As far as I am concerned the whole fucking lot should be left there, and the likes of this lot should be rounded up and sent back to the desert

Posted by: Pissedoff at July 19, 2006 09:49 PM

---

They are just a typical bunch of arrogant ungrateful Heyrabs who deserve each other. Hezboooola, Heymas and all the rest of these pigs

Posted by: Pissedoff at July 19, 2006 09:53 PM

---

Lest we forget daleo, the picture of Mrs Harper in the Calgary Sun today was very touching, it matters not if he died 90 years or 90 minutes ago

Posted by: kelly at July 19, 2006 10:40 PM

---

They hold no stock with me..

They're just uptight because the welfare checks have been spent..and there's still 2 weeks until they can get the meth.

Spazito & leftistgorilla couldn't be more aptly named.

Posted by: Levesque at July 19, 2006 10:54 PM

---

The National Post noted today that the majority of Canadian-Lebanese support Harper.

You won't hear that on the CBC.

Posted by: ferrethouse at July 19, 2006 11:08 PM

---

Lets not forget "La petit Sandbagger".

Posted by: at July 19, 2006 11:46 PM

---

Amazing isn't it, the amount of sheer hate to be found in those on the far left?!

Posted by: Dave at July 19, 2006 11:47 PM

---

They cannot help it Mr. Jankle, they're stupid.

Posted by: The Grunt at July 19, 2006 11:57 PM

---

'Amazing isn't it, the amount of sheer hate to be found in those on the far left?!'

preceded by

'As far as I am concerned the whole fucking lot should be left there, and the likes of this lot should be rounded up and sent back to the desert...They are just a typical bunch of arrogant ungrateful Heyrabs who deserve each other. Hezboooola, Heymas and all the rest of these pigs'

Why in the hell are you paleo-conservatives so blind? Are you really that incapable of seeing reality?

How on earth can you possibly claim that the left is filled with hate with the like of the postings from PissedOff? Do you really block it out that easily?

Posted by: Moi at July 20, 2006 12:05 AM

---

"Speaking of photo ops, I know that I sound heartless and cruel, but Laureen crying over her great-uncle who died in 1917 seemed like an act to me. I mean, it was 90 years ago."

I know that I sound heartless and cruel, but daleo, unless of course you plan on pissing on war graves, in 90 years from now no one on earth will know you ever existed.

Posted by: RodF at July 20, 2006 12:08 AM

---

The hatred of the left is real. It's not just a rant, it's deep and controlling. It amazes me that those that seem to think they're entitled to the moral high ground (in their minds anyway) are such hate filled critters.

Oh well, their mothers told them it would rot their brains.

Pat

Posted by: Pat at July 20, 2006 01:45 AM

---

Wow, such hatred accusing Harper of pulling a photo op stunt. Only a shrieking mooooooonbat would accuse a politician of doing that. You're demented, Janke. Meanwhile...

They are just a typical bunch of arrogant ungrateful Heyrabs who deserve each other. Hezboooola, Heymas and all the rest of these pigs

Posted by: Robert McClelland at July 20, 2006 01:53 AM

---

I was drinking with a few friends today, and one of them remarked that he was hoping someone would assassinate the Prime Minister when he landed, so that "all of Canada could cheer".

I replied, rather calmly given the amount of beer I'd already had: "I wouldn't cheer."

He replied: "I would."

I got snippy: "I think assassination is despicable. I wouldn't cheer any murder. And yet, strangely, I'm the conservative warmonger."

That end of the table got awfully quiet, but I don't think further words were necessary at that point. But it is despicable how some people think, that they'd rather see a husband and father shot dead on a runway than have him in a position of power.

Posted by: Ken at July 20, 2006 01:58 AM

---

Steve, you really need to start banning some of these trolls. They only drag your site down.

Posted by: backhoe at July 20, 2006 02:19 AM

---

One of my journalistic (yes, they all hate Harper and Bush) colleagues expressed such a sentiment saying, I hope Harper's plane is shot down. All I could think of to say in reply was, "Before or after he picks up the evacuees?"

Posted by: CMP at July 20, 2006 02:29 AM

---

I think this is just sourgrapes by a group who are afraid to admit that Harper is doing the right thing, and not politically, but morally.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at July 20, 2006 06:09 AM

---

If Harper was truly interested in doing the "right thing" instead of looking for a photo op, then please answer the following questions:

1) Why are his wife, some staff and a photographer on the plane when they've reduced crew to take more people?
2) Why is *he* on the plane?

Send the plane empty of politicos and that's four or five more people that can be fit into the plane, more if you take kids.

But no, it can't be anything insincere coming from Mr. Harper, can it? Saved many pennies from your GST cut yet?

Posted by: Brandon at July 20, 2006 06:30 AM

---

daleo & LeftistGorilla's comments have no place in political discourse. glarius is expressing a personal wish, nothing more, while spazito makes a fair assertion and should be respected, even if you disagree with what he says.

Your quotes are rather selective, Mr. Janke. It would be equally selective of me to quote ONLY the following, on the related topic of the general evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon (not specifically PM Harper's flight):

"'It was a shame, a disaster and a disgrace, how the Canadian government treated their citizens. It was very badly organized...We were treated like sheep — no proper information given, no responsibility taken whatsoever. They did not even give priority to the elderly, the sick and the children. It was total chaos.'" Nicole Khoury, from Beaconsfield, Quebec, who along with her two young children were turned away Wednesday from an evacuation centre in Beirut (as reported in the National Post and Calgary Herald, online editions)

"'They should have everybody evacuated by the time Lebanon is no longer in existence (because of bombing by Israel)...There are about 2,000 waiting to go to Canada in the holding room at the port and outside, all over the place.'" Nina Adamo, assistant to Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, speaking from the port in Beirut while awaiting evacuation (as reported in the National Post, online ed.).

"The Canadian Embassy told the family to stay put until their names come up for evacuation on one of the ships chartered by the federal government, Ayouby said. The family will then have to make their own way to the port of Beirut, about 30 kilometres away. 'The roads are not safe, so it's really scary to think of trying to get to Beirut,' said Ayouby." Ann Carroll, CanWest News Service reporter, describing the difficult choice faced by Longueuil, Quebec, residents Rasha Ayouby, Ahmad Bayram and their 18-month-old son were visiting Bayram's parents in Al Wardaniyah, a small village south of Beirut,

"Only 261 of about 2,000 Canadians who were supposed to have escaped Lebanon on Wednesday appeared to have made it out as the first wave of a government organized mass evacuation plan got off to a slow, chaotic start...The situation left hundreds of disappointed Canadians, who had been summoned by the Canadian Embassy to the port of Beirut, expressing frustration, anger and worry as they waited from dawn to late night for boats that never showed up." Juliet O'Neill and Aileen McCabe, CanWest News Service reporters, as reprinted in the National Post, Calgary Herald, and others (online eds.).

To further my argument (rant?), I could even fail to point out that this is the largest emergency evacuation of citizens from a crisis zone ever conducted by the Canadian government, just as I could fail to cite the numerous quotations from evacuees who express only gratitude to the federal government for expediting safe passage out of Lebanon. In other words, I could use selective quotes to paint as skewed and unrealistic a reality as I want. But that would be irresponsible (and typically liberal) of me, wouldn't it?

As this is your blog, you of course have every right to publish whatever content you wish. You could even, as another reader of your blog has suggested, "start banning some of these trolls" [presumably referring to people like me, who express dissenting views]. However, if you wish to rise above the level of petty slander, partisan sniping, and uncritical propagandizing that most politics-themed blogs (and their readers) seem to enjoy wallowing in, I would encourage you to present more compelling (i.e., balanced) arguments in future entries.

Posted by: AK at July 20, 2006 07:05 AM

---

Bit of a shock for Canadians.PM that seems to care about helping people rather than just looting the tax coffers. Must not be a liberal. Hasn't doubled our deficit, must not be NDP. Hmm,this is perplexing. Well lets all sit back and pick away at his motives.

Posted by: rick at July 20, 2006 07:18 AM

---

The Cemetery "crying" scene was real. No question.

Of course, it would be interesting to note if she cried when the Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan.

