John Chuckman
COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN CBC NEWS
“Trudeau rails against Conservatives in foreign policy speech
“'They envision a world where Canada flirts with the forces of populism,' says PM of Tories”
'They envision a world where Canada flirts with the forces of populism'
Well, for me, someone with an abiding interest in international affairs and who prides himself a little on his knowledge of them, those words of Trudeau's pretty much top everything stomach-churning he's ever said.
Please, who is the world's premier example of contemporary "populism'?
Donald Trump, of course.
Now, can you name a single significant policy of Trump's that our wonderful team of Trudeau-Freeland departs from?
Overthrowing an elected government in Venezuela? Freeland chairs the outfit created by CIA to help do it, the Lima Group.
Saudi Arabia's many horrors from killing women and children in Yemen and in Saudi Arabia, in efforts against minority Shia, to record numbers of beheadings and to a grisly murder which implicates the very leader of the country?
Canada's heroic response? Never say a word about the horrors of Yemen and never say a word against a man who is perhaps the world’s most horrific leader today (a man beloved by Trump and Netanyahu), and keep selling those light tanks to him, baby!
America's absurd and truly dangerous attacks against China on a half dozen fronts? Hey, if you've heard Trump's words on the subject, no need to listen to Freeland's feeble hinterland echo.
Russophobia? A Freeland speciality. Unwarranted attacks on Iran? Boy, she’s made Ottawa an echo chamber for that.
And, of course, we've actually had the boy wonder fly down to Trump to plead for special help with China, help on a problem caused by Trudeau and Freeland themselves. Very impressive recent background for giving a speech on ugly populist leaders.
Trudeau's speech is so disingenuous, so vacuous, I'd literally vote for anyone but him.
_______________________________
Well, there's one thing we know for sure, Trudeau is not an "Isolationist," a word from 1930s America which truly has no meaning anymore, but there’s still room for it in a Trudeau speech on foreign policy.
It applied to Americans who thought America should stay home and mind its own business. America hadn’t yet quite become a global empire. That came with the end of WWII.
They were mainly conservative types, but not exclusively.
But, just look at what the Right gives us today in America.
The likes of Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo, ready to tell everyone else on the planet what they should do and how they should do it, with the threat of serious economic consequences or military action against them, if they don't.
That's as far from Isolationism as it gets, and there is absolutely nothing good to say about it. It actually is behavior reminiscent of the ugly forces America struggled over going to war with in the 1930s, forces so ugly that opposing going to war with them gave Isolationism its enduring bad name.
I say we know Trudeau isn't an Isolationist because he loyally and faithfully serves Trump in every significant part of foreign policy.
I really think Trudeau needs a new speechwriter. These are half-ridiculous words.
“Isolationism” doesn't even exist anymore as a movement. The word is dated and almost meaningless. And Trudeau tries to apply it where it wouldn’t fit under any circumstances.
But if it did have a place today, it would actually be preferable to supporting the Trump-Bolton-Pompeo axis of violent interference in the affairs of others, something to which Trudeau makes no objection, and is, indeed, a willing helper.
A threadbare speech, full of clichés, plainly outmoded concepts, and earnest efforts to position himself as a "good guy." A threadbare speech from a threadbare leader.
Sorry, Mr. Trudeau, you can't be both, "one of the good guys" and a proved incompetent, a fighter against dark forces and a ready helper of Trump’s. The mix is just plainly ridiculous.
___________________________
Response to a comment saying, “Cee Bee Cee has forgotten how to act like a neutral observer and just report the news instead of having anti any party view which is not liberal”:
In case you hadn't noticed, all news sources have editorial content as well as journalistic observations.
And all news sources, all, come with one form of bias or another.
On the whole, I think CBC Online does a pretty decent job, and its comment policy is generous compared to most, and I do a lot of reading of stuff from all over.
________________________
Response to a comment saying, "He has no standing with the international community":
Although I'd hardly choose, as you do, an example like the brutal and not-very-open Bolsonaro avoiding a handshake with Trudeau to cite as evidence, that is very much the case, Trudeau has no standing.
But I must add that it is only a handful of Canadian Prime Ministers who enjoyed such status, men whose efforts and achievements in large part have been ignored by Trudeau and Freeland in their roles as Washington's willing helpers from the North.
As a country, sadly, we don't have a big international following anymore because we have no Lester Pearson or Pierre Trudeau or Paul Martin to earn it for us. And that was true for Stephen Harper. He was unpopular internationally even though not regarded as the lightweight Trudeau very much is.
Internationally, in general, I think we are viewed pretty much as what we've become, a kind of big resource-rich colony of the United States with a fairly timid international voice. Why would important international leaders need to listen to a weak echo of the noisy, in-your-face United States?
Trudeau's stature isn't, I think, all that much different than that of Ivanka Trump, someone who also likes to play at being a leader and is close to being laughed off the stage as she leaves events, although, of course, he is elected, not appointed by Daddy.
Harper wasn't well regarded either, despite being seen as far more intelligent and driving. He was widely seen as fairly servile to other interests, especially those of Israel, as he very much was, and to an embarrassing degree.
And I'm sorry to say, we don't have a great deal of promise in Andrew Scheer, although we'll likely have to take what we get and hope for the best. Early statements on international affairs are distinctly unpromising, although on the home front, there are a few things encouraging.
Only our outstanding leaders gave Canada the ability to "punch above its weight class" in the world. This would have been the case, for example, with Jack Layton, but that quality of man is seen once in a generation.
_____________________
Response to a comment calling Trudeau lightweight and extremely arrogant:
The “lightweight” part of your comment is deadly accurate, the rest not so much so.
I see no "undisguised contempt" at all in Trudeau, although he does give off a kind of mild arrogance at times, but it's the arrogance of a privileged young man who lives off a trust fund, had a world-famous father, and whose political party has lured him farther than he should have gone.
He often, in fact, gives off an almost cloying sense of a man who wants to be received as a "nice guy." That ain't arrogant, but it sure ain't impressive either.
I see weakness and a complete lack of the kind of talents an effective leader requires.
________________________
Response to a comment saying Xi had no respect for Trudeau:
Well, I don't know about that, but Xi clearly is exceptionally intelligent and hard-working, and he has given China some remarkable initiatives and projects.
He can't have a lot of regard for a guy like Trudeau who comes off a bit like Ivanka Trump in world affairs.
