Two-faced even by normal standards’
Consider the outrage we would have heard from Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois, had Rice breezed into town and lectured us on our foreign policy.
And that outrage would have much of our mainline media, most of whom would have taken great umbrage at the arrogance - and outright rudeness - of a visiting official from a friendly country abusing her host’s hospitality.
Rice was never crass enough to do it. Clinton, alas, is.
Yet instead of being offended by Clinton’s deliberate breach of diplomatic protocol, the opposition and their media cheerleaders have joined in a chorus of tut-tuts against Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s proposed initiative to improve the lives of Third World women and children.
Never mind that during their decades of power it’s not something the Liberals even thought about, let alone acted upon.
No, no. What matters now is that Clinton is upset that Harper’s initiative does not include the use of Canadian cash to promote Third World abortions.
Worse, abortion advocates don’t even call it “abortion” any more. It’s “family planning.” No, it’s not. Family planning is one thing. Abortion is another. Or should be.
So here comes Hillary, lecturing Harper on his initiative, mainly on the grounds that it does not promote public funding of abortion abroad. Incredibly, her comments came on the very week - the very same week - that her own boss, President Barrack Obama, agreed to buy the votes of pro-life Democrats in Congress for his healthcare bill by promising to sign a presidential decree which - wait for it - would ban public funding of abortions in the United States.
Let’s be clear. For Clinton - cheered on by our opposition parties - Canadian taxpayers have a fiscal and moral duty to fund Third World abortions - whether those countries agree with abortion or not - but American taxpayers can’t be expected to fund U.S. abortions. This is two-faced even by normal political standards.
Yet, quite apart from defending our country from the notion of foreign politicians dictating to us, you’d think that a self-declared genius and patriot such as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff would see through the hypocrisy, in Clinton’s position.
No such luck. Ignatieff, and much of his Liberal caucus, applauded Clinton, although they fell on their collective faces when their motion supporting foreign abortion funding failed because several Liberals joined the Tories to defeat the idea that abortion is simply a family planning tool for Third World persons.
Liberal MP Scott Brison - who used to be a Tory MP, but quit in a snit after his party made it clear it didn’t want him as leader - took great delight in Clinton’s unprofessional foray into our domestic politics.
Brison, who would be among the first to scream had Rice done something like this, chirped that “Hillary Clinton’s smackdown of the Harper government was really something to see.”
Standing up for Canada - rather than bowing down to Clinton - would have also been “something to see,” but apparently not a sight that interests Brison. He was too busy accusing Harper of a “narrow ideological perspective that reflects more the ... Bush administration, than it does the Obama administration.”
Please. This is such old hat. If there’s something critics don’t like, they blame it on Bush, much as Ontario politicians used to blame Mike Harris for everything bad, apparently asking us to believe that before Bush became president nobody in the history of the U.S. or the world had ever expressed any qualms about abortion.
Another stupid notion is the “narrow ideological perspective” accusation, another way of “accusing” opponents of - how terrible - actually believing in something. Why is this bad? Because the accuser - who also has an ideology - doesn’t agree. Hmmnnn!
And finally, just what, exactly, is Obama’s abortion position. Well, his first act as president was to cancel the Bush plan that banned U.S. funds from paying for Third World abortions. He says Americans should help pay for those abortions. But then, when it comes to U.S. soil, Obama says tax dollars can’t fund abortions.
So which is it? Is it morally and fiscally responsible to publicly fund abortions or not? Apparently not when it comes to unborn American babies. They’re too precious. But hey, no problem aborting Third World babies. What does that really say about their feelings toward the Third World? Yet Canada’s opposition parties, simply to make political points at home, are applauding this appalling double standard. Shame on them.
Post new comment