Wilkins.
“It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner constantly,” Mr. Wilkins said in a speech to the Canadian Club at the Chateau Laurier Hotel in Ottawa. “But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on the relationship.”
...Stephen Clarkson, a professor political economy, argues the White House has set its sights on regime change for the first time in North America since John Kennedy's battle with former PM John Diefenbaker in 1963. With supporters from the National Rifle Association to Friends of the Family taking a public stance against recent Canadian policy, Prof. Clarkson argues the Bush administration is looking for a change on Parliament Hill.
Yeah, yeah, of course the Bushies and James Dobson want Martin out and Harper in and so long as no campaign finance laws are violated, that's fine. No matter how delusional US rightwing bloggers might be about their role in provoking this election, they're entitled to weigh in with their preferences as much as they want. So is the Washington Times free to endorse Steven Harper. Doing my best David Broder impression, it works the other way too. Yes, Bill Clinton's appearance with Martin at the Montreal Summit was a political statement. And it was somewhat, ah, ironic when Michael Moore and Ralph Nader -- Ralph Nader -- suggested we all hold our noses for Paul back in '04. But of course they too were entitled to express their opinions. Of course!
If the US just had the decency to appoint somebody reasonable to be Canadian ambassador instead of the hackish nincompoop who keeps showing up, I'd be willing to chalk it all up to politics... which is global like everything else these days.
But Wilkins is just too much. Every time he opens his mouth inside Canadian territory, he says something obnoxious and condescending. Take these excerpts from the speech in question. Just shave off the first section, and it's a fine set of remarks for an ambassador defending his country's policy set. (The climate change stuff is spin, but it's official spin, not Wilkins' fault.) But it's just too much to be hectored like this by such a giant hack -- "a former South Carolina legislator whose chief contribution to world affairs before this year was raising $200,000 for President Bush's 2004 campaign" (as TNR's editors put it), especially given the take-no-prisoners GOP approach to campaigning. A man who raised funds for the party of the Swift Vets can keep his electoral pieties to himself, thank you very much.
The CBC's profile of Wilkins reminds us that, when appointed to the ambassadorship, "Canada's biggest fan" hadn't actually been in Canada since the mid-1970s when he made his "first and only visit to Canada" as a member of the US army reserve.
And who can forget Wilkins on Maher Arar's rendition to Syria*?:
"You talking about regrets by the United States?" Wilkins said in an interview with the Canadian Press. "The United States made that decision based on the facts it had, in the best interests of the people of the United States, and we stand behind it." He also said: "Will there be other deportations in the future? I'd be surprised if there's not."
If the American right wants to hurt the Martin Liberals, they ought to keep Wilkins -- a perfect foil for the Liberal critique of the US and a bit of a wrench in Harper's pledge to establish a better relationship with a country that foists such an ambassador on us -- at home til January 24th.
* I remain a big fan of the Martin government -- a Cerberus-style partisan in fact -- but the Star's editors are right that the handling of Arar's case and its aftermath really has been truly appalling, on both sides of the border.
...Stephen Clarkson, a professor political economy, argues the White House has set its sights on regime change for the first time in North America since John Kennedy's battle with former PM John Diefenbaker in 1963. With supporters from the National Rifle Association to Friends of the Family taking a public stance against recent Canadian policy, Prof. Clarkson argues the Bush administration is looking for a change on Parliament Hill.
Yeah, yeah, of course the Bushies and James Dobson want Martin out and Harper in and so long as no campaign finance laws are violated, that's fine. No matter how delusional US rightwing bloggers might be about their role in provoking this election, they're entitled to weigh in with their preferences as much as they want. So is the Washington Times free to endorse Steven Harper. Doing my best David Broder impression, it works the other way too. Yes, Bill Clinton's appearance with Martin at the Montreal Summit was a political statement. And it was somewhat, ah, ironic when Michael Moore and Ralph Nader -- Ralph Nader -- suggested we all hold our noses for Paul back in '04. But of course they too were entitled to express their opinions. Of course!
If the US just had the decency to appoint somebody reasonable to be Canadian ambassador instead of the hackish nincompoop who keeps showing up, I'd be willing to chalk it all up to politics... which is global like everything else these days.
But Wilkins is just too much. Every time he opens his mouth inside Canadian territory, he says something obnoxious and condescending. Take these excerpts from the speech in question. Just shave off the first section, and it's a fine set of remarks for an ambassador defending his country's policy set. (The climate change stuff is spin, but it's official spin, not Wilkins' fault.) But it's just too much to be hectored like this by such a giant hack -- "a former South Carolina legislator whose chief contribution to world affairs before this year was raising $200,000 for President Bush's 2004 campaign" (as TNR's editors put it), especially given the take-no-prisoners GOP approach to campaigning. A man who raised funds for the party of the Swift Vets can keep his electoral pieties to himself, thank you very much.
The CBC's profile of Wilkins reminds us that, when appointed to the ambassadorship, "Canada's biggest fan" hadn't actually been in Canada since the mid-1970s when he made his "first and only visit to Canada" as a member of the US army reserve.
And who can forget Wilkins on Maher Arar's rendition to Syria*?:
"You talking about regrets by the United States?" Wilkins said in an interview with the Canadian Press. "The United States made that decision based on the facts it had, in the best interests of the people of the United States, and we stand behind it." He also said: "Will there be other deportations in the future? I'd be surprised if there's not."
If the American right wants to hurt the Martin Liberals, they ought to keep Wilkins -- a perfect foil for the Liberal critique of the US and a bit of a wrench in Harper's pledge to establish a better relationship with a country that foists such an ambassador on us -- at home til January 24th.
* I remain a big fan of the Martin government -- a Cerberus-style partisan in fact -- but the Star's editors are right that the handling of Arar's case and its aftermath really has been truly appalling, on both sides of the border.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home