[Newsbot]

Title: Stephen Harper takes aim at terror, opposition gets dinged
Category: Political
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2015-01-30 15:59:56
Canadian

[N_Fiddledog]

Gee, Stephen Harper did something the CBC disapproves of. Alert the media.

No. I mean the real media, not the propaganda arm of the Progressive movement.

The editorial was good for a smile though. I especially enjoyed the part where CBC guy said nobody is criticizing, except of course when we're criticizing.

[2Cdo]

Can we change the way we fund the CBC? How about only those card carrying Liberals and NDP party members pay for it. They don't even pretend to be anything but the left-wing support group anymore.

[andyt]

Harper: Our troops will not accompany Iraqi forces to the front.
Nicholson: How can you train troops when you don't accompany them to the front?
Lawson: Accompany doesn't mean the same thing in the military as for civilians.

The usual scenario, Harper is either a liar or doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

As for the new terror legislation - 7 day detention with no charge. Do we really need new legislation that further erodes civil rights, or just more police to enforce the laws we already have? Course the latter would cost money. Can't balance a budget when you've already spent what you don't have.

[andyt]

Here's CTV's take on it - is it less hurtful for reformacons when they say it:

$1:

But while the prime minister might successfully sell the widened scope of the mission to Canadians, Stephen Harper’s trustworthiness is vulnerable in the war over his own words.
He clearly promised to limit ground troops to classroom-type training and background assistance last fall.
He’s now praising Canadian troops for front line targeting and killing.
It could be the prime minister didn’t initially understand the mission. That would be disconcerting.
It could be Harper deliberately masked it as passive instead of aggressive. That would be alarming.
Or perhaps Chief of Defence Staff Tom Lawson single-handedly evolved the mission. If so, the country’s top general has gone beyond his mandate and deserves a rebuke from his political masters. Strange, then, how they’re all saluting him for a job well done.
The particularly odd part is that Harper could’ve secured parliamentary permission to invade Baghdad with a battalion of Canadian troops if he wanted. The prime minister dictates the outcome of every vote.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/ ... z3QMMQOg3p

[Jabberwalker]

Oh, come on. We sent our troops to "peace keeping" missions for two generations with their balls effectively cut off. The prime benefactors of all that was mostly the Gliberal Party of Canada who pointed with pride at their sham multilateralism.

[andyt]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Oh, come on. We sent our troops to "peace keeping" missions for two generations with their balls effectively cut off. The prime benefactors of all that was mostly the Gliberal Party of Canada who pointed with pride at their sham multilateralism.

$1:

The particularly odd part is that Harper could’ve secured parliamentary permission to invade Baghdad with a battalion of Canadian troops if he wanted. The prime minister dictates the outcome of every vote.

As it says, he can push anything he wants thru parliament, including a full blown ground invasion if he wants. So was he confused or was he lying?

this is the problem with Harper. As the article says, most Canadians, (including this one) probably don't have a problem with Canadian troops accompanying the Iraqis, and obviously fighting back if attacked. So why the need to bullshit?

[Unsound]

I suspect that giving out the least possible information at all times has just gotten to be habit for Harper.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

As it says, he can push anything he wants thru parliament, including a full blown ground invasion if he wants. So was he confused or was he lying?

this is the problem with Harper. As the article says, most Canadians, (including this one) probably don't have a problem with Canadian troops accompanying the Iraqis, and obviously fighting back if attacked. So why the need to bullshit?

This is the problem with stupid fucks like you. No room for change. War is a black and white thing to you. No room for things to change and evolve. If it was said, one must stick exactly to that.

Fuck the Iraqi's if they need the help. Let's sit back, watch them get killed. Good call.

[andyt]

Unsound Unsound:

I suspect that giving out the least possible misleading information at all times has just gotten to be habit for Harper.

More accurate I think. Doesn't even make sense - as I said, it's not as if he would lose the vote if he told the truth, and most people probably support what the special forces are up to anyway. So why bullshit when asked a direct question?

[andyt]

I am Stephen Harper and I approved this message. I am Stephen Harper and I approved this message.:

Fuck the Iraqi's if they need the help. Let's sit back, watch them get killed. Good call.

Or, you know, just help them and tell the truth at the same time. A tall order, I know, but it can be done.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

blah blah blah

As for the new terror legislation - 7 day detention with no charge. Do we really need new legislation that further erodes civil rights?

Not at all. We already have at least one liberal judge who has shown that he's more than happy to "Eric Brazeau" someone without the need for legislation.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

Here's CTV's take on it - is it less hurtful for reformacons when they say it:

$1:

But while the prime minister might successfully sell the widened scope of the mission to Canadians, Stephen Harper’s trustworthiness is vulnerable in the war over his own words.
He clearly promised to limit ground troops to classroom-type training and background assistance last fall.
He’s now praising Canadian troops for front line targeting and killing.
It could be the prime minister didn’t initially understand the mission. That would be disconcerting.
It could be Harper deliberately masked it as passive instead of aggressive. That would be alarming.
Or perhaps Chief of Defence Staff Tom Lawson single-handedly evolved the mission. If so, the country’s top general has gone beyond his mandate and deserves a rebuke from his political masters. Strange, then, how they’re all saluting him for a job well done.

Or hey ya know, since modern warfare is mobile and fluid, the front (or a small portion thereof) could have moved closer to where our soldiers were stationed, even if only for a short period of time. But hey, let's just pretend that there's absolutely no movement or maneuvering in warfare and wax hyperbole instead.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Or hey ya know, since modern warfare is mobile and fluid, the front (or a small portion thereof) could have moved closer to where our soldiers were stationed, even if only for a short period of time. But hey, let's just pretend that there's absolutely no movement or maneuvering in warfare and wax hyperbole instead.

You really need to become an advisor to the Reformacons. Makes sense what you said, yet not once has this been their excuse. Instead we got all the bafflegab I mentioned above. Makes me think, your explanation, while feasible, is not what happened. Tho why they couldn't just bullshit about it is beyond me. It's their standard mo anyway. They just don't have anybody on staff clever enough to come up with such a plausible bit of bullshit. Guess when you're knee deep in it, you can't tell quality bullshit from regular grade anymore. That's where you would come in.

[Delwin]

The conversation will be different when we start seeing draped coffins coming home from this "non-combat" mission.