Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

The Commons: Sergeant Harper deploys his decibels

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:50pm - 0 Comments

The Scene. Flirting dangerously with a public demonstration of intellect, Ralph Goodale opened with a reference to Einstein. “The definition of insanity,” Mr. Goodale mused, referring to the father of modern physics, “is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

This could’ve been understood as a comment on most of the actors in our political process, but in this case was apparently intended as a reference to the Prime Minister. ”In the case of the Chinook military helicopters, the Conservative sole-sourced, untendered, non-competitive process caused overruns of 100 percent and at least five years delay. The Auditor General says that fiasco could well be repeated on the F-35 purchase; sole-sourced, untendered, non-competitive,” the Liberal deputy continued. “Why will the government not listen to Sheila Fraser, define the specifications and get competitive bids?”

The Prime Minister stood here to dismiss this. “Mr. Speaker, of course, nothing could be further from the tooth,” he shrugged, quickly correctly himself to say “truth.”

Yesterday the Prime Minister blamed a decision of the previous Liberal government for all that currently ails the Defence Department. And so today, if only to be fair, the Prime Minister commended a decision of the previous Liberal government for enabling his government to now so lavishly demonstrate its unique support for the troops.

“We are following a process that was put in place by the previous government,” he explained, wagging his fist to demonstrate assurance. “The previous government put that in place because it understood that at the end of this decade we have to replace our CF-18 fighters and we have to be part of a world consortium and get the best for that year, not just the best planes, but get the work here to be done in this country. That is why the previous government did it.”

How to explain that the current Liberal opposition’s concerns about a Conservative government purchase the Prime Minister now trace to the previous Liberal government whose defence policy he regularly laments? The answer seemed obvious. ”Now Liberals want to play coalition politics to scrap this deal,” Mr. Harper ventured. “This government will not play politics with the men and women of the armed forces or the Canadian air force.”

He did not specifically exclude the Navy here. Presumably they thus remain fair game.

Mr. Goodale, ever fastidious, stood with a clarification. “Mr. Speaker,” he advised, “the previous government preserved the right to tender.”

Well then.

He proceeded to review the plight of the child-rearing, parent-minding, hard-working, penny-pinching, heavily indebted Canadian family. ”Why,” he asked, “can’t the Conservatives do what is right for the air force and right for the taxpayer at the same time?”

The Prime Minister typically builds to a full-throated yell, but here he went directly to a shout. Indeed, he seems now committed to yelling his way through this debate, to defeating his detractors with decibels. Whatever this will lack in reason and logic, it is not without rationale—this official opposition typically quite easy to scare. ”When it comes to managing taxpayers’ money through a recession I will not make any apologies to a party that cut the military, that cut health care, that cut education and that raised taxes,” Mr. Harper cried. “We are on a very different track in this government.”

Now apparently quite eager to incite the Prime Minister, the Liberal deputy directed his next question at the heart Mr. Harper has so proudly strapped to his sleeve. “It is only the Conservative that insists on being reckless, that demands a blank cheque, that says to satisfy the air force it has to break all the rules and waste $3 billion,” Mr. Goodale proclaimed. “Do Conservatives not know what an insult that is to the Canadian Forces?”

This was more than enough and now the Prime Minister was off, shouting, damning, declaring and demonstrably carrying on—yesterday’s unburdening having apparently not quite exhausted his sense of indignation. “Mr. Speaker, Liberals can talk all they want about investments they made in the military. We are not going to find a single person in the military anywhere in this country who believes that, because they know about the decade of darkness,” he asserted, now back to damning Liberal defence policy.

“Calm down,” beseeched a Liberal voice, perhaps fearing for the Prime Minister’s blood pressure. “Calm down.”

“The party opposite and its coalition friends use every attempt, every piece of misinformation to try and oppose anything we do for our men and women in uniform,” the Prime Minister finished. “It is absolutely disgraceful.”

We are now surely headed toward the day when Mr. Harper will appear here in a camouflage suit and beret. Perhaps to demonstrate his support for the troops, he might additionally vow to serve only military rations at 24 Sussex and replace his campaign bus for the next election with a blue tank.

But first here was Dominic LeBlanc, the Liberal proving he could speak in a loud voice too and beseeching the Prime Minister to explain why he’d supported a Liberal decision to cancel a helicopter program that Mr. Harper had cited yesterday as a mistake. Selflessly throwing himself in front of this alleged contradiction, Peter MacKay leapt up to assert that Mr. LeBlanc himself had once been supportive of the purchase of new fighter jets. “He has completely turned himself inside out,” the Defence Minister exclaimed.

If so uncomfortably contorted, Mr. LeBlanc is hardly alone at this moment.

The Stats. The military, seven questions. Foreign investment, five questions. Veterans and foreign aid, four questions each. Ethics, infrastructure and taxation, three questions each. Omar Khadr and the G20, two questions each. Rights & Democracy, crime, immigration, disability benefits, North Korea and firefighters, one question each.

Peter MacKay, eight answers. Stephen Harper, six answers. Lawrence Cannon, Bev Oda and Jim Flaherty, four answers each. Chuck Strahl and Tony Clement, three answers each. Vic Toews and John Baird, two answers each. Rob Nicholson, Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day, one answer each.

Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    Harper is going to publically lose it one of these days…he's very close to the edge.

    • hollinm

      Emily…don't you worry your pretty little head about Mr. Harper. Ignatieff's eyebrows will lift right off of his forehead before he every becomes PM of Canada.

      The polls are now consistently showing that Ignatieff is not winning the hearts and minds of Canadians despite running around the country pretending he is something he is not. He ain't fooling anyone.

      • Emily

        Try not to be a sexist idiot…k?

      • arturolexo

        He never did, hollinm. Iggo the rat has been running around the country speaking to other liberals in paltry little handfuls. Then the lib spin machine calls the exercise "connecting with Canadians". Further, the lib spin machine calls it "reinventing their leader." Of course any straight thinking citizen is going to figure out that these things are not leadership. No matter how many times the libs want to dish out money to "reinvent" this clown, it will not change the fact that he has nothing to offer Canada. Canadians know that when you try to reinvent yourself every couple of months, there really is something dreadfully wrong with the original piece.

        • Emily

          I love all this 'straight-thinking Canadians'/ 'regular Canadians' stuff. LOL

          Is there a secret handshake and everything for your private club?

          Is Harper the Exalted Grand Poobah? Does he wear a water buffalo hat?

          • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

            That secret handshake is called votes. Check the election results dearie.

            Something the Liberals have not had since 2004: A mandate from the regular folk.

          • Emily

            Yup, 5 years in and Harp is still nowhere.

          • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

            Did you not get the memo?
            The worst popular support numbers since confederation in 2008.
            Zero for four in 2009.
            Down nearly three million in fundraising from 2009.
            Keep hitting the magic 26% level that Dion did.
            Third place on leadership behind Jack Layton.
            The most absent MP, only showed for 25% of the votes this session.

          • Orson Bean

            . . . including his latest, failing to show up for the vote on Bill C-300 yesterday.

          • Emily

            5 years in and Harp is still nowhere….as I said.

          • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

            Is this why your party reached the worst popular level of support since confederation?

            Are you going to predict they stop losing support? I predict Ignatieff will beat Dion as the worst Liberal leader with 24% in 2011.

          • Keith in Brampton

            True, Iggy isn't doing so good. But that begs Emily's point – Harper simply can't win enough support to form a majority EVEN WITH Dion and now Iggy leading the opposition. You'd think if he was any good at all at his job, given the state of the opposition, he'd be able to garner support from more than a third of the nation.

            Wait, on second thought, I guess you DID address Emily's point – though perhaps not the way you meant.

          • Jenn_

            I know Emily can be annoying, but could you please insult Emily herself, and not her entire gender? This is the second female slag on this thread, and that's two too many. Thanks.

          • Jan

            Happens frequently Jen – where have you been?

        • danby

          Iggo the rat

          That is paltry, school yard name calling and completely debases whatever argument you are trying to make.

          By all means present your opinions, but save the sniping for class(less) reunions

      • ex-canuck

        this comment is really sick! How about apologising?

        • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

          Reminds me of that Liberal twit with that tweet "trifecta". It is a shame Dalton won't fire him.

        • Orson Bean

          And the Wherryites give it a +6 and counting. Go figure.

      • danby

        Stephen Harper is not crazy, and comparing him to Russell Williams is absolutely disgraceful.
        Mr Harper is a very disciplined and accomplished politician. I do not support his modus operandi, but dismissing him as "crazy" is both foolish and ill advised.

        • Emily

          …but true.

          • hollinm

            Emily…only in the minds of people like you. The rest of us think he is doing a pretty good job. Hence the trend line of the polls these days. I know you pick and choose the polls you like or don't like. However, the results are the same. Harper is the guy. Ignatieff not so much. Read it and weep.

          • Emily

            Not even Cons think he's doing a good job anymore, so don't pretend.

        • hollinm

          danby…thats the problem. The opposition and the media have always underestimated him. How many times over the last four years have we read that this thing or that thing will destroy Harper and his government. Every other day I think.
          You are right. Underestimating him will be not in the best interest of those doing the opposing. Thats why the hatred on this blog. They cannot beat him so they attack, attack and attack. Not very becoming but that is the reality of the situation.

          • Emily

            Actually the media has treated him like he's some master chess player….when it seems more like he's sitting in a corner playing Tiddley-Winks by himself

        • Jan

          Re Harper – I'd place money on some sort of personality disorder. Something emotionally missing there.
          The intellectual genius thing is a load.

      • hollinm

        You are one sick puppy. Has Harper done anything to you personally or any other Canadian? Not likely. You guys are so fixated on tactics, strategies, process etc. that you can't see for looking. The Canadian public does not agree with you and particularly the over the top rhetoric. Individual polls fluctuate but in all of this the Canadian public is consistently behind the government.

        You should be ashamed of yourself. However, this type of rhetoric shows that you are not capable of making rational comments.

        • Emily

          Well, other than wrecking the country, no he hasn't done anything.

          I don't know who 'you guys' are….but I assume they're the lefties Cons always imagine are out to get them.

          Don't pretend to speak for the Canadian public either.

        • brooster2

          "Individual polls fluctuate but in all of this the Canadian public is consistently behind the government. "

          If 33-36% of poll respondents are the "Canadian public", then who the hell are all the rest?

          • Emily

            EVIL LEFTIES!

          • hollinm

            Message to brooster2…….yes his numbers are at the levels you indicate. However, tell me the numbers for the Liberals and the NDP i.e. 26% and 15%. Votes are not fungible. We are in a first past the post system. Like or it or not. We vote for MPs who form a caucus. Usual the party that gets the most votes gets to form the government. Until that changes Harper will be PM of Canada.

          • Jan

            Amazing that this 'hollinm' knows the word fungible Most of the 'hollinmn's have a very limited vocabulary.Anyone notice the figures on the cost of the PMO and the cabinet today – they're obviously going for quantity over quality – rather than some really good communications specialists they have a herd of 'hollinm's out in the field..

          • brooster2

            All true and all beside the point.

            I was referring to your arrogant disregard for the majority of the "Canadian public". I think a little more precision in your use of language would be less misleading.

        • Dan

          Polling at between 30-35% does not mean that the Canadian public is behind you.

          Canada is the only Parliamentary democracy in the world where those kind of numbers allow you to form gov't.

          Perhaps many of you should learn what the term democracy actually means…

    • arturolexo

      You really think so Emily? Have you seen the spider veins in ignotief's face? I think the old guy is ready to keel over.

      • Emily

        Which has what to do with Harper's mental instability?

      • Texwriter

        So its HARPER HATER NIGHT.
        But its utterly meaningless. I guess you gotta hate something to keep ,your ulcer going.
        We can train monkeys to hate but WHAT ARE YOU FOR?
        That takes intelligence. Harper has skillfully navigated his way with two minority governments. He still leads the POLLS by 8%.
        IGGY is lost, lacks all leadership skills and will never replace Harper who has business smarts that IGGY doesnt have. Soory folks you are outvoted.

        • Patchouli

          EVERY night is Hate Harper Night. I hope it's what will unite Canadians from coast to coast to coast…

          • Blue

            I believe we have Hate Laws in Canada to deal with people like you.

            You may want to see someone about your problem and the illusion you have that spreading hate can be a uniting factor.

          • Blue

            Jeez, I just saw where you have a plus 6 for the Hate Comment.
            What the hell is going on with this site ?

          • burlivespipe

            The sad part of it is that Harper's own rationale, and the one he's so pleased to use to his advantage, is the tool of hatred. One of these days a loonie is going to take Harper's message too far, but neither he nor the messengers will be responsible, of course…

        • prescott

          Hte is not the right word. We don't like his vulgarity and lack of redeeming human qualities – like warmth, kindness, generosity. The poor liitle man is a social loser – alone, cold, and deserted by anyone who has a beating heart. What does his wife think of him? That is the telling factor.

        • VOICEOFREASON

          You better take a bias and educated look at the polls you so flippantly cite. If there was an election today, the polls dictate that Harper would cling to a very slim and weak minority. And the polls don't include the undecided vote which 22%.

          So the chances are very good that if there was an election and the Harper base is already spoken for, the undecided vote would go to the NDP or the Liberals, the latter being favoured by a large percentage.

