Sunday, November 29, 2009

Maybe the Globe could get Christie Blatchford to write a piece about tax leakage?

All Canadians owe a debt of gratitude to Christie Blatchford, of the Globe and Mail as she took the time from her busy schedule to read all of Richard Colvin’s emails (that have been forbidden to our paid elected Members of Parliament) and was able to conclude (despite the selective natiue of the emails that she received and the heavily redacted nature of these emails, that, low and behold, the Harper government is right and Richard Colvin is wrong? Evidently there is no need for a public inquiry according to Christie Blatchford and the Globe and Mail. To which I posted the following comment. This SO REMINDS me of the Globe’s grossly biased and nonsensical repetition of the Harper government’s lies about tax leakage and confirms the Globe and Mail as being Canada’s answer to Pravda:

Brent Fullard wrote:
Posted 2009/11/28
at 12:37 PM ET

This article by Christie Baltchford is spurious nonsense in the extreme and a blatant attempt to manipulate the public record.

Whatever Christie Blatchford has in her possession is what her source wanted her to have...namely a subset of all of the available facts.

What nonsense! How can Christie Blatchford and the Globe be so easily manipulated and be so naive as to "run" with this story?

This Afghan detainee issue can only be properly dealt with if ALL THE FACTS are on the table, and not that subset of facts that had gone through somebody's "filter".

I have the same concern about the "filter" that Harper and MacKay keep citing when they say they will release the documents, and refer to the "legally permissible" documents.

Just what does that even mean and just who exactly will be making that determination?

Enough is enough. Let's start with all the facts and begin at the beginning and not begin at the end, namely an end that is being forced upon us through manipulation and which is being defined by certain people's preferred political scenario, rather than by the facts.

89 Agree
33 Disagree


Dr Mike said...

"Legally permissible" about says it all.

When one group can determine what can be seen by the "people" , then there can never be a proper assessment of the facts.

My grandfather grew-up in Eastern Europe during the 1930`s when the communists ruled the law--they would censor everything calling a duty of the state.

Here in Canada , things are not much different -- if the gov`t wishes no one to see certain information , it is declared a "security issue" & as such is not "legally viewed".

Eastern Europe in the 1930`s looks a lot like Canada in 2009.

Now that is progress---not.

We should be ashamed & embarrassed,

Dr Mike Popovich

Anonymous said...

My only question upon reading Christie Blatchford’s column was whether she is (a) a dupe or (b) a willing dupe?

Like you, I tend to favour (b) as the most likely explanation.

Anonymous said...

She's a military/con hack and always will be.

Why else would someone on the periphery such as her get these emails?

Anonymous said...

When the red cross is on board with the generals on this I believe them. shame on you. respect our troupes!!!

CAITI said...

Re: respect our troupes (sic)!!!

Troops? What do our "troops" have to do with this?

See the piece I wrote entitled:
"Prime Minister of Conflation, Stephen Harper".

Perhaps you meant to say:

Respect the truth?