- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
It's well-documented in the media that most government decisions are not made in cabinet - instead, they're made in the PMO (and, the death knell of democracy, with far too much input from partisan political advisors instead of loyal Canadians - after all, those smug, smarmy twerps who analyse the polls don't have to swear an oath of allegiance to Canada - instead, they've got their noses so far up the PM's butt ... they can see the bottom of Sheila Copp's shoes ... but, I digress)
As I was saying, it's ironic that decisions made in the PMO's office are finally coming home to roost.
Specifically, the quislings have been neglecting defence spending in favour of "more important" priorities (i.e. musical fountains in the PM's riding, or Challenger jets for Papa Doc Crouton).
The irony of it all is that now they've slit their own throats. Canada is (or already has) lost it's place on the world stage, since we can no longer contribute with meaningful military forces.
And so, those psycophantic weasels now face political oblivion - Canada is becoming a Third World nation (as far as international influence is concerned), and the quislings have nobody to blame except themselves.
Ah, the irony ... hoisted by their own policies ...
However, loyal Canadians (who actually have sworn oaths of allegiance) deserve better.
It's a shame that the Liberal party has manipulated the Freedom of Information Act to exclude "party" documents and discussions, since that's were the treason has actually taken place.
Only in Canada, eh? Pity ...
Meanwhile, McCallum ... ? Blah, blah, blah ...
Strapped military costs credibility
Ex-CO calls Chretien's anti-terrorism vow hollow
By BILL RODGERS, SUN OTTAWA BUREAU
Canada has lost its credibility to speak out against terrorism because it's failing to put money where its mouth is, says retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie.
MacKenzie warns that in shortchanging security forces, Canada is putting a serious strain on our relations with the U.S.
"The attitude of Washington is no longer disappointment," says MacKenzie, the security adviser to the Ontario government. "They're pissed off and they're more than happy to say that behind closed doors."
MacKenzie gets an earful during tours of the U.S. on the military lecture circuit, and says the Chretien government's vow to stand shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. and its allies on the war against global terrorism rang hollow from the outset.
Meanwhile, Defence Minister John McCallum was calling on his own government yesterday to spend more on the military, saying Canada should be contributing more toward the defence of North America and the free world.
Reaction to McCallum's first address since taking the portfolio four months ago ranged from dismissive to hopeful.
At the Edmonton Garrison, troops aren't holding their breath waiting to see new cash. "It's nice that he's asking for more money," says one. "We've had promises like this before and they haven't amounted to a hill of beans. It's all part of the Ottawa tug-of-war and we don't dwell on the details - we just to have to live with the results."
The minister said the Canadian Forces are demoralized and financially wounded, and promised to appoint a panel of private-sector experts to streamline his department's administration.
"If you ask me if we should do more or less than we are currently doing in the defence of our country and our continent, I would say more," he told an audience of about 50 at the Toronto Board of Trade.
"If you ask me if we should do more or less in deploying our forces to the myriad trouble spots of the world, I would say more."
While the federal government cut about 25 per cent from the defence budget in the '90s, it's promised to restore more than $5 billion between this fiscal year and 2006, he noted.
"Notwithstanding these improvements, we should be spending more than is currently planned," said McCallum, in the opening salvo of a campaign to pressure his government for more money in February's budget.
+++
Yes, we have no military
The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, October 25, 2002
Among the qualifications required for promotion in Canada's modern military, we have concluded, is not only a clear enthusiasm to preside over the dissolution of Her Majesty's Armed Forces but a willingness to deny that it is happening, no matter how obvious the signs of its demise.
So we were not surprised when reports that a Canadian crew had refused to put to sea in one of those leaky, reconditioned British submarines were promptly and vigorously denied by Vice-Admiral R.D. Buck, chief of maritime staff. He wrote to this newspaper that "this recent case is an excellent example of how our very effective process to identify and ultimately resolve safety issues was used and worked well. As a result, no orders were given that could have put submariners at undue risk."
In other words, when they said they wouldn't sail that submarine, you avoided technically ordering them to.
Then the Citizen reported that on Sept. 11, 2001, Canada had to rely on American fighter planes to escort a suspicious Korean Airlines flight through Canadian airspace. (There were fears that it, too, had been hijacked by terrorists. Fortunately, this proved not to be the case.) We weren't short of planes, Chief of the Air Staff Lt.-Gen. Lloyd Campbell promptly wrote. Heavens, no. We have lots of planes. The Americans were just closer.
Uh-huh.
As the old saying goes, nothing is too good for the Canadian Forces, and that's what they usually get.
Next, Rear Admiral Glen Davidson, commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, said he hopes to have one of those British submarines ready for service in Halifax by Christmas -- except for an absence of those pesky torpedo thingies. Or, in bureaucratese, "She won't be fully operational in the sense of a weapons-firing capability."
Some nations might consider this a major drawback in a warship, but not our brass hats.
Nowadays, we await with anticipation a smoothly plausible explanation from one of this nation's high-ranking officers of a recent report about Kosovo. The report says that during the April 1999 NATO bombing of parts of the former Yugoslavia, we Canadians had to beg the Americans in writing for bombs for all those sparkling, combat-ready planes.
