Tricky Dicks

Now, I ask you… is this the face of a lying douchebag?

Or (not to go all Glenn Beck on you here), perhaps just that of a more-than-willing “fall guy” for an elaborate hoax? After all, this weird little flap is, as Ignatieff rightly said “bizarro” in every respect.

According to Sun TV’s “star” bloviators and squad of sleeveless fembots, they should be commended for having performed the bare minimum of due diligence needed to arrive at the totally fucking obvious conclusion that the rather strange photo and concocted story attached to it was patently bogus. Moreover (again, according to Sun TV), they should be lauded for then refusing to print or broadcast it as “news” on their pathetic right-wing agit-prop channel… Bravo, Sun News!

At the same time however, in classic tabloid fashion, they sort of got to screw their cake and eat it too in terms of puffing up this ridiculous allegation for a few days worth of reckless discussion casting vague doubts about the Liberal leader’s past activities vis-à-vis the Iraq War, suggesting perhaps he was even a nefarious “secret foreign agent” of some kind… yet all the while ostentatiously pretending to take the journalistic high ground and distance themselves from the accusations being vigorously hinted at.

What a brilliantly played little charade.

Advertisements

22 Comments

Filed under 2011 Canadian Election, Iraq War, Media Bias, Michael Ignatieff

22 responses to “Tricky Dicks

  1. And all it could do is shift votes to the NDP from the Liberals. A week ago, maybe, Conservatives thought it would be a good idea. But these days, the Conservatives are likely losing seats to the NDP, and not gaining much from a vote split.

    I agree that it’s bizarre that they ever looked at this seriously. Iggy all geared up with an assault rifle? Military protect VIPs. They don’t arm them and dress them up like a soldier.

  2. It’s beyond ridiculous that anyone took this allegation seriously for even a moment. Presuming that Harper’s former aide/strategist isn’t a complete fucking IDIOT, then other explanations need to be provided. Or not… maybe it’s simply a case of Harper surrounding himself with IDIOTS.

  3. On an even more shallow level, Iggy looks like Hulk Hogan in that picture. I can’t imagine it fooling anyone in a thousand years.

  4. tofkw

    maybe it’s simply a case of Harper surrounding himself with IDIOTS.

    Well I’ve always considered the CPofC’s brain trust (an oxymoron of biblical proportions) as being nothing but a room full of drunken frat-boys. And drunken frat-boys are idiots in my books, so…

  5. Gayle

    This whole episode is a farce. I believe it was designed to give the impression the CPC and Sun Media are not holding hands, even though it is blatently obvious they are.

    I think they got caught and threw him under the bus – as per their usual conduct.

    Muttart works out of the US. He tried to play a dirty trick on the LPC campaign. Makes me think of those fake LPC campaign calls being made in some of the close Ontario ridings. They were said to be originating out of the US too.

  6. jkg

    Yes, however, but this sort of means that PKP is covering himself given the reversal of electoral trends now. Moreover, this is sort of a poison pill, really. This, by secondary effect, keeps the “Just Visiting” meme planted in the minds of voters. After all, if this story never came to light, why bother make this point right now? We now the Sun leans right, so what is the added point of this spectacle?

  7. CWTF

    Given the way that the Cons have been behaving while in power; seeing how far they could get away with new lies, does this really come as a surprise?

    I could imagine that the conbraintrust thought it was a good idea until an adult intervened. Now, it does make you wonder how long they have been doing this disinformation campaign… Oh wait, they never stopped.

  8. jkg

    Btw, CWTF , you sure have a lot of guts to challenge Dawg over at his place. You are like the lone dissenter now given this new found euphoria for the NDP and continual hatred for Ignatieff.

  9. Political Operations for both the CPC and LPC have been lifted out of US Playbooks for some time now. The LPC strated doing this in the 1960’s and the “Conservatives” started exploring this in response under Mulroney. Harper made it mandatory to import these strategies.

    It’s enough to make one violently nauseous.

  10. CWTF

    jkg, I have never been a fan of Ignatieff and quite vocal about it.
    He has surprised this election, not enough to vote Liberal, but enough to like him when he is unconstrained by his handlers.

    As it has been pointed out, having the NDP as the possible opposition party will make the next session interesting.

    As for Dawg, he does seem rather jubilant as the thought of the NDP good fortunes. I fear that he may be in for a hangover, much like Ontario after Rae.
    His posts are usually neutral on most subjects. Now it they just seem blindly partisan as those from the Blogging Tories: farcical with little humour. I’m sure he will recover.

  11. jkg

    jkg, I have never been a fan of Ignatieff and quite vocal about it.

    I know, which is why given the shift on Dipper bloggers makes even Ignatieff skeptics look like Liberal partisans. Though, I suppose when the Dippers have such great success, they should be jubilant. It is nice to see the principled protest party have to climb down once and awhile and join the fray will all the other power hungry parties, you know.

