# Contributor to Washington Times: "Canadians too cowardly to fight"



## oligarch (2 Sep 2009)

I almost spit my coffee out when I heard this! 

Tony Blankely: "With the exceptions of Americans and Brits, the rest are too cowardly to fight"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKQ0nnDp4r8

is this how they think down there?


----------



## aesop081 (2 Sep 2009)

oligarch said:
			
		

> is this how they think down there?



I dont know if you've noticed but we, up here, have our own fair share of people who's thinking is pretty fucked up.


----------



## armyvern (2 Sep 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I dont know if you've noticed but we, up here, have our own fair share of people who's thinking is pretty fucked up.



My thoughts exactly ---

Apparently, the US media also suffers from the same kind of "where the hell did they pull this _expert_ from" problem.  :


----------



## OpieRWestmrR (2 Sep 2009)

Tony Blankley is a very experienced lawyer-politician who should know better than to say things like that about allies. I regret to say he is a member of my profession, too.

He was a prosecutor for the California Attorney-General, was editorial writer and editor for the Washington Times (still writes a column) and was press secretary to Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker of the US House of Representatives. 

He is an author: _The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? _ and _American Grit: What It Will Take to Survive and Win in the 21st Century_, the latter released in January this year.

My guess is he is book-spruiking and doesn't much care who he offends if he can sell copies by accenting American Grit. He was born in the UK.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> My thoughts exactly ---
> 
> Apparently, *the US media* also suffers from the same kind of "where the hell did they pull this _expert_ from" problem.  :



It's not even "the US media" - it's Russia Today, one of the thousands, of _national_ "narrowcasters" that supplanted the old "short wave" (high frequency) radio broadcasters.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Sep 2009)

OpieRWestmrR said:
			
		

> Tony Blankley .... press secretary to Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker of the US House of Representatives.


Ahh, so it was his job to help that idiot spread his vilification of Canada as the 9/11 terrorists' transit route. 

I think that about does it for my thoughts on his credibility   :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Sep 2009)

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

He didn't say 'Canadians too cowardly to fight', he just left us out of the equation, and everyone extrapolated that 'The Others' automatically included us.

It's our own fault. We never get the good press, blow our own horns, or have everyone ballyhooing from the rooftops about our great armed forces and the terrific job we're doing.

If we can't get acknowledged in our own country, why would someone from outside think about us, or our contribution?

His likely response to 'So what about the Canadians? Are they not equal to the US and Brits, in this?' would likely be something along the lines of 'Oh yeah, them too.'

 :2c:


----------



## DBA (2 Sep 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ahh, so it was his job to help that idiot spread his vilification of Canada as the 9/11 terrorists' transit route.
> 
> I think that about does it for my thoughts on his credibility   :



Newt resigned from his house seat and speaker position in 1998. Needless to say he lost the staff he had as speaker and house member at that time.


----------



## Redeye (2 Sep 2009)

The Washington Times isn't exactly a major news outlet either, and it caters to the uberconservative types that own it (it's actually owned by the Unification Church, better known as "Moonies"), and it loses money hand over fist apparently.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2009)

So, we have a _stringer_, a _contributor_, to a second rate, local, special interest newspaper making comments on a third rate, local, special interest cable TV show and we are *concerned*? This is about one and half steps above _Wayne's World_ - but without the good lookin' woman.


Edit: corrected punctuation


----------



## gaspasser (2 Sep 2009)

Recceguy is right in that we don't blow our own horns enough.  Canadians quietly enter and leave conflicts, usually end the fights the USA starts, and don't say boo about it.  But I bet our populous would cry loudly if they heard such crud coming from a (what seems to be ) low rate-wind bag trying to boost his own book sales.
I'm sure there are 127 of our Brother's who are not cowards and took the fight to the bad guys, plus the hundreds and thousands that gave their lives WAITING for the USA to come save Europe's collective butts.

There is another thread that covers this comment (and for the life of me, I can't remember where it is):  The other day, while doing a detail to and from Borden, I stopped for coffee at the Newtonville rest stop.  The girl said thank you and wouldn't take a dime.  When I graciously said thank you, the manager come over and said, "No, it is us who thank you". :crybaby: 
And just today, I was in the Tim's in Picton, an elderly gentlemen came up to me and offered his hand to say Thank you, he was buying the coffee.. he slipped me a twenty...needless to say.. I said thank you very much to which he replied..."No, thank you".  :crybaby:
{Sorry, I just felt I had to get that out of my system} 

Cowards our country is not, just because we can't field millions like the USA and die by the thousands,  doesn't mean we don't feel the punch and the loss.     
 :2c:



GOD BLESS


----------



## aesop081 (2 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> we are *concerned*.



So far, the only one who seems concerned is the OP.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Sep 2009)

I said this before somewhere:  I have an autistic son. Sometimes he blurts out some inappropriate, hurtful things.  He doesn't think it through, just lets it fly.  I have a tendency to ignore them, or sometimes gently correct him, but because I understand the source, I don't freak out on him.  Same applies in this case, I think.