          It could very well be that Ignatieff would run a solid campaign, when people start paying attention as they do during elections, and Harper would be an easy target for all the crap that he has created.. Ignatieff would probably take a slim minority.

          Of course Harper would then turn around and cut a coalition deal with the Bloc.

      • Jan

        If you want to go there – which is really dumb – take a look at the difference in waistlines between Harper and Ignatieff. One of them is headed for a heart attack – which one do you think it is?

    • brooster2

      "Harper is going to publically lose it one of these days…he's very close to the edge. "

      Maybe he just wants you to think so. He's analogous (sorry, Wherry) to the relief pitcher in baseball who's described as "effectively wild", i.e., whose erratic, unpredictable delivery makes the batter anxious for his own physical safety. Bullies also like to create this kind of anxiety. It enhances their control over social situations.

      • Emily

        Or maybe he's just close to the edge

  • Support the Troops

    Ahhhh good old Ralphie.

    Proving to Canadians the Liberals have the same old Defense Policy:

    "Yesterday's Obsolete Equipment, Good Enough for Our Troops Tomorrow"

    The most dangerous, deadly enemy our Armed Forces has in the entire world is a Liberal minority government licking the political boots of the NDP for support.

    • hollinm

      Good old Ralph Goodale. He has not lost his touch for being the biggest windbag in the House of Commons. Ask Warren Kinsella about him. He doesn't have much use for Goodale.

      • Jenn_

        Well, since none of the rest of us (including you) have much use for Warren Kinsella, isn't that kind of a good thing?

    • Brutus110

      Wow didnt Lyin Brian promise the world to the CF and deliver nada. Guess he was waiting for the signs to be put up extolling his virtues….ah….er till he got the envelopes.

  • chet

    “The party opposite and its coalition friends use every attempt, every piece of misinformation to try and oppose anything we do for our men and women in uniform,” the Prime Minister finished. “It is absolutely disgraceful.”

    Sad.

    But oh so true.

    And then the partisans chide and gloat here how this upsets Harper.

    Don't worry Prime Minister, it upsets regular Canadians too.

    • ZestyMordant

      It sure does upset regular Canadians. One of these days regular Canadians are going to rise up and overthrow their oppressive opposition!

    • gottabesaid

      I'm curious… if the opposition can't ask questions about a file that's worth billions of dollars, what should the opposition be doing? What can they ask about, legitimately, and not be yelled at for asking? I know the opposition is trying to embarrass the government and score political points, but it's still a helluva lot of money being spent, and when there's that much money being spent, 'regular Canadians' would appreciate some transparency.

      • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

        Yes your right, just like those balanced question on H1N1, Olympic logos, Helena Guergis "air port" security breach from the door knob MP, glow sticks, a reflective pool that cost $ 57k.

        Thanks for pointing out the Liberals are spending months chasing the issues that matter, it explains why they can't hold 30% in the polls and they regularly skip out on the votes to prop up this minority government..

        • gottabesaid

          You didn't answer my question… wait a sec… is this the House of Commons? Sounds like QP.

          I don't give a rat's butt about the Liberals and their electoral fortunes, nor am I offering a defense of the litany of stupid questions asked from the opposition's side of the house. But, it's a costly file. It'd be nice if somebody could ask some questions about it without a) being accused of not supporting the troops or b) treated to a history lesson about how the Liberals screwed up.

          • Thwim

            The problem is that you're expecting them to provide a rational answer, but conservatives, so far as I've been able to tell, don't operate based on things such as evidence and rational explanation. Rather, they operate based on their gut. Their unwavering moral sense which they know beyond any fact or reason is absolutely correct. When we question this sense, all we are doing is proving that we do not have such a moral sense, something which means that we are either an idiot, a degenerate, or both.

            They're asking questions looking for rational answers, but real conservative, the true believers, understand that even if there isn't a rational answer, it's still the right thing to do because their gut tells them so.

            Basically, we're operating in completely different paradigms. They want to do what's right because to them that makes sense. We want to do what makes sense, because to us that's right.

          • Orson Bean

            Well, you get the prize for sweeping, gross generalization of the day.

          • Jan

            OK – Bean – you claim to be a lawyer – defend some of the Conservatives positions on say – Insite, Khadr, the Census. Pick one – tell us the rational position this government has taken.

          • Orson Bean

            I disagree with the government on all three of those issues, so you're going to have to find someone who agrees with the government on those issues.

            My main problem with Thwim's post was his use of the small-c "conservatives" term, which implied — incorrectly — that anyone who's a "conservative" holds those views and has those characteristics. Had Thwim said something like "The Harper government and its core supporters" or something like that, then that would have been less inaccurate.

            The use of the small-c "conservative" term, IMO, logically includes anyone who holds "conservative" views, regarless of whether they voted CPC, support the current government on any or all issues, etc. Thwim also failed to distinguish between fiscal conservative social liberals (of which there are many in this country, particularly in urban areas) versus socially conservative fiscal liberals (e.g., a lot of rural people in the prairies fit this definition). "Conservative" is a big tent, and the CPC and its hard-core supporters only form a slice of that.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Really? Chet didn't already win that for his explanation of how upset "regular Canadians" are with the opposition for daring to ask questions?

          • Thwim

            I gave you a thumbs up because you're right.. it's an incredible generalization, and there are a number of conservative supporters who really don't fit this mold. But while being conservative doesn't mean you fit the mold, if you fit the mold, you probably are conservative.

          • Orson Bean

            I agree, that's a more accurate statement.

          • brooster2

            The Con true believers call their opponents moral relativists, which means (I think) supporters of positions that are tolerant of ambiguity and diversity.

            I guess that would make the Con true believers moral absolutists which betrays an invincible, intolerant and self-righteous rectitiude that defies reason.

    • Jan

      Guess you missed the mother of the soldier, who served in Bosnia and Afghanistan ,who killed himself, suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome, who was told to stop calling DND ( she was trying to settle his estate). You guys are losing the battle – you should be trying to save something,, but you seemed bent on the two seat option. Keep it up by all means.

    • Dan

      Straight out of George Bush's handbook.

      Cut taxes, fight a war and increase military spending…=…huge deficits and billions in interest payments.

      How do you propose to raise the money for all these toys? Are you ready and willing for a major tax increase?

      Didn't think so.

      America's debt is 83% of GDP. Canada's (including the provinces) is 82% of GDP. We are as broke as the Americans are…and as stupid. Very few Canadians are willing to have an adult discussion about this without childish name calling.

      I am all for new fighters…not $150-200 million (each) F 35s if we can afford it. But not by putting the purchase on the National VISA card. That is totally irresponsible.

