Wednesday, December 09, 2009

General Walter Natynczyk: Lying piece of shit.


I refuse to waste any humour on this worthless, lying scumbag:

General changes story on Taliban suspect

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, Canada's top military commander, is now saying a suspected Taliban fighter abused by Afghan police in June 2006 had been detained by Canadian troops, contrary to comments he made Tuesday.

"The individual who was beaten by the Afghan police was, in fact, in Canadian custody," Natynczyk told reporters in Ottawa on Wednesday.

Natynczyk had told a parliamentary committee that Canadian troops questioned the man who was picked up during operations in Zangabad. But Natynczyk said it was the Afghans who took him into custody.

On Wednesday, the defence staff chief said he has since received new information and has learned that Canadians had taken the suspect into custody before handing him over to the Afghans.

Or if he's not lying, he's an idiot. Either way, he should stop being a general, like, today.

LuLu here: With all due respect, I really must beg to differ with CC because I don't think for one second that this is a case of General Natynczyk being a "lying piece of shit". I think senior defence officials have finally decided they've taken just about all they're going to take of Peter "Torture? What torture?" MacKay and his continued attempts to toss the armed forces under the bus for his spectacular fuck-ups.

More importantly, I think MacKay is about to learn firsthand what it feels like to bring a knife to a gunfight. Popcorn anyone?

CC here: Hmmmmm ... well, if Natynczyk is now refusing to be thrown under a bus, that suggests that he knew he was lying before, no? Quite simply, I don't buy that Natynczyk just found out about this. Either he was lying before, or he's lying now.

Make no mistake -- I couldn't be happier that Natynczyk's had enough of Peter MacKay. But it seems his ethical outrage comes a wee bit late and is mostly a matter of personal convenience and self-preservation.

LuLu again: Um ... no. I was not even remotely suggesting that Natynczyk was lying then or now so we'll have to agree to disagree about this one, CC.

Natynczyk has been CDS for just over a year and a half and it's more than plausible that he had no prior knowledge of this occurrence report -- remember boys and girls, this all took place on Hillier's watch.

6 comments:

liberal supporter said...

I agree with Lulu. Looks like the general decided "that's all I can stands, and I can't stands no more".

I think MacKay is toast. They'll try very hard to channel change, maybe even threaten an election.

Ti-Guy said...

Natynczyk has been CDS for just over a year and a half and it's more than plausible that he had no prior knowledge of this occurrence report -- remember boys and girls, this all took place on Hillier's watch.

She has a point, CC.

sooey said...

And it's not like Natynczyk was behind the campaign to smear the only truth-teller in town. I want those fuckers drawn and quartered.

Doctor Cynic said...

So what's the punishment for perjury in front of Parliament? Anyone? I expect the head of the Canadian Forces to be made an example of.

Ti-Guy said...

So what's the punishment for perjury in front of Parliament?

There isn't any, as far as I know. Parliament's authority isn't judicial.

I stand to be corrected.

Dave said...

I agree with LuLu on this. Natynczyk was VCDS when all this was brewing and, given the role of that position, there is every likelihood this information flowed around him and not through him.

Keep in mind that Hillier was creator of the Strategic Joint Staff Group which effectively dropped a cone of silence on anything Afghanistan which might prove embarrassing or nasty.

NDHQ is a weird place where strange things happen. People couch questions to others in all types of gobbledygook to avoid being in possession of an answer which might make them responsible for something they were not originally aware. If you suspect something and start asking questions which others view as a possible future embarrassment, you end up cut off and accused of "questioning the honour, authority or veracity" of some general without substantive evidence. Thus, as VCDS, it's very likely, even with information drifting about which would raise suspicions, Natynczyk did not raise questions with either Hillier nor the operational commander (who was then outside the VCDS sphere of responsibility) for fear of being ostracized.

As unbelievable as it may sound, there is a real possibility that the now-CDS did not get his hands on an occurrence report written by a sgt in the field until Tuesday night.

There is another little thing. It is up to the minister to ask the tough questions of the CF by way of Ministerial Inquiry. Once one of those is initiated, all stops are pulled and honest, substantiated answers are required. From listening to Natynczyk, it is clear that MacKay never asked the CDS a direct question on this matter. And, given the NDHQ doctrine of "Don't offer answers to questions the minister has not asked," Natynczyk would not have sought details of an event which had passed into history without being compelled to do so.

There needs to be shone a light in two directions. A bright one on Hillier. Some of his activities were clearly beyond the scope of his office. And, on the Commander of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command at the time of questionable prisoner transfers, MGen Michel Gauthier.