Is MacKay a liar or can't count,?

[Topaz]

We all know about the difference in figures for the F-35, well MacKay has done it again with the mission in Libya. He reported in the House that the cost for the war was $50 Mil- 10 mil less than DND had predicted. What has been found in the DND report is it cost Canada $347.5 MILLION! 25 million for all those bombs the military dropped. So what is the Speaker going to say about this one?? http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/True+cost+Libya+mission+seven+times+estimate+documents/6601885/story.html

[cybercoma]

This is just getting ridiculous.

Open and transparent? Like hell.

[mentalfloss]

Taking over government is becoming a walk in the palk for the NDP.

[WWWTT]

I particularly look at the "above operating cost" for the mission that is at 100 million.

Misleading Canadians by 50 mill. is shame full!

I wouldn't trust McKay with a freekin penny!

WWWTT

[Moonlight Graham]

MacKay and the CPC gov know that Canadians aren't the most supportive of spending big dough on military toys and adventures, so of course they must lie. MacKay is a lying sack of potatoes. He's wasting even more taxpayer money having to set up committees to investigate this nonsense. Like those potatoes, he should be sacked, or resign. He works for us, not against us.

[Smallc]

This is...strange. I was a pretty big defender of MacKay, but, it's getting harder.

[Moonlight Graham]

This is...strange. I was a pretty big defender of MacKay...

Why?

[Smallc]

Why?

I always thought he was a pretty smart middle of the road guy. Now I'm not sure what to think.

[waldo]

This is...strange. I was a pretty big defender of MacKay, but, it's getting harder.

just close your eyes and let the stench waft right over you... then remember

Freedom isn’t free

[Guest Derek L]

I always thought he was a pretty smart middle of the road guy. Now I'm not sure what to think.

Don’t lose your faith…….LOL…….I’m sure these new scathing numbers are sunk costs that we’d have paid anyway……..Let’s see……..An average of 500-600 personal deployed for just under 8 months, say each non commissioned member, using a conservative estimate, makes ~$5000 a month and each officer about ~$7000 a month……….Let’s estimate between the ships crew and air force component there’s ~50 officers and 500 non commissioned members…..So that leaves us:

5000 x 7.5 x 500 = S 18750000

7000 x 7.5 x 50 = $ 2625000

There’s 21+ million, without counting benefits, danger pay, and any supporting personal back in Canada…….Now do these “new figures” also include a portion of the operating costs of the deployed unit’s home bases? Base personal? I’d truly love to see a breakdown of both the “old” and “new” costs…..

[Bryan]

I always thought he was a pretty smart middle of the road guy. Now I'm not sure what to think.

I'd wait before passing judgement. The other opposition/MSM accusations against him so far have turned out to be false. The chances that they're telling the truth this time is so remote, it's not worth wasting time thinking about anymore. They have a knack for adding in fixed costs for gotcha effect.

[cybercoma]

See, it's the CPC. Wait until you pass judgement.

You guys are pretty transparent and your MO is pretty sad.

[waldo]

We all know about the difference in figures for the F-35, well MacKay has done it again with the mission in Libya. He reported in the House that the cost for the war was $50 Mil- 10 mil less than DND had predicted. What has been found in the DND report is it cost Canada $347.5 MILLION! 25 million for all those bombs the military dropped.

True cost of Libya mission was seven times gov't. estimate

As of Oct. 13, the figures that I've received have us well below ($60 million), somewhere under $50 million," MacKay told the CBC on Oct. 28, three days before the mission officially ended. "And that's the all-up costs of the equipment that we have in the theatre, the transportation to get there, those that have been carrying out this critical mission."

But buried in a report tabled in the House of Commons this week are Defence Department figures pegging the full cost of the mission at more than $347.5 million.

Even taking into account the Defence Department's controversial practice of only reporting "incremental costs" — those deemed to be above and beyond normal operating expenses — the mission still came in at $100 million, or almost twice what MacKay claimed

.

I'd wait before passing judgement. The other opposition/MSM accusations against him so far have turned out to be false. The chances that they're telling the truth this time is so remote, it's not worth wasting time thinking about anymore. They have a knack for adding in fixed costs for gotcha effect.

I guess you haven't been following the purposeful JSFail F-35 low-ball manipulation, hey? As for Libya, can someone make sense of the OP linked quote... of the real numbers? Anyone? Are Maverick or the Goose on standby?

