Remember Condoleeza Rice? She was George W. Bush’s secretary of state from 2005 to 2009, a position now occupied by Hillary Clinton.
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, 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.”
Then he goes on to point out the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton
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.
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.
Yes, I agree, Shame on them. All of them! Just think if Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon went to Washington D.C. and tried to dictate to them their what their policies ought be. I don't think any congressman or senator, Democrat or Republican would applaud that at all. Neither would any of their media and they shouldn't. Who would blame them? You'd hear outrage here though, from our opposition and the media. "You just can't go and tell another sovereign country what their polices should be." That's what they would say. So it's different if a left wing Democrat, Hillary Clinton comes here and does that. It's ok in their eyes because she's a Dem not a Republican.
So yeah, double standard for sure. Disgusting!