Jean Chretien on - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-13-2002, 02:10 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Jean Chretien on

jean chretien, speaking with cbc's 'national' host peter mansbridge, explained some of his views on what he seems to think were the root causes of not only the events of september 11th, but also western civilizations present existence.

Quote:
peter mansbridge in interview with jean chretien

Peter Mansbridge: By the end of the day, what were you thinking about in terms of how the world had changed?

Chrétien: But I've said that it is a division in the world that is building up. And I knew that it was the inspiration of it. For me, I think that the rest of the world is a bit too selfish, and that there is a lot of resentment. I felt it when I dealt with the African file for the Summit of the G-8. You know, the poor, relatively, get poorer all the time. And the rich are getting richer all the time. You know, now we see the abuse of the system with problems in the United States at this moment with the corporate world, you know. When you think that, you know, you have to let somebody go in Cabinet because perhaps relatively very minor things ... of guidelines. And there was billions of dollars that were basically stolen from the shareholders. The above portion was not aired on the CBC program

And we have to you know solving the problems when we read history. Everybody don't know when to stop. There is a moment, you know, when you have to stop. There is a moment when you have very powerful (inaudible).

I said that in New York one day. I said, you know talking, it was Wall Street and it was a crowd of capitalists, of course, and they were complaining because we have a normal relation with Cuba and this and that, and, you know, we cannot do everything we want. And I said ... if I recall, it was probably these words: `When you're powerful like you are, you guys, is the time to be nice.' And it is one of the problems. You know, you cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation for the others. And that is what the Western world, not only the Americans, the Western world has to realize, because they are human beings too, and there are long-term consequences if you don't look hard at the reality in 10 or 20, or 30 years from now. And I do think that the Western world is going to be too rich in relation to the poor world. And necessarily, you know, we look upon us as being arrogant, self-satisfying, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize that it's even more.
while not a fresh perspective on the situation, chretien's words are unique coming from a G8 leader. what is to make of this?

some context
as many of you, i am sure, know, chretien has been at the forefront among world leaders in the effort to relieve the debts of third world nations. bono has made good friends with chretien and lloyd axworthy(former chretien foreign policy advisor and pioneer politician in effort to rid world of anti-personel landmines). so his concern for such issues is not unprecedented.

however such a willingness to stir the pot is. chretien has, at times, in the past been guilty of having a loose tongue and has made some foolish gaffes during speeches. however, i doubt this was the case with the cbc interview. chretien has come under criticism in the past day(though much of it has been misguided opposition rhetoric claiming chretien 'condoned' terrorism with his statement) but his people stood behind his statement today and others, both in his party and in opposition, have also supported the comment-this all comes just days after chretien met with g. bush and, for now, declined to directly comitting canada to supporting any military offensive on iraq alongside the u.s.

at the same time, it must be said chretien's retirement is upcoming in febrary 2004, and according to many close to him he is hellbent on social spending and improving canadian society until that time.

any thoughts?
__________________

__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 02:24 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
ouizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: s p o r a t i c
Posts: 3,788
Local Time: 05:01 AM
O'Reilly (Koby - he is a TV interviewer here in the US - pretty popular)

ripped him apart last night.

As far as I understand Chretien is a socialist, no?
__________________

__________________
ouizy is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 02:42 PM   #3
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Montréal, Québec
Posts: 317
Local Time: 10:01 AM
Chrétien is not a socialist at all and that question dosen't matter anyways. You don't need to be a socialist, anarchist, all the other ists than capitalist, to critisize the western world's policies. I've seen a lot of capitalist people, a lot of bourgeois (I worked in a lawers office) saying that the western world (not to mention the US) is arrogant and should go rethink their foreign policies.

I like the way people are since september IIth 200I. some claim that they defend freedom but you can't argue with them. (sarcasm). Yes, the western world is quite arrogant towards other nations. This is probably why some middle-east countries citizens, and other citizens in the world, really are "happy" about what happened on sept. II. Some people say "Heres the wave returning in your face". I don't blame them at all, although I don't approve sept. II. I really don't blame them. The western world often acts alone for its own benefit in some quite horrible ways. It is time that someone realizes this on a political level and says it and says "I'm not sure if military actions is the only way we can response to this".

Chrétien had the guts to say that, good. I don't know if he believes in it or not (lets say that he is quite arrogant in his own party) and it surprises me that he said that because he never did spoke on a personnal level that much since he's in politics. But he said what a lot of people think, myself included. (Geez, I could have never bet that one day I'd say "Chrétien is right").

