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

The Hiatus will be blogged

This hiatus thing isn't going to plan. As I'm reading (books and blogs) I find things I think are interesting, or things I would like an opinion on, and bingo, my hiatus is in a shambles. So, *coughs*, until further notice, I'm blogging again. The main editorial difference that I can see coming from my few weeks away is that I do not expect to resume posting six out of seven days a week. There could be, at any time and without warning, a break of a week or two between posts. Really, I think that is the only way I can start to get some books behind me, and is also inevitable in the summer season when one wants to get out and enjoy it all. Here's a few things that got my attention this past week. Chris Taylor is blogging once again and has recruited an air force for the Red Ensign Brigade. Heh. Dennis Prager asks, Are you a liberal? Anglicans and Catholics are getting closer to reconciling -over the role of Mary in the Christian faith. Quote: A working group c...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ghost in the machine

In writing up this post I have to mention that I am very impressed with the quality of discussion that one finds on blogs. This truly is a remarkable medium. Thanks go to all three of the bloggers mentioned here for providing such good reading and thinking for the rest of us to try and learn from. I have not had a chance to read all of the entries linked to here, but I do intend to. ***** George Will compares two views of man in his latest column . One is novelist Ian McEwan, who places the following words into the mouth of the leading character in his latest novel, Saturday : Endless and beautiful forms of life, such as you see in a common hedgerow, including exulted beings like ourselves, arose from physical laws, from war or nature, famine and death. This is the grandeur. And a bracing kind of consolation in the brief privilege of consciousness. This character is a neurosurgeon. The quote reminds me that there may be some truth to the observation that those in the biological and...
Post a Comment
Read more