canada has changed. old age security must change with it, to serve the purpose it was intended to serve. we will make gradual adjustments to the old age security program, to ensure the next generation can count on it. these adjustments will not affect current recipients or those close to retirement. starting in 2023 and ending in 2029, we will gradually increase the age of eligibility, from 65 to 67. this gradual approach will enable younger canadians to plan ahead with confidence. we will also make the program more flexible for those approaching retirement. as of july 1, 2013, canadians who prefer to keep working will be given the option to defer the start of benefits. this voluntary option will enable them to receive higher benefits as a result. beyond this, we will also ensure that government employee pension plans are sustainable and financially responsible. financially responsible. we will adjust these pension plans to be more in line with those available to canadians working in the private sector.

sure, there were those who wanted to keep canada. and this really increased, i think, in 1813, after the successful campaign in the old northwest. and you even had some eastern newspapers saying, look, we've already expended so much blood and treasure in this war, we can't give canada back once we conquer it. yes, sir? >> were there any myths about john paul jones in the battle of lake erie? >> john paul jones was a revolutionary war figure. he wasn't at lake erie. perry was. >> oh, perry was. any myths? >> those images that show perry standing in his boat as he's moving from one ship to another, probably not. probably sitting. mostly i think the conventional account of perry, perry's performance in the battle is pretty accurate. >> anything -- you mentioned at the beginning about the fort mchenry flag at the smithsonian institution. and any myths surrounding that? it's my understanding that is the original flag made by mary pickersfield by the direction of general arm istead. >> that's more or less true. he ordered it. there's a fam

canada has changed. old age security must change with it, to serve the purpose it was intended to serve. we will make gradual adjustments to the old age security program, to ensure the next generation can count on it. these adjustments will not affect current recipients or those close to retirement. starting in 2023 and ending in 2029, we will gradually increase the age of eligibility, from 65 to 67. this gradual approach will enable younger canadians to plan ahead with confidence. we will also make the program more flexible for those approaching retirement. as of july 1, 2013, canadians who prefer to keep working will be given the option to defer the start of benefits. this voluntary option will enable them to receive higher benefits as a result. beyond this, we will also ensure that government employee pension plans are sustainable and financially responsible. we will adjust these pension plans to be more in line with those available to canadians working in the private sector. we will also increase the

it just simply makes no sense to canada. >> canada has every right to take that position. i don't speak for the obama administration but do i think most americans would prefer to buy oil from canada than from a long list of other countries. >> i would hope so. >> but i also think in our skri kri with a strong environmental movement, there is this issue, if you could just say a few word about offsets. eight heavy crude and we buy it from other employes. and there were some concerns, i assume there still are, about the routing of the pipeline. >> my understanding is the routing concerns have been addressed in nebraska itself. you know, offsets, look, i'm -- i'm not sure i'm much of a believer in offsets. i think if you're concerned about emissions, you find a way of controlling emissions. offsets are a wave pretending you've addressed emissions when you really haven't. >> changing the subject. [ laughter ] >> the question is when will canada decide to form a customs union? >> i think that's a purely theoretical question because i certainly -- you know, since we've signed naf

conquering canada was just a matter of marching? >> it seems to me manifest destiny probably dates from 1607, the founding of jamestown. the westward movement goes back to the beginning of the colonial era. yes, we're an ex passionistic nation at this time, and there were many particularly in the west who hoped if we did conquer canada, we would keep it. among those was henry clay in 1813. even though he himself conceded at the same time that canada was the means rather than the end. sure, there were those who wanted to keep canada. and this really increased, i think, in 1813, after the successful campaign in the old northwest. and you even had some eastern newspapers saying, look, we've already expended so much blood and treasure in this war, we can't give canada back once we conquer it. yes, sir? >> were there any myths about john paul jones in the battle of lake erie? >> john paul jones was a revolutionary war figure. perry was. >> oh, perry was. any myths? >> those images that show perry standing in his boat as he's moving from

canada, i like to say whatever the energy mix of the future is, canada will be a major supplier. canada is among the top two or three in every single energy source that is out there. energy security for us has never meant the same thing as it does for the united states. we have never had the same fundamental threat of an energy shortage. in the case of north america as a whole, the shale gas development, as president obama said earlier today, the capacity for enormous geopolitical shift. the u.s. is particularly rich in natural gas of that variety. this creates the potential for north america to be essentially not just energy self-sufficient but an energy exporter. interestss, canada's here are a little different. particularly in light of the interim decision on keystone. what it has highlighted for canada is that our issue is not north american self- sufficiency, it's diversifying our energy export markets. we cannot be in a situation where our one and only energy's -- partner could say no to energy products. the truth of the matter is when it comes to oil in particular, we face

