- Harper Being in Power Has Unleashing the Hounds of Con'ism

Submitted: 9:45, PDT, 5 Nov.'10 CBC News - not posted - go figure
Re-Submitted: 10:05, PDT, 5 Nov.'10 CBC News

Aviation companies decry F-35 purchase
Dassault, Boeing claim they were shut out of lucrative military contract, November 5, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/05/-new-fighter-purchase-complaints.html#socialcomments-submit


Yesterday both Lt. Gen. Andre Deschampes and Peter MacKay were confronted with the issue of the Statement of Requirements being released in the Spring ('10) but the decision to purchase the F-35's evidently made before then (Power & Politics, Evan Solomon, 4 Nov.'10).

This of course leads one to the logical inference that how could the other companies like Boeing have competed and as MacKay so delicately put it "lost".

Neither Lt. Gen. Andre Deschampes and Peter MacKay answered this question directly.

They both, in an obfuscascious sort of way and in a fashion that suggested to me they both had access to the same pre-written response ( oh no, not a MEP, . . . can the F-35 defend Canadians against the MEP, the biggest threat to Canada and our way of life passed down and entrusted to us by our forefathers, established through their blood, sweat and tears - then, it might be worth it) referred back to the long process started in the mid '90's when Canada joined the Strike Force to be allowed to participate in the development of the F-35.

One could only conclude that that was when Boeing and the others 'lost', 15 years ago.

Also,They didn't seem to point out that Canada's participation at that time was to allow it to share in the development contracts, which it did and to a large net benefit (thank you Jean), but was non-committal as to its purchase.

MacKay suggests the F-35 is necessary because of its stealth feature, its being undetectable. Perhaps in '95 that was true, but according to Boeing and Dassault, it apparently is not the case now.

He also suggests interoperability, although does not explain just exactly what he is referring to and why other makes of jets wouldn't possess these qualities (I am assuming they are all equipped with radios, if not perhaps a few walkie-talkies might be apropos, at least it would be cheaper than purchasing the 65 F-35's).

If it's that important we need to know.

Everyone can understand the logic behind the Statement of Requirements being based on the specifications for mission success. What is hard to understand is why we aren't being told just exactly what those 'missions' are and consulted on whether we, all Canadians and not some small segment of right-extremists, want this for Canada.

Canada's military raison d'être is to support our chosen way of life. Their 'missions' ought to be based on that. We are not hear to give the military Carte blanche, without question, so that they are defining our way of life.

This is very much a political matter and everyone in Canada should ask themselves if we want it determined by such right-wing, extremist, 'Hawks' as Harper, MacKay and the Conservative Party.

When assessing the weight to be given to Peter MacKay's statements, we must all keep in mind that for MacKay, if it isn't in Hansard it didn't happen, and if it wasn't for MacKay's 'word being his bond' Harper wouldn't be running our country.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html