- News Flash: "IT APPEARS HARPER AND THE CON'S ARE TRYING TO PUT ONE OVER ON THE PUBLIC"

Posts closed: The Toronto Star
Controversy dogs fighter jet contract, Richard J. Brennan, Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star, Jul 16 2010
http://www.thestar.com/article/836658--controversy-dogs-fighter-jet-contract

- 16 billion for 'next-generation' fighter jets - how about the 'next-generation' Canadians.

“It won’t,” MacKay said, when asked if he had any concerns about the single engine failing

Keep in mind that Peter MacKay is the guy that said that 'if it's not in Hansard it didn't happen'

It is, of course, impossible to say in such definite terms "it won't" happen, no matter what it is. For example, Stephen Harper and the Con's getting booted out of office.

And, it sounds like what they said about the Titanic (all the latest technology, and, sink?, "it won't") before it started on its maiden voyage - to the depths of the sea.

I think what MacKay really means is that: "by the time it does happen, Harper and the Con's, including myself, will most likely be out of power anyway, but we will have made all the political hay that can be made from spending 16 billion now, and Bob's your Uncle".

"'it appears the Conservative are trying to put one over on the public' said Alan S. Williams, a retired bureaucrat who served as assistant deputy minister at both national defence and public works."

Yeh, well we let'em.

Mr. Williams, it wouldn't be the first time that we were Con'd by Harper, MacKay and the rest of their gang and there is only one way to make sure it's the last.

"But a senior government official said the advances in engine technology in the last 30 years gives him peace of mind that missions over the Arctic and coastlines can be flown safely in the single-engine F-35.

He said statistical studies show 'no clear advantage' flying with either one engine or two."

Am I hearing this right (morally right that is). If there is "no clear advantage" then what good is all the "eye watering technology" and corresponding 'eye watering' 16 billion dollars bill for. This is, of course, insane.

"MacKay said the new fighter aircraft was needed to meet the 'increasingly complex demands' facing Canada’s air force."

Excuse me for asking, but, Mr. MacKay, just exactly what are these “increasingly complex demands” you are talking about. Just exactly what do you have in mind for Canada's armed forces that we would need such state of the art equipment.

"Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, who heads the air force, 'This marks a huge step forward in the air force’s capability'"

And the reason we need to spend 16 billion to get this huge increase in the air force's capabilities, is . . .???

"Air force personnel were positively beaming at the news of getting the high-tech toy in their inventory, with several posing for photos beside the mock-up"

I'd love to get a Lamborghini, but I don't - can you guess why? That's right, I don't need it and I can't afford it. How about a little cost-benefit analysis. Boy, for a guy that used to be an economist, Harper seems to go out his way to avoid any kind of rational basis for spending our hard earned tax dollars. Every dollar of our tax dollars he spends is to promote the Con party and Canadians be damned.

"Canada has invested $160 million so far in the development of the F-35, and Canadian companies have received $350 million in contracts."

We seem to be ahead of the game right now.

Why don't we simply say "thank you very much, it's been swell" leave it at that and do some open, transparent and rationally based discussions of the future of Canada's military and from that determine its needs, the associated costs and the benefits derived therefrom.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html