Thursday, November 19, 2009

Why Do The Conservatives Allow An Incompetent Access To Sensitive Files?

The entire Conservative torture "defence" is obliterated by their own confidence in the unbelievable one. Quite a risky strategy- actually a testament to their own "unbelievability" on this score- to attack the messenger, when the messenger is a trusted government official. Summed up succinctly by the Globe and Mail:
Tories attack credibility of diplomat
who blew whistle on torture

Defence Minister cites ‘incredible holes' in testimony by Richard Colvin alleging Canadian government's complicity in the abuse of Afghan detainees...

Defence Minister Peter MacKay led the charge during Question Period today, saying the testimony from Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin can't be believed.

The awkward fact for the Conservatives however, is Mr. Colvin is otherwise trusted by the Canadian government on sensitive matters. He is currently a senior intelligence officer for Canada in this country's embassy in the United States.


There is no way to square the circle here. IF, you believe the Conservative retort, they voluntarily put their own judgement into question. Why is Colvin privy to very sensitive information, when he clearly has credibility problems, prone to wild exaggerations and half truths? Why has the Harper government shown such confidence in Colvin, when by their own admission, he is of questionable character? How could the government allow an incompetent to hold a high level position, involving top secret material? Why did Peter MacKay just say after QP that Colvin's job in Washington is secure, and then say he isn't "credible, his evidence doesn't hold up"? Contradiction much.

I note MacKay is being asked I as I type about the dueling logic of attacking a man you have such confidence in.

Interesting defence, one that looks ridiculous and DESPERATE.

13 comments:

JimmE said...

Sir Humphrey would be pleased.
(http://www.yes-minister.com/)

Mentarch said...

Steve: it's all about the fourth principle of incompetence ... or, as I prefer to call it, "lie and cry" (one recent example here).

RuralSandi said...

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Steve V said...

It will be the coverup that gets them in the end I predict.

ottlib said...

I wonder, will the media lose their fascination with the Liberals long enough to actually cause the Conservatives difficulties?

Will they default to the government position, parroting their talking points without any independent analysis or thought?

Anybody want to give me odds that the answers to my questions are "no" and "yes"?

RuralSandi said...

It's always about the cover-up

Steve V said...

"I wonder, will the media lose their fascination with the Liberals long enough to actually cause the Conservatives difficulties?"

Usually when they're done taking somebody down, after they build them up during the honeymoon, the get bored and look elsewhere. They also tend to look for any signs of a "rebound" with their former target, which is overstated. Both these dynamics might work in our favour.

rww said...

You need evidence of incompetence or wrongdoing to fire someone but that is not required to attack them during Question Period.

Lizt. said...

Tom Clarke , on CTV was trying to talk to him, and I do not think he believed a word of what McKay said.

ridenrain said...

Maybe I'm missing the point but I'm not seeing any change in the way prisoners are handled when the Liberals were in charge.
Could it be this is just another media witch hunt?

Steve V said...

You need to review your timeline, when these allegations surfaced, when it became known, who was in charge then, and then WHO covered it up and ignored the evidence. Last time I checked, a senior diplomat isn't in the media. If anything, the media has tired of this story to prematurely in the past, rather than keeping the pressure on. This time, it seems to have reached critical mass.

Marpman said...

It defies logic that when these allegations were first brought forward, that the government did not act on them. It would seem damaging that prisoners were totured under their tenure and they would want to make sure their actions were transparent on the matter.
To act as if it did not exist then, when the allegations are made public, to attack the source would seem bad politics, when a simple investigation would have put it to rest.

Gene Rayburn said...

Ridenrain, consistent conservative apologist...