Try again.

Like “decade of darkness”?

Sorry, but bias for Harper does not manifest itself only in context of the LPC.

And, no, I do not agree that Attaran’s statements have to be explained in any context of past association with Michael Ignatieff. I think the man has a lot to lose by lying just to help an old friend, and I expect the people reporting on his statements recognize that too.

You just do not like it because you want people to think he is not credible. And you only want that because what he says hurts Harper.

I think you would certainly expect and demand such disclosure if Gen Hillier was making some accusations of a Liberal Government. Every person in the news obviously doesn’t have to explain every past association, but I think you’d agree that Mr. Attaran’s statements are obviously controversial and touch upon partisan politics. The fact that he has connections to the Official Opposition is noteworthy.

Do we have to be told Hillier is awfully fond of Harper whenever the nedia mentions his testimony before the committee?

Gayle, I’m saying let the public know about the association, so that they can judge Mr. Attaran’s credibility for themselves. The CBC forgets that half of its viewers aren’t invested in an anti-Harper agenda yet pays taxes that keep the CBC running. I think because of the public funding CBC has to try A LOT harder to be impartial.

Ha ha ha. Your problem is with the source. You think he’s not credible so insist the media have to refer to him as “sketchy”. In that case I insist the media report everything Hillier says as coming from a Harpe lover.

Dear lord. The fact someone has past association with Ignatieff does not meam he lacks credibility. Give your head a shake.

I take it you do not accept the word of the generals about what they saw in the documents? After all, all they did was make assertions.

Try again.