Monday, April 18, 2005


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...

No comments: