Buckdog

There are too many unkowns about this situation, and only one side. To pass judgement on so little is foolish.

I do not agree with releasing the pilot. I think it is a silly thing to do, if it was on those grounds that he was released. If however, the pilot announced to all and sundry on the aircraft, and hence embarrassed the any human being, let alone the PM, I would suggest that yes, punishment was in order (the story does not relate how exactly it went down, over the PA or whispered in his ear).

If it was on a recent flight, is it possible that the PM was receiving the news of a fatality on one of our missions? Afghanistan or Lebanon? If it was, there is justifiable risk, as he does have work to do (whether or not you see it as important work is irrelevant, as it is important work from a bureaucratic view point and foreign affairs view point).

Not enough info to slam or praise. It is a simple statement of fact, and to pass judgement is premature.

When did linking to a Globe and Mail article becoming the same as "breaking a story".

Breaking a story means you are the first to report on it.

Linking to a MSM article and having all of your progressive blogger friends carry out the usual echo chamber routine is just that - linking to a story that someone else broke.

To be fair, such an icident should be commented on in all cases, regardless of which political party is in power. Such commentary, in a democracy keeps politicians at least somewhat in power...

And, as long as such commentary is ongoing, we can all be thankful for the place we are at, and the gifts we receive (like being able to curse down whoever is in the PMO). Hell, I love that gift.

So, as much as I am a cheer leader for the current PM, I say, this commentary is a good thing.

(goodgrief, this is a really long verification "word" this time)

This story comes from the Globe and Mail - August 9th, 2006 in an article by Lawrence Martin. If he is inaccurate, then he should come clean. Buckdog has not been able to verify the story from any other source but we have posted it based upon the fact that it was published in the Globe and Mail.

I do not beleive that the story is inaccurate. Just that there are key parts missing from the story, which would give a better indication of the circumstances.

The PM could have been a rightous dick in this instance, or he could have been rightous. There is not enough info for me to judge.