26 April, 2012
- Stephen Harper is so Predictable it Hurts
Posted: 10:08 AM on April 26, 2012
Harper plans to ‘examine all options’ on 2014 withdrawal from Afghanistan Steven Chanse, Globe and Mail, Wednesday, Apr. 25, 2012 11:36PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-plans-to-examine-all-options-on-2014-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/article2414045/
I posted the following to my blog on 16 Nov.'10 & 17 Nov.'10:
16 November, 2010: - I just want to know if this Harper 'training mission' wouldn't include F-35's by any chance.
I am not sure a vote will achieve much, given Harper's track record.
But open, transparent discussion and debate where Harper reveals to the people just exactly what he has in mind is vital. It is Canada that is fighting in Afghanistan, not the Conservative Party. It is Canadians that must bear arms,not Harper, MacKay or any of the other con's.
". . . none of the troops will be posted in mentoring operations that would require them to accompany Afghan army personnel on combat operations"
When Harper said in early January:
"we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy"(OttawaCitizen, 7 Jan.'10)
I strongly suspect Harper knew at that time he would be announcing, if he, Harper, has anything to do with it, that Canadians troops would be remaining.
He is saying now it is training inside the wire.
But, as we shall see, this 'wire', along with our credulousness, will be stretched until it simply disappears and our participation becomes indistinguishable from the type of role we have now - much to the satisfaction of the US and other NATO participants.
Certainly, everyone, in Canada, and elsewhere, looked at his track record, his hawkish approach to Afghanistan and his general right-wing extremist ideology combined with 4 years of misleading, obscuring, obstructing and obfuscation - in a word "Con'ing Canadians" - and concluded that when push came to shove, he would keep a significant military presence in Afghanistan, despite he was saying the opposite.
(So, if someone knows they are being mislead, can it be said they are, in actuality, being mislead.
This continued and extensive misleading, is, of course, a manifestation of the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism as applied by Harper:
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible")
Any continued participation in Afghanistan ought to be aimed at economic development.
The recent news that there is approx $1 trillion in minerals affords a real opportunity to help in rebuilding Afghanistan - vis.:
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
(NYT, 13 Jun.'10)
Given Canada's long history and expertise in mining certainly we can assist them in this regard. It may even supplant their current cash crop - poppies.
It would also tend to loosen the grip by the Taliban since they obtain a considerable amount of their funding from the poppy crops and it is easy for them to 'interact with' farmers. However, it is hard to see them exerting much direct influence in the mining industry and if they "beat their IED's into Caterpillars", that can't be a be bad thing, can it.
Also, if Canada leaves Afghanistan other countries will step in and give assistance - in developing its resources.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
*******
17 November, 2010
- MacKay: Afghanistan, "aircraft training"??? - No, not his beloved F-35's???
. . .
The consensus appears to be that rather than ending in '14, Harper, in reality has a 'no-end-insight' to Canada's military involvement.
"They will be involved in . . . and possibly some aircraft training, Mr. MacKay said." (G&M 16 Nov.'10)
"aircraft training"??? - MacKay kinda slipped that one in. I wonder just exactly what he is plotting.
Mumm, any day now Soudas and MacKay are going to start using Afghanistan as an excuse for the $16 billion F-35 purchase.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
25 April, 2012
"Oh yah, Just Watch Me"
see the prev post:
Lloyd Macilquham cicblog 12:53 AM on April 26, 2012
Veritas Omnia Vincit wrote: 12:12 PM on April 25, 2012
"Harper has no control about a by-election if it's (or they) are court-ordered."
Oh yah, just watch him.
Lloyd
Would Harper Refuse to Allow By-Elections in the Robo-Call Ridings - I Know, Let's Ask Him
Posted: 10:50 AM on April 25, 2012
Non-Tory voters targeted in robo-call scandal, pollster finds MICHAEL VALPY, Globe and Mail, Apr. 24, 2012 7:35AM EDT http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/non-tory-voters-targeted-in-robo-call-scandal-pollster-finds/article2411875/
These results are quite revealing and carry weight. Everyone, I think, can understand that using statistical methods can only give probabilities, albeit in this case apparently quite high.
