Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Quite Curious

This is a government that doesn't miss an opportunity to bolster their policies, leaves no stone unturned in getting their messaging out. With this irrefutable backdrop in mind, today's F-35 story on the mystery surrounding the statement of requirement is a very curious element. Why would this government withhold a document which would support their decision and declaw the opposition? This angle to the F-35 story simply makes no logical sense, but it does make one wonder just what exactly this statement does or doesn't say:
When the military wants to buy a new item, they draw up a statement of requirements detailing the role and vision of the military in the future.

Put simply, a statement of requirements allows everyone to understand what the military wants, and it would be more obvious whether the F-35 fit the requirements of the Canadian Forces going forward.

"I think if the Conservatives wanted to give this procurement an aura of legitimacy, and not let people question it, or at least disarm the Liberals on it, they would have done far better having a very clear statement of requirements," said Philippe Lagassé, an assistant professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa

Supporters argue the F-35 is the plane we need to suit Canada's military needs, and YET the document which articulates that "vision" is absent? To not disclosure is not only not the norm, it's unheard of:
Former assistant deputy minister for materiel Alan Williams, whose job it was to take these requirements, meet with industry and translate the military's needs into contracts, even goes so far as to say that he is unaware of any other major procurement project that has not produced a public statement of requirements.

Yet the government is refusing to release this document when it comes to replacing the CF-18, something experts say is strikingly odd at this stage in the game

Odd is right. We are left to speculate here, the fact there is resistance allows for imagination as to why? If this document provides the foundation for the government decision, one would think this PMO in particular would be quick to get it into the public domain:
"I don't know if you can sense how twisted that kind of approach is. It undermines everything, the whole integrity of the process," said Mr. Williams.

We know this government is a complete and utter fraud on the transparency front. However, we also know they are in the midst of a hard sales job on the F-35, going so far as to "fan" Ministers across Canada, a public relations blitz to sell, sell, sell. And yet, a document which experts could point to as proof of need is hidden, isn't used to promote the decision.

This whole affair makes no sense from here, and this secrecy should be raising red flags everywhere.


Tof KW said...

A dumb question on my part, but could it be because the F-35 is not the best fit with our military's statement of requirement?

Steve V said...


Tof KW said...

Gee, and a non-warhead like myself could figure it out within a few seconds of reading that.

Hey, my verification word for this is

Dame said...

the Tories actually WANT an election... frictions work for tah reason.

Omar said...

Did you just see the Ignatieff scrum? Love the feisty, but I'm not sure about the blatant allegation of the PMO being involved in the Kairos funding scandal. Reporters rightfully asking, "what is your evidence"? I hope he knows what he is doing.

Kirk said...

Bumper Sticker #1: The Liberals hate the military.

Bumper Sticker #2: Stephan Harper will protect us!

You bring up a good point Steve. Unfortunately it is one that won't be brought up in many other places.

Maybe the media can ask the Defence Minister about this when he leaves the HoC... oh wait...

Best that we can do is to arm ourselves with some facts and write a letter to the editor of our local Sun newspaper when they write another editorial based around bumper stickers 1 and/or 2.

The issue is not F35s. The issue today is how to pierce the bubble created by our "no questions asked" media and political world.

Sorry to be such a downer.

PS. I wanted to design fighter jets when I was a kid, no fire fighting for me...

PPS. re: bumper sticker #2. Harper wants to protect us, but not in a nanny state kind of way...

Kirk said...

Omar, it doesn't have to be true, it just has to have the aura of truthfulness...

Oh, wait that's only for the Conservatives.

OK, now I'm just being a bitch.

Tof KW said...

Reporters rightfully asking, "what is your evidence"?

Funny, they never ask Harper or his minions what 'evidence' they have whenever they tell a whopper.

At least Iggy's going by the obvious (supported by statements from Tom Flanagan himself when working for Harper) that Sweaterboy runs a tight ship and nothing goes through any ministry without his personal say-so.

Dame said...

Bev WAS told what to do by Harper... there is no other way with this government.

Kirk said...

While I agree the it is proper to ask "what is your evidence" that is not what we get in response to Conservative claims.

A Conservative minister makes a claim and it is treated as one side of the issue and then whatever others say is treated as the other side. Both are given the same weight in the media. And that is "media" as we no longer have "news".

I think Ignatieff should just ignore the media and their double standards and keep repeating the claim. Get the idea out into the public consciousness. If the public can take Conservative Party attack ads as a source of "truth" about Ignatieff then he can just as easily use this to create his own truth about Harper.

Think of all the CPC spokespeople who just repeat their talking points endlessly.

The purpose of the media is as a conduit to get your message out. The Conservatives understand this. The media allows it. The Liberals should play the game that is being played not the one we think should be played.

Omar said...

yes, yes, I have little doubt that the direction came form Fatboy's office, but I can't help having Jean Chretien running around in my ear saying, "a proof is a proof".

Omar said...

That was @ Dame. Kirk's response helps answer my question.