1 I don't understand why America is part of the UN.

2 It seems to me that we are asking the wrong person the questions!!

3 As much as I dislike galloway, he kicked some serious american butt...

4 Flanstein, like many observers, misses the point. Yes, Galloway is an MP who is used to all the cut and thrust of the House of Commons rather than the endless droning of the US Senate. But why are there those rhetorical differences? Because all an MP who isn't part of the "payroll vote" can ever do about anything is talk. The House of Commons is effectively a rubber-stamp for the executive as long a PM has a workable majority. Congress is nothing of the sort. The point is that Galloway's appearance wasn't for the consumption of his worlwide audience. Rather, it was one small drop in Norm Coleman's meticulously building a case against all those involved in Oil-For-Food just like the prosecutor he used to be: in the case of Galloway, he did that by letting him score all the points he wanted, knowing that he would perjure himself in doing so and thereby rob himself of leverage in the future. This was a masterful trap, and I applaud him for it.

5 What else would you say, Flanstein? Aren't you the guy who likes to talk about Canada flexing its economic muscle over weak little America? And threatening to unleash the dogs of war (of 1812) on the US? I note that the Brits themselves take the opposite view of his performance. So how is democracy playing out in Canada lately?

6 Mikem: The dogs of war (1812) were British regulars and they ain't around any more. The only Canadians who fought were the Indians and the Quebecois at Chateauguay.

7 John B.: I have to laugh at your comment on the British and the War of 1812. I had made the same point to Flanstein after he brought up the burning of our White House along with 'be careful of angering us or we will...' Typical flame war on both our parts. I think the starting point was the mutual defense pact and missle defense. Anyway he vigorously denied that it was a majority British effort. But anyway. Just want to add that I appreciate your sense of humor when you catch me engaging with people I have defended America against in previous flame wars. I have always tried to listen to reasonable discussion of America's faults but I have lowered myself to sneering commentary about Canadian affairs and Canadians in general in reaction to what I view as over the top anti-Americanism, much of which was just vicious and cruel. (Not Flanstein though, he is just anti-American, not nasty.) It is nice to read the comments of Canadians who do not think the same way. There is much about Canadians that Americans have admired, a lot of which revolved around an image of Canadians as a rugged people who tamed a harsh enviroment, have always fought on the side of freedom and democracy etc. In fact, it is nice to be able to compliment Canadians without feeling like I'm giving ground to commenters who will praise Osama in the next post. So, my thanks to you and others who are posting here and I fully expect to be upbraided when I seem to toss all Canadians into the same pot in response to a troll like comment. It became a habit that I am happy to end. Enjoy your trip.