Don’t lose your faith…….LOL…….I’m sure these new scathing numbers are sunk costs that we’d have paid anyway……..Let’s see……..An average of 500-600 personal deployed for just under 8 months, say each non commissioned member, using a conservative estimate, makes ~$5000 a month and each officer about ~$7000 a month……….Let’s estimate between the ships crew and air force component there’s ~50 officers and 500 non commissioned members…..So that leaves us:

5000 x 7.5 x 500 = S 18750000

7000 x 7.5 x 50 = $ 2625000

There’s 21+ million, without counting benefits, danger pay, and any supporting personal back in Canada…….Now do these “new figures” also include a portion of the operating costs of the deployed unit’s home bases? Base personal? I’d truly love to see a breakdown of both the “old” and “new” costs…..

well Mav, if you're going to try to chisel away at that $347 Million "full cost" figure, your $21 Million math wizardry barely makes a dent. In any case, war hawks keep tripping over the "full cost" versus "incremental cost" thingees. Even if you want to go with "incremental costs" (the cost for personnel and equipment that would not have been incurred if there was no Canadian Forces Libyan operation), per the OP quote, the $100 million actual incremental cost figure is twice what MacKay reported to Parliament. Double the incremental cost... but hey now, what did MLW member 'Bryan' just say?

as for the source of those OP reported numbers... fully available on the National Defence and the Canadian Forces website... although I do note the page has a 'Date Modified: 2012-05-09' notation... just sayin

[Guest Manny]

Besides "liar" and "can't count", a third option is "incompetent".

[Topaz]

Besides "liar" and "can't count", a third option is "incompetent".

OR, he knows Harper will never can him and he feels he can do whatever he wants. At least, his dad knew when to resign.

[DogOnPorch]

I guess you haven't been following the purposeful JSFail F-35 low-ball manipulation, hey? As for Libya, can someone make sense of the OP linked quote... of the real numbers? Anyone? Are Maverick or the Goose on standby?

well Mav, if you're going to try to chisel away at that $347 Million "full cost" figure, your $21 Million math wizardry barely makes a dent. In any case, war hawks keep tripping over the "full cost" versus "incremental cost" thingees. Even if you want to go with "incremental costs" (the cost for personnel and equipment that would not have been incurred if there was no Canadian Forces Libyan operation), per the OP quote, the $100 million actual incremental cost figure is twice what MacKay reported to Parliament. Double the incremental cost... but hey now, what did MLW member 'Bryan' just say?

as for the source of those OP reported numbers... fully available on the National Defence and the Canadian Forces website... although I do note the page has a 'Date Modified: 2012-05-09' notation... just sayin

Perhaps with proper avionics and threat detection, that new Sukhoi 100 airliner wouldn't have tried going through a 7000 ft mountain @ 6000 ft. But, what's a few lives in the long-run? We want to save cash, here!

[waldo]

Perhaps with proper avionics and threat detection, that new Sukhoi 100 airliner wouldn't have tried going through a 7000 ft mountain @ 6000 ft. But, what's a few lives in the long-run? We want to save cash, here!

good to know what you equate the "Libyan mission" to!

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps with proper avionics and threat detection, that new Sukhoi 100 airliner wouldn't have tried going through a 7000 ft mountain @ 6000 ft. But, what's a few lives in the long-run? We want to save cash, here!

No way...only those stoopid Americans would waste so much money for such a thing. Collision avoidance and fancy avionics is just more blood sucking by the Pentagon and eeevil Military Industrial Complex.

[DogOnPorch]

good to know what you equate the "Libyan mission" to!

I get that you wish to rid Canada of its evil military. Trust the Chinese. They want only the best for us.

[DogOnPorch]

No way...only those stoopid Americans would waste so much money for such a thing. Collision avoidance and fancy avionics is just more blood sucking by the Pentagon and eeevil Military Industrial Complex.

[Guest Derek L]

I guess you haven't been following the purposeful JSFail F-35 low-ball manipulation, hey? As for Libya, can someone make sense of the OP linked quote... of the real numbers? Anyone? Are Maverick or the Goose on standby?

well Mav, if you're going to try to chisel away at that $347 Million "full cost" figure, your $21 Million math wizardry barely makes a dent. In any case, war hawks keep tripping over the "full cost" versus "incremental cost" thingees. Even if you want to go with "incremental costs" (the cost for personnel and equipment that would not have been incurred if there was no Canadian Forces Libyan operation), per the OP quote, the $100 million actual incremental cost figure is twice what MacKay reported to Parliament. Double the incremental cost... but hey now, what did MLW member 'Bryan' just say?

as for the source of those OP reported numbers... fully available on the National Defence and the Canadian Forces website... although I do note the page has a 'Date Modified: 2012-05-09' notation... just sayin

I was let down when your link didn’t go to DND……..Anywho, I wonder if the new figure also included the purchase of these.