However, I also think, that every knows that
There is 0 chance Stephen Harper would allow a by-election
And, there is 0 change Stephen Harper would allow an Inquiry
no matter what the evidence.
Perhaps, some enterprising polling firm, or reporter,
should poll Harper on these questions.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
10 April, 2012
- The real bottom line with Harper & Mackay: the Yawning Honesty Gap
Posted: 9:26am (PDT) 10 Apr.'12
Andrew Coyne: MacKay’s defence of F-35 price gap doesn’t add up, Andrew Coyne, National Post, Apr 9, 2012
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/09/f-35-price-gap-andrew-coyne/
Good work, Andrew.
The real bottom line here though is:
The huge honesty gap!
You simply can not rely on anything Peter MacKay says, or Stephen Harper for that matter.
The price gap is quite probably in the ballpark this article suggests, if not higher - after all they have not finished designing or 'mass' producing them yet have they and we all know how that goes.
It is interesting that the con MacKay and Harper are now trying to hand us that the "yawning" 10 billion price gap is simply a matter of "accounting" took over a week for them to come up with after the AG shone his light into this dark corners of government and assisted the process of holding governments accountable.
I wonder how many focus groups they held to find that not so true but plausible explanation.
(the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism: “It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible")
Anybody check out the Pete-pic at:
torontosun.com/2012/03/22/mackay-boosts-f-35-hopes
Pete-pic
and compared to famous Richard Nixon's caricatures "I am not a crook".
When you look at the pic of Pete you can almost imagine him saying "I am not a liar"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Andrew Coyne: MacKay’s defence of F-35 price gap doesn’t add up, Andrew Coyne, National Post, Apr 9, 2012
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/09/f-35-price-gap-andrew-coyne/
Good work, Andrew.
The real bottom line here though is:
The huge honesty gap!
You simply can not rely on anything Peter MacKay says, or Stephen Harper for that matter.
The price gap is quite probably in the ballpark this article suggests, if not higher - after all they have not finished designing or 'mass' producing them yet have they and we all know how that goes.
It is interesting that the con MacKay and Harper are now trying to hand us that the "yawning" 10 billion price gap is simply a matter of "accounting" took over a week for them to come up with after the AG shone his light into this dark corners of government and assisted the process of holding governments accountable.
I wonder how many focus groups they held to find that not so true but plausible explanation.
(the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism: “It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible")
Anybody check out the Pete-pic at:
torontosun.com/2012/03/22/mackay-boosts-f-35-hopes
Pete-pic
and compared to famous Richard Nixon's caricatures "I am not a crook".
When you look at the pic of Pete you can almost imagine him saying "I am not a liar"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
09 April, 2012
- Hay, MacKay what about the yawning honesty gap
Posted: 4:43 PM on April 9, 2012 (EDT)
MacKay stands by F-35 jets, calls cost jump an accounting issue, barrie mckenna, Globe and Mail, Apr. 09, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mackay-stands-by-f-35-jets-calls-cost-jump-an-accounting-issue/article2395294/
"But Mr. MacKay denied the government purposely hid the true cost of the F-35 and said the yawning $10-billion price gap is simply a matter of 'accounting'"
MacKay is right as far as it is an accounting problem.
It's just the true nature of the problem he appears to be confused on:
The accounting problem is:
Harper, MacKay and the other Con's accounting to the good people of Canada.
They have been hiding and misrepresenting the true cost of the F-35's which is bad enough to get them impeach, Canada style, and found in contempt of Parliament.
But what they are also not accounting to the good people of Canada is:
Just exactly why we need these strike force planes.
What plans for war are they hiding from us.
The military is here for the benefit of Canadians.
The other way around, where the people are there for the military is plain and simple, a military state.
There are many countries in the world that are run by their military, either in the foreground or pulling the strings in the background, they pretty much all are third world, oppressive states, where the people lack freedom, but hay there's always room for Canada.
Harper and the Con's have approx 35% die-hard support. They simply don't care whether they are conducting themselves as part of a free and democratic society, where the government is accountable to the people, all the people.
