Who said the following?

“I will tell you why I am confident about this election… why I’m confident. It is because [my opponent] does not have the courage to face me, and to debate with me. He knows he cannot win. So, he invented an opponent, and he’s fighting this opponent. He’s fighting a shadow. But his real opponent is here, and I will take him.”

When you’re done laughing at Stephane Dion’s hubris, check in with who is really sparring with a invented opponent.

Comments

comments

  • Liz J

    Shadow boxing should be fun.
    Would anyone know when Harper ever said he wouldn't debate Dion or anyone else?

  • Gabby in QC

    Those who have applauded and are lauding the Liberals’ refusal to participate in the “Coalition of the Willing” and pointing to Harper’s 2003 support for the war forget that if the UN had approved the invasion, Canada would also have participated quite willingly in THAT coalition.

    That is, Canada was waiting for the UN to speak FOR Canada.

    Is that what Bob Rae and Stephane Dion mean when they say that they want Canada to speak with its own voice?

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ira
    “After months of hesitation, Canada finally made it clear on Tuesday that it has no intention of contributing to a U.S.-led attack on Iraq that has not been blessed by the U.N. Security Council. …
    Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, wary of antagonizing the country's most important military ally and trading partner, has, until now, consistently declined to rule out contributing forces to such a coalition. But on Tuesday he told Parliament that Canada would not join an unsanctioned campaign.
    “We have not been asked and we do not intend to participate in a group of the willing,” he said in reply to a question asking whether Canada would join Bush's “coalition of willing countries” in an attack on Iraq.
    “The policy of the government is very clear. If there has to be military activity in Iraq, we want it to be approved by the U.N. Security Council,” he continued. …”

    BTW, do these great minds know that Bush's term is up in November?
    That Obama is leading in the polls and will likely win the White House?
    That many Dems initially supported the invasion of Iraq?
    <a href=”http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&vote=00237&session=2″>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call
    In the Senate: 77 yeas, 23 nays for Resolution 114
    AND
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#ci
    “Iraq Resolution” and “Iraq War Resolution” are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a joint resolution (i.e. a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

  • Liz J

    Shadow boxing should be fun.
    Would anyone know when Harper ever said he wouldn't debate Dion or anyone else?

  • Gabby in QC

    Those who have applauded and are lauding the Liberals’ refusal to participate in the “Coalition of the Willing” and pointing to Harper’s 2003 support for the war forget that if the UN had approved the invasion, Canada would also have participated quite willingly in THAT coalition.

    That is, Canada was waiting for the UN to speak FOR Canada.

    Is that what Bob Rae and Stephane Dion mean when they say that they want Canada to speak with its own voice?

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ira
    “After months of hesitation, Canada finally made it clear on Tuesday that it has no intention of contributing to a U.S.-led attack on Iraq that has not been blessed by the U.N. Security Council. …
    Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, wary of antagonizing the country's most important military ally and trading partner, has, until now, consistently declined to rule out contributing forces to such a coalition. But on Tuesday he told Parliament that Canada would not join an unsanctioned campaign.
    “We have not been asked and we do not intend to participate in a group of the willing,” he said in reply to a question asking whether Canada would join Bush's “coalition of willing countries” in an attack on Iraq.
    “The policy of the government is very clear. If there has to be military activity in Iraq, we want it to be approved by the U.N. Security Council,” he continued. …”

    BTW, do these great minds know that Bush's term is up in November?
    That Obama is leading in the polls and will likely win the White House?
    That many Dems initially supported the invasion of Iraq?
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call
    In the Senate: 77 yeas, 23 nays for Resolution 114
    AND
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#ci
    “Iraq Resolution” and “Iraq War Resolution” are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a joint resolution (i.e. a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.