Round-A-BoutVille
GWest, one of the commenters over at Mary's place, and I are working on something more definitive but I'm on the fly today.
In the meantime, I wanted to point everyone towards a couple of interesting posts that have pointed out what I did NOT learn from my correspondence with Kim Bolan which, as I pointed out late last night, was essentially confirmed in a story from the CP.
The first post is from the Red Tory who parses what Ms. Bolan told me, and what she didn't, very carefully. He also asks question about motivations for the writing the Feb 20th (Paul Martin/Sikh Youth Federation Connection) and the Feb 21st (Bains/Saini Connnection) pieces back-to-back right here, right now.
The second post is from Big City Lib who asks an important, double-barreled, question of Ms. Bolan that I did not, which is: Is there a real, actual list of 'potential' witnesses for the Air India inquiry and is Ms. Saini's name actually written on that list (if it exists)?
****
Lastly, before I go, at the risk of starting up another brouhaha*, a lot of people have asked me the following - Why did Ms. Bolan single out my little backwater for a scathing, but highly informative, comment in the first place?
Well, I would like to think that it has something to do with the fact that I write lots of extremely interesting and thought provoking stories about the goings on in Lotusland, where Ms. Bolan is located, that wouldn't be covered by the big name left-sided bloggers.
But I'm not so sure of that.
Why?
Well, because, if you can believe unconfirmed comments (which, of course is something I went out on a limb and kinda/sorta did once already), it turns out that my blog was not the only place that heard from someone who signed their missive 'kim bolan'.
Specifically, after Dan, he of 'The Dan Report', wrote a short speculative post on Friday evening which linked backed to, and quoted from, my original post, the following was the first comment that appeared shortly thereafter:
At 23/2/07 10:15 PM, said...
That's the last time I try to clarify rumours and misinterpretations of a story I have written.
The sad reality is that everyone is missing the key point - is it right for an MP - however well-liked, regardless of political parites - to vote on legislation that MAY impact a close relative of his.
That is the only question that should be affecting the debate. No one wants to discuss it. No one seems troubled that Saini, a former spokesman for the Babbar Khalsa, was a an alternate delegate to the Liberal leadership convention.
Now, again, it has not yet been confirmed that this comment was actually written by Ms. Bolan (and I sure hope Dan is trying to find out if it was).
However, if it was, I think there are a couple of pretty strong declarative statements in there regarding Ms. Bolan's possible motivations for writing the Feb 21st Bains/Saini story when she did.
As for the Feb 20th Martin/Sikh Youth story?
Well, that is something I wouldn't want to even begin to speculate on.
At least not yet.
OK?
____
*Interesting dynamic eh, how a little speculative post that generated exactly two comments, one from Ms. Bolan and my short response, could generate so much heat and, dare I suggest it, light?
Updated, evening of Feb 26th to make the paraphrase of Big City Lib's question clearer.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment