The eternal search for logic and consistency - Macleans.ca
 

The eternal search for logic and consistency


 

From QP this morning, Wayne Easter attempts to put two and two together. Or connect the dots. Or whatever the appropriate phrase is here.

Mr. Speaker, Richard Colvin is a diplomat with 20 years of distinguished service to Canada. He remains a high-level employee of the government in perhaps our most important foreign mission, the embassy in Washington. When Mr. Colvin and others raised serious allegations, the government said he was not credible. However, when the Prime Minister got second-hand information from Mr. Gillani, known as Big Daddy G, the government fired the Status of Women minister, booted her from caucus and called in the police. Why the hypocritical double standard?


 

The eternal search for logic and consistency

  1. Of course, if Harper hadn't suspended Guergis, Wayne Easter would now be squealing: "Why does the PM continue to turn a blind eye to the scandalous behaviour of his minister? Why hasn't he fired her yet?"

    • Yeah, it would be nice if Harper was straight with us on specifically why he tossed Guergis out of caucus wouldn't it? Then maybe the Opposition would have less to talk about. But that would require being an open and transparent government. And we all know how much Steve likes that…

    • When a government has to completely annihilate a cabinet minister the Prime Minister has supported against criticism for months, the opposition can have their cake and eat it too.

    • Uh, I think the real problem here lies in the PMO, not with Mr. Easter.

      And really, "squealing"?

      • I considered "bleating", but "squealing" seemed more appropriate in Mr. Easter's case. ;-)

        Anyway, I think that the problem lies both in the PMO and the OLO. The Ottawa Citizen's Susan Riley said it best:

        [Harper] survives, because, uninspiring as he is, the Liberals are worse: unfocused, unserious, almost abject. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, wasting what is left of his fine mind, spent much of this week in ardent pursuit of Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer — trying desperately and unconvincingly to shift blame for their misdeeds to Harper.

        Why, Ignatieff wanted to know, did the prime minister do nothing for months "while Mr. and Mrs. Jaffer attached their tentacles to the neck of government and slowly dragged it down?" For those who track such things, this metaphorical overkill may mark a new low for the Liberal leader and a moment when the mood in the Commons shifted from sport to cruelty.

        • Every single time serious questions are being asked about Harper's leadership, this deflection pops up. Sorry CR, but I find this type of framing very tiring. I don't think you'll find many who will claim that Iggy is perfect, but I do find it to be a tiring propaganda strategy to rely on this as "the excuse" to stick with Harper. Sadly – it is very successful, but this reveals more about the prejudices of our society than the actual reality of things. Call me old fashioned – but a man is only truly tested when he is given a chance. Everything else is gossip and speculation. It says a lot about our society when people are wiling to buy into such fear and paranoia well in advance. Great men such as Lester Pearson would not have lasted a second in the current cesspool we call politics.

          • I can see that being true to a point, but all I can think is…Stockwell Day.

        • I do agree with you and Susan Riley that Ignatieff has been utterly ineffective, in particular wasting so much airtime this week on Guergis, when he should be focused on the Afghan detainee issue. In fact, I'm sure Harper sees the Guergis distraction as not all bad for that reason.

          But it's hard to criticize the opposition for opposing on material issues. The government claimed Colvin's credibility to be lacking, but acted on a PI's disclosure on Guergis – it's inconsistent and indefensible. Had Harper treated Colvin with the respect he deserves, there wouldn't be an inconsistency.

          And of course, had he not fired Guergis when he did, the whole country would justifiably be howling (squealing, bleating), not just Mr. Easter.

    • Talk about missing the point.

      No one is complaining that Guergis is out of cabinet.

      The issue is the complete double standard here. With Harper it is not about accountability and good government but what is good for him and his party.

      Serious allegation after serious allegation with much circumstantial and some hard evidence that Afghanis – and possibly completely innocent Afghanis – detained by our soldiers in the course of war were tortured after being handed over to Afghani jailers – as our politicians told our soldiers to do – and that our politicians knew about these allegations and did nothing.

      And in those circumstances, Harper refuses to do a thing except: attack Colvin's credibility, accuse anyone of asking questions and for an inquiry to clear this up as being against the troops.

      Contrast that with: allegations from an unknown third party PI with a questionable or at least murky history and WHAM – not just out of cabinet but out of caucus, not allowed to run for the party, and the cops sicced on you.

      Harper's credibility gap keeps growing.

    • Lame.

    • The job of the opposition is to oppose. It's not as if Harper's Conservatives weren't constantly on the attack whenever they were in opposition. And if the Liberals were to so much as even seem the slightest bit conciliatory or supportive at any time, the Conservatives would see it as a sign of weakness and would pounce.

      Don't forget that one of the fondest wishes of the Tories is to kneecap their opponents by taking away public funding for political parties. Given this, there should be no incentive for the Liberals to do anything but attack relentlessly.

  2. Is this where the government asks why Mr. Easter is against the troops and against women?

    It truly is turning into a farce when civil servants are publicly smeared by Members of the Privy Council, when those same people are responsible for keeping any credible evidence secret from Canadians elected representatives and committees with top secret clearance.

    • Why does the opposition hate Canada's bankrupt dime store private dicks?

  3. "However, when the Prime Minister got second-hand information from Mr. Gillani, known as Big Daddy G,"

    Big Daddy G… LOL!! Yes indeed. That one sounds way more credible than Colvin et al. LOL!!

    • It seems clear that we simply need to hire a private dick and send him to Aghanistan to find out what actually occured. $500/ day + expenses. A bargain at the price.

  4. I know, masterstroke Mr. Easter.

    • Yep, best question of the week.

      So who calls him Big Daddy G? His bustyhooker/girlfriend? Or himself…?

  5. How full of yourself do you need to be to go around calling yourself "Big Daddy G" and how stupid do you need to be to actually do business with him?

    • I think we recently got the answer to both those questions.

      • HA!

    • Or to call yourself the . . .

      The "Harper Government."

      Peace, order, good government. So far, zero for three.

  6. I'm confused. 10 days ago, weren't the Liberals calling for Guergis to be fired. Harper obliges, and now they complain that he dumped her.

    Harper was looking for a reason to dump Guergis. The allegations of cocaine and potential blackmail, even though flimsy, gave him the excuse. Guergis was indiscreet in her behavior and in her apparent or actual associations. Cabinet ministers are supposed to steer clear of danger.

    • Let me demystify things for you. No one is really complaining about Guergis being dumped. They are simply pointing out the inconsistencies and lack of transparency within the current gov't. Did this help?

      • Not his purpose, no.

  7. I think a scandal revolving around the say-so of "Big Daddy G" is the sound of this Parliament jumping the shark…

    • Quick, it's time to prorogue!

  8. Be wherry careful of connecting unrelated dots.

    Do the political and other opinions of the majority of posters reflect those of the majority of Canadians? or are posters an eccentric, out-of-the-mainstream faction? If the answer to the first question is "yes", then Canada is even sillier than is suggested in Question Period or in the ruminations of the domestic punditry. If this sounds unfair, perhaps one should desist from reading Canadian newspapers for a while to regain one's dispassion.

  9. "from sport to cruelty."

    Now the Liberals are getting somewhere.

  10. The Government of Harper lives by the smear and it will die by the smear.

    • Funny, I do suspect that Harper's leadership will come to an end over something stupid like this, rather than the serious scandals he's working so hard to bury. Frustrating, like locking up a gangster over tax fraud, but as long as it gets the job done…

  11. With reference to the ex canuck above, in foreign relations, "linkages" are frowned upon…in fact actively discouraged as "not constructive", so I'm reasonably certain Mr. Colvin would be disinclined to grasp at the straw offer by Aaron. That said I can hardly wait until you Libs start eating your own again…man this bashing script of nonsense talking points from the OLO is tiresome.

  12. Harper has now established, beyond the shadow of a doubt, his inability to act with good judgement – when he's not following Ignatieff's every move. And when he has a new Comms Director.