Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Hey Everybody, It's a Shoving Match!


OK, OK, OK, it's only a press release.

But, as the actual text of these things rarely becomes part of the record we thought we'd post it up.

And besides, it came our way from someone who loves to see pol-piloted media whirlitzers collide but who, unfortunately, is too busy at the moment with other things to stop and watch the sparks fly.

For Immediate Release
February 28, 2007

Liberals Demand Apology from Pierre Poilievre

Ottawa - Lawyers on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada
and Liberal MP Navdeep Bains today delivered a letter to Conservative MP
Pierre Poilievre demanding that he withdraw his false, misleading and
defamatory statements made during an interview on CFRA radio in Ottawa
on February 22, 2007.

The statements were calculated to cause damage to the Liberal Party of
Canada and to injure the reputation of Mr. Bains and to discredit Mr. Bains
as a person and as an elected official. The letter serves as Notice of Action
as required by section 5(1) of the Ontario Libel and Slander Act.


Office of Navdeep Bains
(613) 995-7784

Renée Filiatrault
Liberal Party of Canada
(613) 783-8423

Oh, and by the way, here is the audio to the interview cited (mp3 file).

We have to admit, there are some pretty wild-eyed statements in there from Mr. Poilievere.

One of the wildest and most Luntzian is this one:

"....we know there is an extremist element in the Liberal party generally that has been very vocal in opposing measures that are designed to combat terrorism."

I also noted, with interest, the use of talking points like 'flip-flop' and 'loonie-left' that are being used over and over again by other fellow travellers like Mr. Day.

All joking aside, please notice the frame that the CPC Strategists/Junior Rovians are trying to build around their newly birthed News Zombie.

Specifically, that it is the centrist Liberals who are the extremists rather than Mr. P. and his bosses who, of course, are actually doing their best, even from a minority position, to radically re-jig the country formerly known as Canuckistan.

We also thank Mary for bringing the thing to our attention in the comment threads. Mary is definitely not too busy to chase down media whirlitzers. In fact, she is trying her best to find the ones that should be covering the BC Rail/Ledge Trial saga (although, finally, it looks like there is some media interest due to a little pushback from the defense).
TheTorStar has a partial transcript of the interview up.


Is Fifteen A Leaky Number?


Yesterday, we made a bit of a fuss about whether the potential list of potential witnesses for the potential RCMP investigation into the Air India bombing is actually a list at all.


Well, because this, apparently, is the major reason why the Bains/Saini familial connection was 'relevant' (ie. if Mr. Saini is, indeed, on this potential list of potential witnesses then Liberal MP Mr. Bains, who is Mr. Saini's son-in-law, would have been in a potential conflict of interest when he, himself, voted against extending the ATA provisions in yesterday).

You got all those potentials?


Because, here's the next weird thing......

Suddenly last night, in the wire stories chronicling the vote, the list was concrete and it had a real, not a potential, number attached to it.

First, from the CP:

Neither of the provisions due to expire Thursday has ever been used. However, the RCMP has been planning to use the investigative hearing provision to compel 15 individuals to testify about their knowledge of Canada's worst terrorist attack - the 1985 downing of Air India Flight 182, which claimed 329 mainly Canadian lives.

Second, from the AP:

Although the provisions were never used, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was planning to use the investigative hearing provision to compel 15 individuals to testify about their knowledge of Canada's worst terrorist attack — the 1985 downing of Air India Flight 182, which claimed 329 lives.

Now, in addition to that somewhat Kafkaesque number, the wording in these reports is also important because, apparently, it turns out that investigations that are already underway can still utilize the ATA provisions in question even though they have expired.

Now, if you go back (again) to the original report on the familial connection between Messrs Saini and Bains by Kim Bolan it is, to put it mildly, very difficult to surmise that the RCMP investigation into the Air India Inquiry is
not 'ongoing':

The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe.

Given that, it becomes even harder to discern the real problem re: the Saini/Bains connection?

After all, if there is a probe/inquiry going on that needs to be advanced, wouldn't that mean that the ATA provisions would have still applied regardless the outcome of the vote in the House yesterday.

But, leaving all that aside for the moment, the weirdness continued this morning when CBC Radio News reported that the RCMP won't say whether it actually has any investigations underway that will continue to utilize the ATA provisions (I heard it on the 8:00am PST World Report).

Which brings us all the way back to the beginning, because.....

If the RCMP won't say, how did the Vancouver Sun 'learn' that there was a potential list last week and how did the wires 'learn' that there is an actual list of 15 individuals?

Unless there really was a leak, not about the Bains/Saini connection (which is what we concluded here), but rather about the list.

Which sure would be an interesting development, indeed, if it turned out to be the case.

'Potentially' speaking, of course.


This post was updated to include the links back to the original story by Ms. Bolan and her 'apparent' comment left at Dan's place.


Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Never Bury Your Lead


Bad, but not completely unexpected, craziness is breaking out all over the place on the long simmering BC Rail/LedgeRaid story:

The B.C. finance minister had a secret meeting in a restaurant with a pair of executives from a U.S. rail firm after letting his aides know the company would receive a contract for the Roberts Bank rail line as consolation for losing out to CN Rail in the bidding for B.C. Rail.

That information -- along with explosive allegations of Liberal insiders' close family connections to police investigators -- is contained in a document filed in B.C. Supreme Court late yesterday in the case against three men charged with fraud and breach of trust in the B.C. Rail sale.

Andy Ivens, The Vancouver Province
Feb 27th, 2007

Mary, as usual, is all over it (you listening now staffers?).

Why is this not totally unexpected. Well, there was this......


How Much Potential Can One List Have?


So, despite the fact that we still stand behind our conclusion that Kim Bolan did not find out that Darshan Singh Saini was Navdeep Bains father-in-law via a leak from either the Police or the Pols, there is one thing that is still troubling us about her Feb 21st story in the Vancouver Sun.

And that is the following following sentence:

The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe.

So, why is this troubling us?

