Didn't a Mr. Biden get in some difficulty over this sort of thing?

by kadyomalley on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:16am - 96 Comments

Well, gosh. I’m sure there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for this:

For Immediate Release
September 30, 2008

Harper copied John Howard’s speech on Iraq

TORONTO – Prime Minister Stephen Harper must explain how it is possible that almost half of the major speech he delivered in House of Commons calling for Canadian troops to be sent to the War on Iraq was a word-for-word recitation of the speech Australian Prime Minister John Howard delivered less than a day and a half before, said Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae.

“How does a leader in Canada’s Parliament, on such a crucial issue, end up giving almost the exact same speech as any another country’s leader, let alone a leader who was a key member of George W. Bush’s Coalition of the Willing?” said Mr. Rae.

“How can Canadians trust anything that Mr. Harper says now? The decision on whether to commit troops to join the War on Iraq was by far the greatest test leaders across the globe faced this decade. We now know when Mr. Harper faced that test, he not only made the wrong choice, but he made that choice so blindly and carelessly that he ended up delivering a word-for-word repetition of someone else’s words and thoughts,” said Mr. Rae.

Mr. Rae said it was “shocking” that Mr. Harper had resorted to lifting someone else’s words for such a key speech.

“Liberals have been arguing for over two years that Canada is losing its independent voice in foreign affairs under Mr. Harper,” said Mr. Rae.  ”We just had no idea that Mr. Harper was prepared to borrow the drafting of the actual words he would use from another country.”

A line by line comparison, courtesy of the Liberal Party is here, or  you can “watch Mr. Harper and Mr. Howard deliver their speech” here.

ELSEWHERE IN THE MACLEANSDOTCAVERSE:

The Conservatives’ rapid non-response team weighs in

Aaron Wherry liveblogs a Senior Conservative Source giving the most well-attended virtual background briefing here.

Paul Wells digs through the archives

Bookmark and Share
  • boudica

    Mike, hopefully, they only missed ONCE but I believe that this speaks to the lack of scrutiny that Harper has been enjoying from the press.

    Compare this election to the last one.

    I can’t keep count of the number of candidates who had to drop out because of what they said ages ago while Harper’s speeches during his time as head of the citizen’s coalition were widely dismissed as “old news.” More importantly, Harper was able to re-cast himself as a moderate leader without being challenged by the press.

    He’s doing it again this time around. Harper has had one single line for all questions coming to him on the economic meltdown across the border:

    “our fundamentals are strong.”

    Meanwhile, Dion and Layton’s economic platform (they actually have one) has been put through the grinder by countless columnists (as they should have).

    What gives?

  • boudica

    “boudica, my point is that this revelation points to a HUGE problem in how our media cover politics. ”

    Then we agree.

  • Austin So

    Mike and Just Visiting, I’m not sure I understand why that matters. If bloggers didn’t in fact sniff this one out earlier, are we then suggesting that no one in the press could have?

    Then how did the LPC find this information?

    I don’t understand why it would be surprising that bloggers didn’t sniff it out earlier.

    We are all limited by the public availability of documents, files, and particularly videos. And we are talking about 5 years ago. In other words, unless someone puts out back-dated source material, no amount of Googling will find it. Add to that, the hierarchy to which Google places information, and how hard it is to find the right search terms, it can make it impossible.

    In Bob Rae, you are talking about a well-placed person in international circles. Who knows how long he has sat on this? He has always said that you don’t play nice with neo-cons, since they will “take a bat to your head”.

    I think it just slipped through the cracks, and frankly who would have thought anyone so audacious as to copy speeches from other heads of state? I mean, how long has the notion of neo-con talking points been shown for public consumption?

    Austin

  • john g

    He’s doing it again this time around. Harper has had one single line for all questions coming to him on the economic meltdown across the border:

    “our fundamentals are strong.”

    Well, based on this story, Harper is bang on.

  • Cam

    Another aspect of this revelation concerns the Prime Minister’s much promoted “intelligence.”

    If he’s so smart, why did he do something so stupid?

  • Austin So

    “our fundamentals are strong.”

    Well, based on this story, Harper is bang on.

    All due to the energy sector. Real “strength” there, john g.

    Austin

  • boudica

    “If he’s so smart, why did he do something so stupid?”

    Must be because he believed he would get away with it.

    He did.

  • boudica

    “I think it just slipped through the cracks, and frankly who would have thought anyone so audacious as to copy speeches from other heads of state? I mean, how long has the notion of neo-con talking points been shown for public consumption?”

    Sorry Austin, but this one doesn’t wash, at least not with me. If we were talking about just one omission in the middle of thorough reporting on Harper, I’d agree.

    What I see here is a clear pattern.

  • keith by the Bruce

    Kady :
    I can’t find any reference to harper taking Rae to court as soon as his tape checker comes off his vacation ?

  • Austin So

    Hey boudica, I’m not trying to justify anything…I’m just trying to find a reason why something like this wouldn’t have been picked up by bloggers and the MSM.

    Maybe this is a reason why there were similarities between the Australian speech and the Harper one i.e. because information is usually harder to cross-reference internationally.

