# Ujjal Dosanjh is an opportunist



## vonGarvin (14 Jan 2010)

> Canada should be in Haiti faster and more than we are. Time to speed up, Mr Harper. Posted ~2030EST 13 Jan 10


(the above feed from Twitter is from Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh, pictured here):






First of all, a C-130 departed for Haiti less than 24 hours after the quake hit.




Just think, less than 24 hours previous, every person in this photo went home after a normal day at work.  Then the next day, they kissed their families good bye, and were in Haiti by the end of that day.  I think that's pretty fast.

Less than 36 hours after the quake, a C-17 loaded with supplies headed out.
Less than 48 hours after the quake, a second C-17 is heading out.  According to the MND, "as many as a couple of hundred Canadian Forces members will be in Haiti by the end of the day Thursday [less than 48 hours after the quake hit]." (Source)

Now, I think that Canada has "gone in fast" and "with lots", contrary to Mr. Dosanjh's assertion via Twitter.

Here's the irony.

If it were up to Mr. Dosanjh, this wouldn't even be possible.  Allow me to elaborate:
On 6 June 2006, a story appeared on canada.com:


> Liberal defence critic *Ujjal Dosanjh * said the Conservative plan to buy the four C-17s would ''deprive our Canadian industry of $3 billion in economic benefits'' because there are no guarantees Canadian companies would be given the lucrative maintenance contracts.


OK, so he opposed the purchase because there were no economic benefits.  But, what of the plane itself.  Do we need it?


> Canada does not need the aircraft and should be concentrating on smaller transport planes instead.


And no, folks, I didn't make that up:
From here

So, my question to Mr. Dosanjh.  If we didn't have C-17's, HOW would we get to Haiti, so fast, and with so much?


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jan 2010)

If you ever get the chance to hold his feet to the fire, you may as well bring some Aunt Jemima with you. All you will get is a "waffle" ;D

That goes for pretty much any politician of any political stripe.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Ujal Dosanjh is *low*, even by Liberal standards. Her slithers around Ottawa on his slimy belly; no lie is too big to tell; there is no person who cannot be slandered.




My views on Dasanj remain as they were, yesterday.

I give him full credit for his courage, many years ago, in dealing with Indian extremists in Canada, but ever since he has gone lower and *lower* into the political dirt.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> So, my question to Mr. Dosanjh.  If we didn't have C-17's, HOW would we get to Haiti, so fast, and with so much?



Probably something like this:


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jan 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I give him full credit for his courage, many years ago, in dealing with Indian extremists in Canada, but ever since he has gone lower and *lower* into the political dirt.


Agreed, 100%.  

Just for posterity, this is not an attack on Mr. Dosanjh _per se_, but rather on his actions and his ill-timed and ill-informed criticism, which I see as nothing but knee-jerk.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2010)

Dosanjh's _opportunistic_ partisanship is one of the things that turns Canadians off politics and politicians.

He is, doubtless, a smart guy but he is relentlessly partisan; for him politics is 100% partisanship and 0% policy. The illustrative quotes you have in the original post show that. The cabinet in which he served planned to buy talked about buying C-17s and he was, then, all for it but as soon as it was a Conservative policy it was all wrong. Canadians aren't completely stupid. They see what Dosanjh is doing and it lowers politics and all politicians in their estimation.


----------



## Shec (14 Jan 2010)

[insert opposition MP's name here] Says Haitian Tragedy Wouldn't  Have Happened If Harper Hadn't Prorogued Parliament


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jan 2010)

This posted by @ujjaldosanjh ~5 minutes ago on Twitter:


> i understand Harper is responding well to the needs in Haiti.


----------



## Dissident (14 Jan 2010)

Mr. Campbell is putting into words what I was thinking. (+1!)

Lets hope that someone ask Mr Dosanjh what would have been an appropriate response to the disaster in his opinion. Then we can corner him about the resources needed for this capability.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jan 2010)

One of Prince Igor's yappy little ghetto dogs. Hiding under the couch, incessantly barking at the doorbell.
It's not sure who's there, or what they want, but it's damn sure whoever they are, they are evil incarnate.