Well, it seems to be one of the reasons that Ms. Bolan decided that the story was relevant in the first place. Specifically, because the fact that Mr. Saini is on such a list would put Mr. Bains in a conflict of interest if he were to participate in the upcoming vote on the future of the anti-terrorism act that is scheduled to take place later today in the House (unless a compromise is reached before then).

How do we know that Ms. Bolan feels that way?

Well, we could try and argue that it is because of the following statement that she apparently left at the Dan Report:

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.

Unfortunately, it would be difficult to base any argument on that statement because Dan has not yet heard back from Ms. Bolan directly to confirm that she actually left that comment at his place.

However, we are certain that Ms. Bolan did say the following:
(qualifiers in brackets and emphases are mine)

"Remember, police have a long list of people that they would like to talk to in those investigative hearings. He's (Saini) already been interviewed by police. He was linked to a young man who tried to assassinate a witnes in the Air India case in 1988. So, ya, he is somebody who has information, ummm, who could, potentially be brought in. Did that influence the Liberals' decision? I certainly don't know that. That's for them to say. However, I did think, given the relevance of what is taking place in Ottawa regarding the Anti-Terrorism Act, that this was something that needed to be reported."

And how do we know that Ms Bolan said that?

Well because someone who shall go unnamed (ie. a source who approached us, not the other way around, just for the record) pointed us towards the audio of an interview that Ms. Bolan gave to Rob Snow of CFRA Radio, the CHUM affiliate in Ottawa, on the afternoon of Feb 21st - the same day that her story was published. It was also the same day that Mr. Harper tried to refer to the story in the House before he was shouted down by the Liberals.

All of which is fair enough, kinda/sorta, I suppose.

Except that we would think that in order for there to be a conflict there would actually have to be a list.

And is there one?

Well, at other points in the CFRA interview its existence is certainly inferred a number times.

But never as definitively as in the original newspaper story where, again, it was stated that:

The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe.

So, if the Sun really did learn that Mr Saini is on this potential RCMP list...... how, and from whom, did they learn about it?

I mean, wouldn't there have to be a source, one that some might categorize as a 'leak', to confirm the list's existence.

But what if it turned out that there wasn't such a source/leak?

I mean, that would just be plain crazy talk, right?


Except that Ms. Bolan herself also said the following in the CRFA interview, right up front:

"As these police investigators try, desperately still, to get to the bottom of what happened back in 1985 and the subsequent years, he (Saini) is potentially one of the people who they potentially want to talk to."

Now, it is important remember that this statement of 'double potential' was made by Ms. Bolan after her story had already been published.

It is also important to recall that Ms. Bolan also made the following statement in the comment she left on our blog a full day later:

"I wrote the story and there was no leak. It was very apparent from sitting through 19 months of the Air India trial who would be the obvious choices for investigative hearings - all the names came out during the evidence at the trial. After the trial, I wrote my book on Air India, called "Loss of Faith: How the Air India Bombers Got Away With Murder" and reviewed documents related to the one Supreme Court challenge of the investigative hearing provision, launched and lost by Satnam Reyat - the wife of the only man convicted."

So, if there was no leak, does that mean that there was no confirmatory source?

And if there was no confirmatory source, does that mean that, perhaps, the Sun actually didn't 'learn' that there was a list, potential or otherwise?

And if that's the case, does such a list, one that actually has people's names on it, actually exist?

Or was there just a lot of potential for such a list to exist?

And if it's all just a lot of potential, where, dare we suggest it, is the actual conflict?


And, for the record, BCL was asking many of the same questions, sans the audio, last weekend.
Oh, ya, just about forgot, some folks, especially those that don't live in Ottawa, might actually want to hear the CRFA audio for themselves. Here it is, but be forewarned, it's an MP3 file.


Monday, February 26, 2007

They're Back........



Update, 5:30pm, Monday Feb 26/07 - Originally, the first line of this post read:

'Well, just when I thought the Canadian Press had freed me.....'.

However, after taking Mary's comments to heart (see the footnote at the bottom of the piece for details) and after reading the first comment I realized that this should be changed to include the person who really started this thing rolling, GWest)


Well, just when we (ie. GWest and me) thought the Canadian Press had freed us from the mighty Whirlitzer, Mr. Stephen Taylor, a man known for his, shall we say, "somewhat" conservative allegiances has thrown us back into it's spinning blades.

This time by way of Macleans:

In response to a related article, Maclean's 50 member and conservative blogger Stephen Taylor posted a link to an entry on The Gazetteer blog apparently written by Bolan in which she rejects any suggestion the story was the product of a government leak.

"The reason I wrote the story this week is because I just learned (through Sikh community contacts, not POLICE) that [Darshan Singh] Saini was the father-in-law of Bains," Bolan wrote. "I did not know that until very recently. I called up Saini and Bains and they confirmed it. I thought it was relevant. So don't always look for a political conspiracy. In this case, there isn't one."

Now, the 'staff' posted this up today, Monday, Feb 26th.

Which begs the question.......

Did they even bother to have a look at the follow-up post that I wrote late on Friday, Feb 23rd after I heard directly from Ms. Bolan via Email, and which David Akin of CTV was good enough to link to on the morning of Saturday Feb 24th?

Clearly, based on this, the people who make it their business to poke and prod the MSM machine into taking their bait do so safe in the knowledge that the minions turning the cranks are either too overworked, too time-pressured or, dare I suggest it, too lazy, to actually check their source material carefully, if at all.

And, as an aside, I now know what it feels like to be one of the pokers and prodders' mangled minnows.


By The Way- Again, as Mary points out in the comments on the last post, we should all pay tribute to one of the knowledgeable Anon-O-mice at her place who, as it turns out, is none other than our good friend GWest.
And One More Thing- Any of you MSM folks that may (or, more likely, may not) read this should really think hard about spending some time digging into the subject matter of Mary's Blog - which should soon be B.C.'s second trial of the century. OK?


One Small Thing The Whirlitzer Is Getting Wrong


So, when I wrote the post in which I gave Kim Bolan the benefit of the doubt regarding the fact that it was she who initiated the discussions that led resulted in her finding out that Liberal MP Navdeep Bains is the son-in-law of Dashan Singh Bains who is a potential witness and/or on a list of potential witness for the investigative hearings into the Air India Bombing I knew that this would be embraced by the right side of the bloggodome.