  • Guy

    The Armed Forces include the Navy.

    • http://spinassassin.blogspot.com/ Alex

      You can't expect accuracy from a political reporter.

  • chet

    Err on the side of the taliban, when trying to gin up "taliban prisoner gate"

    Err on the side of convicted terrorists, when trying to gin up Khadr gate

    Err on the side of those who will one day face off against our airmen, when trying to gin up controversy regarding a fighter purchase.

    Quite the pattern here.

    • ZestyMordant

      Err on the side of those who will one day face off against our airmen

      Is this still supposed to be the Russians? Or are you anticipating the day the Taliban buy jets?

      • chet

        How about the Iranians? To name just one.

        Think back to WWI which was declared to be the "war to end all wars" (I know, I know, bear with me, I realize that to most progessive Canadians, history began in 1972).

        The mistake that war is obsolete and can never happen again, is made over and over and over again. It's a good thing that history has taught all but far left ideologues that it is dangerous and foolhardy to make them today.

        • Emily

          chet is a veteran of WWI….and really thinks Iranians will fly over here to attack us.

          • brooster2

            In their Sopwith Camels.

          • Emily

            AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ahhh gawd….that hurt!

          • Trudeau lover

            Ha,ha, ha… I know right!? Whats next ? Muslim terrorists flying passenger jets into the world trade center? Where do these Cons get this stuff. We need more "Hope and Change", and junk.

          • brooster2

            Old, lame and tasteless. Get a new writer…your comments are a waste of bandwidth.

          • Emily

            Well the Saudis….our allies….are all dead….but you might want to have a word with their king.

            In any case…as we clearly saw that day…fighterplanes could do nothing about it.

        • ZestyMordant

          I'm just trying to keep straight which ominous international threat is trying to destroy Canada through competitive bidding processes.

          • Thwim

            That'd be those lefty Europeans.

          • frobisher

            Capitalists! And their evil 'let markets work' mantra. It's their very zeal for competition that will undermine our forces!

  • Trudeau lover

    Speaking of dressing up… Why doesn't American Iggo wear his checkered shirts and his Quebec made cowboy boots to "Question Period"? Or is that costume exclusively for riding around on a bus. Perhaps American Iggo could dress up like Abraham Lincoln and pontificate about "how hard it is to be an American". Although he should do it "calmly and serenely", unlike the PM who Wherry rightfully points out has no business displaying his passion for anything. To really contrast the PM's passion maybe it would be a good idea for American Iggo to dress up as a mime. The Igg could wear a striped shirt and a beret and simply act out the coalitions talking points. Jack Layton could dress up as Joseph Stalins moustache. Gilles Duceppe could dress up as one of Rene Levesques cigarettes. Judy Sgro could dress up as a Romanian stripper, Denis Coderre could be Randy from "Trailer Park Boys" and Ralph Goddale could dress up as a Brussel sprout, as I'm sure if a brussel sprout could talk it would sound exactly like Ralph. Happy Halloween Canada.

    • prescott

      Are you not aware of how incredibly idiotic you sound?

      • Trudeau lover

        Does it sound as incredibly idiotic as voting Liberal?

    • brooster2

      Seems nap time at daycare is over.

      • Trudeau lover

        Thanks for the Liberal caucus update.

        • brooster2

          Go read some history. Your comments suggest you need some background to support your "erudition".

    • Orson Bean

      Way to keep things civil.

    • Trudeau lover

      Come on little girl… where's you're sense of humour? Grow a pair, hater.

      • D.D.S

        I think,perhaps, that you are on intimate terms with h8, it seems from your posts that you wallow in it.

    • OntarioTown

      Is there a costume for an idiot? I think you're wearing it now – show us a photo

      …….sigh

  • Amateur Hour

    Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we step back for second from this whole F-35 thing. After all, fighter planes are just tools to help the military execute missions. Those missions are defined positively by policies and negatively (reactively) by threats.

    What polices do the Harper Government (thinking broadly enough to imagine future governments) anticipate asking the military to pursue for the next many years?
    What threats to they anticipate having to counter?
    What missions will the Air Force be asked to perform in support of policies and in defense of threats?
    What gear can we afford?

    Now, with answers to those questions, we might reasonably determine what and how many aircraft we need. Perhaps we will need 65 F-35s. Maybe we'll need 100. Or maybe the missions are varied an we'll need some 4.5 generation fighter/interceptors like the Super Hornet or the Typhoon (or another) and we'll also need a few F-35 multi-roles with 5th generation capabilities.

    The US military is acquiring a mix a fighters as no one fighter is great at all missions. We might find we need a mixed force, too. Of course, their military structure and needs are very different than Canada's, which makes it patently absurd for Harper and MacKay to say, well the Americans held a competition so we don't have to. DND was planning to hold a competitive bid process 2010-2012. Harper cancelled this without explanation.

    When Iggy asked the questions above, he was accused in a press release from Clement's office of being a troop hater. Clement also didn't answer the questions, but why be a responsible minister when you can lie and smear instead?

    • Brutus110

      we are getting these planes… in anticipation of…. the great pumpkin Charlie Brown!! Duh

  • motor

    harper is insane

    • Thwim

      Please don't think this. Harper is extremely rational. His actions are easily understood once you understand his motives and his willingness to use absolutely any tool which gets him closer to achieving his goals.

      • danby

        seconded

        • Emily

          No, ambition is both good and understandable. Harper does self-defeating things….it does nothing to 'achieve his goals'

          • danby

            He makes mistakes, no quarrel. But he pretty much single handedly dragged the "conervative" party back from the grave after Brian Mulroney's antics reduced the party to 2 seats. Having the Liberals in the driver's seat with no real competition was not good for Canada. For that he has my respect.
            As to his behaviour? I do not respect the way he conducts his affairs and appreciate all the missteps that will (hopefully) keep him from a majority.

          • Emily

            No….he does self-defeating things.

            And don't rewrite history to excuse him….it doesn't

          • danby

            ????

          • Emily

            Mulroney retired undefeated. He did nothing to the party except lead them to 2 majorities.

            Mckay was a new, good-looking, young leader of the PC party….gave a barn-burner of an acceptance speech….and then suddenly, in the middle of the night….he announces he's killing his party.

            Unless you figure Harper had something on him….he did nothing

          • Orson Bean

            Oh Christ, Emily, if you think the old PC party was going to go anywhere without merging with Reform, you're dreaming in technicolour. And I was a hearty supporter of the old PC party. But it was dead in the water in BC in Alberta, and that's just for starters.

          • Emily

            Hey, you suicided not me….now back to the topic.

          • Orson Bean

            I would love to hear your explanation as to exactly how, why and when Tory/Reform vote-splitting was going to miraculously end under PC leader Peter McKay. Are you saying that McKay was/is such a superstar that under his spectacular leadership, the Reform Party was simply going to wither away and die?

