Stepehen Harpie Plagiarizes High School Essay on Iraq!
OK, so Stephen Harpie read a speech in 2003 that was almost word for word what former Aussie PM John Howard had said a couple days before.
For those interested, Howard gave a speech in which he urged Australian participation in the so-called Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq and forestall any WMDs and possibly discover Osama bin Laden having a drink in some little cantina in Baghdad. Mission accomplished.
In 2003, Harpie was Leader of the Opposition and he was trying to get Canaduh to go along with the Bushwhack plan. He made a speech. It turns out that it was the same speech that John Howard gave.
Now, I'm forgiving enough to say, "Who cares?" I'm not surprised that Harpie didn't know it was a case of plagiarism. You hire a speech writer, you expect him to write a speech, not borrow it. And if you have to Google every speech someone writes for you to make sure it's not cribbed from someone else, you might as well write it yourself. I will remind everyone, however, that plagiarism torpedoed the presidential hopes of a current US vice-presidential candidate, namely Joe Biden, back in the 80s.
No, the plagiarism doesn't bother me so much. What does concern me though is being reminded of Harpie's stance vis a vis Iraq back then. Personally, I knew (had an instinctive sense, a gut feeling) that invading Iraq was exactly the wrong thing to do. Not just me, of course. Many Canajuns. Many Murricans. Many world citizens thought this was bad business. And, of course, we've all been proven right.
But not Stephen Harpie. No sirree, he was all gung ho to go. Jean Cretin, the PM at the time, ultimately said, in his inimitable Franglais, "No go." And altho I didn't have much use for Cretin, I thank the stars he didn't drag Canaduh into that crazy man's war. Stephen Harpie, however, would have put us smack in the middle of that quicksand. That serious misjudgment alone should disqualify him from being PM.
For those interested, Howard gave a speech in which he urged Australian participation in the so-called Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq and forestall any WMDs and possibly discover Osama bin Laden having a drink in some little cantina in Baghdad. Mission accomplished.
In 2003, Harpie was Leader of the Opposition and he was trying to get Canaduh to go along with the Bushwhack plan. He made a speech. It turns out that it was the same speech that John Howard gave.
Now, I'm forgiving enough to say, "Who cares?" I'm not surprised that Harpie didn't know it was a case of plagiarism. You hire a speech writer, you expect him to write a speech, not borrow it. And if you have to Google every speech someone writes for you to make sure it's not cribbed from someone else, you might as well write it yourself. I will remind everyone, however, that plagiarism torpedoed the presidential hopes of a current US vice-presidential candidate, namely Joe Biden, back in the 80s.
No, the plagiarism doesn't bother me so much. What does concern me though is being reminded of Harpie's stance vis a vis Iraq back then. Personally, I knew (had an instinctive sense, a gut feeling) that invading Iraq was exactly the wrong thing to do. Not just me, of course. Many Canajuns. Many Murricans. Many world citizens thought this was bad business. And, of course, we've all been proven right.
But not Stephen Harpie. No sirree, he was all gung ho to go. Jean Cretin, the PM at the time, ultimately said, in his inimitable Franglais, "No go." And altho I didn't have much use for Cretin, I thank the stars he didn't drag Canaduh into that crazy man's war. Stephen Harpie, however, would have put us smack in the middle of that quicksand. That serious misjudgment alone should disqualify him from being PM.
3 comments:
Maybe I am just a simpleton. Beyond all the political mire, statements, excuses, reasonings, lies, blunders, insults, what IS?
If Palin is such a duh, what does that say about a presidential candidate who chooses her, over more qualified candidates, to tentatively become vice president? What's behind that?
If Stephen Harper is bad news for Canada, and I believe he is, how come the other parties cannot get together,forget their petty, personal differences, and vote that man OUT?
When good brains rise to the top, why can't they communicate, brainstorm together, what would work the best for all?
Larry, I vote you in as top leader with your x-ray vision. I never quite get the politcal picture until you explain it, stripped to the bone with a healthy sense of humor.
I don't even know how to vote for what I believe. None of the choices cover that. I'll be unhappy about it, no matter what.
C'est La Vie.
WT, I see the situation in Canaduh like this: right now the more "liberal" parties are in the same situation the "conservative" parties were a few years ago. "Left" voters have a choice of three parties, so the majority of Canadians are splitting their votes. The same way the "right" voters did when we had both the Constipated Party and the Canajun Misalliance.
But there is a precedent, both in Canaduh and other countries, which can work and that is a coalition government. Where two parties, say the Gliberals and the NDP agree to a common program and to work together to form a government. This can only happen, though, if there is a minority government. ie. if the Constipators won only enough seats for a minority government, the only way they can stay in power is to get the support of other parties on an ad hoc basis, issue by issue. But if in this situation, all parties refused to support the Constipators, the Gliberals and NDP could go to the governess-general and say, "We have enough seats to form the government." And the governess-general would have to let them try.
It's been done before, even in Canaduh, and could be done this time. But, as you say, the party leaders have to get together and agree to freeze Harpie out. (And again, that only applies if no party wins a majority of the seats...)
As for what would work best for all? I don't think that's what politics as we know it is about. (Since I'm such a socialist, I tend to think that all of the parties more or less work for the same group, and that group is nowhere near being "all of us".)
When it comes to choosing who to vote for, all you can do is ask yourself, "On balance, who comes closest to what I believe in?" And I, personally, always vote for the party or candidate that come closest to what I believe is right. None of this strategic voting or vote-swapping or anything like that. Unfortunately, that usually means that my vote is not particularly effective because I almost always vote against the tide.
What do you mean by "The same group?"
When I say "All of us." I mean the good of the whole bloody planet. Environment, compassion for all living things,equal sharing. Ha, ha!!! I know I am being naif.
It just frustrates me that honesty is lacking, that bickering and negativity are the tools being used. That I strongly feel that those in power, and the media are misleading me. I think I probably just should stop trying to reason and follow my gut feeling. That mostly works for me. I just don' know where it is guiding me, right now.
Post a Comment