there were those who wanted to keep canada. and this really increased in 1813 after successful campaign in the old northwest. you have newspapers saying expended so much blood and treasure we can't give canada back once we conquer it. yes, sir. >> were there any myths about john paul jones and the battle of lake eerie? >> he was a revolutionary war figure. >> it was perry. any myths? >> those images that show perry standing in his boat as he's move frg one ship to another, probably not. probably sitting. mostly though, i think the conventional account of perry's performance in the battle is pretty accurate. >> anything, you mentioned at the beginning about the mchenry flag at smithsonian institution. any myths surrounding that -- always been my understanding, that was the original flag made by mary pickers at the direction of general armstead. >> more of less, that's true. he ordered it. there's a famous painting that shows him and several other moves and shakers in a room with her while she's sewing it. that didn't happen. he

our interest in canada. and even though looking from today's perspective, we see the westward movement as a westward movement. it was also a movement that looked north and south. and i would say we didn't give canada until about the end of the century. as late as 1886 the detroit newspaper ran an editorial, and i request quote this directly from the editorial. they were talking about a problem with great britain. and the editorial says, when the next war ends there should be but one flag flying from the rio grande to the north pole. it didn't matter that canada had been independent for 30 years. this editor still thought in terms of waging war against great britain by seizing canada. and i don't think until about 1900 americans finally realized that canada was here to stay as an independent nation. i tell my students if quebec ever pulls out of the canadian union, which i do not believe will happen, we may get canadian provinces, particularly from the west coast. i don't think any of that is going to happen.

for canada, this is something that i think transcends governments in canada or administrations here in the ited states. for canada, the united states is and always will be our closest neighbor. our greatest ally and our best friend. and i believe that american leadership is at all times great and indispensable for the world. and i think over the past few years, we've done great things together in terms of the response, both through the g-20 and bilaterally and on the recession and recovery. we had under your leadership, barack, that successful intervention in libya, our trade relationship is the biggest in the world and growing so i think it has been a tremendous partnership. >> somebody from the mexican press corps. >> translator: good afternoon. you were referring to weapons. we would like to know what president obama said in terms of what will be done to stop the traffic above weapons. president obama, i would like to know what plans your government has in the presidential election process in mexico. what was discussed in terms of the interviews with the candidates in mexico city. a

where does canada that? >> it's probably a place where little bit of both your it is, it is true that, it is true that more of the ice is melting. it's also true that i think the economics of commodity prices are going to drive resource development in areas like the arctic where costs are higher and were traditionally it's been harder to make economic projects viable. we have put the emphasis, i mean a big part of our country is actually in the arctic region. we put a big emphasis on securing our sovereignty there, and seeing those resources develop, not just for the benefit of the country but particularly for the economic opportunity of the people who live there, through the arctic council and others, we, you know, we do cooperate. we are cooperating, for instance, on the united nations convention on the law of the sea and the mapping of the arctic seabed, and the resolution of various claims. but those things all said, as there are in all parts of the world these days they will also be some pretty i think

for canada, this is something that i think transcends governments in canada or administrations here in the united states. for canada, the united states is and always will be our closest neighbor. our greatest ally and our best friend. and i believe that american leadership is at all times great and indispensable for the world. and i think over the past few years, we've done great things together in terms of the response, both through the g-20 and bilaterally and on the recession and recovery. we had under your leadership, barack, that successful intervention in libya, our trade relationship is the biggest in the world and growing so i think it has been a tremendous partnership. >> somebody from the mexican press corps. >> translator: good afternoon. you were referring to weapons. we would like to know what president obama said in terms of what will be done to stop the traffic above weapons. president obama, i would like to know what plans your government has in the presidential election process in mexico. what was discussed in terms of the interviews with the candidates in mexico city.

