What honesty? As InTheField made clear, the only thing it’s honest about is feelings. GWB threw a temper tantrum, and Cellucci relayed it.
And Cellucci’s speech was not only dishonest, but insultingly so, IMHO. At least, that’s how I’d take that “We’d fall on a live grenade for you, but the first time we really need you, you’re not with us” bushwa.
In the world of diplomacy, conveying what a nation’s feelings are, without letting the feelings themselves through, is the norm, to the best of my understanding. I’m willing to bet that this speech was unusually strong stuff.
Like I said, he was being honest solely about Bush’s hurt feelings. Miss Manners has spoken about such discourse far more effectively than I ever will. Three year olds are totally honest about their feelings, and one is relieved when they gradually learn to keep some of it inside.
There’s lots of ways to tell the truth. Perhaps the next time the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. is at a ceremonial occasion with GWB, he can put a duncecap on Dubya’s head for all to see. That too would be ‘refreshingly honest’. Astoundingly bad diplomacy, as was Cellucci’s speech, but refreshingly honest nonetheless.
I disagree, Spiritus Mundi.
Empty? No, your voice is the MOST important. It is the voice of a REAL person.
Your statement means more than all of the incoherent ramblings from politicians put together. (and yes, we have our share up here too)
Thank you.
Cite? At least, a cite not more than fifty years old? Adn you’re changing what he said; “the first time…” wasn’t part of the speech.
Sorry, but recent events would suggest otherwise; we live in a world where the President of France publicly states that lesser nations should keep their mouths shut or face retribution, and where the President of the United States suggests Mexicans in his country will be violently attacked for political reasons. Was it not our Prime Minister Pearson who, in the words of LBJ, “shit in our own backyard” by ripping the U.S. for Operation Linebacker while he was speaking at a public function in the U.S.? Maybe Cellucci was just reading his Pearson.
Cellucci’s comments weren’t terribly strong unless you’re remarkably sensitive. If they represent a sea change in the honestly of diplomacy I’m all for it. I don’t notice that the old method of diplomacy prevented the world from damn near killing the whole race during teh 20th century.