Cheers
__________________
Holy John is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 07:55 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ladywithspinninghead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,634
Local Time: 05:01 AM
Yeah Jean!!! He may not be the most eloquent man on the planet - bless him - but we all get the gist of what he's trying to say!
And for that I applaud him...

Not only are opposition leaders giving him slack but has-beens such as Mulroney are calling his remarks "disgraceful"....
sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me!
__________________
ladywithspinninghead is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 09:22 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 05:01 AM
He is most certainly NOT a socialist, or socialist democrat even. And even in the event that he was, what difference would it make? Would his opinion somehow be less relevant? I hardly think so.

I agree with what he's saying. There are a multitude of people in the world who agree with him. I don't know whether he should have said it on 9/10 of all days, but the fact remains it's not some crazy talk coming out of his ass like on past occasions.

And Kobe, Bono was actually quite close to Paul Martin, and said he likes him a lot, which is kind of neat in light of the fact he's clearly the front runner to be the next PM.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 10:43 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
And Kobe, Bono was actually quite close to Paul Martin, and said he likes him a lot, which is kind of neat in light of the fact he's clearly the front runner to be the next PM.
hehehe, chretien=socialist. that was humurous.

why/when did bono and martin meet anitram?
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 10:46 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 05:01 AM
He's spoken about it on a number of occasions that I can recall. He initially met Paul Martin during the Jubilee work, and I do have one or two bootlegs on which he speaks about it. I think maybe the May 25th show in Toronto, but I could be wrong.

Never met Paul Martin, but did meet Bono (in a kind of roundabout, surreal way) and he was lovely.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-14-2002, 07:39 PM   #8
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
 
Mrs. Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Torontonian in Maryland
Posts: 2,913
Local Time: 06:01 AM
You're right anitram, he did make a big fuss about our "finance guy" Paul Martin, on the 25th, I was there. I also have a few newspaper articles with pics of Bono talking to him during the Jubilee campaign.
__________________
Mrs. Edge is offline  
Old 09-14-2002, 09:57 PM   #9
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 10:01 AM
The thing I can't believe in regards to '1 year since 9/11' is still that Americans don't want to/can't/don't care/don't know/whatever the answer to the question 'why'. You can still get blasted for suggesting any answer to it and Americans still seem to accept the lines coming from their govt about 'hating freedom and liberty' etc. If my government 12 months on were still spitting those kind of lines out, and the media in my country were as muffled as the US media appears to be, I'd be incredibly pissed off, but they either (for the most part) don't seem to notice, don't care or are collectively afraid of either the answers or saying them out loud? I think its also this huge fear of being 'anti-american'. You just want to take out a huge ad in every US newspaper saying:
"FOR THE LAST TIME... Being anti-Bush Administration or anti-US Foreign Policy IS NOT being anti-American."
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-14-2002, 10:00 PM   #10
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 10:01 AM
Good article related to above rant...


From The Independant (UK) by Robert Fisk

George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are wilfully ignoring the realities of the Middle East. The result can only be catastrophic.

Years ago, in a snug underground restaurant in downtown Tehran, drinking duq – an Iranian beverage of mint and yoghurt – Saddam Hussein's former head of nuclear research told me what happened when he made a personal appeal for the release of a friend from prison. "I was taken directly from my Baghdad office to the director of state security," he said. "I was thrown down the stairs to an underground cell and then stripped and trussed up on a wheel attached to the ceiling. Then the director came to see me.

" 'You will tell us all about your friends – everything,' he said. 'In your field of research, you are an expert, the best. In my field of research, I am the best man.' That's when the whipping and the electrodes began."

All this happened, of course, when Saddam Hussein was still our friend, when we were encouraging him to go on killing Iranians in his 1980-88 war against Tehran, when the US government – under President Bush Snr – was giving Iraq preferential agricultural assistance funding. Not long before, Saddam's pilots had fired a missile into an American warship called the Stark and almost sunk it. Pilot error, claimed Saddam – the American vessel had been mistaken for an Iranian oil tanker – and the US government cheerfully forgave the Iraqi dictator.

Those were the days. But sitting in the United Nations General Assembly last week, watching President Bush Jr tell us with all his Texan passion about the beatings and the whippings and the rapes in Iraq, you would have thought they'd just been discovered. For sheer brazen historical hypocrisy, it would have been difficult to beat that part of the President's speech. Saddam, it appears, turned into a bad guy when he invaded Kuwait in 1990. Before that, he was just a loyal ally of the United States, a "strong man" – as the news agency boys like to call our dictators – rather than a tyrant.

