John Chuckman

COMMENTS POSTED TO AN ARTICLE ON CBC NEWS [FIRST PORTION REMOVED BY EDITORS]

 

“Ken Pereira, union whistleblower turned conspiracy theorist, joins forces with Maxime Bernier

“Charbonneau Commission’s star witness now co-hosts a YouTube show about conspiracies”

 

Calling him a “conspiracy theorist” over 9/11, represents an effort put him down. When you use such terms, you are not conveying facts but prejudice. Name-calling is not journalism. You certainly can and should discuss what it is that he believes, but you cannot fairly dismiss him with such a term.

Millions and millions believe that that event was not what the official investigation said that it was.

Here are a few basic questions, never answered:

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/john-chuckman-comment-a-survivor-says-even-the-simplest-questions-around-911-have-not-been-answered-by-government-yes-and-some-disturbing-truths-around-those-events-the-saudi-arabian-nonsense/

And the FBI has just released some documents around an intriguing aspect of 9/11 that in the past they denied:

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/05/18/john-chuckman-comment-important-new-fbi-documents-about-9-11-are-released-an-excellent-article-on-them-will-they-just-go-ignored-much-as-that-last-most-revealing-document-released-on-the-kennedy/

______________________

By the way, the term “conspiracy theorist” was coined by the boys at CIA in the 1960s to be used to discredit the great many people who questioned the absurdly inadequate Warren Commission.

The press, always hand-and-glove with government and other large corporate interests – people often forgetting that that is where its interests really lie and not in some holy mission to find truth – has used the demeaning term countless times since, and I think it has become very tiresome.

The Warren Commission Report over the decades has indeed been shown to be literally full of holes, but the assassination is receding far into history, and it no longer grabs the public’s imagination. The many dishonesties and contradictions of its investigation now arouse no widespread concern.

The ugly truth is that when you run a big brutal empire, you have to do all kinds of unsavory things to sustain or expand it, and they are generally not things you want publicized. The United States has been engaged almost continuously in such activity during our lifetime, hence there have been a great many deceptions and lies around its dark work, just as we see with Iran or Russia or Venezuela today.

And just think back on the few cases that we do know something about. The phony Gulf of Tonkin Incident that would ignite a war that would eventually kill 3 million Vietnamese. The non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq used to start another war, one that would kill a million people. Iraqi troops seizing baby incubators in Kuwait and tossing out the babies – good God, we learned that that one was created by a paid PR firm. It was a sad re-telling of the WWI British tale about Germans busy bayoneting babies, a claim made with deadly earnest looks in 1914.

No, the attempt to use that old CIA term, “conspiracy theory,” I regard as a red flag for what is to follow.

Of course, there are loony theories in many things, but you don’t use that broad fact against someone who may have valid reasons for his speculations. I don’t know anything about this particular man or his views, but I don’t like the writer’s approach.

________________________

Response to a comment saying, “We have moved into the digital dark ages, from the age of information into the age of disinformation”:

What information?

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident? Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction? Kuwaiti babies ripped from their respirators? Iran’s atomic weapons? Syria’s use of poison gas on its own people?

It just ain’t so. Where the stakes are great, governments tell lies. And some citizens do grow suspicious, which does not automatically make them kooks or anything else.

Scepticism, as the David Hume told us, is a healthy approach.

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO A COLUMN IN THE NATIONAL POST

Christie Blatchford seems to have become The Conservatives’ chief apologist.

Her apology here though seems totally unneeded.

I believe in these two cases of dropped candidates, the bone-headed people involved would have made perfect Conservative candidates.

Pranks? Isn’t this the party of robo-calls and frat-boy negative advertising?

Isn’t this the party of never telling the truth to people?

Of never giving a straight answer?

The party of not complying with officials attempting to investigate misdeeds?

The party of hiding the many stupid things it has done?

The party of Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Nigel Wright, and other charmers?

The party of slavishly catering to special interests?

The party of giving the finger to many of the world’s serious concerns?

The party of John Baird who resembles nothing so much as a mad dog when he argues with people?

The party of Peter MacKay, a man who had an affair with a subordinate, later harassed her and called her a dog in public, and then lied about it as well as a man who has demonstrated incompetence in almost every portfolio in the cabinet?

The party of the absolute thug, Patrick Brazeau?

The party of Maxime Bernier, who left top secret NATO papers at his biker girlfriend’s house for weeks?

The party of Pierre Poilievre, perhaps the most seriously twisted sister ever in Parliament?