But I put it up anyway.

Which led to some interesting comments, and posts, and a whole lot of goodwill, much of it genuine I think.

Stuff like this.

But something interesting has happened in the couple of days since.

And that is the fact that it has become conventional wisdom on the internets that this story came from a 'Liberal' blog.

I'm not sure how this happened, exactly, but I have a sneaking suspicion it started in earnest after David Akin of CTV posted the story up on his blog.

I want to make it very clear, however, that Mr. Akin did not paste the capital 'L' label on me. Quite the contrary; he was very circumspect and very fair.

But I do think that Mr. Akin's post that gave my narrow and carefully worded conclusion considerable legitimacy in the eyes of many. In addition there were parallel (but not nearly as circumspect) posts up at Big City Liberal and liberal catnip at about the same time.

So, suddenly, ipso facto, I became a 'Liberal'.

Which of course, serves the right-side, particularly those that have aligned themselves closely with the CPC, very well in the rapidly intensifying "Battle of the Bloggodome".

For me, this all came to a head with Deborah Jones post at the Canadian Journalist.

As a result, I felt compelled to respond:

"'s interesting to me that my place is now being described/labelled as a capital 'L' Liberal blog.

Because, while I clearly identify myself as being on the left side of the bloggodome, I don't think I have ever indicated that I am a federal Liberal.

In fact, during the the last election campaign I wrote a whole series of strategic voting posts from the point of view of someone who is a non-denominational Con-Stopper."

To her great credit, Ms. Jones has since changed the post and removed that capital from the front end of the label with a clarification as well.

But the point is, if the work is solid, and, particularly if it deals in a straightforward and verifiable manner with a demonstrable falsehood, why do such labels matter?

In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that in cases like this labels can be counter-productive as they inject a bias into the reader's mind that wouldn't otherwise be there.


By the way: If you click through the 'Con Stopper' link above you will see it was a discussion of strategic voting in Lotusland from last January, which is clearly going to be a very, very important issue in the next election (including all you Green Party supporters who may be compelled, once again because of our FPTP system, to make a hard choice when push comes to shove).
Finally, if you want to read a couple ofvery thorough, thoughtful and, yes, skeptical, posts on the entire Bolan/Saini/Bains/Martin affair so far, you won't do better than than this one and this one from Red Tory who, of course, has given himself a label that helps keep him from being, well, labelled.


Sunday, February 25, 2007

What I Didn't Learn From Kim Bolan (Part I)


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.


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, Kim Bolan 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.


*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.


The Original Paul Martin/Sikh Youth Story


The following is the piece that Kim Bolan published on Feb 20th, the day before she wrote the Bains/Saini pice.

I thought I had best archive it, as a public service, before it too disappears behind the subscription wailing wall:

Kim Bolan, Vancouver Sun

Published: Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Paul Martin solicited the support of the terrorist International Sikh Youth Federation in his failed bid for the federal Liberal leadership in 1990, The Vancouver Sun has learned.

Martin made an impassioned speech to the ISYF's national convention in which he said he was honoured to "meet friends who share the same belief in this country, the same belief in peace, the same preparedness to defend themselves."

At the time of Martin's spring 1990 speech, the ISYF had already been identified as a terrorist group by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Four in the group had been convicted in B.C. of the attempted assassination of a visiting Indian politician. Other B.C. members had met with a young would-be assassin who shot newspaper publisher Tara Singh Hayer in 1988.

The Martin speech came two years after then Conservative external affairs minister Joe Clark warned Canadian politicians to steer clear of the federation, the Babbar Khalsa and the World Sikh Organization because of terrorist links. The ISYF was banned in Canada in June 2003 by the Liberal government of Jean Chretien.

Liberal MLA Dave Hayer, whose father Tara was assassinated in 1998, was shown a video copy of Martin's speech by The Sun.

Hayer said he was disturbed to see a future prime minister standing in front of a banner of a terrorist organization.

"When you start going to some groups that are involved in terrorism, people think you are endorsing that group's beliefs," Hayer said. "We as politicians have to be careful not to look like we are supporting extremist views."

Hayer said witnesses have been reluctant for years to come forward in cases like the 1985 Air India bombing and his father's murder because they see how closely suspects are aligned with politicians of all stripes.

"It is difficult to find witnesses when suspects have very close connections with politicians," Hayer said. "It sends the wrong message."

Martin said in the 1990 speech: "I want to tell you what a great honour it is for me to have the opportunity to come and speak to you on this the fifth annual meeting of the International Sikh Youth Federation."

He pledged to take up the issue of human rights abuses in Punjab, as well as to establish a visa office there.

Martin was flanked at the ISYF convention by Albina Guarnieri and Maurizio Bevilacqua, who encouraged delegates to support Martin and the Liberal party.

"We now in the Liberal party are in the process of choosing a new leader and on behalf of Paul Martin and myself, I thank you all for your friendship and your trust and your support," Guarnieri said.

Bevilacqua also praised convention delegates saying: "What I really admire about your community is that you fight for the things you believe in."

Martin, Guarnieri and Bevilacqua are still members of the Liberal caucus, which has taken a position against extending part of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which the RCMP is using to advance the Air India investigation. The Liberals claim concern for civil liberties in supporting the expiry of certain provisions of the act.

After the Liberals spoke at the convention, an ISYF leader explained in Punjabi how it was important to have politicians on side "to reach our target faster." Repeated references to fighting for Khalistan were made by other speakers, including a British leader of the ISYF. British federation members were convicted in 1986 of plotting to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi.

Martin lost the Liberal leadership in 1990 to Chretien, his long-time rival. He later won his party's nod, becoming prime minister in December 2003. He stepped aside as leader after the Liberals' poor showing in the January 2006 federal election.

Bevilacqua did not return phone calls about his appearance at the 1990 ISYF convention, and the office of current Liberal leader Stephane Dion had the party's critic for public safety, Susan Barnes, return The Sun's call. Barnes refused to comment on The Sun's revelation.