But the real lie in the President's speech – that which has dominated American political discourse since the crimes against humanity on 11 September last year – was the virtual absence of any attempt to explain the real reasons why the United States has found itself under attack.

In his mendacious article in this newspaper last week, President Bush's Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, also attempted to mask this reality. The 11 September assault, he announced, was an attack on people "who believe in freedom, who practise tolerance and who defend the inalienable rights of man". He made, as usual, absolutely no reference to the Middle East, to America's woeful, biased policies in that region, to its ruthless support for Arab dictators who do its bidding – for Saddam Hussein, for example, at a time when the head of Iraqi nuclear research was undergoing his Calvary – nor to America's military presence in the holiest of Muslim lands, nor to its unconditional support for Israel's occupation of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza.

Oddly, a very faint ghost of this reality did creep into the start of the President's UN address last week. It was contained in two sentences whose importance was totally ignored by the American press – and whose true meaning might have been lost on Mr Bush himself, given that he did not write his speech – but it was revealing nonetheless. "Our common security," he said, "is challenged by regional conflicts – ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides." Then he repeated his old line about the need for "an independent and democratic Palestine".

This was perhaps as close as we've got, so far, to an official admission that this whole terrible crisis is about the Middle East. If this is a simple war for civilisation against "evil" – the line that Mr Bush was so cruelly peddling again to the survivors of 11 September and the victims' relatives last week – then what are these "regional challenges"? Why did Palestine insinuate its way into the text of President Bush's UN speech? Needless to say, this strange, uncomfortable little truth was of no interest to the New York and Washington media, whose wilful refusal to investigate the real political causes of this whole catastrophe has led to a news coverage that is as bizarre as it is schizophrenic.

Before dawn on 11 September last week, I watched six American television channels and saw the twin towers fall to the ground 18 times. The few references to the suicide killers who committed the crime made not a single mention of the fact that they were Arabs. Last week, The Washington Post and The New York Times went to agonising lengths to separate their Middle East coverage from the 11 September commemorations, as if they might be committing some form of sacrilege or be acting in bad taste if they did not. "The challenge for the administration is to offer a coherent and persuasive explanation of how the Iraq danger is connected to the 9/11 attacks" is about as far as The Washington Post got in smelling a rat, and that only dropped into the seventh paragraph of an eight-paragraph editorial.

All references to Palestine or illegal Jewish settlements or Israeli occupation of Arab land were simply erased from the public conscience last week. When Hannan Ashrawi, that most humane of Palestinian women, tried to speak at Colorado university on 11 September, Jewish groups organised a massive demonstration against her. US television simply did not acknowledge the Palestinian tragedy. It is a tribute to our own reporting that at least John Pilger's trenchant programme – Palestine is Still the Issue – is being shown on ITV tomorrow night, although at the disgracefully late time of 11.05pm.

But maybe all this no longer matters. When Mr Rumsfeld can claim so outrageously – as he did when asked for proof of Iraq's nuclear potential – that the "absence of evidence doesn't mean the evidence of absence", we might as well end all moral debate. When Mr Rumsfeld refers to the "so-called occupied West Bank", he reveals himself to be a very disreputable man. When he advances the policy of a pre-emptive "act" of war – as he did in The Independent on Sunday last week – he forgets Israel's "pre-emptive" 1982 invasion of Lebanon which cost 17,500 Arab lives and 22 years of occupation, and ended in retreat and military defeat for Israel.

Strange things are going on in the Middle East right now. Arab military intelligence reports the shifting of massive US arms shipments around the region – not just to Qatar and Kuwait, but to the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and the eastern Mediterranean. American and Israeli military planners and intelligence analysts are said to have met twice in Tel Aviv to discuss the potential outcome of the next Middle East war. The destruction of Saddam and the break-up of Saudi Arabia – a likely scenario if Iraq crumbles – have long been two Israeli dreams. As the United States discovered during its fruitful period of neutrality between 1939 and 1941, war primes the pumps of the economy. Is that what is going on today – the preparation of a war to refloat the US economy?

My Israeli colleague Amira Haas once defined to me our job as journalists: "to monitor the centres of power". Never has it been so important for us to do just that. For if we fail, we will become the mouthpiece of power. So a few thoughts for the coming weeks: remember the days when Saddam was America's friend; remember that Arabs committed the crimes against humanity of 11 September last year and that they came from a place called the Middle East, a place of injustice and occupation and torture; remember "Palestine"; remember that, a year ago, no one spoke of Iraq, only of al-Qa'ida and Osama bin Laden. And, I suppose, remember that "evil" is a good crowd-puller but a mighty hard enemy to shoot down with a missile.
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-15-2002, 01:47 PM   #11
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
 
Mrs. Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Torontonian in Maryland
Posts: 2,913
Local Time: 06:01 AM
From today's Toronto Star:

Putting Chrétien in context

By Antonia Zerbisias


IF CANADA'S relations with the George W. Bush White House have been harmed — or at least made worse than they already might have been — then blame our news media.