It is the remaining 65% that will have to stand up, be counted, and demand Harper, MacKay and the other Con's be accountable.
http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1331148027111_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x
(for some reason teh G&M wouldn't post the URL - go figure)
Check out the Pete-pic with the peace signs and compared to famous Richard Nixon's caricatures "I am not a crook". I know, I know, Nixon didn't actually put his hands up in peace signs and say 'I am not a crook'
(Pete-pic)
When you look at the pic of Pete you can almost imagine him saying "I am not a liar"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
MacKay stands by F-35 jets, calls cost jump an accounting issue, barrie mckenna, Globe and Mail, Apr. 09, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mackay-stands-by-f-35-jets-calls-cost-jump-an-accounting-issue/article2395294/
"But Mr. MacKay denied the government purposely hid the true cost of the F-35 and said the yawning $10-billion price gap is simply a matter of 'accounting'"
MacKay is right as far as it is an accounting problem.
It's just the true nature of the problem he appears to be confused on:
The accounting problem is:
Harper, MacKay and the other Con's accounting to the good people of Canada.
They have been hiding and misrepresenting the true cost of the F-35's which is bad enough to get them impeach, Canada style, and found in contempt of Parliament.
But what they are also not accounting to the good people of Canada is:
Just exactly why we need these strike force planes.
What plans for war are they hiding from us.
The military is here for the benefit of Canadians.
The other way around, where the people are there for the military is plain and simple, a military state.
There are many countries in the world that are run by their military, either in the foreground or pulling the strings in the background, they pretty much all are third world, oppressive states, where the people lack freedom, but hay there's always room for Canada.
Harper and the Con's have approx 35% die-hard support. They simply don't care whether they are conducting themselves as part of a free and democratic society, where the government is accountable to the people, all the people.
It is the remaining 65% that will have to stand up, be counted, and demand Harper, MacKay and the other Con's be accountable.
http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1331148027111_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x
(for some reason teh G&M wouldn't post the URL - go figure)
Check out the Pete-pic with the peace signs and compared to famous Richard Nixon's caricatures "I am not a crook". I know, I know, Nixon didn't actually put his hands up in peace signs and say 'I am not a crook'
(Pete-pic)
When you look at the pic of Pete you can almost imagine him saying "I am not a liar"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
07 April, 2012
- Stevie, you got some 'splainin' to do! . . . continued
Some Care wrote
in reply to my post at 11:27 AM
"Lloyd, with respect to your "real shrouded issue", this program was started back in the 90's under a Liberal government. So, using your logic, what war was Chretien not telling us about? Kind of silly isn't it?"
My post:
"I think if we are all going to pay $40.00 per year for 20 years for F-35's
we should all at least get a ride in one of these
'eye watering' technological, and fiscal, marvels, . . .
Stevie, you got some 'splainin' to do!
. . ."
___
My Reply to:
Some Care (???)
Saying that Chrétien was the one who started the purchase of the F-35's ???
Even Harper has stopped trying to pull that one
The Chrétien government invested approximately $171million in the original developmental stages in order that Canada might be awarded contracts at the time.
And, in fact Canada thereby received approx $350 million in contracts
Kudos to Chrétien.
At no time have I heard anyone, who takes responsibility for what they say anyway, say that Chrétien said Canada was buying the F-35's; that the F-35 was the only plane that met Canada's military requirements; and, certainly not that he told Parliament that he was spending $16 billion, $25 billion, $30 billion or more, on planes.
It is quite easy to see Chrétien later saying no to Bush - after all he said no to Bush's pressure for Canada to join them in invading Iraq.
Again kudos to Chrétien.
Harper on the other hand wanted war
"It [referring to calling a Minister "Idiot"] was probably not an appropriate term, but we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win.
- Montreal Gazette, April 2003
until, of course, it became clear to all that Bush's reason for invading were BS and Harper felt it was convenient in winning votes.
"It [the Iraq invasion] was absolutely an error. It's obviously clear the evaluation of weapons of mass destruction proved not to be correct. That's absolutely true and that's why we're not sending anybody to Iraq."
