TurfRootsVille
Jim Shepard's citizen's brigade has posted up three Lotuslandian press bits from 14 years ago on their big money-backed 'independent' CC4BC website today that are meant to highlight Mr. Dix' previous incarnation as Glen Clark's fixer.
Now.
When he was first elected leader of the BC NDP it was my opinion that Mr. Dix was going to have to deal, head on, with the 'memo' issue from days gone by.
Because it is something that non-partisans just may find themselves wondering about as election day approaches.
But.
Stepping back a bit...
One thing I find interesting about this dredging up of old press-pieces is that, upon reading them again, the double-standard of how the foibles of Mr. Clark and his wizards were treated by the Lotuslandian proMedia 'then' compared to how Ms. Clark and her wizards are being treated by said media 'now' becomes apparent all over again.
Case in point, the following, which was published in the Province on March 25, 1999 (they don't give the byline, but I can guess). To catch a glimpse of the double-standard, just keep the word 'speculation' (based on unproven allegations and conjecture at the specific time in question) in mind as you read:
...Ever since the RCMP raided Glen Clark’s house in the great casino caper, the premier has done nothing but duck, dodge and evade the tough questions.
And for good reason: Clark knows he has no reasonable explanation to offer for how one of his best friends — deck-building handyman Dimitrios Pilarinos — got a casino licence worth millions of dollars.
In fact, through all the turmoil of the past three weeks, Clark has offered up just one measly alibi: The notorious “memo to file” supposedly written last summer by his principal secretary, Adrian Dix.
Dix, who was fired from his job yesterday, and Pilarinos have something in common: They are intimate friends of the premier. Dix and Clark even own a Victoria condo together.
But does Dix’s friendship and loyalty run so deep that he’d write a phoney memo in a desperate coverup of the premier’s relationship with Pilarinos?
Sadly, that’s what the police suspect. Now Dix is the subject of their investigations and the authenticity of Clark’s alibi is formally being questioned.
The memo is dated July 17, 1998. In it, Dix says Clark asked to be insulated from the decision-making process on Pilarinos’s casino application.
“Whatever the decision, he [Clark] wanted no part in the outcome,” Dix wrote.
How convenient. And how suspicious. Here’s what we’re supposed to believe:
Dix says the memo was written for his eyes only. It was a “memo to file” uncirculated anywhere else in government until March 3, the day after the cops searched Clark’s house.
“I just saw it the day it was produced to the public,” Clark confirmed yesterday.
The memo is stamped “Office of the Premier,” but Dix says he can’t remember who stamped it (or even if he stamped it himself).
Sound fishy to you? It sure does to the cops. That’s why the RCMP commercial-crime squad paid a little visit to the premier’s legislature office — where Dix works — on March 16.
Dix confirmed yesterday that the police examined his computer. He also said he expects to be interviewed by the police about the memo (undoubtedly with a taxpayer-financed lawyer at his side).
These latest revelations raise new questions about Clark’s fitness for office...
Of course, there is something else that is important to consider here.
Which is that if Mr. Shepard et al. have decided they want to make a big deal about something that Mr. Dix was involved with, as unelected official, in 1999, does this mean that it would not be unreasonable for others to ask specific, pointed questions about things Ms. Clark was involved in, as an elected official and cabinet member in, say, 2003?
_____
And if you do go a-googling looking for the byline on the 14 year old Province piece posted above, you won't find it on the first pass...But you will find that the same piece has already been posted, in full, on...You guessed it....the 'Risky Dix' smearsite...Gosh....Wasn't that site constructed by the BC Liberal Party and/or current BC Liberal Party MLA's caucus staff?
.
Of course, there is something else that is important to consider here.
Which is that if Mr. Shepard et al. have decided they want to make a big deal about something that Mr. Dix was involved with, as unelected official, in 1999, does this mean that it would not be unreasonable for others to ask specific, pointed questions about things Ms. Clark was involved in, as an elected official and cabinet member in, say, 2003?
_____
And if you do go a-googling looking for the byline on the 14 year old Province piece posted above, you won't find it on the first pass...But you will find that the same piece has already been posted, in full, on...You guessed it....the 'Risky Dix' smearsite...Gosh....Wasn't that site constructed by the BC Liberal Party and/or current BC Liberal Party MLA's caucus staff?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment