Mackay busted in a lie about the helicopter of doom

[g_bambino]

Do you honestly expect people to believe his spokesperson's story about this being a SAR exercise when he already was on one 12 months previously?

I expect people to behave rationally and to uphold the concept of innocent until proven guilty. If there's doubt around the story that there was a three-year attempt on the part of the latter flight crew to get MacKay along on one of their training exercises, there's one place to go to very quickly settle it: the crew who took MacKay on the latter flight.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited December 6, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest Derek L]

Read the spokesperson quote again.

If Peter came out with this fact prior to this new story breaking then I will stand corrected.

Otherwise, it is what is called a lie of omission.

How is it pertinent to the story of being picked up on his most recent flight?

Edited December 6, 2011 by Derek L

[msj]

How is it pertinent to the story of being picked up on his most recent flight?

Now you are being obtuse. Read the links already presented; put two and two together....

[msj]

I expect people to behave rationally and to uphold the concept of innocent until proven guilty. If there's doubt around the story that there was a three-year attempt on the part of the latter flight crew to get MacKay along on one of their training exercises, there's one place to go to very quickly settle it: the crew who took MacKay on the latter flight.

[ed.: c/e]

That is the law; this is politics.

Many excuses have been made for Peter and all appear to be misleading upon the receipt of further information.

[olp1fan]

And people who chronically jump to conclusions are generally idiots.

why don't you grow a set and actually call me an idiot

[Guest Derek L]

Now you are being obtuse. Read the links already presented; put two and two together....

I already have read them.......I don’t see the relevance......But accusing one of lying, doesn’t make it fact.

[msj]

I already have read them.......I don’t see the relevance......But accusing one of lying, doesn’t make it fact.

I never said it was a fact.

You remind me of American Woman: I have to end each sentence with "in my opinion."

Yeah, like it shouldn't be obvious that it's my opinion.

Um, I'm the one making the statement....

Edited December 6, 2011 by msj

[olp1fan]

“After cancelling previous efforts to demonstrate their search-and-rescue capabilities to Minister MacKay over the course of three years, the opportunity for a simulated search and rescue exercise finally presented itself in July of 2010,” a Sept. 21 statement from Mr. MacKay’s office said.

BUT as you know a year or so before this he did join in a SAR?

Yeah, that IS lying

[msj]

“After cancelling previous efforts to demonstrate their search-and-rescue capabilities to Minister MacKay over the course of three years, the opportunity for a simulated search and rescue exercise finally presented itself in July of 2010,” a Sept. 21 statement from Mr. MacKay’s office said.

BUT as you know a year or so before this he did join in a SAR?

Yeah, that IS lying

Certainly is suspiciously misleading.

In my opinion.

[Guest Derek L]

I never said it was a fact.

You remind me of American Woman: I have to end each sentence with "in my opinion."

Yeah, like it shouldn't be obvious that it's my opinion.

Um, I'm the one making the statement....

Didn't you say:

And yet more fibbing

In that context, wouldn’t that suggest the MND was accused of (further) lying? Isn’t your post/opinion, in itself, misleading?

[olp1fan]

Certainly is suspiciously misleading.

In my opinion.

misleading is a kind word, this is an outright lie.. cancelling opportunities to go on a SAR for 3 years..yet he actually DID go on one

that definitely is lying

Edited December 6, 2011 by olp1fan

[WWWTT]

misleading is a kind word, this is an outright lie.. cancelling opportunities to go on a SAR for 3 years..yet he actually DID go on one

that definitely is lying

From what I have heard McKay was clearly caught in a lie.

I can't see how someone can twist that so it isn't?

WWWTT

[olp1fan]

From what I have heard McKay was clearly caught in a lie.

I can't see how someone can twist that so it isn't?

WWWTT

Derek is..but that is no surprise

[msj]

From what I have heard McKay was clearly caught in a lie.

I can't see how someone can twist that so it isn't?

WWWTT

It would be a lie by omission so one can make the case that Peter "forgot" about the SAR exercise he did go on etc etc...

But, yeah, I think it's clear deception hence my use of "fib" a few pages back. I should have been more precise in my language....

[olp1fan]

Going on a SAR isn't something you'd forget about in his position

I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt

[Guest Derek L]

It would be a lie by omission so one can make the case that Peter "forgot" about the SAR exercise he did go on etc etc...

But, yeah, I think it's clear deception hence my use of "fib" a few pages back. I should have been more precise in my language....

Why would one need to make the case that he “forgot” about any prior SAR flight(s)?

Was he asked if he’d been on more than one flight?

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[Guest Derek L]

dp

Edited December 6, 2011 by Derek L

[msj]

Why would one need to make the case that he “forgot” about any prior SAR flight(s)?

Was he asked if he’d been on more than one flight?

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

You don't know what a lie by omission is?

Really?

What other reason could Peter give for not correcting his spokesperson's earlier excuse?

The fact that Peter went on a SAR exercise 12 months prior to his personal flight (imo) for which his spokesperson tried to use Peter's lack of participation in said exercises as an excuse of the personal flight (imo) is highly relevant.

And highly convenient that Peter didn't bring it up.

In my opinion.

[g_bambino]

That is the law; this is politics.

Actually, this is a trial, in parliament and public opinion. The principle of presumed innocence before guilt should apply, therefore; even to a politician.

You've got scant information about what occurred over the past three years, and yet, still, you've somehow managed to come to a conclusion about exactly what happened and who's lying about what.

[ed.: +]

Edited December 6, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

why don't you grow a set and actually call me an idiot

Maybe for the same reason you didn't call anyone in particular a liar?

[blueblood]

Actually, this is a trial, in parliament and public opinion. The principle of presumed innocence before guilt should apply, therefore; even to a politician.

You've got scant information about what occurred over the past three years, and yet, still, you've somehow managed to come to a conclusion about exactly what happened and who's lying about what.

[ed.: +]

Everyone is presumed innocent in a court of public opinion, just that the trial, verdict, and sentencing move at light speed.

[Topaz]

Lets look at this on this one day, McKay had his vacation, speaking announcement in London On and the search and rescue demo all in one day????London had to be known ahead of time and his vacation was known but the sounds of the e-mail the search and rescue wasn't. I like to know how he got there?

[msj]

Actually, this is a trial, in parliament and public opinion. The principle of presumed innocence before guilt should apply, therefore; even to a politician.

You've got scant information about what occurred over the past three years, and yet, still, you've somehow managed to come to a conclusion about exactly what happened and who's lying about what.

[ed.: +]

Imagine if we all voted on such a basis.

Chretien and his cronies would all still be in power to this day.

[wyly]

from I read today in the G&M he clearly lied, the request for the flight was made 3 days before the actual flight so this wasn't a last moment rush to make a meeting... and he took part in a sar demo in the same place a year before which is why he knew the chopper could do the pick up...

[g_bambino]

Imagine if we all voted on such a basis.

Chretien and his cronies would all still be in power to this day.

There's no need to imagine; the Liberals did poorly in the election precisely because a prior inquiry sought to find the facts and showed that corrupt practices had indeed taken place. Innocence could no longer be presumed since the fact-based conclusion was guilt.