let me just say this for canada, and this is something that i think transcends governments in canada or administrations here in the united states. for canada, the united states is and always will be our closest neighbor, our greatest ally and our best friend. and i believe that american leadership is at all times great and indus penceable. i think over the past few years we've done great things in terms of the response. i think i's been a tremendous partnership. >> somebody from the mexican press corps? >> translator: good afternoon for president calderon, you were saying you were referring to weapons. we would like to know what president obama said in terms of what's gong to be done to stop the traffic of weapons. what discussed in terms of candidates in mexico city and i want to know for the government of the united states, there's a threat for the country in this sense on weapons of mr. president, the weapons have come into the country. military leaks letting the arms come through. what's going to be done? enfor prime minister harperer, is the visa requirement going to be removed

partnership so important to canada? and secondly, to get us there, to be a player, are you willing to give up as a precondition our supply management system? and, president obama, you said earlier that there needs to be high standards for a country to be there. i'm wondering whether you think think yet canada has met those, whether you want us to drop our traditional system. and on crime we in canada read about the challenges that mexico has on the drug cartels and the horrible violence that occurs down there. but perhaps it's possible that many canadians and perhaps even americans don't see it as effecting their lives, perhaps it doesn't effect their communities. so on that issue, why do you three gentlemen that a three-country, coordinated approach is necessary to protect our citizens? and, prime minister, if you can do that, please. >> sure. first of all, in response to the question on the trans-pacific partnership, this is our desire to be part of that negotiation is part of canada's ambitious trade agenda. as you k

because yes sorry britain, canada is the country that lights america's fires literally, canada is the number one supplier of black gold to america. if you were with hoping there would be special bonding like watching a basketball game together or snarfing down hot dogs, your wives meeting and getting along famously. no, lorraine harper didn't even come. in fact the statement after today's meeting was -- it mentioned the budapest convention on cyber crime, but it didn't mention the keystone pipeline. part of a mini-ice age in u.s./canadian relations. here's steven harper on canadian television in january. >> just because certain people in the united states would like to see canada be one giant national park for the northern half of north america, i don't think that's part of what our review process is all about. >> he's referring to a pipeline which canada may build instead of the keystone that would run from canada's oil sands to the pacific coast. you know, closer to china. yeah. a lot of people have a problem with that pipeline because of environmental reasons. american pipeline pol

has with canada. all right now the keystone pipeline stems from the city of hard to see an alberta through steel city and that and then splits in half taking on oil to cushing oklahoma as well as potomac indiana and in recent years there have been a lot of plans to extend that line to pump more oil to the u.s. here is the proposed plan for extensions to the pipeline the seven billion dollars project is currently on hiatus since the u.s. state department ordered a review of possible alternative routes to avoid the environmental it would be environmentally sensitive sand hill regions of nebraska instead they can there morgan pipeline company is now planning to spend five billion nearly triple the capacity of its trans mountain pipeline that carries crude oil from the alberta oil sands to tankers in vancouver so all of that much sought after oil won't be flowing in our direction after all and this fact has republicans lambasted president obama over his energy policy is all of this is making for an energe

to this day, people north of the border think that canada was the -- the conquest of canada was the real purpose of the war. it's a real tough sell getting them to believe that we were actually trying to give the british to give up certain maritime issues. number two, the conflict was a second war of american independence. not so. the british in no way threatened our independence. it was never at risk from anything the british did in this period. the british were trying to win a war in europe against napoleonic france. and every policy they adopted that encroached upon our rights was designed to win that war. once the war was over, those policies would end. so as i see it, our independence was never really at risk in this war. now, ironically, the independence of every other belligerent was at risk. british independence was a risk not from us, but from napoleonic france. if napoleon had succeeded in invading and occupying great britain, that would have been the end of british independence. canadian independence was at risk. canada would be part of the united states today rather than an i

buying it now canada they are moving ahead with a very ambitious plan to expand. the u.s. can't really pull it off. so why is it that we see such this vast difference in terms of. you know being able to get these big projects lumps. well again and part of that part of it is what's wonderful is if you go if you can and i've been to canada and i've been to the oil thank you very and i reported from there and seen with going on it's an amazingly. complicated yet clean environment and we sound operation canadian can think of it this way canadians would produce oil in a much cleaner better way than places like saudi arabia or going to sway there or nigeria or anger or india you need the other places we might get oil so if you're really worried about the state of the environment where oil is being produced you would really differentially want to be produced in canada. secondly i think that our regulatory regime here is being very complicated now with regards to using fossil fuels our environmental protection agency is moving regulations which are designed to reduce our