          • Emily

            Well since this blog thread is already over 130 posts long, it's a little late for that kind of discussion I'd say.

            In any case you don't want to hear it….you've asked me questions like that before…I answer….you disappear…..and next thing I know you're attacking me on a completely different thread.

            But you might ask yourself why Mackay even ran for the leadership…so eager to win he signed a deal with Orchard…and he knew what the political/financial situation was, going in…. his initial speech was a barnburner promising to do just that.

            A short time later he killed his party and even the party name…over a weekend.

          • Orson Bean

            Well, thanks for not anweuring my question. You're readly for Question Period.

          • Thwim

            You're seriously going to attempt to lay the blame for the 2 seat PC party at the feet of Kim Campbell? Really?

            Wow.. I didn't think you were that misogynistic.

          • Emily

            Who said that?

          • Trudeau lover

            Yeah! Only Liberals can "rewrite history". There never was a RCAF, right Emily?

          • Emily

            There was at one time…..hasn't been since the 60's though.

          • brooster2

            They've been the Canadian Forces Air Command since 1975. Apparently only Cons fail to "learn history", right Pseudo Trudeau-Lover?.

          • Trudeau lover

            Distortion and denial of history is somehow knowing history. Thanks for that. I like when Pierre the mystic changed the name of the RCAF and I also like it when his cult like followers bought into those distortions and denials as reality…it's funny that. Just so I've got you're erudite knowledge of history down, Pierre says the RCAF no longer exists and will henceforth be labeled as something or other and then we all drink the kool-aid and go to sleep in the land of Trudeaupia? Is that the history you're talking about? Thats cool, but what about the citizens who didn't buy into the revisionist historical distortions of Trudeaupia, and didn't bother drinking the kool-aid. Will we be allowed to call the Canadian Air Command by it's historical name RCAF, or will we be forced fed the "Liberal history" of Canada, that according to your history lesson began around 1975?

          • brooster2

            Fine…you go right on demonstrating your ignorance of basic facts by continuing to call them the RCAF. It would be consistent with your evident stupidity on other issues, as well.

          • Trudeau lover

            Your judgements and assertions with regards to my opinions is utterly meaningless, much like your delusional acceptance of revisionist history. Do yourself a favour, and get over your insufferable self importance.

          • brooster2

            Your on-line identity suggests you harbour a defense mechanism known as reaction formation (look it up) regarding Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

            One of us is wasting his time here and I'm pretty sure it's me. So, I'll ignore you inane drivel in future. I'm sure other posters will be relieved if we both give it a rest.

          • Trudeau lover

            I'm pretty sure anything you do is a waste of time, much like your judgments regarding my posts.

      • Won'tgetfooledagain

        Harper is a political sociopath. This opinion has already been deemed by some very fine, astute and reknown behavioral scientists. Look it up. Political sociopath…you'll see Harper held up as a prime example.

    • prescott

      As to his sanity (or humanity), probably the only person who would know would be his wife. What does she think about him?

      • Emily

        Interesting question.

    • John W.

      I think Harper has been going over the top a lot more often lately. He could be pushed to something really outlandish.
      To explain the change, I think from body language and expression, the United Nations rejection was really unexpected and hit him hard. He might be a bit depressed and shaken. But I haven't heard this from our famous Ottawa insiders on the panels, so from out here in the boonies, it's hard to know.

  • Texwriter

    The MILITARY IS LIGHT YEARS AHEAD with PLANES THAT OUTMATCH anything else. IGGY has threatened to cancel same as that old fogy Chretien that cost 500 million to taxpayers.
    Liberals never supported the MILITARY AT ANY TIME. They would have the RCAF in TIGER MOTHS.
    Iggy cant operate a daycare. He is an academic only.

    • Emily

      What party was in power when we helped win WWII?

      • Emily

        PS….and we don't have any RCAF.

        • Trudeau lover

          Yeah! Thanks to the great mystic pierre. I love distortions of history too.

          • Emily

            Well you've got some kind of distortion going on there….seems to be a time warp.

            Check your instruments.

          • Trudeau lover

            Thanks Emily, I checked my "instruments" and found the dials were set to reality, oops, so I took your advice and changed the settings to revisionist history, and historical denial. My "instruments" are now all set to whatever distortions and denials Pierre Trudeau imposed, to which I will blindly follow, thanks.

    • Jenn_

      And yet, I suspect a two-engine plane would likely do better in the arctic. Of course, there aren't any two-engine "stealth" planes, but seriously, why does Canada need stealth technology? Who are we ever planning to sneak up on? Because, you know you only need to sneak during a surprise attack.

      • madeyoulook

        Just how much more obvious do you want our pilots to be in "sneak up on" operations like the ancient history of Yugoslavia and Gulf War I?

        I find it hard to believe you are advocating AGAINST stealth protection for our air force.

        A different piece of equipment may well be preferred for our Arctic. That does not preclude the need for birds that fly elsewhere.

        • Jenn_

          I didn't realize they didn't know we were coming in the Gulf War I. I find it hard to believe that CNN was more expecting of the planes than the Iraqis. Or maybe not. Anyway, I'm fairly sure WE TOLD THEM we were coming if they didn't get out of Kuwait or wherever. That isn't 'sneaking' in my books. Japan at Pearl Harbor; that was sneaking. The point being that my understanding of stealth technology is that it only hides you when people aren't specifically looking for you.

          • madeyoulook

            Then you need to learn more about the role of stealth technology. Deliberately making it less hard to be noticed while on offensive operations is a very dumb choice, ESPECIALLY when they know we're coming.

            EVERY offensive operation is a "sneaking up on" operation. Surely you would not wish our pilots to be "good sports" by registering flight plans with the enemy?

          • Jenn_

            That's a little unfair. Deliberately spending gobs of money to have some fancy technology that does nothing to protect anybody because the enemy knows to look for our pilots surely can't be your solution? All that will do is give our pilots a false sense of security, perhaps making them a little slower with evasive action and such. Oh, and it might mean cutbacks in other areas–such as rescue missions or something.

            If stealth technology meant total invisibility, yes, it would be worth it. But that isn't what it means and unless Canada plans to invade some other country without warning, I don't think that should be the top of our list of needs. However, CanadianSense has pointed out other advantages to this particular aircraft. I don't know what other aircraft have to offer (which I–or at least DND–would know if we put out for tender).

          • madeyoulook

            perhaps making them a little slower with evasive action and such.

            I would not be so bold as to presume a lack of professionalism (or desire for self-preservation or desire for mission success) among our air force pilots.

