Monday, April 18, 2005

Party Favours

Lots of buzz around Warren Kinsella's testimony today. Warren defends himself at his blog, but really, that hardly seems necessary. I mean, everybody who has even remotely followed politics over the past decade (or has taken the time to read Juggernaut) knows of the close ties between Earnscliffe and the then "PMO in waiting" (now the "death row PMO"). Earncliffe split in two for this very reason and Martin was hounded to death over the connection his first few blissful weeks as PM, before this bigger scandal made CSL and Earnscliffe problems of the past.

Not a word Kinsella said today hasn't already been said by hundreds of other staffers, pundits and politicians around Ottawa over the past few years. I mean, his testimony is about as shocking (or "explosive", since that's the hip word now) as if he'd gotten up there and said "Paul Martin owned a steamship line".

Wednesday Morning UPDATE: Seeing "operation discredit", as Warren calls it, hit full steam, it's pretty obvious that Kinsella isn't the only "disgruntled" one in the ongoing Liberal feud. Boy, these Martin guys sure do bear a grudge, don't they?

Also, if you scroll down to April 18th at Adam Radwanski's blog, he makes a very valid comment. When Jean Brault, a man on trial for FRAUD drops a bombshell, everyone soaks it up. When Warren Kinsella, a lawyer and longtime Liberal, says stuff not nearly as shocking, he's described as "disgruntled" and is taken about as seriously as Mariam Bedard. I don't remember Scott Reid going after Jean Brault even remotely as ferociously as this.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home