jdobbin

They could have gotten a lot of people out earlier if the PMO had not delayed.

Exactly. And if you can warn them early enough, they can get home themselves and stay out of harm's way.

It was reported the other day that Tim Sale, NDP cabinet minister, will not be running next election. A website dedidicated to giving the behind the scenes look to Winnipeg's media. The take task with the puff piece on Sale leaving office. http://blackrod.blogspot.com/ He was a minister guilty of mismanagement, slander and cover-up. The Auditor-General exposed all of this.

Still, the PMO should not have delayed the warning for Canadians to leave when they could. It wouldn't have cost the Canadian government anything to do that.

Even some CBC supporters are saying they should get rid of TV commercials and sports.

Since the PMO told the Canadian embassy to hold off on an advising Canadians to come home pronto last week, the government bares a huge bit of responsibility in removing Canada from harm's way. That was posted in the Globe and Mail yesterday. CJOB News was reporting that the Defence has Canada's responsibilties outlined in event of war. It is enlightening as it doesn't talk about any limits. http://cjob.com/news/index.aspx?dir=nation..../n0720103A.xml It is a little unseemly to talk about who real Canadians are and what the costs of bringing them home should be when it was not even discussed in the Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations plan. The Conservatives were adamant critics of Canada's reponse to the tsunami last year. They called Canada's mobilization efforts then as too little, too late. It would appear that the PMO withheld critical data to have Canadians heading home on their own coin. They should take responsibility for that.

The same headline could apply to sitting on the tarmac in Cyprus for 24 hours. It was embarrassing.

Idealism is what conservatives had in the U.S. about Iraq being transformed into a peaceful democracy. Realists were saying that the country was likely to be itching for a civil war before working to cooperate in government. Who do you think the realists were? And do you think that Cheney was right when he said the insurgency was coming to an end? Idealistic or realistic?

The Conservatives are now in charge. They can get rid of the CBC. Why don't they?

The capacity of the HMCS Preserver could take more than many of the cruise ships to be certain. But you're right. Not even the United States could rush that many ships into the area to evacuate their 25,000 citizens. My argument is that we *should* have had our ship headed their as early as Monday. The Conservatives were very harsh critics of the Liberal response to the tsunami. They are now in charge. Have they learned nothing?

If Harper had issued the advisory for people to leave at the time the embassy warned, many people might have been able to leave before Israel's response. The Globe and Mail's article on the interference of the PMO is on the boards somewhere. I think it is preferable to warn your citizen to get out when they can. And *then*, you can warn people about the costs they might be charged if they require help with their travel later on.

I'm sure it initially looked like it would be both helpful and good PR at the same time but instead we had 24 hours of film of the aircraft on the tarmac in Cyprus doing nothing while chaos marked the evacuation in Beirut. Some people have said that it was the same inspired leadership of New York's mayor amidst September 11 but everyone remembers Mayor Rudy was out front of the cameras to keep people informed to the best of his abilities. Harper was in the plane for 24 hours.

I was incorrect when I said the military had two Airbus jets. They have five as well as four Bombardier aircraft. He could have had an Airbus on the ground with additional Canadian troops in Cyprus as early as Monday. Instead, it left Canada today. His flight was a PR flight that sat for 24 hours on the ground in Cyprus. But whatever. Perhaps speaking to some of the evacuees will help focus Harper on what is happening on the ground in Lebanon.

Bush had already headed back to the States before Harper did. Harper continued to be in Europe for several meetings after the G8. Aside from Airforce One there are many cargo and passenger jets in the U.S. military, some stationed very close by for this type of operation. Canada has two military passenger jets. One of them is what the prime minister uses.

We do have a fairly modern navy though and those ships could have been enroute last week had the order been given. They are still in port in Halifax "on call."

His plane is classified as a military plane. You can look it up. When the prime minister isn't using it, it is used for military operations. The military is already involved as there are Canadian soldiers in Cyprus so he could have freed up the plane as it one of only two large jets the military has for airlifts. There was no reason that Harper had to go to Cyprus himself unless it was to meet Cypriot officials. He didn't state that it was the reason he was going. His staff indicated he went to pick up Canadians. That is why it smacks of a PR stunt.

This is a really nonsensical question. Actually we are related by blood more to the U.S. than we are Quebec and even (freely) share the U.S. culture and language. The U.S has provided Canada the tools to be a modern vibrant society by sharing it's vast multitude of resources with us and by allowing us to be one of it's major trading partners. If you are dissatisfied with the U.S. maybe we should break off all relations with the U.S., remove all U.S. investment in Canada and seek out with other parts of the world to seek whatever relations you consider would be more superior or where Canada would fully call the shots according to your intellect or requirements. If it is nonsensical to you, why bother answering it? It's a legitimate question that can have a variety of answers.

It would have meant that he was freeing a military plane in accordance of Defence department guidelines on rescuing Canadians. http://cjob.com/news/index.aspx?dir=nation..../n0720103A.xml

The Globe and Mail reports that Harper wanted to keep the growing crisis in Lebanon under wraps. This kept people from leaving when they might have had the opportunity to do so. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

I have no problem with him taking a position. I do have problems with him doing a PR flight. As I said, he could have freed up the plane and headed home commercial. I would have had more respect for that.

You can mention comments which you believe are racist but not Ku Klux Klan or White Supremacist unless they are are actually members or advocates of that. I regret my statement on that and won't be using them again. Can you say that you won't be doing that again? You report other people. Why are your remarks aceptable?

If Harper wasn't concerned about polls, her wouldn't have personally shown up in Cyprus. He could have freed up the plane, sent it on to Cyprus and taken a commercial flight home.

Hypocrite? Now you you've really got me wondering what the heck you are getting at. I'm all ears to hear your solution to the problems.

It was calling someone a pedophile that crossed the line. Do you think it is okay to do that?

Slander and libel laws are part of a democratic country. If I was to call you a molestor of children that could be a prosecutable offence. For this reason, boards like this often will ban someone to ensure they are not drawn into a larger legal battle. It isn't censorship. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can cry "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Nor does it mean you can you can accuse someone verbally or in writing of something that violates slander or libel laws. I wouldn't call you a pedophile and expect to call it freedom of speech. I suspect that you wouldn't do it either.