----------



## Danjanou (2 Sep 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So far, the only one who seems concerned is the OP.



While I am concerned that ER referenced Waynes World.... and kind of impressed too.  8)


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So far, the only one who seems concerned is the OP.



I shot myself in the foot by being careless/lazy (take your pick).

I meant to say "... and we are *concerned*?" indicating, with the question mark, that I did not understand. But I screwed up and ended the sentence with a period - which made it not make much sense.  :'(

Anyway, my "corrected" question is: Why do we care what some second rate "commentator" says on a third rate programme watched by, what, six, seven people?


----------



## Roy Harding (2 Sep 2009)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> While I am concerned that ER referenced Waynes World.... and kind of impressed too.  8)



He probably stole the reference from one of the young barmaids at his favourite pub - but his use of it in context is rather impressive.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> He probably stole the reference from one of the young barmaids at his favourite pub - but his use of it in context is rather impressive.




I was a faithful _Wayne's World_ follower - 








for its undoubted educational value!


----------



## GAP (2 Sep 2009)

Couldn't you crop that pic so the good parts are more to the left......I had to work like hell to view it all!!!!  ;D


----------



## Greymatters (2 Sep 2009)

So in summary:

- nobody called Canadians cowards
- most Americans think of Iraq when they think of overseas fighting
- where Canadians aren't, so that's why we weren't mentioned

Does that about cover it?


----------



## Roy Harding (2 Sep 2009)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> So in summary:
> 
> - *"A"* nobody called Canadians cowards
> - most Americans think of Iraq when they think of overseas fighting
> ...



It covers it now, I think.


----------



## Sythen (2 Sep 2009)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> - most Americans think of Iraq when they think of overseas fighting
> - where Canadians aren't, so that's why we weren't mentioned



The video plainly says Afghanistan, and its the only conflict that they discuss in the interview.. Don't care what the average American thinks, this guy should know better.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (3 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was a faithful _Wayne's World_ follower -



Good picture.  Though she made a wonderful contribution to _Wayne's World_, perhaps your expectations were later raised when she amply filled the title role of "*Relic* Hunter".  However, you shouldn't get your hopes up - she was searching for antiquities, not fossils.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Sep 2009)

Sythen said:
			
		

> this guy should know better.



Who f'ing cares ?

One guy said something that may or may not be stupid, depnding on how you look at it. I swear some people on here go on like Canada is some kind of untoucheable saint or something.

Plenty of American bashing goes on in this country ( on this site too)...we should know better.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2009)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Good picture.  Though she made a wonderful contribution to _Wayne's World_, perhaps your expectations were later raised when she amply filled the title role of "*Relic* Hunter".  However, you shouldn't get your hopes up - she was searching for antiquities, not fossils.




Darn!  :crybaby:


----------



## Greymatters (3 Sep 2009)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> It covers it now, I think.



Ha, nice alteration...


----------



## Danjanou (8 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Darn!  :crybaby:



They were filming Relic Hunter around the corner from my old apartment back before I met/married "she who must be obeyed" and I had the chance to see the uber babe in question up close and personal. I did feel not worthy.  :'(

Now this thread has been totally derailed, which considering the original content seems somehow appropriate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2009)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> They were filming Relic Hunter around the corner from my old apartment back before I met/married "she who must be obeyed" and I had the chance to see the uber babe in question up close and personal. I did feel not worthy.  :'(
> 
> Now this thread has been totally derailed, which considering the original content seems somehow appropriate.




ff topic:  Well, old chum, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I'm sure *she* is worthy of *me*!   :highjack:


----------



## Danjanou (8 Sep 2009)




----------



## SARgirl (8 Sep 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's our own fault. We never get the good press, blow our own horns, or have everyone ballyhooing from the rooftops about our great armed forces and the terrific job we're doing.
> 
> If we can't get acknowledged in our own country, why would someone from outside think about us, or our contribution?



So why is it that Canadian troops don't get the recognition and acknowledgment that they deserve from Canada's overall general public and press?

