'Obviously we have not signed a contract' - Macleans.ca

‘Obviously we have not signed a contract’


Stephen Harper, November 3, 2010.  We are going to need to replace the aircraft at the end of this decade, and the party opposite knows that. But instead, for the sake of getting the anti-military vote on the left, with the NDP and the Bloc, the Liberals are playing this game. The mistake is theirs. It would be a mistake to rip up this contract for our men and women in uniform as well as the aerospace industry.

Stephen Harper, todayObviously at some point, the [CF-18] planes will reach the end of their useful life. At some point we will have to make a final decision, but obviously we have not signed a contract so that we can retain our flexibility in terms of ensuring the best deal for taxpayers.


‘Obviously we have not signed a contract’

  1. Another “Obviously” moment from Our Glorious Leader.

    • Yes, his high use of that word is proof that he is Evil Incarnate.

      • Obviously.

      • I thought you sort of liked him. What happened?

        • He still does — it’s a passive-aggressive dig at my comment.

    • I am so f*ckin’ sick of conservatives defending lies and deception.  Is this what you wanted from your government when you voted them in?  I mean, really? 

      There never was a contract, as Liberals have pointed out for years.  Why the pm seems determined to lie his way through the next four years is beyond me.  And why any decent person would defend a liar is inexplicable.  Nobody can trust a liar.

      • The loyalty gene overrides everything else it seems. 

        • For the life of me, Jan, I just don’t know how or why anyone would be loyal to an out-and-out (in-and-out?) liar. 

          • I know, why would anyone risk their own integrity defending someone who is dishonest. Imagine how Fantino is feeling today?

        • Steve Uber Alles.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Did I say that? No . But for many Cons it’s party before country. The reference seems appropriate.

          • Any comment on the F 35 climb down Bean?

          • In response to Jan’s question, I already gave my view on another thread.  Obviously, (just set ReGuest off) the Tories were full of bluster and bafflegab, and they’ve been spinning like crazy from the beginning.  And equally obviously (heh heh), this seems like a 180 degree turn from some of their previous statements on the issue.

            Having said that, as I mentioned on the other thread, if this project really is going to be ultimately problematic or inadvisable, then I’m glad to see the government backing off somewhat.  I haven’t followed the fine technical aspects of the F-35 as closely as some wonks have, though.

            To me, it’s comparable to the income trust decision:  I was disappointed when Harper & Co. made their initial silly promise not to touch them, and even though it represented a complete 180 degree turn, I was happy when they later reversed themselves and (IMO) made the right decision to increase the tax on them.

          • I agree, and it would be something to actually support the Conservatives on, if they’d just admitted they were wrong about having a signed contract all this time.  Something like this:  “Mr. Speaker, upon further review of our files, it turns out the “contract” for the F-35s was really just a memo of understanding.  So good news!  We can change our minds on the F-35s since it appears the jets will not suit our purpose and  are prohibitively expensive.  This means we need to source a different jet–those F-18s aren’t getting any younger–and would appreciate the opposition’s help in highlighting suitable candidates.”

            Okay, that last part was more wishful thinking on my part, but something akin to the beginning of that statement anyway.

          • I have no problem with Harper having his Damascus moment — it’s that happens on the road that ticks me off — denial, finger-pointing, name calling — the childish stuff.

          •  I am glad too. They have never explained how a single engine plane would be ideal for Arctic patrols.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Stale Liberal Talking Point repeated.

    • Comparing dumb with dumber does not a genius make my friend.

    • But Harper said he he would be so good at it.  So far, not so much.  Here’s a hint, don’t believe everything the sole source supplier tells you. 

  2. My gosh he is so like a Liberal he should change the lawn sign colours to red.

    • Now now! We ain’t talking about submarines here ya know. This goof’s all Harpers…no doubt he’ll do his best though to somehow pin this one on the LPC.

      • And let’s now forget Harper’s spending millions refurbishing them.

  3. Does look like the beginning of a walkback. A good thing, really. The F-35 purchase is looking worse and worse. I was surprised that the Conservatives defended it so strongly. Upgrading our F-18s and buying some more (to make up the hull losses over the years) from, e.g., the U.S.’s stock is looking more cost-effective.

  4. Obviously at some point, the [CF-18] planes will reach the end of their useful life. 

    I could’ve sworn we were certain the CF-18’s were going to fall from the sky in 2020 and it was desperately vital we replace them by then just a few months ago….

    • And we were told the F 35 was not only the best choice, it was the only choice, given the tasks it was needed for, which were never specified. 

  5. *Sigh* Another Liberal “scandal” that revolves around semantics. Clearly Stephen Harper is a liar because he used the word contract in 2010, when he really should have said Memorandum of Understanding. Why, the diabolical….

    • He knew exactly what he was saying, incorrectly.  There have been months on this point alone.  Nice try.

    • Once again, Steve Uber Alles.

      • Yes, if you ever defend anything the Conservative government ever says or any position that the government ever takes on anything, you are a blind, mindless sheep.

        Liberal Talking Point #19.

        • No, if you ever defend a defenceless anything the Conservative government ever says.  If you are defending something that isn’t a lie, plain wacko, or cruel, have at er.

        • Orson — I’m non-partisan and I’ll speak truth to any power. The Con pompom squad “obviously” has a problem with that. It’s called FREE SPEECH.

          • Yes, all Conservatives oppose free speech.  If the Conservatives ever get a majority, they’ll throw everybody who disagrees with them or criticizes them in jail.

            Ooops, ok, they already have a majority.

