That'll be the tory talking Point du jour.
No. This is your punchline:"I would start with Paul Zed. He was the MP for the New Brunswick riding of Fundy-Royal. He is now the interim chief of staff to Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff. He is related by marriage to the Irving family, having been married to Judith Irving, the granddaughter of K.C. Irving.I'm not saying Paul Zed had anything to do with this..."
This is true. Janke is a genius at discerning patterns in the chaos. His famous "six degrees of Cindy Sheehan's vagina" set a new standard for political analysis all around the World.
Actually, Ti-Guy, I was way more impressed with Janke's "Chinese toothpaste" phase. That was a classic.
I want to know who told Robert Fife that it was all a Liberal plot. This is the same Robert Fife after all, who was sure that Maher Arar was guilty because someone told him so.
I want to know who told Robert Fife that it was all a Liberal plot.You'll never find that out. Most of our political news and analysis is founded on gossip we're all supposed to believe comes from "party insiders," "senior officials" and those speaking on the "condition of anonymity."Die, journalism, die. From the ashes, a phoenix will rise. And if none doesn't, I doubt we'll even notice.
I want to know who told Robert Fife that it was all a Liberal plot.It was Kory, who just "resigned" to muddy the trail. After all, the lies about Ignatieff that Harpo blurted on the world stage came from the PMO. As proven liars, why would we expect this to be any different.The wafer gate story was such an obvious plant from day one. But not atypical for the CPC, is it?Fife wants a Senate seat, just like Duffy.
Sorry. I saw the video. http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-all-about-gays-isnt-it.html (Click through.)You saw the video. I cannot definitively say I saw HMPM Stephen Harper pocket the host; I can definitively say I did not see HMPM place the host in his mouth. As far as the priest is concerned, if he did say he'd like to know what the prime minister did with the host, I 'm sure he has had the time to think through the business of raising questions about the head of the government. As far as the newspaper is concerned, the current "[t]here was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time this article was published" says far too much. 1. It fails to take account of the video, which raises a credible, if not genuine, question of what Harper did with the host; 2. I've read a lot of retractions from newspapers in my life. This one doesn't fit the pattern. This is a shit-eating retraction. 3. To me, this retraction rings hollow.
Post a Comment