Or, when she heard about the Canadian family that died in Lebanon.

It is also somewhat intriguing. Laureen Harper is supposed to be a very private person.

If that is true, why would they allow the cameras to capture - and disseminate widely - what should have been a private moment of grief?

Posted by: at July 20, 2006 07:22 AM

---

Why is *he* on the plane?

Because, rightly or wrongly, someone made the decision that there would be more risk in attempting to find him a last minute place to stay while waiting for another secure aircraft to arrive to pick him up. For security reasons, he could not return home on a commercial flight like the reporters and the other staff.

When the decision was made to keep the prime minister on the flight, the subsequent decision was made to keep his wife with him (same security calculation), and some "staffers". As I've suggested, one or more of these staffers are probably part of his personal security detail, but that is being downplayed. The others are probably legit staff, going along because of work that needs to be done during the flight and can't be put off.

As already noted, no one is going to be swallowed by the sea or trampled by elephants because they didn't catch this flight. These people aren't being plucked off the roof of the embassy even as the enemy army breaks through the city's last defenses. These people will be sheltered while they wait for more flights, and there will be more flights very soon. But by doing this, a large number of people will be getting home earlier than expected.

The glass is 95% full here. Why are you griping about it being 5% empty?

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 20, 2006 07:44 AM

---

Are there haters on the right? Sure there are. However, it's always the left preaching for tolerance and against Hate.

Against homosexual marriage? That's hate.
Against abortion? That's hate.
Against multiculturalism? That's hate.

And so forth. It's a bit contradictory for lefties to preach against hate and then be hateful themselves. They have a double standard: you must love all the minorities and "victim groups" but it's A-OK to hate right-wingers.

Posted by: SUZANNE at July 20, 2006 08:16 AM

---

Factual clarification: The RCMP, responsible for the PM's security, typically coordinate with the Canadian military, responsible for the PM's airplane, to provide necessary staffing for the flight, including security, pilots, flight attendants, etc. Thus, the PM's security has not been compromised in any way, as the security detail that accompanied him to Europe was never counted among the "delegation" that was asked to disembark in Paris. The only members of the original delegation still on board are the PM, the PM's wife, 3 communications staff (serving as extra flight attendants to accommodate the larger number of passengers boarding in Cyprus), and the PM's official photographer.

Posted by: Ulrich at July 20, 2006 08:27 AM

---

To add to Mr. Janke's last post, only 3 members of his communications staff have remained with him on the flight, in order to serve as extra flight attendants to accommodate the new passengers being picked up in Cyprus. As Mr. Janke points out correctly, PM Harper and his wife remain on board as well for obvious security reasons. As for the photographer, the reasons for his remaining on the plane are subject to some debate.

Posted by: AK at July 20, 2006 09:16 AM

---

And yet these same leftist cranks fawn over Jack Layton's every move. The dude couldn't be more scripted if he was a movie actor.

Harper's motives are far more altruistic than Layton on his BEST day. Does it make Harper look good politically? Sure. Is the motivation even partly political? We'd be naive to assume that it wasn't a minor consideration. Was it the right thing to do? Absolutely.

Harper could run into a burning building and save ten babies and these cranks would still blame him for making the fire worse by running while wearing flammable clothing. I guess the leftist attempt to demonize the right makes up for their lack of intellectual rigour.

The left is so full of intellectual inconsistencies I don't know where to begin. They oppose poverty but also oppose the global trade that has made some poor nations richer than they ever have been in their past. They oppose war but would give millions to African rulers that think nothing of slaughtering their own people and using the aid money to buy Ferraris and nice suits on Saville Row. And so on and so forth....

Posted by: at July 20, 2006 09:17 AM

---

Yeah, Moi and McLa-La-Land... that PissedOff character is a Conservative... you got that right... no possibility he is a blow-hard Lefty just being a typical a$$...

...nope, no chance of that...

...after all, Conservatives talk like that all the time...

...it's like how they say "f@#$ the Jews" and all that...

...or was that somebody of a different political persuasion?

Posted by: Surecure at July 20, 2006 11:11 AM

---

So what was Harper to do? I suppose if he were like Dithers he'd just fly home and well, have a nuanced dither. Rather, he was in the area and picked up as many refugees as he could, while leaving the bleating media drones in Paris.

