Names or at least ranks/appointments would help, so I could assess whether the “Department” was officially stonewalling or a couple of junior officers or bureaucrats exceeded their authority to say “No” or spoke outside their lane (ie. answered a question about which they didn’t know the facts, when they should’ve just said “I don’t know”). But it looks sexier as “officials” (plural: two or more) with complete knowledge of the underlying facts speaking for the entire department.

I heed Pugliese’s reportage a little more than Scott Taylor’s – which is to say, not very much – but that’s a personal information filter based on my own knowledge of facts underlying things they’ve reported in the past. I’d like to know more facts in this case, but I don’t expect to see any. The paintbrush is probably back in the can awaiting the next broad application. Since I know from experience the “usual business”, there is a large burden of proof to be overcome before I start believing in foul conspiracies.

>Neocons will always be the same, whether they be Americans or Canadians: shills for authoritarianism.

Surprisingly, DND is not exclusively run by neocons. And while the CF side requires by default the subordination of one’s personal interests and that lawful authority be respected, many have a healthy disrespect for unethical and immoral “authority”.

They want, they *need*, their Daddy State.

I could probably get on side with your comments if DND had not lied about keeping a file on Staples – now that I think about it, your reasonable explanation about an apparently mundane thing neglected to mention that.

Shall I guess that the officials didn’t know? That they answered without checking? Or maybe that it just slipped their minds?

That government clamping down on access to information bothers me as well, shall I take a guess at national security?

Another tempest in a teapot. Where did all the mature and rational people go?