So load those pens and fire away, all you top brass. We sleep better knowing that at least the public relations department of DND is always ready, aye, ready.
+++
McCallum seeking money for Forces, modern equipment
By DANIEL LEBLANC
Saturday, October 26, 2002 (Globe and Mail)
OTTAWA -- Defence Minister John McCallum says that he will cut administrative fat and outdated weapon systems out of the Canadian Forces, and acknowledged that he is looking for money for more troops and to buy modern equipment.
In a well-received speech in Toronto yesterday, Mr. McCallum acknowledged that convincing Canadians and the rest of the federal government to spend more on the military will be a massive task.
In making his case to the public, he stated that the country's sovereignty depends on a bigger and better-equipped military.
"Sovereignty . . . doesn't come cheap," Mr. McCallum told the Toronto Board of Trade.
He said that to remain sovereign, Canadians must be able to fight terrorism and participate in the protection of the continent while maintaining a presence in the Canadian North and promoting democracy around the world.
"Our government must be able to deploy forces overseas to reflect Canadian priorities and values, to help Canada achieve its foreign-policy objectives and to do our fair share in the struggle for democracy and freedom around the globe," Mr. McCallum said.
The troops cannot keep up with deployments in places such as Bosnia, East Timor, Afghanistan and, potentially, Iraq, he said.
Canada was involved with 79 military missions in the past decade, compared with 24 from 1948 to 1989.
Mr. McCallum said that in recent years, the government has had to funnel millions of dollars out of capital budgets just to make ends meet. Over all, "we should be spending more than is currently planned," he said, calling for more money as early as the next budget.
He did not say how much he needs, but most experts believe it must be at least $1-billion more a year.
In the meantime, Mr. McCallum is considering chopping old capabilities, which he called "remnants of an earlier era," and calling on private-sector input to streamline the military administration.
While Mr. McCallum did not state specific targets for cutbacks, experts say that the Forces are considering getting rid of armoured vehicles to become lighter and more mobile.
Retired Major-General Lewis Mackenzie said Mr. McCallum seemed to hit many of the right notes in his bid to win public support for the Forces. "I would agree with the sovereignty argument from a political point of view," he said, praising the attempt to chop the bloated bureaucracy.
Former Liberal foreign-affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy sided with Mr. McCallum, saying that Canada needs better logistics, airlift and intelligence capabilities to "make our own choices." The Conference of Defence Associations said Mr. McCallum is on the right track, showing rare transparence for a defence minister.
The Canadian Alliance said it is time for Mr. McCallum to deliver.
"Minister McCallum's rhetoric matches that of his predecessors in the portfolio. But that rhetoric has never translated into cash on the table for our Armed Forces during almost a decade of Liberal rule," Alliance MP Leon Benoit said.
As I was saying, it's ironic that decisions made in the PMO's office are finally coming home to roost.
Specifically, the quislings have been neglecting defence spending in favour of "more important" priorities (i.e. musical fountains in the PM's riding, or Challenger jets for Papa Doc Crouton).
The irony of it all is that now they've slit their own throats. Canada is (or already has) lost it's place on the world stage, since we can no longer contribute with meaningful military forces.
And so, those psycophantic weasels now face political oblivion - Canada is becoming a Third World nation (as far as international influence is concerned), and the quislings have nobody to blame except themselves.
Ah, the irony ... hoisted by their own policies ...
However, loyal Canadians (who actually have sworn oaths of allegiance) deserve better.
It's a shame that the Liberal party has manipulated the Freedom of Information Act to exclude "party" documents and discussions, since that's were the treason has actually taken place.
Only in Canada, eh? Pity ...
Meanwhile, McCallum ... ? Blah, blah, blah ...
Strapped military costs credibility
Ex-CO calls Chretien's anti-terrorism vow hollow
By BILL RODGERS, SUN OTTAWA BUREAU
Canada has lost its credibility to speak out against terrorism because it's failing to put money where its mouth is, says retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie.
MacKenzie warns that in shortchanging security forces, Canada is putting a serious strain on our relations with the U.S.
"The attitude of Washington is no longer disappointment," says MacKenzie, the security adviser to the Ontario government. "They're pissed off and they're more than happy to say that behind closed doors."
MacKenzie gets an earful during tours of the U.S. on the military lecture circuit, and says the Chretien government's vow to stand shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. and its allies on the war against global terrorism rang hollow from the outset.
Meanwhile, Defence Minister John McCallum was calling on his own government yesterday to spend more on the military, saying Canada should be contributing more toward the defence of North America and the free world.
Reaction to McCallum's first address since taking the portfolio four months ago ranged from dismissive to hopeful.
At the Edmonton Garrison, troops aren't holding their breath waiting to see new cash. "It's nice that he's asking for more money," says one. "We've had promises like this before and they haven't amounted to a hill of beans. It's all part of the Ottawa tug-of-war and we don't dwell on the details - we just to have to live with the results."
The minister said the Canadian Forces are demoralized and financially wounded, and promised to appoint a panel of private-sector experts to streamline his department's administration.
