Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

BTC: Questions for further discussion

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 6:07pm - 27 Comments

John, like the rational veteran of Parliament Hill that he is, asks the most rational question of the day. Several more questions that are hopefully almost as rational.

Is the issue here really plagiarism? Or is the issue what that plagiarism says about Stephen Harper’s thinking, judgment and process when faced with the fundamental international matter of the past decade?

Does it really matter less that he was opposition leader at the time? Or should we do the thought experiment and imagine how we might have reacted to this news had he been Prime Minister when he delivered that speech?

And if the counter argument this morning was that whoever wrote the speech has long since moved on, what are we to conclude from the fact that the person who fraudulently crafted one of the most important speeches of Stephen Harper’s political career was still on staff?

Tags: Election Watch, John Howard, Owen Lippert, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

D

@Davey Boy:

Ever been to Australia?

Suzuki actually has a large following there (probably as much, or more than in Canada). His shows are regularly broadcast there, and judging from Aussie bookstores he sells a hell of a pile of his books.

This is probably because science coverage in the Australian media, and the Aussie public’s appetite for science, makes the Canadian equivalent look pretty lacklustre.

Howard is long gone to the majority of Australian’s relief but Suzuki continues to have a significant presence in Australian public discourse.
Mike T.

comment by Steve M on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 10:35 am:

But I think a lot of people are remembering a lot more anti-War evidence than was actually available at the time.

***

When you’re talking about attacking a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked you, you should need evidence TO attack it, not evidence to NOT attack it. And it should be a lot of evidence, far more than was available at the time.