March 17, 2003
It seems that, much like a mystery novel, no Toronto Star article is complete without a victim. On March 9, ABC This Week aired a taped interview with Jean Chrétien where the prime minister said, amongst other things, that there was no need to go to war with Iraq because the Americans had already won. According to the PM, Saddam Hussein cannot do anything because his country is surrounded by 250,000 U.S. and British troops, putting him effectively in a box, and there is no reason to do anything else. The program also featured U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, seemingly perplexed by the Big Guy’s comments, and strongly taking exception to them.
Needless to say, Chrétien’s interview received a great deal of attention by the news media in Canada. Only The Toronto Star characterized the interview as an example of "prickly relations between Washington and Ottawa." Linda Diebel, stated in part: "Rice’s edgy comments underscore a dodgy relationship between the U.S. and Canada, torn by fundamental policy differences and soured by a recent remark by a Chrétien aide that Bush is a ‘moron’, and by MP Carolyn Parrish’s comment: "Damn Americans, I hate those bastards."
It seems that The Star never misses an opportunity, however inappropriate, to raise the issue of anti-Americanism, or in this case, anti-Canadianism. Did it ever occur to Ms. Diebel that Condoleeza Rice disagreed with Chrétien, not because of Carolyn Parrish or Francie Ducros, but because what the PM said made absolutely no sense? Even if the troops are somewhat containing Saddam, they can’t stay there forever and ever. And how is the presence of troops outside of Iraq, hindering that country’s development of weapons of mass destruction? Just because Rice happened to disagree with Jean Chrétien’s inane comments about the war already having been won, does not make her comments an issue of strained relationships between Canada and the United States.
Diebel portrayed Jean Chrétien as the poor victim, taken advantage of by the big bad Americans by the way the interviews were conducted. Diebel wrote:
"On the news show yesterday, the Canadian Prime Minister was a ghostly talking head during the Rice interview.
Rice sat face-to-face with Stephanopolous in ABC’s Washington studios while Chrétien was shown in an excerpt for Rice to pick apart. His interview, taped Saturday in Shawinigan, Que. followed."
That’s how the PM became the "victim" of the article. The Star seems to be suggesting that the interview was unfair because Rice was in studio while Chrétien appeared on tape. It is highly unlikely that the Prime Minister would have been prevented from appearing live on the show had he expressed the desire to travel to Washington. It is equally unlikely that Stephanopolous broke into Chrétien’s residence and forced him to give the interview. Stephanopolous wouldn’t have stood a chance against Aline and the Chrétien’s Inuit art collection. Chrétien knew, or ought to have known, that Rice or someone like her would be appearing to disagree with him. And in fairness to Chrétien, he doesn’t seem to be complaining about his treatment on ABC This Week. Jean Chrétien made a decision and he’s responsible for his conduct. A person being responsible for their own actions is something that The Toronto Star has a problem with, even when that person is the Prime Minister of Canada.
Chrétien vs. Rice. A white guy pitted against a black woman. And The Toronto Star puts the white guy in the role of the victim. Who’d a thunk it?