"If you ask me if we should do more or less than we are currently doing in the defence of our country and our continent, I would say more," he told an audience of about 50 at the Toronto Board of Trade.
"If you ask me if we should do more or less in deploying our forces to the myriad trouble spots of the world, I would say more."
While the federal government cut about 25 per cent from the defence budget in the '90s, it's promised to restore more than $5 billion between this fiscal year and 2006, he noted.
"Notwithstanding these improvements, we should be spending more than is currently planned," said McCallum, in the opening salvo of a campaign to pressure his government for more money in February's budget.
+++
Yes, we have no military
The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, October 25, 2002
Among the qualifications required for promotion in Canada's modern military, we have concluded, is not only a clear enthusiasm to preside over the dissolution of Her Majesty's Armed Forces but a willingness to deny that it is happening, no matter how obvious the signs of its demise.
So we were not surprised when reports that a Canadian crew had refused to put to sea in one of those leaky, reconditioned British submarines were promptly and vigorously denied by Vice-Admiral R.D. Buck, chief of maritime staff. He wrote to this newspaper that "this recent case is an excellent example of how our very effective process to identify and ultimately resolve safety issues was used and worked well. As a result, no orders were given that could have put submariners at undue risk."
In other words, when they said they wouldn't sail that submarine, you avoided technically ordering them to.
Then the Citizen reported that on Sept. 11, 2001, Canada had to rely on American fighter planes to escort a suspicious Korean Airlines flight through Canadian airspace. (There were fears that it, too, had been hijacked by terrorists. Fortunately, this proved not to be the case.) We weren't short of planes, Chief of the Air Staff Lt.-Gen. Lloyd Campbell promptly wrote. Heavens, no. We have lots of planes. The Americans were just closer.
Uh-huh.
As the old saying goes, nothing is too good for the Canadian Forces, and that's what they usually get.
Next, Rear Admiral Glen Davidson, commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, said he hopes to have one of those British submarines ready for service in Halifax by Christmas -- except for an absence of those pesky torpedo thingies. Or, in bureaucratese, "She won't be fully operational in the sense of a weapons-firing capability."
Some nations might consider this a major drawback in a warship, but not our brass hats.
Nowadays, we await with anticipation a smoothly plausible explanation from one of this nation's high-ranking officers of a recent report about Kosovo. The report says that during the April 1999 NATO bombing of parts of the former Yugoslavia, we Canadians had to beg the Americans in writing for bombs for all those sparkling, combat-ready planes.
So load those pens and fire away, all you top brass. We sleep better knowing that at least the public relations department of DND is always ready, aye, ready.
+++
McCallum seeking money for Forces, modern equipment
By DANIEL LEBLANC
Saturday, October 26, 2002 (Globe and Mail)
OTTAWA -- Defence Minister John McCallum says that he will cut administrative fat and outdated weapon systems out of the Canadian Forces, and acknowledged that he is looking for money for more troops and to buy modern equipment.
In a well-received speech in Toronto yesterday, Mr. McCallum acknowledged that convincing Canadians and the rest of the federal government to spend more on the military will be a massive task.
In making his case to the public, he stated that the country's sovereignty depends on a bigger and better-equipped military.
"Sovereignty . . . doesn't come cheap," Mr. McCallum told the Toronto Board of Trade.
He said that to remain sovereign, Canadians must be able to fight terrorism and participate in the protection of the continent while maintaining a presence in the Canadian North and promoting democracy around the world.
"Our government must be able to deploy forces overseas to reflect Canadian priorities and values, to help Canada achieve its foreign-policy objectives and to do our fair share in the struggle for democracy and freedom around the globe," Mr. McCallum said.
The troops cannot keep up with deployments in places such as Bosnia, East Timor, Afghanistan and, potentially, Iraq, he said.
Canada was involved with 79 military missions in the past decade, compared with 24 from 1948 to 1989.
Mr. McCallum said that in recent years, the government has had to funnel millions of dollars out of capital budgets just to make ends meet. Over all, "we should be spending more than is currently planned," he said, calling for more money as early as the next budget.
He did not say how much he needs, but most experts believe it must be at least $1-billion more a year.
In the meantime, Mr. McCallum is considering chopping old capabilities, which he called "remnants of an earlier era," and calling on private-sector input to streamline the military administration.
While Mr. McCallum did not state specific targets for cutbacks, experts say that the Forces are considering getting rid of armoured vehicles to become lighter and more mobile.
Retired Major-General Lewis Mackenzie said Mr. McCallum seemed to hit many of the right notes in his bid to win public support for the Forces. "I would agree with the sovereignty argument from a political point of view," he said, praising the attempt to chop the bloated bureaucracy.
Former Liberal foreign-affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy sided with Mr. McCallum, saying that Canada needs better logistics, airlift and intelligence capabilities to "make our own choices." The Conference of Defence Associations said Mr. McCallum is on the right track, showing rare transparence for a defence minister.
The Canadian Alliance said it is time for Mr. McCallum to deliver.
"Minister McCallum's rhetoric matches that of his predecessors in the portfolio. But that rhetoric has never translated into cash on the table for our Armed Forces during almost a decade of Liberal rule," Alliance MP Leon Benoit said.