The 1990 ISYF convention speeches are not the only ones made by Liberals over the years. Several Liberal MPs and Ontario MPPs attended the March 1988 Toronto-area ISYF convention to condemn Clark's statements about the group.

Members of the terrorist Babbar Khalsa also addressed the convention, including Ajaib Singh Bagri, who was later charged and acquitted in the Air India bombing.

At the ISYF's national convention in Vancouver in 1989, former B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Wilson, who later joined the NDP, spoke from the stage, as did Bagri.

A group of pro-Khalistan delegates to December's Liberal leadership convention were instrumental in the victory of Stephane Dion, delegate Tarek Fatah said in an interview.

Fatah watched as some of those delegates objected to references to the Air India inquiry made by leadership candidate Bob Rae.

And last week in Surrey, Liberal and NDP MLAs stood in front of a Khalistan sign at Surrey's Dasmesh Darbar temple as they were praised by worshippers for acknowledging the tenets of Sikhism in the legislature.

"It is not just the Liberal party," Fatah said. "[The politicians] go to temples and mosques and they have no clue what is being said."


Saturday Night's Alright.......

......For Prosetylizin'


So, I've just been over at Dave and Dana and Cheryl's place because, well, because it's a fantastic place to get smart.

And I must confess that I got a little Sammy Maudlin for a moment or two.

Which is something I sometimes do late on Saturday nights.

Anyway, in the comments to a post by Dana that took Tarek Fatah to task for being disengenuous on the Bains/Saini affair, I took the opportunity to respond to Dave's congratulations for the small part I played in trying to stop the Whirlitzer.

Thanks Dave.

You know, it's funny, a strange thing has happened in response to my small, weak attempt to stop the whirlitzer.

I mean when I was writing the follow-up piece, I thought for sure that I was going to get hammered from both ends of the bloggodome.

Instead, quite the opposite has happened.

Very curious, indeed.

Is it possible that everyone who really pays attention, regardless their political persuasion, likes to see demonstrable falsehoods being put to rest?

Now, of course, most on the Rightside of the Dome who flocked here today had no idea about my political leanings when they first started hitting the links.

Which, due to the rather obscure nature of most of my posts given that I try to focus on all things Lotuslandian, was also true for a number of the folks that arrived from the Leftside of the Dome.

So......... While I've got you all here, I thought I'd let you know where I'm coming from.

And the easiest way to do that late on a Saturday night while my wife is waiting is to just point you all towards the words and music of Billy Bragg because, well, he's never let me down.

And, unlike so many musical icons from days gone by, Billy has not become irrelevant because he always changes his tunes for the times.

Just like he has done with this greatest of the greats......
(those who know it will notice the change in the second and third lines of the very first verse)

G'night everyone.


My Time In The Sun Is Done



I'm off the hook.

Kim Bolan has come out to the Canadian Press:

VANCOUVER, Feb 24/07 11:01pm (CP) - There's no need for an investigation into whether a government official leaked the identity of a potential witness in the Air India bombing case, says the reporter who broke the story.

Vancouver Sun reporter Kim Bolan told The Canadian Press on Saturday that there was no leak from anyone and that the story was done on her own initiative.

The Liberals demanded Friday that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office look into whether anyone in government or law enforcement provided that confidential "security information" to the Sun.

"The story was not a plant by anybody," Bolan said. "All this talk of plants by the government or the RCMP is ludicrous.

"Nobody has disputed a single element of the story because it's true," said Bolan, who has covered the Air India case since the tragedy in 1985.

Bolan said it's ridiculous that politicians are reacting as if the information is some kind of security breach. She said anyone who has covered the Air India case in any detail has the information.

The prime minister himself referred to the Sun article in the House of Commons last week.

Harper touched off a chorus of catcalls as he attempted to draw attention to the report that the man in question was the father-in-law of Toronto Liberal MP Navdeep Bains.

The Liberals had said it was obvious that some public official - either in government or law enforcement - leaked Darshan Singh Saini's name because only they would be aware that the RCMP might want to question him.

Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan denied any government involvement and said the Liberals could complain to the Vancouver Sun if they had a problem with the story.

Now I can get to work on that post about all the things I did not learn from Ms. Bolan (with a little help from GWest).


Original Link Source: Liberal Catnip, who, as is often the case, has been on this thing right from the beginning


Saturday, February 24, 2007


I'm Stuck In the Whurlitzer And I Can't Get Out!



As regular readers are likely aware, I have fallen into the whurlitzer that has cranked-up around the Bains/Saini affair (and all that entails), mostly because of my brief correspondence with the author of the original piece in the Vancouver Sun, Kim Bolan.

For those not familiar with the story you can follow its evolution here, here and here.

You can also cross reference it with the original piece written by Ms. Bolan which I've liberated from the soon-to-fall subscription-wailing-wall here.

Anyway, I was fully prepared to take hits from both sides of the Bloggodome based on the conclusion I came to, which was the following:

As for me, I think I have now been given an answer to the lesser known Sixth 'W' which is 'how' (Ms. Bolan received her information [regarding the familial connection between Mr. Bains and Mr. Saini]).

Thus, I can only conclude that there was no pre-determined conspiracy afoot here.

What I was not prepared for, however, was for the MSM to start spouting-off on my small part in the story.

Although looking back on it now I guess it was inevitable once folks like Ralph Goodale started asking the same questions that I had asked speculatively two days earlier, at a very good discussion over at Mary's place.

And, I must say, at least David Akin, the parliamentary correspondent for CTV News, was fair in his assessment:

The Gazetter also follows what I think are good instincts in trying to verify that the person who posted the comment on his/her blog is, in fact, Kim Bolan. The Gazetter appears to be satisfied that Bolan did indeed write those lines.

In response, I left the following comment for Mr. Akin at the CTV website. I've posted it here for posterity because I have no idea if it will ever see the light of day there given the vagaries of the GlobeMedia login/vetting system:


Yes, I am convinced that Ms. Bolan wrote those words in a comment she posted on my blog after I raised the issue speculatively in post on Thursday (after a discussion with commenters on another Leftcoast blog the day before.

