Good golly, it was only days ago that right-wing shill and partisan hack Sandy Crux was getting all moist over her hero Stephen Harper and his "accomplishments" ... like this one:
16. Approved Manley Report on Afghanistan and extended mission until 2011;
Yes, that's certainly something to brag about. Or at least it was until ... well, let's let Sandy give you the depressing new developments:
Manley says Cdns still in dark about Afghanistan
While I normally have immense respect for John Manley, I am a little puzzled over his recent remarks. In an interview with CBC he apparently complained that Canadians were still in the dark about the Afghanistan mission. Suggesting, of course, that the recommendations in his panel’s report that the prime minister be more forthcoming with information, was not being followed.
Yeah, that's a bit odd, since it puts Sandy in the awkward position of bragging about an "accomplishment" that we, the public, really still don't quite grok. And how does Sandy propose to salvage the situation? Oh:
Well, I for one am not in the dark any more than at any other time in my life when our troops have been in harms way. In fact, I would ask just how much any government, liberal or conservative, can tell the population without giving away information to the enemy?
Ah, I see. So ... we can all take pride in the Manley Report and its implications, except when we actually want to know what those implications are, but telling you might gave away important security secrets to the bad people, so we can't and, therefore, you'll have to take our word for it. Translation: "I wish I could tell you ... ooooh, if you only knew what I knew."
Luckily, this still counts as an "accomplishment," and Sandy's good with that. Which is all that matters. But if you want to know more, you can follow Sandy's link to this website, where everything you need to know is available to the reading public. Even, curiously enough, to the bad people.
Is any of this making sense?
Let me add some links for you.
http://www.unama-afg.org/news/_londonConf/_docs/06jan30-AfghanistanCompact-Final.pdf (warning PDF file)
Just to name a few.
All that cutting and pasting and he still can't make a link. How "alpha" of him.
And way to miss the point.
Regarding Mrs. Crock-o-Shit, at the risk of being repetitive, what a useless douchebag.
Speaking of missing the point.
Blogging is not my strong suite, but any time you wish to step on to a rile range with me and try to out shoot me, please feel free.
Instead of insults, perhaps our learned member could instead suggest how to put up a proper link on this forum? I know for someone with such a high IQ as yourself RT, that such instruction must be easy for you.
Oh, and since you missed it, my post was to illustrate that both are wrong.
Re-readig my last, it could possibly be misinterpreted as something I did not mean. I only meant an exchange of specialites, a change of forums, where I would be more comfortable...
On a rifle range (love my keyboard and the occasional missed keystroke), all shooters face the same direction, and the targets are inanimate (side from mechanical assistance).
(a href="http://www.whatever.com/">Insert text here(/a)
Replace parenthesis with < and > brackets.
Simply pointing people in the direction of sites like Foreign Affairs and DoD proves what exactly? They're not terribly illuminating about the actual state of affairs in Afghanistan.
First, and sincerely drunk... Thanks (I do not make a very good regigious wibng nut),,, I hope to point out that there is more info then the MSM provides... We publish to net, but do no follow through. Sorry, but must sleep now... And dream about that red head hopefully.
Whoa... Did I write that? Worse then my usual key mashing I see...
Post a Comment