  12. Brent Fullard

    Brilliant? Yes, only for those brain dead enough to fall for it.

    Meanwhile why (apart from being brain dead themselves) would the CONservatives want to raise the spectre of support for the equally brain dead and ill-fated invasion of Iraq, if not to remind Canadians of this shameful act of Stephen Harper = George Bush’s lap dog:

    Canadians Stand With You
    Wall Street Journal | 3/28/03 |

    By STEPHEN HARPER and STOCKWELL DAY

    Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.

    This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need. The Canadian Alliance — the official opposition in parliament — supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values. Disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, and for the collective interests of our key historic allies and therefore manifestly in the national interest of Canada. Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada’s largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us.

    But we will not be with the Canadian government.

    Modern Canada was forged in large part by war — not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century — against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism — Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way. We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That is why we will stand — and I believe most Canadians will stand with us — for these higher values which shaped our past, and which we will need in an uncertain future.

    Messrs. Harper and Day are the leader and shadow foreign minister, respectively, of the Canadian Alliance.

  13. Political Operations for both the CPC and LPC have been lifted out of US Playbooks for some time now.

    I hope you’ll not mind a minor codicil to that (largely accurate) point. The brilliant Allister Grosart, Diefenbaker’s late-‘50s and early-‘60s campaign manager, is widely regarded as the first Canadian political operative to apply to our politics the kind of Madison Avenue techniques that had been applied in the U.S. for decades before then, the most significant of which was the modern form of the “politics of vision” (in Dief’s case, the Northern Vision), which, though an American staple, had not been seen in Canada since Macdonald’s National Policy. Let’s not forget, too, that Bennett’s radio addresses, designed to sell his version of the New Deal as the 1935 election grew near, were modeled on FDR’s wildly successful radio “fireside chats”.

    As for your link, the fact that this “smart border” nonsense has been completely absent from this election’s discourses (with even the allegedly nationalist NDP ignoring it completely) merely reinforces my earlier comments about the election’s parochialism and triviality. Who’s got time to worry about the sell-out of Canadian nationhood when there’s so much more to be said about pernicious Interac charges and income splitting?

  14. jkg

    I hope you’ll not mind a minor codicil to that (largely accurate) point. The brilliant Allister Grosart,

    Even with my interest in history in which I actually am aware of such ‘elitist’ things like The Imperial Conference, who Viscount Willingdon or the Duke of Devonshire actually are, I always bow to your impressive knowledge of Canadian history, Sir Francis. Perchance, are you very knowledgeable history teacher? I say knowledgeable because I have known some who simply taught out of the textbook and probably wouldn’t be able to tell me what The Statute of Westminster meant in Canadian history.

    Who’s got time to worry about the sell-out of Canadian nationhood when there’s so much more to be said about pernicious Interac charges and income splitting?

    Quite ironically, the only time in which an issue that would have national scope as opposed to the quasi-Randist “what’s in it for me” approaches was the fact that Harper criticized Layton for opposing the Free Trade agreements. Of course, we whiplashed back to our regularly scheduled program of sound bites and populist platitudes quite quickly. One thing is rather quite laughable is that the border integration is argued as a ‘cost-cutting’ or ‘streamlining’ measure, which is ironic because I am supposed to believe that there is an actual need to invest more in border defense via the purchase of those shiny planes. I don’t think there is any more evidence needed to demonstrate the continentalist indulgences here. Mulroney foisted NAFTA only to have the Americans renege on it at their leisure, and now, we abrogate more operational control in the border while attempting to please the Americans demand that we defend our airspace to their standards due, in part, with our ongoing alliance in NORAD.

    And the thrust of the reasoning is cost? I am sorry, but I am finding increasingly tiresome for the same intellectually stunted born-again Randists running around and waving their neoliberal finger telling people to “make sacrifices” and “pull up the bootstraps” only to turn around and frame policies on in such an ego-centric and philistine manner, abandoning any semblance of concern for the nation as a whole (and if anybody thinks that weakening the federal government would do wonders like the CPC is aiming to do, I have beach front property in Alert for you).

    Quite simply, this election has proved to be a testament to the banality of chimerically ‘rational” self-interest.

  15. jkg

    Hey Red, it appears my comment got stuck in your moderation pen. Could you fish it out for me? Thank you.

  16. Sir Francis …

    Not at all. I do aim to be “largely accurate.”

    ATY

  17. JKG:

    Excellent comment, there. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to address it sooner; I’ve been waiting for Red to release it from quarantine!

    Have you read the news? It appears Stevie accidentally gave the election some substance today when he warned Canadians that his “border agreement” will be jeopardized if he doesn’t get his majority. What a shame that we had to wait for that shameless narcissist to crow about what is arguably his most spurious and anti-democratic “achievement” in order to have someone broach an issue that should have been a ballot question from Day One. Let’s see if any of the Opposition have the balls to respond, “Precisely: your backroom Orwellian border deal will be the first component of your rancid legacy to go”.