Why is it that our military doesn't, "_get the good press, blow our own horns, or have everyone ballyhooing from the rooftops about our great armed forces and the terrific job we're doing_"?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2009)

egy sárvédő said:
			
		

> So why is it that Canadian troops don't get the recognition and acknowledgment that they deserve from Canada's overall general public and press?
> 
> Why is it that our military doesn't, "_get the good press, blow our own horns, or have everyone ballyhooing from the rooftops about our great armed forces and the terrific job we're doing_"?




Principally, because the media believes it has a duty to be hyper-critical of anything official: all *authorities* like governments, police, courts and the military. It is considered _bad form_ to praise; just look at what Christie Blatchford is called, in print, by many of her colleagues.

Secondarily, because the military, itself, does not issue enough well written press releases. Much of the "news" you read, hear and even see every day is, essentially, _dictation_ and many "journalists" are little more than _stenographers_. Even a lot of video is provided by press agents. But, in my personal opinion DND's _communications_ people do not do the job well enough. 

Finally, because the media still has a self-image of itself from the 1960s. It wants to be drug addled and freely loved and anti-war and, and, and ...


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2009)

......and don't forget a culture of "the quiet professional".


----------



## BearW (9 Sep 2009)

I thought the vid. was great.. not only did he omit us as a prominent fighting force but also spoke to his vast first hand knowledge of afghan culture and countryside. 

He must have been the only guy available on a friday afternoon before the big shoot monday morning. I'm sure if they had got someone different the story would have changed.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Sep 2009)

The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about.  - Oscar Wilde

The CF could do a much more proactive job of horn blowing, but then that is not the Canadian way.  Public perception has changed thanks to General Hillier's tenure, I do get the occasional "thank you" now instead of the "F U" of days past.

There will be those who feel that we are indeed not pulling our fair share of the burden.  Well you can't please everyone.  I know what we do and have done and am not ashamed of the record.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Sep 2009)

The problem with speaking in generalities is that you are bound to offend someone. Anyone that can read knows that Canada,Australia,Denmark and the UK have been strong partners in Afghanistan. There are former eastern bloc countries like Poland and Estonia that have shed blood with us. The French have come late to the party but since Sarkozy has been in office they have stepped up their efforts as well. The various ROE's that each ISAF member operates under is the single biggest weakness of the coalition in my view.


----------



## OpieRWestmrR (10 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Principally, because the media believes it has a duty to be hyper-critical of anything official: all *authorities* like governments, police, courts and the military. It is considered _bad form_ to praise; just look at what Christie Blatchford is called, in print, by many of her colleagues.
> 
> Secondarily, because the military, itself, does not issue enough well written press releases. Much of the "news" you read, hear and even see every day is, essentially, _dictation_ and many "journalists" are little more than _stenographers_. Even a lot of video is provided by press agents. But, in my personal opinion DND's _communications_ people do not do the job well enough.
> 
> Finally, because the media still has a self-image of itself from the 1960s. It wants to be drug addled and freely loved and anti-war and, and, and ...



Please don't judge all media by the conehead who prompted this thread. He's a commentator who makes money by offending people. Commentators are the dark side of my profession and bring the rest of us into disrepute.  

Most reporters and editors strive to be fair. Dealing with spin every day of one's working life makes one skeptical, not hyper-critical. I have a very good working relationship with the ADF in Australia, particularly Defence Reserve Support. The strongest criticism I have dealt with was over employer compensation for reservist deployment - bosses want more - and that's a criticism of government provisions, not the military itself. 

You're closer to the mark regarding press releases. Most reporters are young people unfamiliar with things military. They don't have enough time to be thorough and there are fewer and fewer experienced editors to backstop them. Earlier this year when I was still working part-time in the mainstream press I had to field a letter of complaint after my paper misidentified Anzac Day marchers as Irish Army veterans of World War II. This week, Canadian media couldn't get the Governor-General's military title right. Given this level of knowledge among reporters it makes sense for military communicators to use very clear language and work hard to develop relationships with key media contacts. 

As for self-image, it's hard to maintain cultural vision when your industry is melting down. The problem is fragmentation, not persistence of 1960s vision. Drug-addled? I've never thought of using that excuse to explain my behaviour. Maybe I should start.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

This could, properly, go in other places but I think it fits, well enough, here, for now, even though it’s _waaaay_ off topic.

Two stories, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, caught my eye:

(There are shown here as they appear, one above the other, in the print edition of the _Globe_.)
(My *emphasis* added.)​
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/britain-under-fire-over-deadly-rescue-tactics/article1281450/


> Britain under fire over deadly rescue tactics
> *Critics fear unusually aggressive commando response to kidnappings will inflame Afghan hostilities to foreign presence in country*
> 
> Jessica Leeder
> ...