- To Gilles Duceppe during the 2008 English leaders' debate, October 2, 2008
Scott Taylor interviewed Former Assistant Defence Minister Alan Williams, under whose leadership it was that Canada entered the F-35 JSF Program. Participation in the JSF program came in the form of C$150 million investment. This investment by the Canadian Department of National Defence and
Industry Canada assured that Canadian Aeronautics Industry could bid on any future contracts
that would arise from the JSF project. Canada’s participation in the project was primarily to
benefit the Aeronautics Industry and it was not embarked upon with an eye towards acquisition
of these military assets.
(p.37, Come Fly With Me: Analyzing The F-35 Aircraft
Acquisition Discourse to Study Incivility in Question Period
Arun Jacob, Ryerson University, arun.jacob@gmail.com)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
in reply to my post at 11:27 AM
"Lloyd, with respect to your "real shrouded issue", this program was started back in the 90's under a Liberal government. So, using your logic, what war was Chretien not telling us about? Kind of silly isn't it?"
My post:
"I think if we are all going to pay $40.00 per year for 20 years for F-35's
we should all at least get a ride in one of these
'eye watering' technological, and fiscal, marvels, . . .
Stevie, you got some 'splainin' to do!
. . ."
___
My Reply to:
Some Care (???)
Saying that Chrétien was the one who started the purchase of the F-35's ???
Even Harper has stopped trying to pull that one
The Chrétien government invested approximately $171million in the original developmental stages in order that Canada might be awarded contracts at the time.
And, in fact Canada thereby received approx $350 million in contracts
Kudos to Chrétien.
At no time have I heard anyone, who takes responsibility for what they say anyway, say that Chrétien said Canada was buying the F-35's; that the F-35 was the only plane that met Canada's military requirements; and, certainly not that he told Parliament that he was spending $16 billion, $25 billion, $30 billion or more, on planes.
It is quite easy to see Chrétien later saying no to Bush - after all he said no to Bush's pressure for Canada to join them in invading Iraq.
Again kudos to Chrétien.
Harper on the other hand wanted war
"It [referring to calling a Minister "Idiot"] was probably not an appropriate term, but we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win.
- Montreal Gazette, April 2003
until, of course, it became clear to all that Bush's reason for invading were BS and Harper felt it was convenient in winning votes.
"It [the Iraq invasion] was absolutely an error. It's obviously clear the evaluation of weapons of mass destruction proved not to be correct. That's absolutely true and that's why we're not sending anybody to Iraq."
- To Gilles Duceppe during the 2008 English leaders' debate, October 2, 2008
Scott Taylor interviewed Former Assistant Defence Minister Alan Williams, under whose leadership it was that Canada entered the F-35 JSF Program. Participation in the JSF program came in the form of C$150 million investment. This investment by the Canadian Department of National Defence and
Industry Canada assured that Canadian Aeronautics Industry could bid on any future contracts
that would arise from the JSF project. Canada’s participation in the project was primarily to
benefit the Aeronautics Industry and it was not embarked upon with an eye towards acquisition
of these military assets.
(p.37, Come Fly With Me: Analyzing The F-35 Aircraft
Acquisition Discourse to Study Incivility in Question Period
Arun Jacob, Ryerson University, arun.jacob@gmail.com)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- "Stevie, you got some 'splainin' to do!" . . . Again
posted: 11:27 AM on April 7, 2012
Military: Accept F-35s or lose regional spinoffs, DND warned in 2010,
daniel leblanc, Globe and Mail, Apr. 07, 2012 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/accept-f-35s-or-lose-
regional-spinoffs-dnd-warned-in-2010/article2393760/
subtitle:
'I think if we are all going to pay $40.00 per year for 20 years for F-35's
we should all at least get a ride in one of these
"eye watering" technological, and fiscal, marvels,
and that would at least put them to some use -
that Harper would not feel the need to hide from us, that is.'
Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and the Con's are responsible plain and simple.
Harper and the Con's have already been found in Contempt of Parliament for not providing information regarding the purchase of the F-35's. Along with his 'Tough on Crime" agenda.