    As to your question, I teach English literature and am only an amateur historian—though, frankly, I’ve come to believe that all historians are amateurs.

  18. jkg

    You know, SF, it does make me wonder why such issues are brushed aside only to have those who raise them be branded as irrelevant fossils of a ‘fanciful past.’ Poor Shiner got the “I used be to a Red Tory but…” from Peter over on Shiner’s blog. You might want to give it a check, though I suppose I should get used to even Conservatives embracing geo-political modernity because at my tender age, I supposedly sound like a octagenerian. Still, Peter’s take intrigues me because one of his premises is that MacDonald’s vision exemplified by Western expansion was largely an Imperial venture as if though to negate or undercut the claim that MacDonald had an actual vision for Canada. A few things come to mind. I can accept that imperialistic undertones that surround the geo-politics of early Canada, but I don’t necessarily see that as making MacDonald’s vision any less substantive. If anything, I would argue that it was that within the echoes of imperialism in which a distinct and significant national vision was conceived by MacDonald. How could it not? The whole point of Loyalists, in my opinion, was to preserve the British legacy, which necessitated expansion. Was the vision of Wilhelm I any less ambitious and overarching because of Unification Wars? Anyway, it just got me thinking.

  19. JKG:

    I used to be a Shiner semi-regular and witnessed his tussles with Peter. They were nothing, though, compared to the epic pitched battles Peter and I bled through (with Ti-Guy sniping away) over at my blog during 2008-2009. We still lock horns occasionally over at Dawg’s. And I presume we’ll go at it again as soon as I lift my ass off the proverbial couch and reanimate Dred Tory.

    Peter is basically a lapsed George Grant disciple. And if you’ve ever encountered the evangelical paganism of a lapsed Catholic, you’ll know what that means. Peter and I actually manage to agree on much, but he can’t abide my anti-Americanism, and so I play it up as much as possible when I think he might be lurking, which is just about all the time.

    The notion that Macdonald’s nation-building was a form of violently centralising imperialism is Prairie bellyaching boilerplate and appears to sit awkwardly with people who don’t seem to mind real violent imperialism, like James Madison’s and Andrew Jackson’s (and, let’s face it, Abraham Lincoln’s). Peter might have been kindly disposed to Canadian “expansionism” too if his generation had had to preserve their homeland from an unprovoked and ruthlessly prosecuted U.S. invasion that came within inches of success.

    Sir John A.’s National Policy was an NEP avant la lettre to these folks, to whom the sacrifices required for the industrial growth of Canada (in an era when Americans were rabidly protectionist, quite irrespective of our own oscillating trade postures) weren’t worth making Prairie farmers pay a few dollars more if they insisted on buying their tractors from a Chicago manufacturer rather than an Ontarian one. Frankly, this view is really just a genteel cover for a fundamentally anti-Canadian attitude that they’re unwilling to announce explicitly.

    The fact is that Macdonald’s vision of Canada sat squarely in a line of descent going all the way back to Simcoe and Carleton (remember that Sir John A. began his public career as a pro-Family Compact Tory, basically an ultra-Loyalist) and that this vision had to be unfolded in the teeth of persistent American sullenness and belligerence, on territory the Americans considered their own by divine right, protected by a few thousand under-trained local militia and indifferent British regulars. Nothing of what he did can be properly understood if approached outside of that (rather frightening) context.

  20. Sorry to all who have had their comments bunged into my spam locker for some reason. I’m never quite certain what triggers it off… could be the length, or certain words based on filters that have been set up in the past. It’s normally not a problem if I’m checking it all the time, but I’ve been so busy of late that I attend to it as quickly as I’d like.

    Again… my apologies. I know how frustrating it can be to put a lot of thought into a comment only to see it go into limbo for no apparent reason.

  21. rjm

    I really suspect that there were more dirty tricks in this election that we are not aware of. Consider the NDP ‘sweep’. (I’m not against the NDP) This is just too suspicious. 2 weeks before the election Sun TV starts SUPPORTING Jack Layton and the NDP. They ding the Cons a few times and make Jack their fav leader. At the same time students who have never voted before are all of a sudden in love with Layton. Either there was a genius social network marketer in the NDP, or they had some ‘help’ from an outsider. Con vote barely went up in this election yet they swept a majority. In Toronto and Mississauga the NDP tide stole votes from the Liberals.

    Now we are left with a majority Con gov and NO effective opposition.

    Someone should really look into some of the NDP candidates – those that had no chance of winning, no organization, no campaign, no telephones, no signs. And they win by 5000 votes. Who really signed those nomination papers? Look into those candidates carefully and you may find little blue instigators.
    .
    Just my 2cents.
    rm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s