Join Date: June 30, 2004
Location: Van Island, BC
MARTIN Vrs. Bush (be warned this is a very long post)
It isn't so much the Martin government's decision on missile defence that is bringing it to grief in Canada's relations with the United States. Rather, it's the time line of the announcement, and the subsequent tick-tock that reflect so badly on Paul Martin and his office.
Two weeks ago, the prime minister and the U.S. president were together at the NATO summit in Brussels. Normally at such a meeting, Canada would have asked for, and received, a half-hour meeting with the U.S. president. But Martin didn't, because he knew George W. Bush would have pressed him on North American missile defence. And Martin didn't have the answer Bush wanted to hear.
Moreover, the Canadian media would have pushed Martin hard, and he wouldn't have had any answer for them at all.
Martin was in the same room as Bush for an entire day, but lacked the courtesy - and courage - to take him aside for a few minutes and personally explain Canada's decision.
Instead, the next day, he sent Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew to convey Canada's decision to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Around the same time, our new ambassador to the U.S., Frank McKenna, was assuring parliamentarians and the media that "we're part of it." Incredibly, no one from either the Prime Minister's Office or the Privy Council Office had briefed him on Canada's decision, which was exactly the opposite of what he said.
By Wednesday, back in Ottawa, Martin told the House: "The government has stated all along that it will make the decision when it is in Canada's interest to do so." Euphemistically speaking, Martin misled the House.
This was Feb. 23, budget day, and Martin was trying to protect his government's budget headline. But a full day after the U.S. was told of Canada's decision, he sought to maintain the illusion it hadn't been made.
The story gets better. Or worse.
Last Thursday, Martin announced Pettigrew and Defence Minister Bill Graham led a cabinet discussion on missile defence that morning. Two days after the U.S. was told, the cabinet was subjected to a farcical discussion of the issue.
Late that morning, Pettigrew finally told the House, and the country, what he had told Rice two days before. So the U.S. government was told of our decision two days before the Canadian people, a clear derogation of our political sovereignty.
When Martin appeared before the cameras at noon last Thursday, he acknowledged he still hadn't spoken to Bush, but said he expected to later in the day.
That was a week ago. Bush has yet to return Martin's call. Condi Rice has postponed a visit to Canada. And in a coincidental but important development, a judge in Montana has ordered the border remain closed to Canadian beef. It was to have re-opened next Monday.
No one can remember a time when the president of the United States refused a call from the prime minister of Canada. But Bush has every right to be annoyed. His administration had done everything it needed to facilitate Canada joining in missile defence, authorized by Congress during the presidency of Bill Clinton in 1999. We were not asked to base missiles in Canada, we were not asked to test them here. We were not asked to invest in it, though we might have asked for industrial benefits. We were even given assurances it did not involve the weaponization of space.
After all this, and after his administration was led to believe at the highest levels that Canada was coming in, the Canadian prime minister could not be bothered to inform the president personally that we were not.
If support for missile defence is diminishing across Canada, it's because no one, including the Conservative leader, is leading it in another direction. Stephen Harper has clearly missed an occasion to be perceived as a politician of conviction, rather than one motivated by electoral opportunism, particularly in Quebec.
If there's one issue Conservatives expect their leader to show up for, it's defence and solidarity with the U.S. If there's another, it's a framework of fiscal responsibility. By rolling on the budget even as it was being delivered last week, Harper relinquished his leverage to force amendments on a minority government, one that is increasing public spending by 50 per cent over five years.
Harper also missed an opportunity to drive a stake through the Liberal caucus. Equally, he missed an opportunity of forcing Martin to take a stand against the opponents of missile defence in his own party. Had the Conservatives openly supported missile defence, Martin would have stripped of his pretext for opposing it.
Martin's absence of leadership is stunning. His absence of courtesy is unforgivable. And the damage to Canada-U.S. relations is real, and not easily repaired, because it starts at the very top.
Not long ago, Bush made an interesting observation to a Canadian visitor to the Oval Office. "Your prime minister is very quick to ask me for things," Bush said. "He's not so quick to answer when I ask for something." 
Paul Martin, George W. Bush and Fortress North America
Presentation to the public forum Business Suits and Flak-Jackets
Organized by StopWar.ca.