Canadian warplanes have dropped 240 laser-guided bombs on Libya so far in the NATO-led mission, according to the military.

Earlier this month, the military published a request to buy 1,300 new $100,000 laser-guided bombs, reportedly all for use in the Libyan campaign.

1300 x 100000 = $ 130000000........Plus my Conservative estimate for the deployed personal only…… What, we're 2/3rds the way there without counting any personal within Canada that supported the mission in some way, and the a portion of the operating costs of five air force bases, and two naval bases......

And did you hear this Waldo?

A Lockheed engineer is probably the last person you'd expect to break the news of a Hollywood mega-blockbuster sequel, but here we go! Flightglobal is reporting Top Gun 2 is not only happening, but starring Tom Cruise (!) as an F-35 pilot. Ha!

Edited May 12, 2012 by Derek L

[bleeding heart]

Yowza.

Some of the conservative supporters around here are not only the most defensively partisan folks I've witnessed...no small achievement...

.....they're friggin' statists! Big time. (Non-military tax dollars aside, of course, yes, yes.)

Who woulda thunk it?

[Jack Weber]

Is Peter MacKay a liar???

Ask David Orchard.....

[waldo]

Is Peter MacKay a liar???

Ask David Orchard.....

I'll take the easy lay-up

You know, I wonder if she talked to David Orchard before she signed the marriage certificate....

... apparently...

the $77,000 agreement!

[waldo]

well Mav, if you're going to try to chisel away at that $347 Million "full cost" figure, your $21 Million math wizardry barely makes a dent. In any case, war hawks keep tripping over the "full cost" versus "incremental cost" thingees. Even if you want to go with "incremental costs" (the cost for personnel and equipment that would not have been incurred if there was no Canadian Forces Libyan operation), per the OP quote, the $100 million actual incremental cost figure is twice what MacKay reported to Parliament. Double the incremental cost... but hey now, what did MLW member 'Bryan' just say?

as for the source of those OP reported numbers... fully available on the National Defence and the Canadian Forces website... although I do note the page has a 'Date Modified: 2012-05-09' notation... just sayin

I wonder if the new figure also included the purchase of these.

1300 x 100,000 = $ 130,000,000........Plus my Conservative estimate for the deployed personal only…… What, we're 2/3rds the way there without counting any personal within Canada that supported the mission in some way, and the a portion of the operating costs of five air force bases, and two naval bases......

you really need to make up your mind - you're adamantly opposed to discussing full costs when talking about the F-35, but you want to keep coming back to the full costs number for bombing Libya... apparently you have difficulty actually focusing on the operational costs of bombing Libya! As for your latest display of MavMath, this threads OP (and just about all media coverage) highlights DND advising the total cost spent on bombs was $25 million... no matter what your MavMath wizardry comes up with. If a humongous number of "bombs for Canadian defence" (/snarc) were purchased, I would be interested in you coming up with the official DND accounting practice that allows the cost to be credited towards the "Libyan campaign"... if they weren't dropped... during the "Libyan campaign".

in any case, per the thread title, per the DND itself, we can say, yes! Peter MacKay is a liar.

Military brass says MacKay knew full estimated cost of Libya mission

Already under fire over the cost of the F-35 fighter, Defence Minister Peter MacKay found himself fighting a second front Friday following confirmation he knew the Libya mission would cost tens of millions more than he told Canadians.

"He knew the estimates, for sure," Maj.-Gen. Jon Vance said. "In fact, he presents the estimates to cabinet. So yes, the minister would have known what the all-up estimated costs of the mission could be."

And did you hear this Waldo?

yes, yes I did read about Hollywood resurrecting yet another ode to pubescent testosterone release. But thanks for the gimme... was your link reference a... "preemptive strike"?

The bizarre news, centered around a movie that doesn't even have an IMDB page and a broken airplane, is taking a little bit to process here. The first question: what will Tom Cruise do? Stand on a runway, staring at his grounded F-35? Will the F-35 be a metaphor for some kind of personal growth? Is the Tom Cruise Lockheed is talking about the same Tom Cruise? Will he fix all of the plane's electrical problems to get the girl?

The film, if it does hit production next month as Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin F-35 program manager claims, the writers will have an even greater challenge than the plane's engineers—you can only make a defective, trillion-dollar paperweight so exciting. I can see it now: Maverick is sitting, Four Loko lodged into his beer gut, watching the air war of Libya thunder away, as his F-35 sits outside under a tarp. Fade to black. Begin volleyball scene. Val Kilmer looks better than ever. Chests glistening like so many unused guided bombs. OFFRAMP TO THE SAFETY ZONE.