    And it wouldn’t surprise me if it was all deliberate to limit the ability to pick up on this.

    Austin

  • boudica

    Austin, perhaps I’m being unreasonable in expecting that our press could have picked this up sooner. You are talking to one frustrated and disappointed news junkie.

  • Sisyphus

    Oh, john g, July was such a lovely month, wasn’t it. I was privileged to spend a good part of it golfing in beautiful PEI – an activity and place I recommend highly.
    Then in August and September I went to Wall St. in the company of my friend the Anti-Christ and let loose the dogs of chaos that had been in the care and feeding of our friends in Washington and other world capitals for the past three or so decades. We’re coming north next. The fundamentals are just getting ripe. The only thing holding us back is that John Fund hasn’t given the final signal yet.

  • http://www.onewomanoneblog.com Ann D

    Wow. Just wow.

  • stephen

    Yes this matters about as much as Chretien’s mythical Wino that he spoke to.

    As for the point of it being a “cabal of neo cons” I guess we could all talk baout common political thought in canada emerging from the interlinking of Power Corp….but that would be crazy conspiracy tin foil hat stuff…the neo con cabal, thats real.

    Minor thing, highlights everyone elses failures more, highlights Iggy’s own support of Iraq and torture, highlights Dion’s lack of imprint on this election that he needs Rae and ignatieff to hold his hand and do the heavy lifting, heck any lifting. I am sure Iggy and Bob are ging to be sticking needles in their eyes when they watch the debate….no Stephane, you should say it this way….

    As I said, if this is the best they have, and they couldnt even operate the video machinery properly, then they really are hurting.

    And surprise, if you look you’ll find all kinds of lines that the Cons have lifted from Howard’s party, this is no secret and in fact has been well documented…by I believe Mr Wells. Thats why this is not a shocker, nor a surprise, nor an issue.

    Is it an issue that Obama cribbed Layton and his story about meeting a worker who packed up his machinery and his job and shipped it to China? What matters there is the potential lying of meeting someone and the false personal sentiment, like Chretiens Wino.

    This is a boilerplate speech, the essence of plagarism is are you passing off something clever or emotional as your own. The speech was neither clever nor emotional. Biden was passing off some clever turns of phrase as his own and using them to pump up his own bona fides as a rhtoritician, and I believe he initially denied it. That makes it a story, neither is true here.

    But most importantly, it shows the Liberals have nothing left….guess they’ll be dropping the Abortion bomb sometime soon…..

  • Cam

    boudica, I’m with you…

    And as for the comparison to Iggy’s position on Iraq I don’t get it.

    The Conservative ads keep telling me this election is about leadership. So leader to leader, let’s compare.

    Chretien said no to Iraq. Harper said yes. Chretien was in power, so we didn’t go. Why does the “it was five years ago, time has passed” defense by the Tories not work? Because Iraq, five years later, is still going on. And if Harper had been making the decision at the time, we would have been in Iraq.
    Five years ago defense doesn’t wash when the same situation still exists.

  • dave

    this is taking “manufactured outrage” to a whole new level – even for Liberals.

    well done.

  • madeyoulook

    Anyone who does not believe that this “revelation” has not been sat upon for days, weeks, months, just waiting for the right time to be released in the wild, hasn’t been paying attention to modern political campaigns.

    A double whammy on plagiarism AND Iraq? How close to the debates should we release that hound?

    Control the news cycle. Try to get an extra news cycle under that same control.

    An issue that matters to this election might, just might, rear its ugly head in time. Stand on guard, Canada.

  • Darryl

    Dion:

    Plagiarism isn’t something you or Ignatief should be bringing up, no? How about you plagiarizing from the Suzuki site during the Leadership battle? That was brought up by none other than Iggy himself! Then to counter that you showed that Iggy had lifted his environmental plan from somewhere else! You hypocrites are too much to take!!! What’s scary is that you couldn’t get a plan together yourself, when it is supposedly your strong point? That’s scary.

    You STEAL the name of a company that has been around for 10yrs +… (Green Shift)
    The Green Party’s “green plan” is named, The “Green Tax Shift”; wow, what an original name you gave it!

    LOSER!!!

    I hope you lose every seat but 2. The Liberals are the most sanctimonious liars and thieves around!

  • SIMONSEZ

    comment by Darryl on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 6:59 pm:

    Aw, DarYl, as the kids in the hall say, “Go pick a fight with Jean Charest on the floor of the house of commons.”

  • Anon

    Has this been picked up by CNN, or at least, Colbert Report yet?

  • http://thereginamom.wordpress.com the regina mom

    I am getting to this conversation so very late, but isn’t there some rich irony on the part of the Liberals here?

    I mean, they’re harping about Harper, the plagiarist, as they should. But, they just finished turfing a candidate who exercised her freedom of expression. As a writer, this does not sit well with me.

    And that they sat on it for this long makes me wonder what’s really up. Seems that they *had* to play this card now, for a whole lotta reasons.

    What I’d really like to know, however, is who actually wrote the plagiarized speech. My gut says it wasn’t Howard or Harper.

From Macleans