Jack Granatstein is an obsessive champion for Canadian rearmament. Like all obsessives he quickly loses both perspective and focus.
I just came across a typical Mad Jack op-ed piece from yesterday's Globe & Mail in which he rails on about how the proposed coalition would weaken Canada's military defences. This clown flushed his credibility straight down the dumper when he began by quoting Mark Steyn's description of the coalition as a horse with three rear ends. Nice touch Granatstein, very classy.
But Jack was only beginning to roll. First he pronounced that the coalition would be anti-American. Why? With the first really effective, liberal-minded president in such a long time pledging to tackle serious issues Jack's American Idols spurned - such as global warming and collapsing infrastructure - why would the opposition parties be anti-American.
Jack, give you addled brain a damned good shake. We were no more anti-American than the half of America that couldn't stand Bush and his phony wars either. That you break bread with the other half is your problem, Jack, not ours.
The growing need to defend Canadian sovereignty isn't lost on the opposition either, Jack. That's no longer an issue any party can claim as their own. It's the melting of the Arctic ice pack, not the measure of any particular party's zest for militarism, that governs this issue. Shake that noggin one more time, Jack.
Granatstein then alleges that the opposition are determined to pull Canadian forces out of Afghanistan in 2011, something he plainly opposes. Jack, write less and read more. The Tories you so roundly support are adamant that we're out of there in 2011. Reality, Jack, let it soak in for a while.
I find it somewhat offensive that Granatstein advocates feeding more Canadian soldiers lives into the gaping maw of the grossly understrength and hopelessly mismanaged Afghan mission so we can be viewed favourably by Washington. There's something really creepy about that.
As though he was auditioning for a spot on Fox News, Jack saved his best shot for last, claiming that, "Defence investments are at least as stimulative as infrastructure repairs or house-building - more so, in fact, given the high-tech nature of military equipment."
Sorry, Jack, but no one with a functioning brain buys that utter nonsense. Yes, you can create jobs building artillery shells but, once that shell is built, it has no return to our economy. Build a bridge, Jack, and it'll pay dividends throughout its entire lifespan. Build a school, ditto. Rebuild our crumbling highways, even better. Our electricity grid in the East is virtually in collapse. So don't give me any more of your malarky about "defence investments" Jack.
Those are expenses, Jack, some of them absolutely necessary for the proper functioning and security of the nation, some of them far less necessary or useful. We are going to have to bear some huge defence expenditures to maintain our sovereignty in the Arctic. When we have that debate let's hope we're not burdened with a lot of simplistic pap like the nonsense spewed out by Jack Granatstein.
Jack is a sad case. A once eminent Canadian historian, Granatstein let hubris get the better of him. Like Stephen Harper, Granatstein advocated Canada joining in the invasion of Iraq. Since then he's been All-Harper, All the Time. It's too bad that he so detracts from an essential debate.
I just came across a typical Mad Jack op-ed piece from yesterday's Globe & Mail in which he rails on about how the proposed coalition would weaken Canada's military defences. This clown flushed his credibility straight down the dumper when he began by quoting Mark Steyn's description of the coalition as a horse with three rear ends. Nice touch Granatstein, very classy.
But Jack was only beginning to roll. First he pronounced that the coalition would be anti-American. Why? With the first really effective, liberal-minded president in such a long time pledging to tackle serious issues Jack's American Idols spurned - such as global warming and collapsing infrastructure - why would the opposition parties be anti-American.
Jack, give you addled brain a damned good shake. We were no more anti-American than the half of America that couldn't stand Bush and his phony wars either. That you break bread with the other half is your problem, Jack, not ours.
The growing need to defend Canadian sovereignty isn't lost on the opposition either, Jack. That's no longer an issue any party can claim as their own. It's the melting of the Arctic ice pack, not the measure of any particular party's zest for militarism, that governs this issue. Shake that noggin one more time, Jack.
Granatstein then alleges that the opposition are determined to pull Canadian forces out of Afghanistan in 2011, something he plainly opposes. Jack, write less and read more. The Tories you so roundly support are adamant that we're out of there in 2011. Reality, Jack, let it soak in for a while.
I find it somewhat offensive that Granatstein advocates feeding more Canadian soldiers lives into the gaping maw of the grossly understrength and hopelessly mismanaged Afghan mission so we can be viewed favourably by Washington. There's something really creepy about that.
As though he was auditioning for a spot on Fox News, Jack saved his best shot for last, claiming that, "Defence investments are at least as stimulative as infrastructure repairs or house-building - more so, in fact, given the high-tech nature of military equipment."
Sorry, Jack, but no one with a functioning brain buys that utter nonsense. Yes, you can create jobs building artillery shells but, once that shell is built, it has no return to our economy. Build a bridge, Jack, and it'll pay dividends throughout its entire lifespan. Build a school, ditto. Rebuild our crumbling highways, even better. Our electricity grid in the East is virtually in collapse. So don't give me any more of your malarky about "defence investments" Jack.
Those are expenses, Jack, some of them absolutely necessary for the proper functioning and security of the nation, some of them far less necessary or useful. We are going to have to bear some huge defence expenditures to maintain our sovereignty in the Arctic. When we have that debate let's hope we're not burdened with a lot of simplistic pap like the nonsense spewed out by Jack Granatstein.
Jack is a sad case. A once eminent Canadian historian, Granatstein let hubris get the better of him. Like Stephen Harper, Granatstein advocated Canada joining in the invasion of Iraq. Since then he's been All-Harper, All the Time. It's too bad that he so detracts from an essential debate.
3 comments:
Granatstein is one example of why the term "right-wing intellectual" is an oxymoron.
"Defence investments are at least as stimulative as infrastructure repairs or house-building - more so, in fact, given the high-tech nature of military equipment."
Everything you said after that about it MoS. And I add this: It seems a lot of the contracts seem to be going out of the country now, so how does that help Canada economically?
Such BS from JG & to think there are lots of people out there who buy it. Yecch.
I like how those massive defence investments are working for the US economy, Jack. What a useless Harper lackey.
Post a Comment