In fact Harper and the Con's were impeached Canadian style
and we went to the election on that issue.
If Harper had come clean at that time, would he have won the election?
Well, he would have got the support from the 35% (approx) die hard Con's who simply don't care. But, there is a real and significant chance her would have ended up out of power.
Harper said anything, irrespective of the truth, says anything, irrespective of the truth, and will say anything, irrespective of the truth, to attain and maintain power - after all, it is the American way.
MacKay has demonstrated time and again he simply can't be trusted on anything he says and he certainly can't be relied on to do the right (morally right that is) thing.
Further, you can betcha Harper won't simply give up that power as we've seen before.
(and you can betcha Harper will not allow by-elections regarding the Robo-call assault on Democracy, nor an Inquiry.)
For Harper to suggest that he did not mislead Parliament on the cost of the F-35's because he was not including "operating and salary costs, the government says, which would be incurred regardless of the aircraft purchased."
It is simply Harper-wash.
If there are no F35's then there is no work for these ""National Defence personnel", so either this is simply another Harper Con or these people will be sitting there doing nothing . . . and Harper cutting 19,200 jobs from the Civil Service.
Look for the Civil Service to be saying:
"Stevie, you got some 'splainin' to do!"
If I were Harper and given the 19,200 Civil Service jobs he is eliminating, I wouldn't be very eager to admit this, and certainly not try to palm it off on the good people of Canada as an excuse.
Here's it real simple:
no F-35's = no operating and salary costs attributable to the F-35's = no $10b
For Harper and the Con's to suggest that they: "are largely fixed and would be incurred regardless of what fighter plane Canada was flying" represents the height of dishonesty and indicates that he has no intention of coming clean.
It may be the 35% don't care.
But, what about the 65% - certainly this would be a good time to stand up and be counted. Keep in mind that spending the $30b on things like child development, education and health care would actually do some good for Canadians and keep all the money in Canada.
Also, just think, the F-35 procurement could easily have been covered by the $6 billion a year revenue lost with the 2 point reduction in the GST Harper used to buy votes.
“In fact, the total cost we are talking about for 20 years, plus the acquisition of the airplane, is $16 billion. That amounts to $25 per Canadian per year. That is a small price to pay for the protection of Canadians’ sovereignty and Canadian values abroad.”
Laurie Hawn, House of Commons, March 10, 2011
(see: "Tories’ failure to reveal F-35’s true $25B cost before election ‘political fraud’: NDP", nationalpost.com/2012/04/05/)
Well, Hawn's estimate was upwardly challenged since we now know it is at least $25b, and counting, so it is at least $40.00 per Canadian per year. That would be covered by 2 points in the GST.
Harper and the Con's have been hiding the true costs of the F-35
But the real issue, which is being shrouded, is
Harper is hiding the true purpose he wants the 65 F-35's.
These are offensive, first strike, war planes, plane and simply
What war are is Harper is planning that he is not telling us about.
Look for Harper in Question Period looking right into the camera and with the double 'V' signs saying
"I am not a liar"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Military: Accept F-35s or lose regional spinoffs, DND warned in 2010,
daniel leblanc, Globe and Mail, Apr. 07, 2012 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/accept-f-35s-or-lose-
regional-spinoffs-dnd-warned-in-2010/article2393760/
subtitle:
'I think if we are all going to pay $40.00 per year for 20 years for F-35's
we should all at least get a ride in one of these
"eye watering" technological, and fiscal, marvels,
and that would at least put them to some use -
that Harper would not feel the need to hide from us, that is.'
Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and the Con's are responsible plain and simple.
Harper and the Con's have already been found in Contempt of Parliament for not providing information regarding the purchase of the F-35's. Along with his 'Tough on Crime" agenda.
In fact Harper and the Con's were impeached Canadian style
and we went to the election on that issue.
If Harper had come clean at that time, would he have won the election?
Well, he would have got the support from the 35% (approx) die hard Con's who simply don't care. But, there is a real and significant chance her would have ended up out of power.