          • Jenn_

            Probably true, and probably the mom in me. They are, after all, generally early twenties males. And that makes them, generally, invincible, if you remember. (Here, I presume you were once one of those yourself.)

          • madeyoulook

            May I then appeal to the mom in you to acknowledge that our pilots deserve the best birds we can get for our pilots. And that maybe, just maybe, these expensive birds might fit that bill for some of Canada's upcoming military requirements? And that stealth is ONE of those reasons?

          • Jenn_

            You can, and I already have (see below) but am pleased to do so again.

            Our pilots deserve the best we can give them, and the F-35 may well be the best fit with our requirements. While I don't think the stealth technology is our most important requirement, it is certainly an asset to have.

          • madeyoulook

            Stealth may indeed not be the be-all and end-all. I am personally most persuaded by the interoperability with our closest ally.

            NATO has shown itself not up to the task. USA, Canada, UK & Australia (along with a handful of other countries, many of them new NATO-ish partners stretching out from the confines of the iron curtain) is, for better or worse, likely to be the alliance to watch in future.

          • Jenn_

            See, and I'm not seeing a great advantage there. Sure, I get that with the same planes in some far away theatre, you can cannibalize for parts. However, I expect you could do so almost as well within your own country's fleet, and I can't really think of any other advantage. I invite you to explain that to me. I do see an advantage in having a variety of different aircraft for "the allies" to call upon depending on what capabilities are needed. But like I said to CanadianSense, that by itself is not a good enough reason to insist on some other plane.

          • madeyoulook

            I wasn't even going for "cannibalize for parts," but you indirectly raise in my mind a very good point about service and maintenance harmonization in a faraway place.

            What I was going for was seamless integration in training and in joint offensive operations. It wouldn't matter if there was a maple leaf or a star on the tail, because the military leadership from both countries know before and during battle what can get accomplished. Which, no military expert I, is a pretty convincing argument for me.

            Pick your allies very carefully. Then gather up your kit to match.

          • Jenn_

            Could I get more detail on that? Maybe I don't understand what "seamless integration" means, but training or joint operations, to me, doesn't require everyone using the same equipment. Like, in the olden days you had your infantry, cavalry, grenadier guardsmen, etc. They were able to execute a fairly seamless dance under a competent commander, moving the different assets in or out of the battlefield as need and circumstance dictated. To me, (and no I don't play military games and yes I know I don't know what I'm talking about) a competent commander can call in the massive bombers, to get the hell out when it's time for the dog-fighters, who then give way for the tightly targeting ground support. A faster, more manoeverable plane could give support to the F-35s, or a longer distance aircraft might be a welcome addition, and so on. Yeah, the pilots can't jump from plane to plane, but when do pilots ever do that anyway? Sadly, if we lose a number of planes . . .

    • Brutus110

      The upcoming copters are double the projected cost and will be delivered two years from now. One year too late…

  • Mike514

    I'm surprised Wherry didn't mention the defeat of John McKay's private member's bill (aside from a footnote mentioning "ethics," which may or may not refer to this bill). For Ignatieff, a human rights expert, to ask his MPs to stay away from the bill, is surprising.

    • BGLong

      Unfortunately, not surprising at all. Had the vote passed, Scott Brison's head would
      have exploded.

      • Orson Bean

        That bill should have had a lot more public debate and awareness around it, given its implications.

        • BGLong
          • Orson Bean

            I had read the Globe article, thanks. Regardless of the Bill's merits or lack thereof, it was disturbing to me how little public awareness there was of this Bill, and, accordingly, how little genuine public debate there was. I'm sure if you polled Canadians yesterday and asked them if they knew what Bill C-300 was, probably well south of 5% of Canadians would have known. I wouldn't be surprised if the figure was less than 1%. I mean, basically, Mining Watch, some environmental groups, and Canadian mining industry professionals, and a smattering of politicians and political junkies. That's it. Substantively, it was a debate among elites, yet this Bill had huge ramifications for Canadian industry and jobs. Despite Potash being in the news these days, the significance of the mining industry in Canada is "under the radar" of a lot of people, but it is a huge generator of jobs and tax revenue in this country. I just felt extremely uncomfortable about that Bill going to a final vote, with all that at stake, and with the overwhelming majority of Canadians having no clue about the Bill or its significance. That's just no way to do public policy, IMO.

  • Moonglo

    Mrs. Fynes fought back tears after her 2 year 'battle' with Depts. Justice,Defence and Vet Affairs regarding her son Canadian soldier Stuart Langridge who committed suicide on Evan Solomons Power and Politics today this following S ean Bruyea only last week – how many more Veterans out there with similar stories? I had to fight back tears. The Prime Minister has a stock phrase 'we are for Canadian soldiers' ie the Conservatives unlike the Liberals or NDP and Bloc.

  • Orson Bean

    Please don't gum up this debate with inconvenient facts and evidence.

    • Emily

      And the military drum-beating for bucks…..

      • Orson Bean

        You're right. We should never listen to the views of our military leaders and personnel when it comes to matters of military procurement.

        • Emily

          Mmmm no, we shouldn't. As Ivison said today…

          'Let me count the ways. A brief read of the A-G’s report on the purchase of military helicopters suggests a host of reasons why allowing the Department of National Defence to dictate procurement is like asking an alcoholic to run a distillery.'

    • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

      My apologies, Jen is not a partisan shill. She will give the link from experts a fair shake.

      Emily on the other hand won't bother to read the link and follow the Jean Chretien theory of proof. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU

      [youtube aX6XMIldkRU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU youtube]

      • Emily

        Enough with the drive-by shots too.

        • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

          Noted and filed under hypocrite, you add nothing to the debate but cheap shots so your posts are fair game.

          • Emily

            Oh stop sulking because I don't praise your hero Harper all the time. LOL

      • Orson Bean

        Funny, I thought it was only those mouth-breathing, ideologically hidebound conservatives who refuse to take real-world evidence and facts into account when considering policy options.

        • Emily

          Ahhh the mugwump position again.

  • gottabesaid

    I've got a question… if I'm not mistaken, the problem the AG had with this latest chopper situation was that our requirements kept changing, which inflated the costs beyond the original estimates. Will this, or can this, happen with the F35 deal?

    • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

      Yes it can happen. The cost over runs take place when mistakes, modifications are made or requirements need to be added.

      Upgrades in avionics to upgrade the CF-18 or the high cost of the sea kings were also not budgeted. The bombing in the former Yugoslavia were not for seen either, but stuff happens.

      We can expect this new plane to last for 30-40 years as did the CF 18. Our military needs support this should not be another stunt for the Liberals.
      =========================================
      The math between the government’s price comparison with the CF-18 Hornets works like this. Ottawa says the planes cost $30.7-million when they were purchased in the early 1980s. Factoring in inflation, this translates to $62.3-million in 2016 dollars.