I just cannot believe what an opportunity the party has missed with these two new fellows, each surely potential minister material.

It’s a shame, I guess that’s the price you pay for political correctness.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

While Chretien’s observation is already shared by most citizens genuinely concerned with international affairs, his testimony still is welcome.

Chretien is one of our most respected former prime ministers, a man who is admired by a number of world statesmen as an ethical statesman and a remarkable politician.

The grotesque and clownish stunts of Peter Kent, Maxime Bernier, John Baird, Helena Guergis, Peter MacKay, Rahim Jaffer, and the bloodless, narrow ideology of their leader do not go unnoticed in the world.

There is an inherent lack of commitment by this government to openness, honest communication, genuine democratic principles, and balanced human rights.

Everything from cheap stunts like pernicious robo-calls, ceaseless negative advertising, ugly outbursts, and blatant catering to special interests reduces our stature.

There is also – and quite in conflict with the historic role of Conservative Parties in Canada – a marked spirit of following America’s lead in almost all matters of international consequence – almost a visibly servile posture.

Informed people in countries around the world – politicians, members of international organizations, and private citizens – note these things and their goodwill towards our country must inevitably be reduced.

And this has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with core traditional conservative principles.

It is strictly a reflection of the ugly ideological bent of this government.

A bent demonstrated in everything from contempt for Parliament, contempt for important international forums and organizations, unbalanced and almost viciously partisan statements on the Middle East, and its cheap way of expressing itself on many solemn occasions, such as the recent death of the widely-liked President of Venezuela.
____________________

“Talking to other leftists and anti-american socialists is obviously going to get the desired result of Canada being disliked. I fully expect nothing being done by our current governemnt to be gain acceptance with the worldwide pro terrorist socialist alliance. Nothing to read here….and to think a criminal thug like Chretien should be given any further respectability is beyond me.”

You are too uninformed to comment with any meaning.

A number of prominent world leaders have in the past made public statements of admiration for Chretien.

No one but Mr. Netanyahu – a genuine thug who has committed murder, piracy, and theft – expresses admiration for Harper.

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY LAWRENCE MARTIN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

My perception is that Harper’s government has precisely one competent and respectable senior minister, Jim Flaherty, and even he has his shortcomings.

He remains the only one in international exposure that is not an embarrassment to the country.

Harper’s list of clowns and weasels is long and may well serve as further evidence for the demonstrated principle that extremely conservative views are associated with lower intelligence.

Peter Kent, Bev Oda, Peter MacKay, Leona Aglukkaq, Vic Toews, and, in the past, Helena Guergis, Maxime Bernier resemble a skit from Monty Python on government. We’ve never been so low in public esteem.

I’ll add John Baird who, although intelligent, has the manner of a savage ultra-orthodox Israeli settler shooting at Palestinian children and bulldozing olive groves.

How do you “sweep” with toxic material like that?
_____________________________________

“Amazing – after 4 elections the Harper party is still talentless.”

Yes, pretty well talent-less so far as ministers.

But you cannot call Harper talent-less.

His set of redoubtable skills is a dark one, truly Machiavellian . Canada has not seen anything quite like him in my lifetime.

He has a thick hide, little or no respect for opponents and even disappointing associates, and, while mouthing slogans, his whole direction shows virtually no respect for democratic values or genuine human rights.

He displays many qualities that might fairly be described along the lines of an intelligent, manipulative, sociopathic personality.

JOHN CHUCKMAN

 

POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAILReading of Helena Guergis’s airport melt-down, I may have new sympathy for the unpleasant Rahim Jaffer, her husband.

Maybe there’s actually a good reason Rahim Jaffer (of drunk-driving, cocaine-possession, and getting-off-with-a-slap-on-the-wrist fame) does the desperate things he does?

He appears to be married to a lunatic.

And, yes, indeed, where were the RCMP tasers on this one, as someone above asked?

I guess they save that treatment for poor foreigners who can’t speak English and who are not junior cabinet ministers.

And even then, they need four officers against one person to “deploy” the taser.

The photo with the story only shows two RCMP officers with the ghastly Guergis.

God, the new Conservatives have pathetic ministerial material. Peter “we’ll fight for Israel” Kent, Helena “I’m God” Guergis, Peter “my ex is a dog” MacKay, Lisa “leave my documents behind” Raitt, Maxime “leave my secret papers at my biker gang girlfriend’s” Bernier, and so on.

Our election system is a terrible mess if its result is keeping a bunch of second- and third-raters like this running the country with about a third of the country’s support. We really do need serious election reform.