The "depth" of Canadian military reporting
Should you wish to see some important factors overlooked in a recent CP story, follow the comments to this topic of mine at Milnet.ca:
Hillier nixed Air Force 2005 plans for Hornets, Griffons in Afstan
3 Comments:
Should you wish to see some important factor news items overlooked in Blog that normally reports on anything to do with the Canadian Military and especially with its mission in Afghanistan, take note on how The Torch failed to write anything about this story which is being talked about everywhere else:
Christmas in Kandahar to peddle US foreign policy
Canadian General Contradicts Peter MacKay (who is repeating American propaganda)
Where Did Peter MacKay Get His 'Information' On Iranian Weapons?
Peter MacKay Needs To Set Record Straight On Iran?
The writer on The Torch" like to accuse other of being partial. Lets hear about Peter McKay's' accusation about Iran supplied IED's and General Hainse's comments about that statement.
Or is this particular subject censored on this Blog?
Taxpayer, you're on thin ice, here.
We accuse those who hide behind "professional journalistic objectivity" of not being truly objective. We make no pretensions to that ideal ourselves. We're pro-CF. Each of us who contributes here has his own opinion of the Afghan mission, and of the politics that control that mission.
I won't apologize for our slant around here, because, unlike the MSM, we're up front about it.
If all you're looking to do is snipe at us, feel free to do it somewhere other than here.
Babbling Brooks, I have to admit, that was a straight forward and honest reply. I like that.
But it would have been better to speak out, as General Haines did (and like General Hillier did not) when one makes such false and reckless accusations that may well put CF troops in harms way. That would be a pro-CF attitude, I would think. To remain silent on such an issue is not in the CF's best interest (if that is what you mean when you claim to be "pro-CF"
Post a Comment
<< Home