In an Email to me from her pacific newspapers group account, which is detailed in the follow-up post you linked to, Ms. Bolan also made it clear that it was she that initiated the conversation with her contact(s) in the Sikh community (ie. it was not the other way around).

However, to be clear, this is the only specific point that I tried to deal with unequivocally in my brief, but cordial, correspondence with Ms. Bolan by Email. I did this purposefully because I wanted to be able to be able to make a definitive statement, for the record, one way or the other, given my previous speculation that Ms. Bolan took exception to.

Which, I believe, is what I've done.

As a result, however, there are many things I did not learn from Ms. Bolan and these will be detailed in a future post.

Thanks for representing the situation accurately.

RossK (Gazetteer)

So, there you have it.

Perhaps the only way for me to get out of this whirly-gig that is making my head spin and keeping me from my work and family (I'm sitting in the Laughing Bean on East Hastings at the moment, pounding furiously at the keyboard for a few minutes, while little e. is at dance class) is to write that post titled 'What I Didn't Learn From Kim Bolan'.


The Laughing Bean is a fantastic place, and I've written about it before. It also has free, and I mean absolutely free! (take that VPD) WiFi, which makes it even more attractive than the Evil Empire Outlet cloaked in green down the street.


Friday, February 23, 2007

The Sixth W


OK, here goes........

Last night a comment attached to this post took me to task for speculating that there might have been a political 'conspiracy'* afoot regarding the source of the information that formed the core of a Vancouver Sun story earlier this week which indicated that a potential witness in the Air India inquiry, Dashan Singh Bains, is the father-in-law of Liberal Member of Parliament Navdeep Bains.

(this is a big story in Canada at the moment for all kinds of reasons, including the fact that the current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, earlier this week referred to it when he tried to slag the opposition Liberal party for being soft on terrorism)

The comment in question, which I posted in full here, was apparently from reporter Kim Bolan, who wrote the original Bains/Saini piece that appeared in the Vancouver Sun.

The comment made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the source of the information was not the police, but rather that it came from 'Sikh community contacts'. The commenter also stated this information was obtained very recently.

The comment and commenter both appeared to be legitimate, but, due to the lack of link or Email address associated with it, I couldn't be absolutely sure.

As a result, I contacted Ms. Bolan directly through her Pacific Newspaper Group Email account first to thank her for the comment and then to ask her a follow-up question that I considered to be crucial in attempting to lay the matter to rest, one way or the other.

Specifically, I asked her if she made the original enquiries about Mr. Saini or if it was the other way around.

In other words, was Ms. Bolan digging to get the information or was it offered up out of the blue?

I believe that this is a critical point because if it was Ms. Bolan that initiated the query then it is very likely that the story emerged as a result of a journalist following her nose with the '5 W's as her guide (which is a little cluster of questions to live by that so many of her colleagues seem to have forgotten or, worse, may never learned). If, instead, it was the 'contacts' that offered-up the info., unprodded, well, that would be a whole different story altogether.

To her great credit Ms. Bolan, without divulging any sources, was good enough to answer my follow-up question directly.

In a nutshell, she said it was she who initiated the proceedings by asking an Ontario contact about the whereabouts of Mr. Saini as she does this to keep track of folks that have been involved in the Air India case, and the closely related cases of the shootings of a local newspaper publisher, Tara Singh Hayer, in 1988 and 1998 (Mr. Hayer very publicly stated that one of the accused in the original Air India trial had told him that he had been involved in the fatal bomb plot; the second shooting of Mr. Hayer was fatal) .

(At this point I should interject to make it clear that Ms. Bolan has been covering all of these cases since the beginning, both as a reporter for the Sun and as an author of a book on the subject.)

In her Email reply to me, Ms. Bolan then want on to state that it was only after she had made her initial enquiry that the source then mentioned that Mr. Saini was the father-in-law of Mr. Bains, which she didn't already know at the time and which she found interesting (and, as she stated in the original comment, 'relevant', especially after Mr. Bains confirmed it).

Now, you may want to question the motives of the 'source' in divulging that information but, no matter how you slice it, I believe that Ms. Bolan has provided us with a reasonable explanation regarding the Fifth 'W'.

In other words, she has made it pretty clear 'why' she decided to write the story now.

As for me, I think I have now been given an answer to the lesser known Sixth 'W' which is 'how' (Ms. Bolan received her information).

Thus, I can only conclude that there was no pre-determined conspiracy afoot here.


*I didn't actually use the term 'conspiracy' originally but, admittedly, I wasn't far from the giving my shiny new hat from the good folks from Alcan a try. I know a lot of folks are going to take a run at me now, especially since the federal Liberals are now asking the same questions I started asking on Wednesday, but hey, I asked Ms. Bolan directly and she answered me, straight-up. In my books, if the person is honourable, and I personally have no reason to believe that Ms. Bolan is not, that is all one can do, unless other evidence to the contrary surfaces subsequently. So, if somebody out there has the evidence in hand, let fly.
Finally, please do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting in this post that I don't still have reservations about other comments and conclusions in Ms. Bolan's story, or about another related story that has received a lot of play, it's just that the thing that I made a fuss about originally was 'how' Ms. Bolan obtained the Bains/Saini connection info in the first place. Thus, that is what I have tried my best to get to the bottom of here.


'There Was No Leak'


Double, Not-So Secret Probation Update, evening of Feb 23, 2007
I have contacted Kim Bolan directly and she has provided additional information about how she came to learn that Mr Bains is Mr. Saini's son-in-law. This info can be found here.

We've got to hand it to Kim Bolan.

After we speculated about the possibility that Ms. Bolan may have been the recipient of a 'leak' which led to her story about the fact that Darshan Singh Saini is Liberal MP Navdeep Bains father-in-law, she, apparently*, left us the following message on the comment thread:

I wrote the story and there was no leak. It was very apparent from sitting through 19 months of the Air India trial who would be the obvious choices for investigative hearings - all the names came out during the evidence at the trial. After the trial, I wrote my book on Air India, called "Loss of Faith: How the Air India Bombers Got Away With Murder" and reviewed documents related to the one Supreme Court challenge of the investigative hearing provision, launched and lost by Satnam Reyat - the wife of the only man convicted.