if we conquered canada, that would have been the end. it would be part of the us today rather than an independent nation. and the indian tripes fighting on both sides also were fighting for their independence and really didn't matter the size they were on, they lost their independence. the united states was the only belligerent in the war whose independence was not at risk. number three, the militia in the united states and canada played a central in the war. this is the great myth. it has been at least traditionally very popular in canada and in the united states. canadians want to believe it was their own that defended against the american invasions and they didn't need to depend on british regulars or their indian allies. as a myth it was useful when canada became independent because they felt they didn't have to spent money if they got in trouble. they had to whip us again. this myth was also very popular south of the border. we too wanted to believe that the great battles were won not by regulars, but rather by militia. they came ou

if we conquered canada, that would have been the end. it would be part of the us today rather than an independent nation. and the indian tribes were also fighting for their independence and it didn't matter which side they were on. they lost their independence. the united states was the only belligerent in the war whose independence was not at risk. number three, the militia in the united states and canada played a central in the war. this is the great myth. it has been at least traditionally very popular in canada and in the united states. canadians want to believe it was their own that defended against the american invasions and they didn't need to depend on british regulars or their indian allies. as a myth it was useful when canada became independent because they felt they didn't have to spent money if they got in trouble. all they had to do was call out the militia and whip us again. we, too, wanted to believe that the great battles were won not by regulars, but by militia. those hearty frontiers man that won the war for us. now, ou

china knows canada is an energy superpower. chinese companies spent $10 billion buying canadian energy assets becoming what the eia calls a potent preps in the oil sands. there's uranium deals too. we know president obama seen here with bo is a dog guy and prime minister harper fosters cats. it seems like prime minister harper told president obama how he felt about him, though. one night when he performed a famous song. ♪ i need somebody to love ♪ >> maybe president obama should try looking at steven harper the way he looked at the world's most famous canadian, justin bieber. dan keesh joins us along with susan casey-lefkowitz. susan, let me start with you. i know there's a lot of environmental concerns and a lot of them very fair about this pipeline, but it does seem to be that the u.s. and canada aren't quite linking together, tying together, being friendly together at the highest level the way you'd think they would be, considering how crucial they are to each other. >> that's right. thanks so much for having me on the s

to this day, people north of the border think that canada was the -- the conquest of canada was the real purpose of the war. it's a real tough sell getting them to believe that we were actually trying to give the british to give up certain maritime issues. number two, the conflict was a second war of american independence. not so. the british in no way threatened our independence. it was never at risk from anything the british did in this period. the british were trying to win a war in europe against napoleonic france. and every policy they adopted that encroached upon our rights was designed to win that war. once the war was over, those policies would end. so as i see it, our independence was never really at risk in this war. now, ironically, the independence of every other belligerent was at risk. british independence was a risk not from us, but from napoleonic france. if napoleon had succeeded in defeating and occupying great britain, that would have been the end. canada would be part of the united states today rather than an independent nation. and the indian tribes fighting on both

and i think the answer is we should have all the oil from canada now the rest of it now canada they are moving ahead with their very ambitious plan to expand. but the u.s. can't really pull it off. so why is it that we see but there's a vast difference in terms of. you know being able to get these big projects launched. well again and part of that part of it is what's wonderful is if you go if you can and i've been to canada and i've been to the oil sands reported from there and seen what's going on it's an amazingly. complicated yet clean and environmentally sound operation and canadian can think of it this way canadians with it is oil in a much cleaner better way than spaces like saudi arabia or even a slave or niger wrangler or any i knew the other places we might get oil so if you're really worried about the state of the environment where it was being produced you would really differentially want to be produced in candidate. secondly i think that our regulatory regime here is being very complicated now with regards to using fossil fuels our environmental protection agency is mov

