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

This week has four sketches

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, November 27, 2009 4:26pm - 6 Comments

The first of what will be a weekly recap, posted each Friday, of what we saw and heard. On the occasion of this first installment, we deviate slightly from what will be the format going forward and reach back to last Wednesday.

Wednesday, November 18. ‘There is no evidence’
Thursday, November 19. Eighteen attempts to explain the same story

Monday, November 23. Prove it
Tuesday, November 24. Full disclosure
Wednesday, November 25. Lost in translation
Thursday, November 26. ‘Let us get beyond the rhetorical flourish’

Tags: house of commons, Parliament, Question Period

More by Aaron Wherry

tobyornottoby

How are we doing on the full disclosure thing? It seems as though we completed the retired generals distribution earlier this week; are we onto the parliamentary committee part yet?
Dave

Friday: "Oh, we actually knew all about it after all and started trying to fix it the second we took power!"

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/…

All that rejecting NDP suggestions to add prisoner monitoring almost immediately after they saw the initial agreement? Well, we couldn't have admitted they were right.

I don't recall denying that I'd ever seen any documents on this subject!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

So, just to get this straight, after the generals come to support the government's position, which is that warnings about torture were never sent, McKay has now asserted that he received all kinds of warnings, most notably from Mulroney (who we know from the bit of the unredacted memos, and Colvin's testimony, got his information from Colvin at least in part). But then to admit retired generals (i.e., private citizens) were given full access to documentation the parliamentary committee has been asking for for some time now with no result — !

If that isn't contempt of parliament, I don't know how you define contempt.

kcm

Too bloody true it is!

leroy

This is what they should have said from the beginning

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Agreed. But to come up with this explanation after a) sullying a person's reputation and b) trying every other excuse under the sun, it doesn't give the expected empathy and understanding of the situation. Not to mention that Ministers stood up in the House of Commons and lied for two years.