I have covered this story since 1985 so there are few mysteries or secrets. I first interviewed Darshan SINgh Saini back in 1988. I have a copy of parts of his police statement that came out during the Air India trial. The reason I wrote the story this week is because I just learned (through Sikh community contacts, not POLICE) that Saini was the father-in-law of Bains. I did not know that until very recently. I called up Saini and Bains and they confirmed it. I thought it was relevant.

So don't always look for a political conspiracy. In this case, there isn't one.

Kim Bolan | 02.23.07 - 2:17 am

Which is fair enough, including the smackdown at the end.

So, based on this it would appear that there was no leak from the police and/or (presumably) CSIS.

However, my original speculation over at Mary's place where the discussion actually started, was whether there might be a political component behind the sudden emergence, right here/right now, of the information that forms the linchpin of the story.

Now, Ms. Bolan's statement, while implying that there was no political component, is not entirely clear on this point because the fact that she 'just' learned of the familial connection from 'Sikh community contacts' does not completely close the door on that possibility.

Regardless, we thank Ms. Bolan very much for letting us know where she was coming from in writing the story.

Clearly, if we take the comment at face value, this was a story that was initiated by a very good reporter and, while we have not read her book, we have followed Ms. Bolan's reportage since the mid-80's. We also heard the CBC interview with her earlier this week that made it clear that getting Air India trial story out there has also put her in considerable personal danger.

*Based on the nature and specifics of the comment we assume that it really did come from Ms. Bolan. However, in the absence of a link or email at the end of it we were unable to confirm this with certainty.


The Original Bains/Saini Connection Story


Given the fact that it has become an important focal point of discussion, both here, there and everywhere, we have decided that it is important, as a public service, to post up the entire Vancouver Sun story titled 'Liberal MP's in-law interviewed in Air India case' by Kim Bolan before it disappears behind the CanWest subscription wailing wall:

Kim Bolan, Vancouver Sun

Published: Wednesday, February 21, 2007

A young Liberal MP who delivered Stephane Dion 250 leadership votes is the son-in-law of a man police have interviewed in connection with the Air India bombing case.

Navdeep Singh Bains, MP for Mississauga-Brampton South, shot on to the national stage after the December 2006 convention in which he delivered huge support to Gerard Kennedy and later to Dion, who won the Liberal leadership by 437 votes.

The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe.

But the ability to hold those hearings will be lost March 1 if parts of the Anti-Terrorism Act expire as expected, after the Liberals recently withdrew support for extending the provision being used to hold them.

Saini, former Ontario spokesman for the terrorist Babbar Khalsa Panthak, said in an interview that if he is called to the investigative hearing, he will testify.

"If they call me, I will see. I don't know about that," he said. "It is not that I hide anything. If something comes up again, that is that."

And he said his MP son-in-law's political positions have nothing to do with him.

"I can only speak for me. I cannot speak for my son-in-law," Saini said from Toronto.

Saini is listed as an alternative leadership delegate for Kennedy, according to documents obtained by The Sun. But he said he did not attend the convention because of medical issues.

Kennedy said Tuesday he has met Saini, but was unaware of his link to political events in the Sikh community in the 1980s.

"I had not been aware of it. And it certainly never came up within the course of any of the interactions I had," Kennedy said. "I have never had the opportunity to discuss it with him [Saini.]"

Nor has he discussed the issue with Bains, he said.

Saini was a controversial figure in the 1980s. He helped a young man named Harkirat Singh Bagga by giving him a place to stay for several weeks in 1988. Bagga left Saini's Ontario home that summer, travelled to B.C. and critically wounded newspaper publisher Tara Singh Hayer in the first attempt on Hayer's life. Hayer, who had offered to be a witness in the Air India case, was assassinated a decade later.

Court documents released during the Air India trial say Saini told the RCMP he had met Bagga in Pakistan in November 1987, along with Ajaib Singh Bagri, a Babbar Khalsa leader acquitted in the Air India bombing.

Bagri at one time was charged in the 1988 plot to kill Hayer and Saini was expected to be called as a witness, according to Air India trial documents, but the charge was later stayed.

Hayer's son Dave, who is a Liberal MLA in B.C., said he had no idea that Bains was related to Saini.

"I was really shocked to learn that a member of Parliament is closely related to someone who was living with the person who came to shoot my father," Dave Hayer said.

The RCMP has been preparing since 2003 to hold investigative hearings into the Air India bombing to compel people believed to have knowledge of events at that time to testify before a judge.

Bains, who is just 29, confirmed last week his relationship with Saini. He did not call back Tuesday to answer questions about the implications of Saini's possible involvement in investigative hearings.

He said earlier that he makes all his decisions as an MP based on what is best for Canadians.

He said he had not realized the impact of the change in the Anti-Terrorism Act on the Air India probe.

"It is very concerning," Bains said. "There is a debate that is taking place and it will continue to take place. There is no doubt about that. We will raise it among ourselves."

His family also has connections with the World Sikh Organization, another Sikh separatist group that made an address at the resumption of the Air India inquiry in Ottawa Monday.

Saini said he is no longer involved in the Khalistan movement.

"I am not very much into politics any more," he said. "My views are drastically different now."


Thursday, February 22, 2007

Pushing CCRAP! (Volume IV)


Double, Not-So Secret Probation Update, evening of Feb 23, 2007
I have contacted Kim Bolan directly and she has provided additional information about how she came to learn that Mr Bains is Mr. Saini's son-in-law. This info can be found here.

Update afternoon of Feb 23, 2007/Mea Culpa Alert!
Kim Bolan, the author of the original piece in the Vancouver Sun has (apparently) left us a note in the comments which has resulted in a follow-up post that can be found here.

