This handy primer courtesy of the Blue Maple Leaf;
When Gurmant Grewal first notified the public that he had been offered a cabinet post, the liberal party, including the Prime Minister, denied that anyone had ever talked to Gurmant.
When Gurmant said that he had been recorded his conversations with liberal party members, the Prime Minister changed his story and said that liberal party members were negotiating with Gurmant, but that Gurmant initiated the negotiations. Paul Martin added that at no time did he ever agree to meet with the Conservative MP.
However, the audio tapes clearly show that the chief of staff for Prime Minister Paul Martin said, “The Prime Minister is prepared to talk to you directly both by phone and in person.”
During question period in the House of Commons Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper asked the Prime Minister why he said he was unwilling to meet with the Conservative MP when clearly he was.
Paul Martin answered by repeating his previous lie, that Gurmant initiated discussions with the liberal party. The Prime Minister also said that he gave specific instructions to senior party members that no offer could be given to entice a defection and at no time was the Prime Minister prepared to meet with the Conservative MP. Then Paul Martin ended his answer by saying, “obviously anyone would meet with somebody that was interested in crossing the floor.”
[…]
Paul Martin again changed his story by saying that he would not be willing to meet with the Conservative MP unless he joined the liberal party with no preconditions or offers from the liberals.
Now, go back to the beginning and review the first sentence;
When Gurmant Grewal first notified the public that he had been offered a cabinet post, the liberal party, including the Prime Minister, denied that anyone had ever talked to Gurmant.
“This article, which explores the tendency of journalists to magnify the role of the press in scandals and identifies Mark Felt as the most likely source of a “Deep Throat,” appeared in the July 1974 COMMENTARY.
July 1974
Did the Press Uncover Watergate?
Edward Jay Epstein
A sustaining myth of journalism holds that every great government scandal is revealed through the work of enterprising reporters who by one means or another pierce the official veil of secrecy. The role that government institutions themselves play in exposing official misconduct and corruption therefore tends to be seriously neglected, if not wholly ignored, in the press. This view of journalistic revelation is propagated by the press even in cases where journalists have had palpably little to do with the discovery of corruption. Pulitzer Prizes were thus awarded this year to the Wall Street Journal for �revealing� the scandal which forced Vice President Agnew to resign and to the Washington Star/News for �revealing� the campaign contribution that led to the indictments of former cabinet officers Maurice Stans and John N. Mitchell (who were subsequently acquitted), although reporters at neither newspaper in actual fact had anything to do with uncovering the scandals. In the former case, the U.S. Attorney in Maryland had through dogged plea bargaining and grants of immunity induced witnesses to implicate the Vice President; and in the latter case, the Securities and Exchange Commission and a grand jury had conducted the investigation that unearthed the illegal contribution which led to the indictment of the cabinet officers. In both instances, even without �leaks� to the newspapers, the scandals uncovered by government institutions would have come to the public�s attention when the cases came to trial. Yet to perpetuate the myth that the members of the press were the prime movers in such great events as the conviction of a Vice President and the indictment of two former cabinet officers, the Pulitzer Prize committee simply chose the news stories nearest to these events and awarded them its honors.”
[More at]:
http://www.rapp.org/url/?8LZQVBCR
#######################################
Mark Felt identified as Deep Throat in 1974.
Woodward & Bernstein’s work as heroes of the press
placed in a true light.
The press does not understand government workings/machinations/rivalries, & etc.
Pertinent to S-canada-ls? Absolutely.
Grewal is honest, the only one speaking the truth; Harper and Grewal = Honesty.
Has the press examined this statement? No. Have they examined the liars/cheats/frauds/crime in Martin’s government in any depth? No.
Why not? The press is honesty challenged, with rare exceptions. Lazy, self-stroking, egos, with exceptions. Generalizing is dangerous.
A true worthy is Andrew Coyne. He has called for Murphy, Dosanjh; even Martin to resign.
Martin, resign now.
I do all my interviews via phone and tape. I have to because I have the attention span of a flea. When I’m writing up my story, transcribing my tape, in effect, I have a)cats meowing b)lawnmowers/leaf blowers/cement trucks, etc., as background noise 3)the tv or radio, if they’re on 4)distortions in sound as my interviewee moves the phone around. I also have moments of dead air when my tapes drags (?batteries)or I’ve jarred the mike. There are so many variables here, it’s laughable. Trouble is, all these sound engineers and journalists know that you cannot have pristine tapes unless you are in a soundproof studio, in front of a high-quality mike, with somebody in another room “driving” your levels, volume, etc. Taping can only be pristine when done in a controlled environment. I can’t even read the papers or watch tv anymore, I am so thoroughly disgusted with all journalists except Mr. Coyne and (grudgingly)Don Martin and John Ivison. Chantal Hebert, I suspect, despite her TorStar connections, at least calls it as she sees it. I guess cause she’s in Montreal and her editor isn’t standing over her.
“Boy, Paul Martin has got to be the worst politician ever:
OTTAWA – Prime Minister Paul Martin is wearing the blame for the sponsorship scandal even though it occurred under the watch of his predecessor, Jean Chretien, a major new poll has found.
The poll shows that, by a margin of two to one, Canadians are more likely to finger Martin — not Chretien — for being solely responsible for the mess.
Specifically, only 16 per cent said Chretien should “take responsibility for activities uncovered” by the Gomery commission into the sponsorship scandal. By comparison, 29 per cent said Martin should take responsibility.
Let�s recap. Martin�s single most important policy objective upon taking office in December 2003 was distancing himself from his predecessor. The whole point of the Gomery Inquiry was that it was foolproof � if it found nothing, then great; but if it found vast evidence of Liberal misdeeds, then Martin could point at Crouton and say �Look! Look! Johnny did it!�
For the record, Paul, there are two principles at work here. The first is time. This is what happens when you let things drag on. Vietnam was Kennedy�s war. Then it became Johnson�s war. Now most people (particularly the historically-challenged liberals) remember it as Nixon�s war.
The second principle, of course, is what the Royal Navy under Nelson referred to as �The Captain�s Cloak�: no matter what happens aboard ship, no matter when it happens, no matter where the Captain is or what he�s doing, the Captain wears it. Junior watchkeeping officer grounds the ship? Captain gets court-martialled. It�s as simple as that.
Previous Captain retires and leaves the new Captain with a hull full of dry rot and a mutinous crew (not to mention a political time-bomb strapped to the hull)? Sorry � it�s the new Captain�s problem.
And this is the result. AdScam and Paul Martin have become inseparable in the minds of Canadians:”
[ More at:]
http://www.rightthinkingpeople.blogspot.com
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
AdScam Martin, indeed;in deeds, thoughts, actions; all of the Librano$.
AdScam Martin; forever, in Canadian history.
Martin, the worst politician ever!!!!!!
Amen. Say, Amen. Amen.