Not that anybody has produced any evidence of damage but still that's what many Canadian commentators claim happened after Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's musings about the world's haves and have-nots. He shared his ruminations with CBC-TV July, during an interview that aired, ooops, on Sept. 11.

In case you missed the fallout because you were (a) still mired in the TV mourn-athon, (b) avoiding political news for fear of stumbling on Liberal leadership race stories and/or (c) hiding under the covers because of Bush's speech to the United Nations, here's what Chrétien replied when Peter Mansbridge asked; "By the end of the day, what were you thinking about in terms of how the world had changed?"

"But I've said that it is a division in the world that is building up. And I knew that it was the inspiration of it. For me, I think that the rest of the world is a bit too selfish, and that there is a lot of resentment ...

"And I do think that the Western world is going to be too rich in relation to the poor world. And necessarily, you know, we're looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfying, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize that it's even more."

Nowhere did Chrétien blame the 3,000 victims of the horrendous hijackings. Never did he say "the United States and the West must shoulder some of the responsibility for last year's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington because of their wealth and exercise of power in the world." Nor did he "tie 9/11 terror to Western `greed.'" And how was it that he "linked the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to perceived Western greed and arrogance?"

Yet, judging from many of the subsequent headlines and stories, that's exactly what he did. Hotline hosts raged that the Prime Minister was "urinating on the graves" of the victims. Editorialists demanded to know what he was smoking while columnists claimed that he'd "decided that the mass murders were not the work of crazed fanatics, but were instead a response to the malign exercise of power."

Most media gave a platform to former prime minister Brian Mulroney's anti-Chrétien pieties while Alliance deputy leader Grant Hill rushed in, hoping to make up for his boss Stephen Harper's recent remarks that Maritimers were all a bunch of welfare bums. Hill, incensed at CBC's revelation that planes were diverted to Atlantic Canada to avoid the possibility that terrorists would crash them into Toronto or Montreal, claimed that Ottawa thought East Coasters were "expendable."

The Prime Minister's Office, which has been asleep at the spin switch lately, finally realized the error of letting Chrétien make such controversial comments for a Sept. 11 retrospective, had to go into damage control mode.

Thank God that, with one notable exception, the U.S. media paid no attention. Phew. Otherwise, those Americans now screaming for the head of Saddam Hussein would be calling for the conquest of Canada, or at least that part of it not already occupied by McDonald's, MTV, National Post columnists and other point people of their corporate-cultural invasion.

Naturally, that exception was the right-wing Fox News Network which was aided and abetted by Harper who, not one to pass up TV face-time even if the only constituents who can see it are getting the channel illegally, repeated the media charges. Later, star shouting head Bill O'Reilly would rail that "Chrétien is a socialist who believes the West owes something to radical Muslims and to the rest of the world. As we have reported, his government allows nearly everyone into Canada even if they have false documentation. Of course, this puts all of us at risk. Chrétien doesn't care."

It's a wonder that, what with so much going on in the world, that our media could devote so much acreage to something that never quite happened. (And did you notice how Paul Martin's political donor list was conveniently released on Sept. 11, flying under the radar?) All this despite how, according to polls, many Canadians share Chrétien's sentiments.

I'm not the only one to have thought that many other nations have experienced much, much worse than Sept. 11 but, because it didn't happen in David Letterman or Dan Rather's 'hood, it was ignored.

For example, 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in the spring of 1994, inconveniently just when news crews were decompressing from Tonya Harding-Nancy Kerrigan and loading up for O.J.

But, just because Canadians have a sense of proportion, doesn't mean we believe that that poor busboy who dove head first from the Windows on the World restaurant, or the firemen who charged up the stairs, or any of the other victims, had anything to do with anything. Not one of us believes that. Not for a second. Not even Chrétien.

All of which shows how, for such a friendly giant of a country, our media can be sometimes be mean-spirited and small-minded.

That's the downside.

The upside is, we should consider ourselves oh-so-lucky to have the privilege of making media mountains out of mere pimples.

No news is good news.

I pray it stays that way.

(Tune into CBC Newsworld today at 11 and 4 or CBC-TV tonight at 7 for a repeat of the interview, part of the commemorative Untold Stories: Canada On September 11.)
__________________

__________________
Mrs. Edge is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com