Now what about these 40,000 Canadians in Lebanon? What the hell are 40,000 'Canadians' doing in Lebanon, especially when 'only' 5,000 are on vacation? Why is there no critical look at this?

And while we're on it - what aircraft or boats was Harper going to expediently bring to Lebanon? The ones the Liberals didn't buy perhaps?

To the two commentors citing their leftist friends hoping for the murder of Harper. How can you keep friends like these?

I don't know, I'm beginning to get really pissed hearing things like that. Had they been my 'friends' they'd be in the hospital.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 20, 2006 11:30 AM

---

What I would like to know is what exactly would have been different in this situation had the Liberals been in power? What wonderful magical wand would they have had to solve this crisis that the Conservatives do not? How would they have handled things any differently? Looking back on their performances in the past I'd say they would have likely done a WORSE job.
Another thing that drives me nuts is the wailing and complaining of the left about how "other countries" have managed to get some of their citizens out of Lebanon already. Countries like the U.S. and Britain you mean? Countries with a very large, modern armed forces? Countries that have ships, helicopters and planes capable of being half way around the world on short notice? Now lets think a minute...and you leftys out there think real hard okay?...Why is it that Canada does not, at this moment in history, have these same capabilities? Why?

Posted by: Cameron at July 20, 2006 11:54 AM

---

And now for something completely different...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=68d423af-d79e-46ac-8c56-0ac06ff55f5e

Posted by: Cameron at July 20, 2006 12:15 PM

---

Irwin Daisy writes: "Now what about these 40,000 Canadians in Lebanon? What the hell are 40,000 'Canadians' doing in Lebanon, especially when 'only' 5,000 are on vacation? Why is there no critical look at this?"

Here's an initial critical look: According to this report, which cites the OECD and other credible sources, as many as 2.7 million Canadian citizens live overseas. At least 820,000 (and as many as 1.2 million) are believed to live either permanently or temporarily in the US. An estimated 499,000 live in Europe, and another 200,000 can be found in Hong Kong alone. Is 40,000 Canadians in Lebanon disproportionately high? Perhaps, but given Canada's multiethnic composition, not wildly so, and certainly no more so than those living in (say) HK. Is there something about the Lebanese people that makes you particularly suspicious?

Posted by: A at July 20, 2006 01:04 PM

---

To all the leftist moonbats on here. Say Mr. Harper did go on a photo op. Whoopdedo. Compare that to Liberal photo ops over the past decade.

But I digress for benefit of doubt, for starters he's a politician. It comes with the territory you white knights of self righteous perversion.

Second he's showing something about being a real Canadian - you don't back down. He is also putting himself in harm's way to help others. Lead by example. This isn't a photo op at Niagra Falls you twit, this is close to a war zone.

I can't believe some of the howlers in here. Harper is doing the right thing, so shut up!

Dang the squeeking is loud. No grease this time, get it yourself.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 20, 2006 01:28 PM

---

>>"Against homosexual marriage? That's hate."
>>"Against abortion? That's hate."
>>"Against multiculturalism? That's hate."

You don't know what hate is apparently. Why is it hate for anyone to have an opinion different from your own?

Posted by: caledonia at July 20, 2006 01:41 PM

---

A:

The number of Canadians living overseas likely includes a high number of people in the employ of multinationals. So you mean to tell me that the 1:5 ratio of Canadians in Lebanon to Canadians in a WORLD FINANCIAL HUB like Hong Kong is a "reasonable" number? How many Lebanese branches did the Royal Bank open since I last took a peek? Did the Post cereal factory in downtown Beirut go on some sort of hiring spree? Based on your own numbers, when you compare the economic output of Hong Kong to the economic output of Lebanon, I would argue there is a disproportionate number of Canadians in Lebanon...

Posted by: at July 20, 2006 01:42 PM

---

A disproportionate number of 'Canadians' that never lived nor paid taxes in Canada, but are beneficiaries of welfare payments and (obviously) other free government services - more than likely.

The same could probably be said about a lot of other Canadians of convenience as well.