Harper said anything, irrespective of the truth, says anything, irrespective of the truth, and will say anything, irrespective of the truth, to attain and maintain power - after all, it is the American way.
MacKay has demonstrated time and again he simply can't be trusted on anything he says and he certainly can't be relied on to do the right (morally right that is) thing.
Further, you can betcha Harper won't simply give up that power as we've seen before.
(and you can betcha Harper will not allow by-elections regarding the Robo-call assault on Democracy, nor an Inquiry.)
For Harper to suggest that he did not mislead Parliament on the cost of the F-35's because he was not including "operating and salary costs, the government says, which would be incurred regardless of the aircraft purchased."
It is simply Harper-wash.
If there are no F35's then there is no work for these ""National Defence personnel", so either this is simply another Harper Con or these people will be sitting there doing nothing . . . and Harper cutting 19,200 jobs from the Civil Service.
Look for the Civil Service to be saying:
"Stevie, you got some 'splainin' to do!"
If I were Harper and given the 19,200 Civil Service jobs he is eliminating, I wouldn't be very eager to admit this, and certainly not try to palm it off on the good people of Canada as an excuse.
Here's it real simple:
no F-35's = no operating and salary costs attributable to the F-35's = no $10b
For Harper and the Con's to suggest that they: "are largely fixed and would be incurred regardless of what fighter plane Canada was flying" represents the height of dishonesty and indicates that he has no intention of coming clean.
It may be the 35% don't care.
But, what about the 65% - certainly this would be a good time to stand up and be counted. Keep in mind that spending the $30b on things like child development, education and health care would actually do some good for Canadians and keep all the money in Canada.
Also, just think, the F-35 procurement could easily have been covered by the $6 billion a year revenue lost with the 2 point reduction in the GST Harper used to buy votes.
“In fact, the total cost we are talking about for 20 years, plus the acquisition of the airplane, is $16 billion. That amounts to $25 per Canadian per year. That is a small price to pay for the protection of Canadians’ sovereignty and Canadian values abroad.”
Laurie Hawn, House of Commons, March 10, 2011
(see: "Tories’ failure to reveal F-35’s true $25B cost before election ‘political fraud’: NDP", nationalpost.com/2012/04/05/)
Well, Hawn's estimate was upwardly challenged since we now know it is at least $25b, and counting, so it is at least $40.00 per Canadian per year. That would be covered by 2 points in the GST.
Harper and the Con's have been hiding the true costs of the F-35
But the real issue, which is being shrouded, is
Harper is hiding the true purpose he wants the 65 F-35's.
These are offensive, first strike, war planes, plane and simply
What war are is Harper is planning that he is not telling us about.
Look for Harper in Question Period looking right into the camera and with the double 'V' signs saying
"I am not a liar"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
06 April, 2012
- The First Casualty of Harper and Con'ism is Truth
Submitted: 6 Apr.'12, 9:10am (PDT)
True F-35 cost likely known by cabinet, auditor says
By Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News, Apr 5, 2012 10:35 PM ET http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/05/pol-ferguson-committee.html
There are a number of thing we must keep in mind regarding this whole affair.
Stephen Harper in the past said whatever he, and whomever it was that was advising him, whether here or in the US, thought it would take to get a majority government.
Harper treats politics as if it were war,
and adheres to the adages:
"all is fair in . . . and war"
as well as
"the first casualty of war is truth",
"to the victor go the spoils"
Flanagan has compared Harper methods to those of Ancient Rome.
(Globe and mail, “Have the Liberals gone soft? Why are they upset over attack ads?”, 13 Jul.’09, Tom Flanigan)
(see my post: 13 July, 2009
- It is very revealing that Harper and the Cons would turn to Roman politics for justification of their extremely negative attack ads)
The Roman method of politics lead to dictatorship and finally degradation and ruin. Not the best example for political instruction. As far as I can see for the last 2000 years our society has considered the Roman Republic and her politics corrupt in the extreme. Enter stage 'right' Bush and Harper.
Harper and the Con's have a majority government and just as with the Robo Calls, when it gets right down to it, this scandal is going nowhere.
