Globe and Mail
2004.06.03

(Located on the web at https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/project-x/2004-June/006782.html)

Iraq: Harper, Harper, pants on fire

By Lawrence Martin	

Stephen Harper has a McGuinty-sized problem on his hands -- on an
issue even bigger than taxes.

The Chrétien government's decision not to enter the Iraq war is a
defining moment in Canada's foreign-policy history. It is now
supported, according to a recent CBC poll, by a staggering 79 per
cent of the population.

The record shows that Mr. Harper and his Conservatives wanted to
enter that war. But, fearing that it would cost him badly at the
polls, Mr. Harper is now trying to squirm his way out of it,
saying he only wanted increased moral support for the conflict,
not military support. The new line -- offered while crying
"Dalton" at the Liberals for their tax-pledge reversal in the
Ontario budget -- doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

There are Mr. Harper's own words from last April. "We should have
been there, shoulder to shoulder with our Allies." 

There are the words of a former party member, Keith Martin, who
was at the table with him. "If Harper was prime minister," Dr.
Martin said this week, "Canadian soldiers would be coming home
from Iraq in body bags." There is a pre-war press release from
Mr. Harper's foreign affairs critic, Stockwell Day. It is
headlined "Canadian Troops Must Join Allies in the Gulf." It is
on Official Opposition letterhead.

When a reporter, Tonda MacCharles, recently confronted Mr. Harper
with the press release, the Conservative leader grew very testy.
"I don't recall it and I don't know what it's about, okay?" Why
should he have to revisit the matter, he scolded.

Since the war is the major issue of our time, it is peculiar that
he didn't recall the policy stance. In fact, shortly after the
invasion of Iraq began, Mr. Harper co-authored an article with
Stockwell Day that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. In the
article they said it was a "serious mistake" for Jean Chrétien to
leave Canada "outside [this] multilateral coalition of nations"
against Iraq.

On the campaign trail this week, however, Mr. Harper was sticking
to his new take. He denied ever wanting Canadian troops on the
ground as part of the coalition. Meanwhile, on the subject of his
interesting press release, Stock Day wasn't returning phone
calls.

In the Conservative caucus, almost everyone was pro-war, recalls
Keith Martin, with the exception of himself and Reed Elley. "Our
party even had signs up in the Commons behind our rows of seats.
They said, 'We stand with George W. Bush.' "

The hard-line war stance was one of the reasons Mr. Martin left
the party to join the Liberals. He sees Mr. Harper, whom he says
is "a gung-ho, ideological, pro-American," as now being engaged
in a rejigging of history to save his political hide.

"My riding [Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca] has a military base in it. I
asked Stephen what was I to say to constituents who would be
losing their loved ones in that war?" There was no response from
Mr. Harper, he said, other than, "We have to support the
Americans cause they are our traditional allies."

If it weren't for Mr. Harper's own words and the Day press
release and the co-authored article, it would be tempting to
dismiss Keith Martin as an embittered former party member who is
making all this up.

The Liberals are eyeing a big opening on the issue. Mark Resnick,
an adviser to Paul Martin, said it is clear the Conservative
leader is engaged in a "major disassembling of the truth" and
he's not going to get away with it.

The Martin Liberals are not perfectly clean themselves on Iraq,
having appointed war hawks David Pratt as defence minister and
Scott Brison as special adviser on American relations.

But it is Stephen Harper who is caught in a vice. Going into the
campaign, he had a big decision to make on the war issue. He
could have explained that he supported the war thinking that it
would be prosecuted on a more honest and effective basis, but
that he was incorrect in those assumptions.

Canadians, I think, would have found this rationale
understandable.

Or, just like politicians he denounces for having one position
one day and another the next, Mr. Harper could dodge and weave
and dance around the truth and stage a flip-flop of McGuintyesque
proportions.

He has chosen the latter course and as this campaign progresses
he will be caught in those headlights.