----------



## MJP (14 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> (the above feed from Twitter is from Mr. Ujjal Dosanjh, pictured here):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hope you don't mind TV but I stole the meat of your post and sent an email to Mr. Dosanjh this am from school.  

Dear Sir, 


In your twitter yesterday you said Canada should be in Haiti faster and more than we are. "Time to speed up, Mr Harper. Posted ~2030EST 13 Jan 10. 

First of all, a C-130 departed for Haiti less than 24 hours after the quake hit.

Less than 36 hours after the quake, a C-17 loaded with supplies flew out.

Less than 48 hours after the quake, a second C-17 is heading out.  According to the MND, "as many as a couple of hundred Canadian Forces members will be in Haiti by the end of the day Thursday [less than 48 hours after the quake hit]." 

How is this even considered slow action on the part of the government?  This is an incrediably fast response for any country and we should be proud that we can carry it off so quickly and efficiently. 

It is ironic though that the reason we are so able to respond in a quick manner are the C-17s that you opposed in 2006.

On 6 June 2006, a story appeared on canada.com:

Quote
Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said the Conservative plan to buy the four C-17s would ''deprive our Canadian industry of $3 billion in economic benefits'' because there are no guarantees Canadian companies would be given the lucrative maintenance contracts.


And
"Canada does not need the aircraft and should be concentrating on smaller transport planes instead."
  

Your twitter post is nothing more than an attempt to smear the current goverment by insinuating that they are doing nothing at all.  Meanwhile they are on the ball and are able to respond to the crisis because of the transport planes they bought against you and your parties wishes.  I truly hope for the people of Haiti that our various parties can act in more bipartisan manner to help resolve this crisis. 


Cheers,

MJP

For some reason I couldn't post on Army.ca from school to mention that to all if they don't like something an MP does write them an email/letter.  Yes they get lots but you would be surprised at how effective they can be at times.  Even if they aren't
I finally get the chance to post


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jan 2010)

Imitation is a form of flattery, I suppose.  Thanks!


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jan 2010)

"Politician is an opportunist" reads like "RCR solider is anal-retentive."

In other words, redundant.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2010)

Meanwhile, this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, highlights the story and Dosanjh’s _retraction_ but still tries to accuse the Tories of playing politics with the issue:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/whos-playing-politics-with-disaster/article1431450/


> Who's playing politics with disaster?
> Jane Taber
> 
> Thursday, January 14, 2010
> ...




Harper goes to make a donation and that’s “playing politics?” Wow! Talk about yellow journalism.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Jan 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Harper goes to make a donation and that’s “playing politics?” Wow! Talk about yellow journalism.




I call it leading by example!


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Jan 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I call it leading by example!



I call it "being human".


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Jan 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I call it "being human".


It can be both... at the same time.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jan 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Politician is an opportunist" reads like "RCR solider is anal-retentive."
> 
> In other words, redundant.


Why, I'll get you, dapaterson!

(Just as soon as the paint dries on my rocks...)


----------



## RangerRay (15 Jan 2010)

There's a reason why he is no longer the premier of BC!  He was a slimey snake then and he's a slimey snake now.


----------



## Fusaki (15 Jan 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "...reads like "RCR so*lid*er is anal-retentive..."



I think you meant "RCR *soldier*".

I CAN'T PAAAASSSSS FAUUUUUUUULLLTTTSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARRRRGHHHHHHHHH!

:blotto:


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Jan 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, highlights the story and Dosanjh’s _retraction_ but still tries to accuse the Tories of playing politics with the issue:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/whos-playing-politics-with-disaster/article1431450/
> 
> ...



The good old Mop and Pail, only good for putting down in the puppys room. 8)


----------



## PanaEng (15 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Why, I'll get you, dapaterson!
> 
> (Just as soon as the paint dries on my rocks...)


Dude! 
you RCR guys are hard core...
I don't even shave mine


alright -[ /off topic]

All politicians are opportunistic...
some just slither lower than the others.

cheers,
Frank


----------