In the Robo Call affair, no matter to what degree the Canadian Democratic process was interfered with, There is no way Harper will allow a by-election as a result of any finding by Elections Canada and no way he will allow an Inquiry. Harper is supported by approx 35% die hard Con and they simply don't care. That's simply the realities with Harper.
Harper and the Con's have already been found in Contempt of Parliament for not providing information regarding the purchase of the F-35's. Along with his 'Tough on Crime" agenda.
In fact Harper and the Con's were impeached Canadian style
and we went to the election on that issue.
If Harper had come clean at that time, would he have won the election. Well, he would have got the support from the Die hard Con;s who simply don't care. But, there is a real and significant chance her would have ended up out of power.
For Harper to suggest that he did not mislead Parliament on the cost of the F-35's because he was not including "operating and salary costs, the government says, which would be incurred regardless of the aircraft purchased."
is simply Harper-wash.
How could Harper say that 10 billion dollars would be spent anyway, even without the F-35's.
Here's it real simple
no F-35's = no operating and salary costs attributable to the F-35's = no $10b
Harper and the Con's have been hiding the true costs of the F-35
But the real issue, which is being shrouded, is
Harper is hiding the true purpose he wants the 65 F-w35's.
These are offensive, first strike, war planes, plane and simply
What war are is Harper is planning that he is not telling us about.
Look for Harper in Question Period looking right into the camera and with the double 'V' signs saying
"I am not a liar"
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog comments
True F-35 cost likely known by cabinet, auditor says
By Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News, Apr 5, 2012 10:35 PM ET http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/05/pol-ferguson-committee.html
There are a number of thing we must keep in mind regarding this whole affair.
Stephen Harper in the past said whatever he, and whomever it was that was advising him, whether here or in the US, thought it would take to get a majority government.
Harper treats politics as if it were war,
and adheres to the adages:
"all is fair in . . . and war"
as well as
"the first casualty of war is truth",
"to the victor go the spoils"
Flanagan has compared Harper methods to those of Ancient Rome.
(Globe and mail, “Have the Liberals gone soft? Why are they upset over attack ads?”, 13 Jul.’09, Tom Flanigan)
(see my post: 13 July, 2009
- It is very revealing that Harper and the Cons would turn to Roman politics for justification of their extremely negative attack ads)
The Roman method of politics lead to dictatorship and finally degradation and ruin. Not the best example for political instruction. As far as I can see for the last 2000 years our society has considered the Roman Republic and her politics corrupt in the extreme. Enter stage 'right' Bush and Harper.
Harper and the Con's have a majority government and just as with the Robo Calls, when it gets right down to it, this scandal is going nowhere.
In the Robo Call affair, no matter to what degree the Canadian Democratic process was interfered with, There is no way Harper will allow a by-election as a result of any finding by Elections Canada and no way he will allow an Inquiry. Harper is supported by approx 35% die hard Con and they simply don't care. That's simply the realities with Harper.
Harper and the Con's have already been found in Contempt of Parliament for not providing information regarding the purchase of the F-35's. Along with his 'Tough on Crime" agenda.
In fact Harper and the Con's were impeached Canadian style
and we went to the election on that issue.
If Harper had come clean at that time, would he have won the election. Well, he would have got the support from the Die hard Con;s who simply don't care. But, there is a real and significant chance her would have ended up out of power.
For Harper to suggest that he did not mislead Parliament on the cost of the F-35's because he was not including "operating and salary costs, the government says, which would be incurred regardless of the aircraft purchased."
is simply Harper-wash.
How could Harper say that 10 billion dollars would be spent anyway, even without the F-35's.
Here's it real simple
no F-35's = no operating and salary costs attributable to the F-35's = no $10b
Harper and the Con's have been hiding the true costs of the F-35
But the real issue, which is being shrouded, is
Harper is hiding the true purpose he wants the 65 F-w35's.
These are offensive, first strike, war planes, plane and simply
What war are is Harper is planning that he is not telling us about.
Look for Harper in Question Period looking right into the camera and with the double 'V' signs saying
"I am not a liar"
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)