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/journalist-held-by-taliban-did-his-profession-proud/article1281423/


> ournalist held by Taliban did his profession proud
> *Why Stephen Farrell's run into harm's way was a courageous chase for the truth, not recklessness*
> 
> Christie Blatchford
> ...




Now, it is no secret that I regard journalism as a far less than _noble_ calling but I do respect those who go into harm’s way – it isn’t always physical harm, either - to *report* whatever *facts* they can find.

But I find most journalists terribly self obsessed and I worry a wee bit about the “double standard” implicit in the self imposed _”media blackout, which has become customary in cases where journalists are kidnapped.”_ As far as I know, and I may be wrong, there is no media blackout when NATO or Israeli soldiers or aid workers are kidnapped. I accept that the life of a journalist is “worth” the life of a soldier – it is the soldier’s *duty* to do whatever is required to safeguard any and all “innocent civilians,” especially their own countrymen. That’s what the whole sheep/wolves/sheepdog argument is about. I do not accept that a journalist has any higher “value” than any other person – not because of their “calling.”

The role of journalists, the only role of journalists, is to provide some interesting, entertaining, maybe, now and again, even informative “fill” for the white spaces or air time that their proprietor could not fill with advertising.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Sep 2009)

This reporter had disregarded ISAF guidance and was captured for a second time by the taliban endangering himself and his translator and eventually his rescuers. This should be broken off and moved to Tony's thread here.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/89006/post-873282.html#new


----------



## Haggis (10 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Secondarily, because the military, itself, does not issue enough well written press releases. Much of the "news" you read, hear and even see every day is, essentially, _dictation_ and many "journalists" are little more than _stenographers_. Even a lot of video is provided by press agents. But, in my personal opinion DND's _communications_ people do not do the job well enough.



I don't believe this is an entirely true of fair criticism of the ADM (PA) efforts.  It doesn't matter if the DND/CF were to hand deliver an MLVW of good news to the MSM each day, the only material that gets published (electronically or in print) is that which falls into line with the editorial/political agendas of the media outlet.  The DND/CF have absolutely no control over that.


----------



## OpieRWestmrR (10 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The role of journalists, the only role of journalists, is to provide some interesting, entertaining, maybe, now and again, even informative “fill” for the white spaces or air time that their proprietor could not fill with advertising.



I'm prepared to agree with your first two pars. Not sure about double standards, because we can't know when the media respects embargos at military request. Media respects Police embargos all the time. I'm respecting a significant Defence business-related embargo right now. 

The journalist who, as Tomahawk6 points out below, repeatedly puts himself in danger and disregards advice shouldn't expect military help. In that respect he or she is comparable to solo sailors on long sea voyage who expect rescue if things go wrong; they're not 'heroes' but risk-takers. There's nothing inherently ennobling about recklessness. Blankley has been reckless and deserves the censure we give him here. 

The point I'm trying to make is you can't tar all journalists with the same brush as you do in the par I've quoted. Yes, many are self-obsessed and self important. Yes, many are reckless with facts. Yes we give priority to stories we believe will attract attention. That doesn't mean there is a pervasive anti-military agenda in the media. Many of us support the military strongly. 

Haggis, perhaps hand-delivering material to the press _would _achieve a better result. Human-to-human contact might improve communication. Young reporters, even editors, who've never had any contact with the military could ask a real person what the acronyms mean. It's hard to bad-mouth someone you have met and like.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Sep 2009)

Ah!  Yes!  The infamous TLAs.  Most are found here.


----------



## OpieRWestmrR (10 Sep 2009)

Very handy reference, thanks muchly.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2009)

OpieRWestmrR said:
			
		

> ... Not sure about double standards, because we can't know when the media respects embargos at military request. Media respects Police embargos all the time. I'm respecting a significant Defence business-related embargo right now.
> ...




*Most* of the media respects the CF's very temporary casualty embargos *most of the time* - in part because they might be sent home from KAF if they don't.

Mr. Fowler (see this thread) complained, in comments NOT aired on the _National_ but, to CBC News' credit, broadcast on CBC Radio 1, about the very "double standard" I mentioned. He wondered out loud why journalists are "protected" by other journalists but he was threatened every time his captors - well "plugged in" to *global* media - every time the media *speculated* about what he was doing, why he was doing it, what plans were being made for his release and so on. I think his points were very well taken. A "journalistic ethics" (not a contradiction in terms?) fellow tried but, in my view failed to explain it all away.


----------