Now there has been a lot of kerfuffle, hot air, and a touch of the brouhaha over the Stephen Harper/Navdeep Bains affair.

In case you missed it, Mr. Harper switched into smear mode during question period yesterday when he tried to suggest that the Liberals love terrorists and hate the police because a story in the Vancouver Sun indicated that Lib MP Bains' father in law is a potential witness in the Air India probe.

Liberal backbenchers were ready for Mr. Harper's CCRAP-laden verbal attack and shouted him down immediately.

Which, in and of itself, was pretty interesting.

But what really interests me is the following - where did the original leak for the VanSun story come from?

We've had a bit of a discussion about this over at Mary's place, and one of the Anon-o-mice had something very, very interesting to say:

I've been running this around in my head ever since yesterday - trying to fit the facts to several possibilities. There are RCMP prints on this story too - CBC was playing clips of a female officer who was also lobbying Harper and the House to keep the sunset provisions of the terrorist bill from blinking out...

There are several possibilities about that Sun story, in my view. It certainly has the look of a planted story - how big would your current (ca 2007) file (if you were a working reporter) on Paul Martin's failed bid for John Turner's dented crown be? That 'story' had to come from someone outside Kim Bolan's regular beat - and it had to be done with purpose and precise timing - or what's the point?

In my view there are two possible sources and one probable conduit for those sources...and I don't think it's a coincidence that the story broke in the Sun. I’m not much of a conspiracy buff….but, there is no way that the political half of this equation wasn’t aware of this little manufactured drama in advance. Add the slightly embarrassing fact that the Prime Minister is, by his own admission, diddling with the process of judicial selection in precisely the same way his predecessors did – and you have a lot of very good reasons to change the subject.

To which I can only add - if, indeed, it was a leak was the story doled out on the condition that it be run 'clean' (ie. that the reporter not use alternative sources or POV's)?

Accidental Deliberations concludes that this affair indicates that Mr. Harper's true nature is emerging before the CCRAPtacularists can obfuscate their way to their way to their precious majority. Me, I figure that, when you are made entirely of CCRAP, it is inevitable that a little of the brown stuff will leak out now and then, regardless how tightly Sandy B. straps on the Depends every morning. The nattering neighbobs of NaPoism have an entirely different take on the matter, of course, one that is more bizarre than not a few of the most rabid of Blogging Tories.


Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Pushing CCRAP! (Volume III)



Yesterday, after the StratCon Poll that helped reinforce the Superbowl Smear Aids was splattered all over the front page of the Globe And (NoLongerEmpire) Mail, I speculated that Little Stephen and The Imperial(ist)s would surely pooh-pooh all this 'call an election now' talk in an effort to build the Big Mo.

After all, why let reality intrude when the StratCon's 34/29 CCRAP over Lib numbers can be just as easily matched by the dead-heat from Decima.

But what I had missed at the time was the next 'Big Lie' that was slipped in like a shiv on the same day's OpEd page from that academic Neidermeyer of the Northern Neostraussians, Tom Flanagan, who went so far as to say:

"At bottom, the Liberal tactics amount to a kind of bastardized Americanism. They're trying to set up Parliament as a force contrary to the Prime Minister and cabinet. But the genius of the American system of separation of powers is to encourage compromise between the House of Representatives, an elected Senate, and an elected President armed with the power of veto. The Liberals, in contrast, while making common cause with separatists who want Canada to fail, are relying on an appointed Senate and a Governor-General who no longer has a veto power."

Can you believe that CCRAP?

A Con Party operative throws up some expedient garbage about private member's bills being an 'American' tactic and then he implies that a party led by Mr. Dion, one of the architects of the Clarity Act, is actually pro-separatist and our so-called paper of record prints it on the very same day that they also trumpet a poll that, to be frank, 'pushes' the very same Con-Op's candidate.

I mean, to quote a certain modern day (American) Eliott Ness this is:


You know, back in the days when many of my good friends in the States began to really and truly despair at the fact that their entire country had been taken over by liars, swindlers and cheats (ie the Fall of 2004), I cautioned them against their urge to flight an evil Propogammon Machine with an even more powerful PropMachine of their own.

Because I always thought that, in the end, the truth would win out.

But now that the Libby trial has demonstrated how the Mainstream Media really works in America I'm not so sure this is possible.

And what really scares me is that Mess'rs Flanagan and Harper actually seem smarter than, say, the Rover and the Shooter*.

Not to mention the fact that the Canadian MSM has proven that it is not much better than the Yanks at dealing with journalism by smear (see: Arar, Maher).

Which is why I've come to the conclusion that we need a Stephen Colbert to call our own.

And, while he's great and all, unfortunately I don't think Rick Mercer is quite up to the job.


*I left the Twig parallel out of it on purpose. After, all the CCRAPtacularists already tried that when they foisted the Stockboy on us, and we rejected him. So, I guess there are still some differences between the two cultures - although if Mr. Day had worn a codpiece over that wetsuit, well, who knows......


Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Pushing CCRAP! (Volume II)


Well, whaddya know, it's another one of those 'Big Mo' Polls for Little Stephen and The Imperial(ist)s from Allan Gregg and the Strategic Counsel - front page, above the fold, in today's Globe and Mail:

Canadians in overwhelming numbers say Stephen Harper is the most decisive federal leader with the clearest vision of where he wants to lead the country, according to a poll that suggests the Conservatives may now have the winning conditions needed for a spring election.

The new survey also finds that voters have failed to warm up to recently elected Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, and that his party has lost its postconvention bounce to the Tories, who are seen to have the best handle on national issues.

Were an election to be held today, 34 per cent of voters would opt for the Conservatives, up three points from last month. The Liberals are at 29 per cent, down six points from the same period, while the New Democratic Party is down one point to 14 per cent. The main beneficiary appears to be the Green Party, which has the support of 12 per cent of voters, up from eight per cent.

"These numbers are good enough that I would start my election preparedness in earnest," said Allan Gregg, chairman of The Strategic Counsel, which produced the poll for The Globe and Mail-CTV News. "I would say, looking at this, something untoward would have to happen for him not to call it."