televisiÓn e internet solo paga 99,99 al mes puedes llamar por telÉfono ilimitado a todo estados unidos, canada y puerto rico. >> hola, les tengo informaciÓn para ahorrar dinero, seguro todos han escuchado el termino modificar el pago, esa es la especialidad de mis invitados, ellos se dedican a modifica rlos pagos de servicios de televisión lenny y camilo. >> hola, como estÁs. >> bien. >> como podemos modificar el pago. >> a quienes tienen televisiÓn y pagan mÁs de 50 o 60 dÓlares al mes, que logicamente es importante tener televisiÓn para entretenimiento, recibir noticias nosotros les podemos ayudar para que puedan bajar ese pago mensual. >> cuÁles son los beneficios. >> no hay contrato para el cable. >> todas las personas califican, si han llamado a otras compaÑÍas y les han dicho que no, nos pueden llamar al telÉfono en pantalla. y si van a tener la televisiÓn por cable que nosotros estamos ofreciendo >> tenemos una variedad de servicios que le ayudarÁn a ahorrar sus pagos en servicios de televisiÓn, internet y cable. haga la mejor desiciÓn y ordene lo mejor del cable, sin con

and canada. on "washington journal," we will be joined by the delegate from washington, d.c., to discuss the budget, the future of the health care lock, and the possibility of statehood. you can call in with your questions about the tax code to alex brill. we will look at the role of the federal reserve with jon hilsenrath. live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. now, a harvard university forum on race and the presidential election. voter i.d. laws, the black vote, and the response to the martin shooting by president obama and those republican presidential candidates. this is a little less than 1.5 hours. [applause] >> good afternoon, everybody in. i am the director of the institute of politics at the kennedy school. we want to welcome everybody this afternoon, the john f. kennedy jr. forum to kick off the politics conference. i am pleased to introduce one of the organizers, gabrielle wyatt. she is specialize in her studies in k-12 urban education reform. she has chaired the leadership conference an

canada's -- canada, you know, i like to say that whatever the energy mix of the future is, canada will be a major supplier. canada is, you know, among the top two or three in virtually every single energy source that is out there, and so energy security -- not that we don't have energy challenges, but energy security for canada does not mean the same as it does for the united states. we don't have the same kind of fundamental threat of an energy shortage. in the case of north america as a whole, though, obviously the shale gas developments, the developments in natural gas in particular, you know, as president obama said earlier today, have a capacity for enormous geopolitical shifts. the u.s. is particularly rich in natural gas of that variety, and this creates the potential for north america as a whole to be essentially not just energy self-sufficient, but an energy exporter. now, in fairness, though, canada's interest here are a little bit different, and particularly, i might as well be frank with you, in light of the interim decision on keystone, what's that highlighted for canada t

as for you, canada... [cheering and applause] canada, you keep your dine sours where they belong, liquefied in your tar sands and pumped directly into our gas tanks. we'll be right back. [cheering and applause] i'm terrie and i used to be a smoker. i want to give you some tips about getting ready in the morning. first your teeth. then your wig. then your hands-free device. and now you're ready for the day. you can quit. for free help, visit smokefree.gov. [cheering and applause] welcome back, everybody. thank you. my guest tonight is currently the number-one ranked chess player in the world. i'm going to ask him what the little horsie does. please welcome magnus carlsen. [cheering and applause] magnus, thank you so much for coming on. honor to meet you. magnus carlsen, we are not so different, you and i. [laughter] >> no. >> stephen: we are both geniuses, number one in our field and both very young. [laughter] >> i can see that. >> stephen: now, you are the third youngest grand master of all time. and you

as for you, canada... [cheering and applause] canada, you keep your dine sours where they belong, liquefied in your tar sands and pumped directly into our gas tanks. we'll be right back. [cheering and applause] >> [cheering and applause] welcome back, everybody. thank you. my guest tonight is currently the number-one ranked chess player in the world. i'm going to ask him what the little horsie does. please welcome magnus carlsen. [cheering and applause] magnus, thank you so much for coming on. honor to meet you. magnus carlsen, we are not so different, you and i. [laughter] >> no. >> stephen: we are both geniuses, number one in our field and both very young. [laughter] >> i can see that. >> stephen: now, you are the third youngest grand master of all time. and you were the youngest, age 19, the youngest number-one ranked chess player in the world. [cheering and applause] hold were you when you started playing? >> i was about eight. >> stephen: eight years old. and by the time you were 13, you were a grand

as for you, canada... [cheering and applause] canada, you keep your dine sours where they belong, liquefied in your tar sands and pumped directly into our gas tanks. we'll be right back. [cheering and applause] my name is roosevelt. i always thought that cigarette smoking just messed up your lungs. i never thought that, at only 45, it would give me a heart attack. i never thought that it would stop me from playing basketball with my kids. never thought that it would give me a scar like this. and i never thought that it would change my life forever. my tip is: do your heart a favor and quit now. you can quit. for free help, call 1-800-quit-now. having one of those days? tired. groggy. can't seem to get anything done. it makes for one, lousy day. but when you're alert and energetic... that's different. you're more with it, sharper, getting stuff done. this is why people choose 5-hour energy over 9-million times a week. it gives them the alert, energetic feeling they need to get stuff done. 5-hour energy...wh

as for you, canada... [cheering and applause] canada, you keep your dine sours where they belong, liquefied in your tar sands and pumped directly into our gas tanks. we'll be right back. [cheering and applause] bj5dh&á1 >> [cheering and applause] welcome back, everybody. thank you. my guest tonight is currently the number-one ranked chess player in the world. i'm going to ask him what the little horsie does. please welcome magnus carlsen. [cheering and applause] magnus, thank you so much for coming on. honor to meet you. magnus carlsen, we are not so different, you and i. [laughter] >> no. >> stephen: we are both geniuses, number one in our field and both very young. [laughter] >> i can see that. >> stephen: now, you are the third youngest grand master of all time. and you were the youngest, age 19, the youngest number-one ranked chess player in the world. [cheering and applause] hold were you when you started playing? >> i was about eight. >> stephen: eight years old. and by the time you were 13, you we

, and mining in canada's north. recently it has become clear that we must develop new export markets for canada's energy and natural resources, to reduce our dependence on markets in the united states. the booming economies of the asia- pacific region are a huge and increasing source of demand, but canada is not the only country to which they can turn. if we fail to act now, this historic window of opportunity will close. we will implement responsible resource development and smart regulation for major economic projects, respecting provincial jurisdiction and maintaining the highest standards of environmental protection. we will streamline the review process for such projects, according to the following principle, one project, one review, completed in a clearly defined time period. we will ensure that canada has the infrastructure we need to move our exports to new markets. beyond this, we will build on our very effective partnership with the canadian federation of independent business, to continue reducing red tape

then canada, to the keystone pipeline. >> we're all connected. >> canada is a great ally. oklahoma has this surplus of oil shale related at cushing terminal. can't get it down to the, to the gulf refineries. that's one reason gasoline prices are high. what did you say in the radio address? >> well, of course we support the keystone pipeline from canada down to the gulf coast. and the president state of the union speech he mentioned the cushing pipeline which is the hub, which has the a glut of oil on the marketplace. which is not helping our market frankly in oklahoma and the pricing of that. and how we want, he mentioned maybe completing the keystone portion of sfrfrom cushing to t gulf coast. i had the opportunity to be in the white house four weeks ago with the governors, i asked the president, i said i know you are not for the keystone pipeline which i am for. it would create american jobs, revenue back into our states. reduces dependency, on foreign oil. and i said i hope that since you mentioned -- the portion of cushing down to the gulf that you will go ahead and co

is there more that we can learn from canada? >> well, let me start off with the comment about the great moderation and then work in the differences and experiences. because i think it's a really good point. you know, in actual fact, your example of "murder on the orient express" works. i cannot find anybody who is not to blame for what happened. people took mortgages they never should have and lenders made mortgages they should not have loaned. they could sell them as products to investors that didn't appreciate the risk and shouldn't have been buying them. it was facilitated by incentives like mortgage interest deductibility which is something we don't have in canada, that encouraging peeople to take out bigger mortgages, and a host of other behavior. and the regulatory oversight was not robust and financial innovation was not so quick, people couldn't actually keep pace with what was happening, oh regulators fell behind the curve. banks weren't holding enough capital. so, in fact, everyone was to blame. and part of the reason

a critical role in the defense of canada. the mere presence of an indian force on the battlefield could tip the battle. because such was the reputation of indians for ferocity, that very typically if they were known to be on the enemy side, that would just cause the air to go out of the sails of the other side, and you have panic. and a flight. finally, the logistical problems that i think we faced, waging a war on a distant frontier, seizing a major british stronghold, and holding them, i just don't see that happening. you needed to control the waterways, which we didn't, but even if we had controlled the waterways, i'm not sure we had the logistical ability to wage and win a war on the northern frontier. so given the state of our army, given the formidable foe we faced, and given the logistical problems of waging the war on the northern frontier, my own suspicion is that even the best strategy would not have led to the conquest of canada. finally, we have this notion that the united states won -- enjoyed enough success on l