Vancouver, 13 February 2004.
By Steve Staples, Polaris Institute
It has been an incredible few months in Canadians politics, since the ascension of Paul Martin to the throne of the Liberal Party. Martin has made so many changes that journalists are complaining that he should slow down because they can't write fast enough.
Some people said during the leadership debate last year that Martin was very vague on his policies - speaking in broad generalities and not really committing to specific proposals.
Others, like Murray Dobbin, were reminding us all that Martin has a track record - a terrible record, in fact, that showed how far he was willing to go in tearing up the fabric of the country and gutting social programs in order to appease his backers on Bay Street.
Dobbin succeeded in posing the question, Is Paul Martin a CEO for Canada? Newspaper columnists even engaged in a debate over who is farther to the right, Paul Martin or Brian Mulroney?
It was no secret at all during the leadership debate that Martin had put improving Canada-U.S. relations at the top of his agenda. Martin never came out directly and said he thought that Canada should have joined the invasion of Iraq, but he has taken many steps to do what many in Corporate Canada believe will put Paul Martin on the invitation list of George W. Bush.
This started back in May of last year, when a few days before he was to make an important speech on foreign policy he paid a visit to the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa and had a private meeting with U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci.
You'll remember Paul Cellucci as the guy who said that when he was appointed to his position his only instruction from his boss in Washington, Colin Powell, was to get Canada to increase its military spending.
Later, when ChrÃ©tien announced that Canada would not endorse the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Cellucci went on the offensive, under orders from the White House, to express the Bush administration's deep disappointment with Canada. As a result, some people have stopped referring to him as Ambassador, preferring instead to all him Proconsul.
Of course no one knows what was said in the Martin-Cellucci meeting, but it did kick off an important relationship between Martin's people and the White House, and the Canadian Press revealed two weeks ago that Martin's closest advisors continued meeting with Bush administration officials during the 2003 Liberal Party leadership race.
A few days after his meeting with the U.S. ambassador, the normally evasive Paul Martin came out and said that he supported the missile defence program, and that Canada should take part in it.
In speeches shortly thereafter he talked about pushing billions more into military spending, preparing to move away from the United Nations, and creating new government bodies responsible for national security and co-operation with the United States.
Once in power, Paul Martin did not fail to deliver. He created a new committee on Canada-U.S. relations and reorganized government to create a new Ministry of Public Safety that mirrors the United States' Department of Homeland Security.
He froze all government capital spending in every department, except for helicopters and new tanks for the military. And incidentally, he's even cutting the funding to Canada's peacekeeping training centre located in Nova Scotia, signalling that this will no longer be a priority for our military.
The New York Times ran a story on the first few weeks of the Martin government, and they pointed to how he was moving the government to the right. The first evidence of the shift that the article cited was Martin's choice for minister of defence: David Pratt.
David Pratt is likely not well known outside of Ottawa, but you may recall that when Jean ChrÃ©tien announced that Canada would not endorse the Iraq invasion, every member of the Liberal Caucus gave him a standing ovation - all except for two members, and one of them was David Pratt.
Pratt is an Ottawa area MP who has spent the last few years as the chair of the Parliamentary Defence Committee. It's an all-party committee, but Pratt quickly gained a reputation as being one of the most hawkish members of the Liberal caucus.
I went before the committee last year, and was very surprised to be greeted by a handmade sign hanging outside the door of the meeting chambers that said "The War Room."
In 2002, his committee released a report recommending that Canada's military spending be more than doubled. Canada already spends more than $13 billion on its military. According to the Department of National Defence, dollar for dollar we are the sixth highest military spender within NATO, which has 19 members, and the 15th highest military spender in the world.
David Pratt's committee's report called for nearly $2 billion increases to military spending every year for three years, and then an increase to the NATO average of 2.5 per cent of GDP, setting military spending at a whopping $28 billion.
David Pratt's riding on the outskirts of Ottawa is also the headquarters of one of the largest weapons corporation in Canada - General Dynamics. General Dynamics is the sixth largest military contractor in the world, based in the United States. In 2002 the company earned $9.8 billion in military sales which included the production of nuclear submarines, guided missile destroyers, and armoured vehicles. In Canada General Dynamics builds wheeled tanks in London, Ontario, and military electronics in Ottawa and other locations.