Now, with all the swiftboating and smearing going on, not to mention the fact that George Bush's best new boyfriend is positioning himself as a 'War PrimeMini-Me'* you might conclude that a 34/29 split is actually pretty close, and certainly not a majority - especially when one factors in the absence of any hard MoE numbers in the nearly breathless bit of stenography from the Globe's Brian Laghi.

But, of course, when you're Crankin' the Whirlitzer alternative conclusions are beside the point.

Which is clearly evident from the 96 uber-steno follow-ups from the herd press so far.

And just in case you missed it back in the day, here's the plot summary of 'Pushing CCRAP, Volume I' first released into mass circulation back in Jan 2006:

National Poll Results

Date Poll Lib CPC NPD BQ GRN MoE
Jan. 16 SES 30 37 18 10 4 +/-3.1
Jan. 16 Ekos 30 36 19 12 3 +/-3.7
Jan. 16 SC 27 40 16 11 6 +/-2.5

Now, first off ignore that Strategic Counsel business. As we have discussed before, proprietor Allan Gregg has a track record of sending his operatives out onto the right-sided fringe of the Pollosphere.

So, that leaves SES and Ekos.

And they both show a tightening. So much so that they are at the outer margins of the MoE with respect to the gap betweeen Our (small)Paul and (notso)Little Stephen.

19 times out of 20, of course.

See this anywhere being screamed, above the fold, in 144 type on the front pages of any Canned West dailies today?

Or even the Toronto Globe and (nolongerEmpire)Mail for that matter?

Thought not.

So if you were going to anticipate the WPM-M's next bit of harpoon-assisted jujitsu to keep the whirlitzer cranking through a few more newscycles, what do you think it would be?

Me, I figure he'll deny he has any intention of calling the election in an effort to lower expectations just before he announces that we're going to build 18 more Timmy's and a Molson's Brewery in Kandahar.


The Mini-Me nick-name comes from orc at 'This Space For Rent' who figures that, in this case at least, the student may be stronger than the master.


Monday, February 19, 2007

Our Own Private Idaho


There are a lot of reasons to admire, and sometimes be inspired by, the work of Gus Van Zant.

But one of those reasons is probably something you haven't thought about.

And that is the weather.

Specifically, the dank, dreary wetness of the Pacific Northwest that I grew up with and always wanted to escape*.

And yet, in his best work, stuff like 'My Own Private Idaho' and 'Drugstore Cowboy', Van Zant somehow managed to make that weather, and the 'edge of the earth' landscape that goes with it, interesting, cool even.

Which is how I feel about comments.

Now, please don't understand me.

It's not the comments that I find dank or dreary.

Quite the opposite actually.

Because quite often the best comments help you see your own wet-blanket posts in new and interesting ways.

Take my ruminations on Billy Joel's 'Piano Man' from a few days ago. I wrote the post in a fit of weird, languid melancholy very late on a Saturday night, with my wife away, and my kids tucked away in bed.

And then, suddenly, the very next day there was a jocular comment from our good friend Jim Bobby that said he was of a mind to turn the catchy little ditty into one of his infamous political satire songs.

And it turns out he has done so, to hilarious effect.

It's about Mr. Stephen Harper and it's called......

Go have a listen - it's way, way, way more than fantastic.

Bizarre how inspiration can come from the strangest of places, when you least expect it.

*And I did for a few years, but that is a whole other story.


Watch What They Do, Not What They Say


Well, well, well.

It looks last week's British Columbia throne speech was, indeed, sent aloft with a considerable amount of hot, CO2-laden air:

VICTORIA, CP, Feb 18th/07 -- There won't be a lot of green in Tuesday's B.C. budget, but it still boasts a nice colour, says Finance Minister Carole Taylor.

B.C.'s books are firmly in the black, she said.

Taylor wouldn't reveal the exact amount of the surplus, but suggested it's above the $2.15 billion forecast last fall.

"We will have a surplus," she said.

Taylor was tight-lipped about what she will do with the surplus.

She said last week there wouldn't be any money in this year's budget to fund the ambitious green plan the government laid out in its throne speech, rankling environmentalists that have been cheering the plan.


Taylor said it will take most of the coming year for the government to assess the costs of it's plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by one third by 2020, among other measures.

It is the most ambitious plan in Canada and rivals the energy plan announced earlier this year by California.

Campbell has invited California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to B.C. to work on a West Coast green plan. Schwarzenegger, a former bodybuilder and movie star, has accepted an invitation to visit British Columbia.

Now, if one was going to be generous, one would also point out that, in addition to the groping of the Gropinator by Mr. Campbell, Ms. Taylor is also dangling a significant hike in Welfare rates, made possible by our 'strong economy', in front of our crossed and bloodshot eyes.

However, given their track record, I am much more inclined to think this is actually a two-pincered P.R. version of the Schlieffen Plan in which GordCo MarkIV's Spinmeisters are attempting a sneak attack from both sides of the Progressive divide such that they can then sucker punch us until we go........ 'Down Like Frazier!' (again).



Sunday, February 18, 2007

How Long Before They Swiftboat Slaughter?


After all, how can the Neandercons possibly survive if congress people actually start making sense:

New York Representative Louise Slaughter, who chairs the powerful House rules committee, said in an interview with The Canadian Press that plans to require passports at land borders are a prime example of bad anti-terrorism policy.

"I don't think they really appreciate the damage that they're doing," said Slaughter. "It's disconcerting.

"They have no reason in the world to believe that Canada's not as secure and they can't do as good a job as we do."


"A lot of people aren't going to go to Florida from Canada," said Slaughter. "It is going to have an impact on that economy down there. We just perhaps might want to get the Florida delegation riled up about that."

As well, said Slaughter, Vancouver is hosting the Winter Olympics in 2010.

"We've got to make sure people can smoothly cross our borders. You're going to need a crowd from the United States."

I mean, heckfire, the woman probably even knows that we have provinces, not states, and that a lot of folks in Quebec speak french but weren't born, you know, in Paris, France.

Original Link Source: Scott Tribe