Skip to main content

Qualifiers

Here's are a few of Paul Martin's responses to allegations he met with Claude Boulay to discuss advertising contracts:
"I have never had a lunch with Claude Boulay or anybody else to discuss the direction of contracts, directing contracts, intervening in contracts, that's just simply not my style of politics," he said, referring to the Montreal ad executive.
Asked if he had lunch with Boulay to discuss something else, Martin told reporters Thursday: "I can't recall having had lunch with him since we formed the government."
"I do not remember ever having any lunch with Mr. Boulay. But I did make his acquaintance at the beginning of the leadership in 1990, but it didn't last for long."
I'm no lawyer but I read all these qualifiers in Paul Martin's explanation of testimony at the Gomery Inquiry and what I come up with is this:
Paul Martin did meet with Mr. Boulay prior to forming the government. What they discussed is unknown at this point. Lunch was not served, but diner or snacks remains a possibility.
What troubles me is the care the he is taking in his phrasing. It smacks of a man with something to hide. Or, at least, a man who thinks he has to hide something. Paranoid decision maker that he is, perhaps he simply can't summon the courage to say, 'I met so and so before the last election, but we did not discuss contracts.' My own particular type of paranoia thinks Martin is putting a lot of negative emphasis on the first part of that proposition because it's the second that's the really dangerous part. Perhaps that's because they really did discuss contracts and Martin wants to avoid engaging Clinton-esque hair splitting as to what a 'contract' is. I don't actually think he has the balls to do that, but you never know. The other possibility is that they really didn't discuss contracts. So, if they didn't discuss contracts, what did they discuss? And why go to such lengths to distract attention from it? Martin doesn't do distraction very well either, if his pathetic response to Stephen Harper's questions in the house are any indication. When Harper asked the same questions the reporters in the linked story asked, Martin simply changed the question to one that he liked better. 'I have no hidden agenda, but Mr. Harper does. Let me ask him.... [useless idiotic blather follows, along with arm waving and Martin's prototypical crimson angry face].' He then proceeded to talk about a private think tank report in no way connected with the CPC or it's platform. That'll show 'em. Postscript: This article contains the exchange in the house that I'm referring to. PPS. Breaking news... Warren Kinsella is calling Martin a liar, claiming he has proof that Martin did take a hand in at least one contract. Too bad about the messenger...

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect
Post a Comment
Read more

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you
Post a Comment
Read more

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi
Post a Comment
Read more