      By comparison, the average cost to Canada for each F-35 over the 2016-2022 period will be about $74.5-million (U.S.), according to Michael Slack, the Defence Department’s director of continental materiel co-operation. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/gove…

  • Jenn_

    "The Lightning II incorporates advanced sensor and data fusion technology to gather, synthesize, and display information. This will help pilots understand the tactical situation at a glance, make complex tactical decisions quickly, and take decisive action."

    That's much better of a reason for this airplane than the stealth thing, to my mind. Of course, if they're throwing that in as well, that's fine by me. And if it is true that the single-engine will work as well in the arctic (like, have any studies been done in extreme weather conditions?) then my most major problem with this specific aircraft goes away.

    I'm not sold on the "but all our friends will have them" point–it seems to me that makes a different aircraft with different capabilities more valuable rather than less, but that alone is no reason to get some other plane, either.

    The F-35 may well be the best plane available to us. Determining our requirements and sending out the RFP or whatever the Defence Department calls those things, would not preclude the F-35 from getting the contract, if our requirements don't get in the way. I'd just like to be sure we aren't buying something because of some other reason than what is best for us to have for the price we can afford. And when I say afford, I really mean not something so exorbitant that we can't get enough to be meaningful.

    • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

      I am not an expert and I will support our military, the government (civil servants) on this purchase as they both recommend it.

      The Liberals were against strategic lift and felt we could rent the plane if needed. The track record of Liberal PC screw up in providing the BEST for our military goes back over 40 years.

      If the Liberals were in power and went ahead I would still support it. I have ZERO patience for another Sea king stunt by them.

      • Jenn_

        Believe me, I don't want another stunt either, by any political party or government (or anyone else, come to that). I want our military to have the best we can give them. I guess my level of trust in this government is pretty much nonexistent, and while I do have trust in our military as a whole, I do wonder if the Chief of the Air Staff is maybe biased–either toward doing whatever the government wants to do, or to having whatever his buddy counterpart in the U.S. is getting, or some other thing. Not to cast aspersions on this guy (yeah, I know, I just did but let me explain) who I don't know anything about, but I have heard from other military types in the news and whatnot (not personally) who are not necessarily sold on F-35s.

        I'm not an expert, either, and that's why I put my trust in the normal procurement process. That is, they ask for everything they would like to have, and then choose from whatever gives them the most important qualities. But they know from the tender documents what each airplane will and will not do. I just feel like we are going into this purchase somewhat blind not knowing what is considered the most important qualities, and not necessarily knowing what the capabilities of other aircraft are.

      • Jenn_

        Hey, I just absorbed this part, "Analyses of our mandatory requirements for Canada's next fighter have made it clear that only a fifth-generation fighter could satisfy those requirements in the increasingly complex future security environment."

        So, they HAVE done the analyses, according to Deschamps. So maybe this is just a communications problem. I don't suppose they could release that analyses to the general public, huh? I'd even buy security issues on that one–but it would surely be nice to know what the military thinks it needs, rather than what the F-35 says it can deliver. Because all I've seen is that whatever the F-35 can deliver is what we need–and I don't buy that for a moment. I've seen some of these procurement requests, and they really do ask for EVERYTHING they think might be nice. Like, does it make coffee? Run on atmosphere? Way out kind of stuff like that. Like some Union demands I've also seen in draft form. Obviously, those aren't 'mandatory requirements' but I don't believe for a moment the F-35 delivers absolutely everything we think we need. I don't think any aircraft could.

        • Thwim

          To be honest, I'm far more interested in what the "mandatory requirements" are and who set those up.

          I mean, was it Peter MacKay going, "Guys, whatever you get, make sure it's got stealth, because I've been promising folks you guys are gonna get the best tech and that's the best that's out there, okay?"

          I'm curious more as to the assumptions for why they think we'll need such a beast for defense, because the more I read about the JSF, the more it strikes me as a plane developed to project offensive force elsewhere, rather than deploy defensive force here.

          • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

            It is three different planes.

  • kcm

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/report-jo…

    There are other views. Personally i have an open mind on the purchase, but i see no harm in having an open bidding process. Let's remember buyer beware isn't a bad rule to keep in mind.

    • Jenn_

      Oh, great. So the stealth doesn't work hardly at all? We just get to pay for it? By the way, your link didn't work (additional http:// at the end)

      • Emily

        Stealth isn't that reliable to begin with
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft

      • dave

        "Stealth" is a misnomer. "Stealthy" is better.

        Basically the goal is to reduce "radar cross section" – the amount of noise returned to the dish when the signal bounces off your plane – to lower the prospects of detection. None of the 5th Gen aircraft are pure stealth designs – their primary focus is minimizing detection from a frontal intercept so they get +10 to initiative. This also goes entirely away once they have to either:
        - mount drop tanks for range
        - mount any external ordinance whatsoever to take advantage of their "superior payload".
        Because both of those break the nice clean lines by providing tons of new edges and objects for radar to reflect off of.

      • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

        The F22 were used to dismantle the air defense. This plane is the replacement. This plane will have three models.

        “Rigorous combat analysis revealed that the survivability improvements afforded by the engine fuses and fire extinguishing features were very small,” Kent wrote. “These changes were thoroughly reviewed by the F-35 Operational Advisory Group and approved through the joint JSF Executive Steering Board, which includes membership from all nine JSF partner counties. All agreed that the weight saved by the elimination of these components would be better utilized in maintaining the performance capabilities of the aircraft. The present design meets the JSFPO’s expectations for vulnerability.”

        Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/stealth-f…

        • Jan

          Are you on something or what? Surely to God this isn't the new Con talking point(s).

          • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

            Look up fluffer, it appears you work for free on behalf of the opposition parties. Do you have a volume discount for drycleaning?

    • kcm
  • subversible

    Mr. Wherry

    Sergeant Harper is terribly inaccurate. For starters, if Mr. Harper's status as prime minister were to be converted to rank, he would have to be treated as a commissioned officer. but really, i don't expect you to understand much beyond how to use your press pass to gain access to the house of commons, so i suppose i'll have to let it slide. I'm surprised you settled on sergeant, when you could have fulfilled your goals with a term like 'dictator' or 'fascist', or as some of the more libelous commenters here would suggest, 'psychopath', a la russell williams.

    if you must insist on adding 'colour' to the goings on of the commons, it would be nice if you were able to smudge your canvas with something other than black.

  • timbertom

    Wherry you anti harper bias is getting completely out of hand, I thought journalists were supposed to have some objectivity. You must have failed that class in school

    • Claudia Lemire

      To his benefit, they are plenty of journalist that wear their party colors with pride and they are known for it, so give him a break!!

