This bomb's for you -

This bomb’s for you


John Baird leaves his mark in Libya.

In keeping with a long-held air force tradition, Baird signed a Canadian bomb destined for Gadhafi’s infrastructure with the message: “Free Libya. Democracy.”


This bomb’s for you

  1. Does Western world involved in Libya operations have a plan yet other than to hope we can assassinate Gadhafi sometime soon? 

    Instead of worrying whether Baird’s message meets latte liberal standards of offensiveness, maybe msm could look at ethics or legality of western world trying to assassinate a single individual.

    Baird’s message is insipid – Canada military trying to assassinate a person and pols are writing politically correct messages on bombs/missiles. I liked other message on bomb, good to see soldiers still know what’s what.

    “President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

    Still, the disclosure that key figures on the administration’s legal team disagreed with Mr. Obama’s legal view could fuel restiveness in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties this week strongly criticized the White House’s contention that the president could continue the Libya campaign without their authorization because the campaign was not “hostilities.””

    In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war?  From military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer is no.  But that leaves the question: What is it?

  2. Another little tribal ritual we could do without.

  3. Signing a bomb. Our Man of Peace. Canada stand tall and proud: “Git some!”

    Making the world safe for SNC Suncor/PetroCan et al.

  4. We  can bomb them into a Democracy!

  5. John should be worried. If that bomb fails to detonate, the Libyans will be able to read it and know who dropped it. They could come after him.

  6. Baird has the worst grammar. Where’s John Cleese when you need him?

  7. Shouldn’t the message be redacted as a matter of national security? Our Canadian troops are still active in the theatre and this could put them at risk.

  8. “…Baird signed a Canadian bomb…”

    Oh for the love of Christ. George W Bush called, he wants his idiot cowboy routine back.

    • Really? What is it to which you object?  The tradition of signing bombs – which has been done since at least WWI, or the fact the minister was supportive of the men and women our government, and the UN, have asked to help the people of Libya?  Or do you think they should go about their duties with heads bowed and wearing sackcloth and ashes?

      • Ah yes – since I don’t kiss Baird’s hairy, oversized feet, I must simply hate the troops and wish they would “go about their duties with heads bowed wearing sackcloth and ashes.”

        Hey MikeRedmond: it’s possible to deplore the actions of a politician without “hating” the troops. Also, Fox News called from 2004, they want their cheap smear back.

        • Then I guess I’m just unclear as to what it was you object to. If it is fine for the troops to sign the bombs they are dropping (which, of course, it is) then why take offence at Mr. Baird showing his support?  Why is that an “idiot cowboy” gesture if you don’t find the actions of the troops themselves to be objectionable?

          • The troops are following orders and their lives are on the line. If they want to write messages on a bomb that will kill other soldiers, more power to them, they’ve earned it.

            Baird is a political leader. He bears the awesome moral responsibility of ordering Canadian troops to fight and kill and die to achieve Canada’s goals abroad. He hasn’t earned the right to make light of the death and destruction taking place. If anything, he should be bringing a degree of solemnity to a troop visit to remind Canadians what we’re asking of the soldiers, and demonstrate to the soldiers that we’re not sending them there lightly.

            I don’t mean to be prissy, I know it’s not a big deal in the grand scheme. Heck, I might do it myself if I were Baird, visiting the troops and getting caught up in the esprit du corps. But politicians, and rightwing politicians in particular, tend to use the military to burnish a tough-guy image. The soldiers deserve better than that from their soft, untrained, safe-in-Ottawa civilian leaders.