I attended an arms show in Ottawa last year where dozens of companies were demonstrating their latest military equipment and weapons. At the luncheon I wasn't surprised to see seated at the General Dynamics corporate table several business types, military brass, and of course David Pratt.
When Pratt was appointed defence minister, the defence lobby could barely contain its glee. The Conference of Defence Associations immediately sent out a press release congratulating Martin for making such a fine choice. Other military think tanks extolled Pratt as a man who understands the needs of the military.
As defence minister, David Pratt is taking the lead in joining Canada to the United States national missile defence system. In early January he sent a letter to his U.S. counterpart, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, seeking more information on the U.S. system in order to aid Canada in making a decision on the closest possible co-operation with the U.S. missile shield.
David Pratt's letter came as a bit of a shock to those in the diplomatic community. Some said that it was too eager, almost sycophantic, in its support for the U.S. system, and that it may have damaged whatever negotiating ability Canada has.
The letter was timed to have an impact on Washington only days before Paul Martin's much anticipated meeting with George W. Bush. Canada's participation in missile defence is widely seen as the price of atonement for our not joining the war on Iraq.
The two men met in Monterrey, Mexico, during the Summit of the Americas, along with our foreign affairs minister Bill Graham, and on the U.S. side Ambassador Cellucci, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. I had media accreditation and was able to sit in on Martin's first press conference after his breakfast meeting with Bush.
Martin was beaming, and said that there was a "good vibe" between him and the President. It looked as if Martin will win the big prize - a visit to the White House - sometime before the Canadian election.
What was left out of the press conference was any mention of the fact that Paul Martin pledged to the U.S. President to change Canada's foreign policy to make it more complementary to that of the United States. It took about two weeks for that important bit of information to surface in Canadian newspapers.
For many Canadians there has been a "let's wait and see" attitude towards Paul Martin. Is he as bad as some say - is Murray Dobbin right - or have we not really seen all there is to Paul Martin?
In trying to figure out the man however, I've been told its best not to listen to what he says, but watch what he does. And what he has done in just a few short weeks is very troubling.
Even if one would want to argue about whether or not these policies truly reflect Paul Martin's personal feelings - for example, his support for missile defence - there is no mistaking that there has been a strident campaign for Canada to shake off its old soft power and human security foreign policy.
There are powerful forces at play in the United States and here in Canada, working to convince the government to shake off its notion of our country as an advocate for human security, peace and disarmament, and peacekeeping, and to replace these policies with an acceptance - and an enthusiasm - for George Bush's War on Terrorism.
Let's take a look back and see how we arrived here.
It took only 12 hours after the September 11 terrorist attacks for President Bush to gather his war council. "This is our time," he told them. "Get the troops ready."
Days later, as the war plans were being laid for the attack on Afghanistan, Bush used his speech to the special Joint Session of Congress to issue his challenge to governments around the world.
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," said Bush.
The stark choice put before old enemies and allies alike, including Canada, made it clear that the United States expected not just support for, but active participation in, the looming War on Terrorism.
At the time of the September 11 attacks, the Canadian Department of National Defence's policy group was going to press with its annual global security survey, called Strategic Assessment 2001. Analysts quickly wrote a two-page assessment of the global changes that the terrorist attacks against the U.S. would precipitate, and stapled it to the end of the man report as an "epilogue."
That assessment was chilling. It predicted dramatic global military build-up and warfare.
The DND analysts concluded that transnational terrorism would be regarded as the primary threat to international security, and that "the balance between the notion of 'human security' and traditional concepts of security will likely shift in the direction of defending national territory and populations and away from championing poverty eradication and human rights."
The result would be that "Previous concerns to avoid combat casualties in military operations and to minimize collateral damage will be of less importance than achieving military objectives."
For the United States, DND predicted the establishment of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Northern Command, and a missile defence system: "Americans' heightened sense of territorial vulnerability will intensify homeland defence initiatives including those relating to ballistic missile defence."
Even more, DND saw that international law would be cast aside in the search for terrorists: "The standards of proof for complicity in or responsibility for terrorist attacks before undertaking counter-terrorist actions will likely be relaxed in favour of results."