      Having said that the Liberals are desperate for some loving : )

    • John W.

      Let's look at him as an umpire. He's behind the plate. He sees the whole game.The Giants are playing the Rangers or whatever names you want to give them. He calls them as he sees them. If one of the pitchers, say the one with the big blue H on his sweater, throws nothing but bean balls, he's there to call it. If that pitcher walks off the field when the count's against him, if he tackles the runner on the way to first after a hit. Well, you get the message. Call em as you see em Aaron.

      • subversible

        You're analogy is relatively accurate. Now could you please tell me why every conservative pitch is a ball? And why every single pitch by the Liberals a strike? It is obvious by your comments that you believe that Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberals are more skilled at this game than the the team with the big blue H on the sweater. So I'll take it as a given that you will infallibly believe that any close call should go in favour of the Liberals without even caring to review the play and make an informed decision. But every single pitch? And then shoot people down when they dare to suggest that your much vaunted "umpire" is biased? You are not being consistent with your criticism.

        • John W.

          I think the issue I'm working on here is cheating. And yelling.

          • subversible

            and criticism based on ideology rather than merit.

          • John W.

            The umpire/ ref calls them out on cheating. I know of no occasion when Iggy was caught cheating. Your guy?

  • Ex-Military

    Yes, lets go to the great big bureaucratic route: defining specifications and putting same out for tender. Two years later we still won't have placed an order and other NATO countries as well as the various US Armed Services will be ahead of us in the delivery schedule. We'll get the new fighter as fast as we got suitable helicopters; 17 years and waiting.
    And the DND has some Loyal Liberal sleeper moles aboard. When Ignatief visited the Maritimes in his buss tour, word was leaked to the press that DND was going to lay off 1200 employees; a complete lie designed to stir up the region against the Conservatives. Not surprised many returned soldiers are getting the run around.

    • Pro-NAVY

      NO rumour about DND laying off employees. Or don't you read the papers. DND will be cutting positions, lots. Do your homework.

  • http://pestcontrolcanada.com/Wildlifepests/moles.htm Boyscout

    Side show. Dodge is getting packed. Harper's a poor influence. Our kids shouldn't have to grow up in his sad dreams.

  • Jeet

    I see Comrade writer is on another anti-right rant. For the most part plays well to the urban self-appointed 'elite' audience. Problelm is, as Bill Oreilly would say, 'the folks' are on to you morons and will reject your leftist 'me,me,me' policies come next erec/election… Don't ya just hate it…:)

  • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

    Many countries asked for the F22 but it was not for EXPORT.

    Gates has fired the top guy in the F35 program for delays and over runs. The F22 program has 60 more planes before shutting down. He has put bet the farm on this platform to do the job as promised.

    The Air Force, the Marines, and the Navy are all counting on the stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to serve as its aircraft of the future, replacing everything from the A-10 to the F-16 to the F/A-18. It’s meant to knock out the most advanced missile sites, spot the most elusive terrorists, and win dogfights with the most sophisticated jets from Russia or China — all at a fraction of the price of the much-ballyhooed F-22 Raptor. Gates calls it the “backbone” of “American air superiority.” Without the promise of the JSF, Gates would’ve never convinced Congress to stop production of the Raptor, the Air Force’s most advanced dogfighter. By the time the program ends, there are supposed to be more than 2,400 of the planes in the American inventory, flying off of aircraft carriers, taking off from a conventional runway, or zipping straight up into the sky.

    Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/gates-sac…

    • James Connors

      . . . or zipping straight up into the sky.

      Oh. Now I get it. This all part of the Armageddon Plan, isn't it.

      • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

        "McDonald sees Christian nationalist conspiracy everywhere she looks. "

        Perhaps you also believe the moon landing and 9/11 were also inside jobs.

  • wascally wabbit

    I find this whole debate amusing. The world has spun a few times since that specs. for that fighter were drawn up. For a start, we are no longer in shock and awe wars where fighters MIGHT be useful. If you folks haven't forgotten – the Iraq War was fought with missiles – and some Stealth bombers – not fighters. Fighters in Afghanistan (especially US ones flown by National Guard types) have been ineffective and subject to bad calls by the pilots – including several friendly fire incidents. Bottom line – humans cannot be trained to react fast enough to be effective in these situations. That – as much as anything else – is why unmanned drones have been used increasingly in the Afghan theatre. As for patrolling Canada's borders, drones are ideally suited to that kind of operation. The whole F-35 thing sounds suspiciously like toys for the boys to me!

  • Wayne

    Way to go Stevie Boy! – you tell em – Harper is definitley da man – who else in living memory has the ability to drive frustrated left wing nuts to such heights of idiocy judging by most of the harper hating posts I read on this forum. How long has it been now let me see – going on 5 years and still no end in sight – Quite frankly I feel for some of the ranters in this forum as they are going to need to re-up their meds pretty soon – look let's be honest with oursleves folks – Harper has outplayed, outfoxed and outmanouvered all posers so far and all things being equal is going to be retiring another leader or 2 of opposition parties in the next few years as PM because folks he aint going anywhere .. ROFL!

    • voiceofreason

      Delusional.

  • Jenn_

    I'm not even sure if you're serious with some of this.

    First, it's a given that political party supporters (and by extension, the political parties themselves) do not trust "the other side." So I completely understand that you question the motivation of crticism on this file. Yet, you almost appear to be saying that because my motives are suspect, the only option is to trust the government. That is as silly as me saying that opposition motives are pure and therefore this contract is a bad idea.

    Leaving aside support for the rule of law and commitment to human rights for a moment because that takes us to a whole different area, I'm not sure how THAT has led to a loss of support for overseas women and children. We are leaving the women and children of Afghanistan to a fairly certain (and in many cases, very short) future, and that is regretful for sure, but that is also not why we went over there in the first place and IMO shouldn't be the deciding factor on whether or not to leave. And we don't seem too concerned about the women and children in the Congo, now do we? If you want to talk about some military mission specifically to help women and children around the world, I'm all ears. More later.

  • NiceGuy

    It's so funny watching the pinko commie losers of this country lose their 'minds', while the PM continues to dismantle the Tru-dopian nightmare we've had to suffer through for the last 40 years. All the while, we get closer to a Conservative majority….

    • prescott

      So now you are calling 2/3 of all of your fellow Canadians "pinko commie losers"? What are you – some Alabaman immigrant from Joe McCarthy's "better dead than red" days? And you wonder why you fascist, red-necked, ignorant vulgarians cannot get a majority. LOL.

      • NiceGuy

        Question 1 : Yes
        Question 2 : I represent that remark

        P.S. really, who needs a majority when you get everything you want done anyways?

From Macleans