            If the Conservatives ever get a SECOND majority, they’ll throw everybody who disagrees with them or criticizes them in jail.

            I’m not making this up.

    • Rick, I’ve got to tell you: you remind me of Dean Del Mastro.

      If you take that as a compliment…… well…….. I won’t be the least surprised

  6. the funniest thing about #cpc supporters is how, after they get totally hornswoggled by this snake oil salesman, they still defend him like he is the messiah himself. the best kind of sucker is the one who refuses to admit he has been suckered, even when everyone else is telling him he just got suckered.

    • Yes, Conservatives are stupid.

      Standard Liberal Talking Point #18.

      • Actually, that one has a basis in fact — I’m not kidding.

        • This comment was deleted.

          • OB – you’ve seen the light! Oh, wait… that was sarcasm, wasn’t it?

          • Orson — I didn’t generalize and say that “all Conservatives are drooling morons.” Why do you continually ascribe positions to me that just aren’t there? You seem to take these things personally> I wish you wouldn’t — I’m not a malicious person. Having said that — conservative beliefs and voting patterns have been linked to people with lower IQs. That doesn’t mean that all Conservative supporters are stupid — some of my best friends are Conservatives and they some of the brightest people I know. They don’t and continually support self-serving, opportunistic sociopaths in the face of the available evidence — i.e., not one can hold there nose and support Harper. Having said that, it doesn’t take too much effort to Google the research on IQ and political belief. Again, don’t take this personally — you have a right to your own opinions but you don’t have a right to create your own facts. 


          • So most Conservatives are stupid, but not all of them are stupid?

          • ReGuest:  I read the linked article, and you’re being either dishonest, or misleading.  The linked article deals exclusively with so-called social conservatism.  It doesn’t deal at all with economic or fiscal conservatism or conservatives.  So the article does not argue, or prove, the point that you claim for it.

            Unless you think all conservatives are social conservatives, which is clearly BS.

  7. Look…frankly…obviously…how many more perfectly good , honest , serviceable words is SH going to throw on the ash heap of political expediency for he’s through?

    • Let me be clear on that….

      Harris trashed through “frankly.’ 

      Maybe they could chip in and buy a thesaurus for the PMO.

    • Beware the jabberwock my son.  Words mean what you want them to mean.

  8. Well all I can say is that that sinkhole of debt that the Harper government has created must be pretty damn massive to start reneging on their promise to buy these things even without the engines. First trying to scam funds from the retirement plans of future generations and now backtracking on this…

    • Yes, Conservatives hate old people.  Including young people who will become old people in the future.  Actually Conservatives hate all people.

      • You really do have a problem with anyone criticizing the Cons, don’t you? 

        • You may recall that the moderator here has asked that we not aim comments at people personally anymore. 

          What I have a problem with is stale partisan hyperbole.

          • Then you are in the wrong place!

          • Might I suggest then that you stop providing the hyperbole?

          • Really? That’s so ironic Orson.

      • Perceived ad hominem and stale, listed “Liberal Talking Points” aside, is there anything you can offer in defence of this turnabout? Seriously? And please, no mentions of “Pragmatic flexibility”.

        Maybe not you, but many, many Conservative supporters, pundits, MPs and the PM himself have sworn up and down that these unproven aircraft were Absolutely Effective, Absolutely Affordable and Absolutely Necessary Now. And, further, the same have sown doubt about the patriotism of any who would question this purchase. But those who have been so demeaned have been saying merely what Fantino himself just swallowed hard and bleated. 
        It’s not just semantics re: “memorandums of understanding” vs. “contracts”. It’s more the insistence the latter was in force all the time, Then, suddenly, *poof*, ‘obviously’ we don’t have a contract. “Like, duh, that’s what we’ve been saying all along, stupids”.Why should we, you, or anyone support this B.S.? Or the party and leader thereof who promulgates it?

        • I don’t support Harper. I’m glad they changed their position on this — as I pointed out in my post above, when Jan asked me what I thought.

  9. To be honest, this is semantic games. It’s disappointing to realize it, but I really couldn’t give a crap anymore.

    At this point, anybody who doesn’t realize that Harper’s words and Harper’s actions are only the same through random chance either isn’t paying attention or doesn’t want to know.

    The important point is that it looks like he’s trying to climb down from a bonehead decision/position. And while personally I think it makes for piss-poor governance when you can’t trust a damn thing the government says it’s going to do or not do, it’s pretty obvious most people really don’t give a damn about that. They either don’t realize or don’t care that when you can’t trust a government’s word, that makes it pretty damned easy for corruption to climb in and take solid root.

    So all that’s left is to comfort ourselves when he gets something right once in a while.

  10. Obviously, we’re prepared to say anything to anyone at any time. And also, we will never say anything which contradicts our previous position. But, just to be clear, complete contradiction is not a problem for us.

  11. Ahhhhh,,,, can you say B-A-CK-P-E-D-D-L-I-N-G ?????????

    • Nothing like the imminent threat of an AG’s report to help clarify the mind.

  12. The capabilities, specifications and financial details of
    every country’s part in the JSF program are all the subject of negotiations.
    Like all effective negotiations, the position of every one of the parties is
    secret. Whatever you think you know, you are wrong. We are dealing with
    multi-national military strategy, so it is counterproductive to divulge
    anything that would be useful to potential adversaries. If your view is based
    on capabilities to meet the challenges of past conflicts, that view is
    automatically obsolete and wrong. If your opinion correct and based on lucky
    guesses, congratulations. If it is based on insider information, and posted on
    public forums, treason and its penalties may haunt you.