"The international system will be re-ordered into allies or enemies in the fight against terror," wrote the analysts. "Countries that try to adopt a neutral stance will find themselves under pressure to take sides. Traditional U.S. allies will find that calls for military, diplomatic and other support from Washington will be regarded as a test of their loyalty."
The Defence Department's Strategic Assessment 2001 reads like a terminal prognosis for Canada's recent foreign policy achievements.
During the 1990s, Canada tried to help shape the post-Cold War security environment by promoting various international initiatives that sought to strengthen international law. For example, Canada's support for the creation of the International Criminal Court was an attempt to put the conduct of war within the constraints of law.
Similarly, disarmament initiatives, including reviews of NATO's reliance upon nuclear weapons and the landmines treaty used the opportunities of the post-Cold war era to reverse the proliferation of indiscriminate weaponry - from atomic bombs to land mines.
The government's international initiatives in the late 1990s, led by then-Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy, attempted to redefine military intervention policies and doctrines by promoting peacekeeping skills in the Canadian Forces and developing the controversial doctrine of overruling respect for national sovereignty in favour of defending human rights.
The common feature of these initiatives is that all of them were rejected by the government of the United States. The Clinton administration supported neither the International Criminal Court nor the landmines treaty. U.S. control within NATO quashed any notion of giving up its reliance upon the nuclear umbrella. Peacekeeping and human security remained alien concepts to the Pentagon's war-fighting imperatives.
The George W. Bush administration's landmark 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America focused on unilateralism and unrestrained use of military power to protect U.S. interests. The new Grand Strategy fused together military and economic objectives in the national interest. This is what makes the so-called Bush Doctrine unique.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy director Paul Wolfowitz, two of the main architects of the Bush Doctrine, moved quickly in pushing through reforms in the military following September 11, 2001.
In October 2001 they created the Office of Force Transformation within the Pentagon and appointed Vice-Admiral Arthur Cebrowski as its director. Cebrowski is responsible for "transforming" the U.S. military to fight the War on Terrorism.
In an important speech to the right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation in May 2003, Cebrowski laid out the profound implications of the terrorist attacks against the United States for U.S. and global politics: they ushered in a new era of globalization. Cebrowski said "Now we see the emergence of a new globalization, with new rule sets."
The new phase of globalization was facilitated by the movement from the industrial to the information age, and by the end of the Cold War in 1989, which removed a static, bipolar global environment.
Today, the world map is redrawn - divided between those regions of the world whose markets are connected through globalization, and those that resist being connected.
Cebrowski said, "We used to talk, for example, about the haves and the have-nots. Now we can talk about the functioning core of globalization . . . versus the non-functioning gap of globalization. We can see threats, then, in a completely different light."
America's privileged position within globalization and the system itself must be defended. "We indeed do have a protected, a privileged position," admits Cebrowski, noting that America counts for only five per cent of the world's population, but produces and consumes upwards of twenty-five per cent of the world's wealth.
The Bush administration's Office of Force Transformation is preparing the U.S. military to enforce the Bush Doctrine. "If you are fighting globalization, if you reject the rules, if you reject connectivity, you are probably going to be of interest to the United States Department of Defence," warned Cebrowski.
The day following the announcement of the Bush Doctrine that so clearly fused together national security and free trade, U.S. trade Representative Robert Zoellick announced a new imperative for his office. Trade agreements would be used as leverage to achieve reforms in countries that want deals with the United States.
Critics of the change in strategy such as former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz said that Zoellick's initiative "would be viewed as an example of the U.S. trying to strong-arm the world."
The new strategy positions the United States government as the central arbiter of the global economy, marginalizing the World Trade Organization, the IMF, and other multilateral bodies. The patience and restraint required in multilateral venues such as the World Trade Organization cannot deliver the economic rewards and punishment that the U.S. desires.
As Walden Bello argues, the globalization game plan has shifted in a significant way: "For the Bush people, strategic power is the ultimate modality of power. Economic power is a means to achieve strategic power. This is related to the fact that under Bush, the dominant faction of the ruling elite is the military-industrial establishment that won the Cold war."
