Sunday, November 29, 2009

I Always Thought Christie Blatchford Was an Idiot

(I changed the title, so that it says "Idiot" instead of my first choice "Moron" because that's what I call Blatchford's sister in stupidity, Rosie DiManno.)

I haven't read you for years and years and years Christie. You used to appear in the Toronto Sun, writing brain-dead criticisms of left-wing politicians and causes and nauseating praises for right-wing politicians, for cops, for the military, and on and on. I just didn't have much time for your ugly, unoriginal musings. I was aware that you somehow moved to the Globe & Mail, but by that point my reading of that newspaper had fallen off as I got angry at paying good money only to see at least half the editorial page taken up by Marcus Gee, Margaret Wente, and Jeffrey Simpson. So, now you're at the Globe. Whatever.

You're still the same dull plodder you always were. Yeah, "the troops" are doing an awesome job. Anyone who criticizes "the Mission" (tm.) is a traitor who hates "the troops." Only the troops are fighting, killing and dying, all to prop-up an unpopular, corrupt, brutal, criminal government. While you've been standing around with your fingers in your ears shouting:


... the plain fact of the matter is that we've been losing. Let me repeat that for emphasis: We're LOSING. Canadian soldiers used to roam around the province of Kandahar. Now we're reduced to guarding the entrance-ways to Kandahar City.

The outgoing NATO commander for southern Afghanistan told The Associated Press that troops need to secure the exits and entrances to Kandahar city itself if the provincial capital is to be protected from infiltration and an eventual Taliban takeover.

"Will Kandahar fall? Every two or three weeks people tell me Kandahar will fall. I think the way forward is to secure the approaches to Kandahar city," said Dutch Maj. Gen. Marc C. De Kruif.

But the strength of the insurgents is only part of the problem. The other part is the local people's
mistrust of the U.S. and the Afghan government with which it is partnered. Without trust, the residents cannot be counted on to tip off authorities to the militants' presence.

Why are we LOSING? Even though you continue to stop up your ears and yell insults and inanities, I'm going to tell you Christie. It's the same reason why I was opposed to this war all along. Because bush II, Chretien, Martin, and now harper and Obama, simply don't care about the people of Afghanistan. This is a cynical imperialist game for the US-Americans and an opportunity for Canadian prime ministers to practice their spit-shining on those presidents' shoes. As such, neither we nor the US-Americans will do much for the Afghans outside of some token development projects that make for good public relations.

I like this title, so I'm gonna post it up now and finish it whenever. But the main point is my expanding upon this critique of Blatchford here.


CK said...

I decided to create a montage.
Hope you like it:

Sir Francis said...

I was aware that you somehow moved to the Globe & Mail...

It's a funny thing. When I think of Blatchford moving to the Globe from the Sun, I think, simultaneously, of a log of desiccated dog shit being dragged by a great wind out of its native pile and rolled into a new pile. I wonder why that is...

thwap said...


I saw that and liked it. Gad she's a tiresome dunce.

Sir Francis,

Your disgust with our political culture exceeds mine. They have well and truly lost you, haven't they?

Sir Francis said...

Your disgust with our political culture exceeds mine...

Heh. "Culture". That's a far more generous term than I would use, Thwap.

We currently have a "political culture" in the way a gangrenous foot has a culture.

Real_PHV_Mentarch said...

Thanks for the h/t, Thwap - much appreciated ;-)

no_blah_blah_blah said...

I wonder what Christie Blatchford's definition of "winning" is. As far as I can tell, there were two objectives in Afghanistan: capture Osama bin Laden, and establish a democracy in Afghanistan.

Osama bin Laden is still free, so that objective failed.

A democracy is, defined in the most simple terms, majority rule with minority rights. Considering that half the population (women) have barely any rights compared to the other half (men), I would say that the second objective has also failed.

Also, I wonder if the Conservatives are breaking any laws by giving classified documents to a journalist but refusing to give the same documents to Parliament.

Sir Francis said...

I wonder if the Conservatives are breaking any laws by giving classified documents to a journalist but refusing to give the same documents to Parliament.

If any among the Opposition had cojones larger than a termite's, they could apply to the Speaker for a ruling on whether Harper has violated their privilege by giving to the media what he refuses to give to a duly convened committee of the House. They would have an excellent case.

A ruling in their favour would either force Harper to hand over the documents or make him liable to formal reprimand--a very serious and virtually unprecedented step for a Speaker to take.

The Opposition will most definitely avoid recourse to this tactic, not only out of timidity but also in order to avoid the appearance of overt partisanship. The Liberals already seem to feel they're treading a fine line in that regard.

no_blah_blah_blah said...

Sir Francis,

Thanks for the information!

I would opine that the Conservatives make everything seem partisan, so it probably wouldn't hurt the Opposition to try. Still, I agree with you that the Opposition is not likely to do that.

thwap said...

Write to the relevant NDP, Liberal and BQ MP and demand that they do.

As far as partisanship goes, the Liberals should take a page from harper's book on shamelessness.

They should limit this career-destroying inquiry to harpercon activities and just act like stephen harper or peter mackay when called on it.

And then, it'll be beautiful as those two crying fuck-wads bleat about hypocrisy and justice as they're dragged off to their prison cells.