The thing that irks me is that 35,000 of these people made their choice to live there, despite the constant violence. Yet they refuse to take responsiblity for their own actions, rather conveniently blaming our government for not rescuing them the instant they demand it.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 20, 2006 02:10 PM

---

To Anonymous, above: You make a good point about multinational employers. I also concede that, on the face of it, 40,000 seems like a high number. But I'm still uncertain as to what Irwin Daisy is implying, particularly when he puts the word Canadians in quotation marks. Does this mean that Canadians who choose to live abroad after being granted citizenship (as a result of marriage, country of birth, immigration, refugee status, or whatnot) are not truly Canadian? Or is the assumption that not all 40,000 are in fact Canadian at all (i.e., counterfeit/stolen passport holders, etc.)?

Posted by: A at July 20, 2006 02:19 PM

---

"A disproportionate number of 'Canadians' that never lived nor paid taxes in Canada, but are beneficiaries of welfare payments and (obviously) other free government services - more than likely"

Does anybody have any evidence for this claim? I'm asking sincerely -- I would be interested in reading a report that cites supporting numbers for this.

Posted by: A at July 20, 2006 02:26 PM

---

According to Alberta's welfare laws, recipients must be currently residing in the province in order to receive government support. Ditto Ontario's laws. I haven't checked with other provinces, but I assume similar provisions are in place.

As to whether there's abuse of the system, however...

Posted by: A at July 20, 2006 02:37 PM

---

Robert is more or less asserting that Harper did this only for the photo-op value.

I don't believe he did, based on what I have seen of the man and heard from him thus far. Of course, I cannot know what is really in his heart, no more than Robert can know that the effort was callously opportunistic.

With respect to commentary above about tears in cemetaries, I find it hard to swallow criticism of Mrs. Harper's emotional response in front of her Great Uncle's grave, escpecially from those on the 'compassionate' side of the political spectrum. My view is that this is off-limits for our discussion. Maybe I'm just plain old-fashioned, but it strikes me as inconsiderate, impolite, and intrusive to go there. What next? will the extreme left call "foul" should the media capture any sign of affection between the Harper family members?

"That hug was a staged publicity stunt". Oh come now, really...

Makes me wonder if hugs are a rarity in the family history of the extreme left, and if that isn't the original source of their angst.

Posted by: Shaken at July 20, 2006 03:46 PM

---

Levesque

I agree and I disagree. While the name Spazito is most appropriate, one must remember that gorillas are INTELLIGENT animals and this individual bears absolutely no resemblence to an intelligent being.

Posted by: vieux loup at July 20, 2006 04:15 PM

---

If there are 2.7 million Canadians living outside of Canada that would be about 8% of the population. And I would suspect that despite their ethnic backround they might be anywhere, French Riviera, Tropical destination, working, studying - in short anywhere.

Compare that to this situation where you have 20+% of a specific population in the same location -a war zone- simultaneously.

Seems reasonable to question this.

Posted by: ward at July 20, 2006 04:17 PM

---

Steve:

Regarding the contents of the thread in question it is rather tame compared to what you will find on the Globe and Mail threads on a regular basis.

Posted by: ward at July 20, 2006 04:22 PM

---

Perhaps some of the detracters of Harper's actions are simply disgruntled and angry investors and employees.

I would be curious to know how many foreign registered craft of Canadian Steamship Lines were contracted to participate in this evacuation.

Posted by: vieux loup at July 20, 2006 04:45 PM

---

OK, nice thread BUT - the number of expat Canucks quoted here are - base on my data - totally off.

Canadian Consul (LA) - personal conversation, summer 2001 - "There is about 1 million Canadians living in California." Add NYC, Boston, Phoenix, Seattle, Minneapolis, Florida and many other areas and it all of a sudden looks like 3-4 million of Canadians living in the US. And rest assured none of them are flipping burgers. Comrade Chretien's circa 2000 comment (when I left Canada) was :"If yo don't like our taxation levels move out."
So I did.

There is a few people who damaged Canada as much as this person. Maybe PET. Dunno.

Cheers

Andy

Posted by: andy at July 21, 2006 09:50 PM

---