Globalization will certainly continue, but only in a fashion that combines U.S. security and economic benefit. "The Bush administration has supplanted the globalist political economy of the Clinton period with a unilateralist, nationalist political economy that intends to shore up the global dominance of the U.S. corporate elite."
The "global capitalist elites," as Bello describes those interests that benefited from the globalist political economy, are being disciplined to accept the Bush Doctrine. U.S. Council for International Business now admits that "In the WTO, it's always been understood that security trumps trade."
Economic ties have been used as punishment for reluctant allies as well. A multi-billion-dollar loan from the IMF to Turkey was taken off the table when it refused to join the invasion of Iraq. A long-time dispute between the U.S. and New Zealand over its refusal to allow visits by U.S. nuclear-powered or armed warships has unofficially delayed a long-sought free trade agreement between the two countries.
The prospect of another closure of the Canada-U.S. border like that which occurred on September 11 has sent Canada's corporate elite scrambling. Their fear is that Canada's refusal to endorse the invasion of Iraq is bringing economic retaliation against the country in the form of trade disruptions like softwood lumber.
Having worked so hard to achieve the first free trade agreement and later NAFTA, they think Canada has to sign on to the U.S.'s war effort in order to protect Canada's access to the U.S. market.
The United States has been using this fear to encourage corporations to apply pressure on the Canada government. "Security will trump trade," said Ambassador Cellucci, raising the spectre of increased frustrations for trade at the border. It was a carefully crafted message designed to agitate for resistance to the ChrÃ©tien government and to energize pro-U.S. elements of Canadian society. He appealed to the business class, the Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party establishment, conservative elements of the Liberal Party, and especially the military.
On the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks against the United States, Canada's former ambassador to the United States, Allan Gotlieb, used the pages of the National Post to call for a "Grand Bargain" with the United States. "The Canadian political agenda is economic security; for Americans it is homeland security. Therein lie the potential elements of a grand negotiation," Gotlieb later wrote.
A succession of reports, op-eds, speeches and conferences have emanated from conservative think tanks and foundations to argue for a comprehensive agreement with the United States in order to ensure Canada's economic security, as Gotlieb described it.
All of these proposals contain an admission, whether explicit or implicit, that the gains made towards greater economic integration with the United States achieved through the first Canada-U.S. trade agreement and the subsequent North American Free Trade Agreement risked being undermined by U.S. security measures at the border.
"NAFTA has largely outlived its usefulness," wrote Wendy Dobson of the corporate-funded C.D. Howe Institute in the Globe and Mail. "Canadian concerns about economic security must be linked with U.S. domestic priorities to attract U.S. notice. And homeland security is the single overriding U.S. goal. What's needed is a strategic framework that links security and defence with economic goals."
Here we see the basis of unity emerging between two powerful lobbies in Canada: the corporate lobby and the defence lobby. Each is approaching the other through its desire to expand the militarization of Canada through increased military spending and greater integration with the United States.
If Canada continues to pursue an independent foreign policy, both lobbies will see their aims marginalized. Join in with the Bush Doctrine and the War on Terrorism, and the corporations and generals are all winners.
The most prominent organization to push for military and economic integration is the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), led by long-time free trade advocate Tom d'Aquino. D'Aquino has been working in government and corporate circles for more than 30 years, and describes himself as "one of Canada's foremost policy strategists" and "one of the private sector architects of the Canada-United States free trade initiative and a leading exponent of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)."
D'Aquino's critics may have other ways to describe his accomplishments, but no one disputes that Tom d'Aquino has played a key role in the rise of neo-conservatism in Canada. Today his group still represents Canada's most wealthy and powerful people from the corporate community, but its main focus has been on achieving the "Grand Bargain" between Canada and the United States.
Tom d'Aquino told the National Post, "We feel that 'Free Trade One' was sort of a transforming chapter in the relationship between Canada and the United States," in discussing why the CCCE has become an active promoter of Canada-U.S. military and economic integration. He went on, "I would say that this is the second chapter of that transforming initiative."
D'Aquino has organized an action group of 30 CEOs to promote his plan for "North American Security and Prosperity." The list comprises powerhouses from the banking, oil and gas, and defence industries, including former Canadian Ambassador to the United States Derek H. Burney, currently president of CAE Inc. CAE Inc. generates more than a half-billion dollars from military contracts annually, much of it from the Pentagon.
In April d'Aquino organized a private meeting between dozens of Canadian CEOs and Bush administration officials in Washington, D.C.
According to one report, some executives emerged from the room visibly shaken from the stern rebuke they were given by Richard Perle, the influential defence advisor often less affectionately known as the Prince of Darkness. One CEO came from the room clearly unsettled, saying Perle had warned them that "in future Canada had better realize where its best interests lie."
The point was clear - Canada's economic interests would be best served by its endorsement and active participation in whatever the United States deemed necessary for its national security.
D'Aquino used the meeting to raise $2 million for his North American Security and Prosperity Initiative.
I attended a conference in Ottawa recently where D'Aquino was one of the main speakers. Tickets were $850 for the two-day event, obviously designed to keep representatives of popular movements from hearing what was being said. A few groups shared the cost.
In a room full of high-level government bureaucrats, d'Aquino recounted how he had spent a week with Bush Sr. again last summer fishing in Labrador, and pitched the father president on the North American Security and Prosperity plan. Bush was sceptical at first, but d'Aquino suggested that the plan would make North America an island of prosperity and security. Bush replied, "Now that is something that Americans would be interested in . . ."
The stakes in this game are nothing less than the future independence of Canada - our ability to set our own course on how we want to organize ourselves and our economy, and how we want to engage the world.
It's clear that powerful forces have been arrayed to push for the next phase of integration - the next phase of globalization. Will Canada be transformed to mirror the United States, accepting the Bush doctrine of war and war profits as our own world view? What's Paul Martin's answer to this question?
The Globe and Mail laid it out for Martin in its first editorial of the year. On January 1, the Globe's editorialists wrote that Paul Martin the finance minister successfully alerted Canadians to the danger of the deficit, and taught people to accept cuts to social programs. His next job is to get Canadians to accept holding the line on social programs so that the money can be used to build up the military.
This coming election will be an important opportunity for us to put these issues before Canadians. Martin is clearly worried about Jack Layton and has been spending a lot of time attacking the NDP, while also trying to put off some important issues until after the election - not the least of which is missile defence.
The question of Canada's participation in missile defence could become a symbol of Martin's rush to embrace George W. Bush and to appease the hawkish, extremist Republican White House. Missile defence would mean Canada giving up on its traditional contributions to the world, and trading it in for Star Wars - a system even Brian Mulroney didn't believe in.
But we can't forget that election night will not be the end of the campaign - rather, it is the beginning. The corporations are putting together their five-year campaign, and so should we.
People who were around in the 1980s say this feels like the beginning of the free trade debate of 1984 and 1985. It was then that civil society came together to name what was happening, and to show the terrible impacts that Free Trade would have on Canadians. I think the challenge right now is no different than it was then.
We need to reach out and talk to people, show them what's happening. We can' t let our history and our future be stolen away by the generals and the CEOs.
Let's remind Canadians of their own values of community, of sharing and openness. We need to engage the world - not hide behind an American missile shield.
ChrÃ©tien had a warning for Paul Martin at the Liberal leadership convention - remember what he said? "Beware of those who put the bottom line ahead of all else." I hope Martin was listening.
I also hope that he heard George W. Bush the morning of their breakfast meeting in Mexico, when Bush said, "I can assure Canadians we'll do everything we can to protect the United States."
The corporations want Canadians to give up and accept Star Wars - more soldiers, more spies, more guns. We have to if we want to keep trade moving and money changing hands with the United States.
I call this Profits over Principles.
But Canadians have told pollsters, over and over again, they don't want to follow the United States' path. In December three out of every four people polled told Maclean's they agreed that it was right for Canada to stay out of the invasion of Iraq, even if it annoyed our closest trading partner, the United States, and possibly cost Canadians jobs.
I call this Principles over Profits.
But it's up to us. This campaign for a new independent and democratic Canada needs to start tonight, right here. And we'll take it into the next election, and keep it going until we win.
If you were to lazy to read this (I don't blaim you I dou't anyone will but ima post it anyway) then for simplicity ima say Liberals aka Paul Martin SUCK!