Guergis speaks out...
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
I haven't made any changes to any of my settings. Is it just me or is anyone else being sent to the first page rather than the last when clicking on this thread. (I haven't been in another thread for awhile so I don't know if it's just this thread.)
I just got directed right to your post. But I've noticed some glitches lately. I already past along my concerns to Andem. Try that, if it continues.
About half the time, yes, for some reason. I've only noticed that with this particular thread, though.
I don't do well with too technical computer issues. If you're having one,
or have a concern about what might be one, then start a Thread here:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/troubleshooting/
Andem monitors this, and will address any issues found here.
Thank you Ron. I believe Canadian Bear has already reported to Andem. I know that you have stated before that - like myself - you only know your way around the computer a little. I just assumed you would message Andem but it's alright since it seems to be taken care of.
It just occurred to me that maybe he already has. When I clicked on this thread I came directly to the last page as I should have.
It just occurred to me that maybe he already has. When I clicked on this thread I came directly to the last page as I should have.
Looks like things aren't going so well for the CPC over this affair now. According to a CBC video (for whatever reason I can't cut and paste it, but it's on this page CBC News - Canada - Guergis handling a 'catastrophe': Ignatieff and it's the second video from the top on the right of the page).
As it turns out, Guergis actually got sympathy from her constituents and the PMO has felt obliged to go on air to defend itself.
I'm not going to say the PMO is lying or that Guergis is telling the truth. There's no way to tell either way right now. However, it does show the PMO to have been inept in how it handled the case. You don't reveal to the public that that there are serious allegations and then refuse to say what those serious allegations are. I realize they may be legally bound to keep mum on this, but if that's the case, they should have kept mum on the 'serious allegations' too and just say that she's leaving Cabinet for personal reasons. That would have been enough news for us until the RCMP should choose to speak or not.
From what I'd seen on the CBC yesterday though, it would seem Iggy is just as prone to foot in mouth in his comments about Guergis. Just as the PMO should never have revealed that there were any allegations against her, so Iggy too, if he had half a brain, would choose not to comment on this, or at most state that if what the PMO says it's true, then it's now a police matter and far be it for him to interfere in sch matters.
It would seem that as stupid as Harper is, the opposition always manages to fall even lower. If you can't rise up to the occasion, you need not worry if the opposition always manages to fall even lower than you.
As it turns out, Guergis actually got sympathy from her constituents and the PMO has felt obliged to go on air to defend itself.
I'm not going to say the PMO is lying or that Guergis is telling the truth. There's no way to tell either way right now. However, it does show the PMO to have been inept in how it handled the case. You don't reveal to the public that that there are serious allegations and then refuse to say what those serious allegations are. I realize they may be legally bound to keep mum on this, but if that's the case, they should have kept mum on the 'serious allegations' too and just say that she's leaving Cabinet for personal reasons. That would have been enough news for us until the RCMP should choose to speak or not.
From what I'd seen on the CBC yesterday though, it would seem Iggy is just as prone to foot in mouth in his comments about Guergis. Just as the PMO should never have revealed that there were any allegations against her, so Iggy too, if he had half a brain, would choose not to comment on this, or at most state that if what the PMO says it's true, then it's now a police matter and far be it for him to interfere in sch matters.
It would seem that as stupid as Harper is, the opposition always manages to fall even lower. If you can't rise up to the occasion, you need not worry if the opposition always manages to fall even lower than you.
I'm actually impressed that they did.
I didn't take that from that interview. He seemed quite clear where the Gov't stood and who has the authority to release the information. Furthermore, the wording of her press releases early on would indicate that she was aware of the allegations against her. Now she says she isn't.
Again, i didn't take that from this video, or any other material thus far. I think they acted within the bounds of the law, offering an explanation as to why she was asked to resign. Full stop.
Then you would likely be demanding to know why she was asked to resign.
From what I've seen on the CBC, I still think it's a Liberal hell hole. Guergis gets the kid gloves, and Soudas get's hard ball.
I'm starting to think that that is the opinion, you are using to formulate your opinion on this matter.
Actually, no. As long as she'd not being gagged, it would be up to her to reveal why she left Cabinet.
What facts?
Maybe the opposition would hound her to win brownie points, but then they'd be shooting themselves in the foot and i'd be just as critical there.
Let's say I was a Cabinet member and owing to personal, family, health or other issues I'd decided to resign from cabinet. Would it not be my prerogative to keep my reasons to myself?
If she'd committed a crime, we'll hear about it soon enough from the RCMP. It wasn't up to the PMO to inform us of these allegations.
All the ones presented.
Maybe.
Sure. But if you are accused of serious allegations that have to do with your public position, and forced to resign for said allegations, then the public has a right to know. When the investigation is concluded, the extent of those allegations will be presented.
True.
Agreed, which is why they haven't. They have merely informed us as to the context of why she was forced to resign, and that there are serious allegations again her. All said without violating her rights or interfering with the investigation by making the allegations public. The specific allegations in the court of public opinion came from the media, who did not get them from the PMO. The PMO cited serious allegations, and addressed specifics already in the public domain, and nothing more.
Putting it that way, you do have some good points. I suppose the PMO could have revealed that she was being removed from Cabinet owing to serious criminal allegations against her which have been turned over to the police while emphasizing that she is to be treated with respect by the members of the House and that any further action will be taken by the police, not the PMO.
To some degree the PMO has done that though I suppose it could have done more to defend her there. As for the opposition, it also did not make things any easier by pushing the government to reveal everything as if a witch hunt. They simply exacerbated the situation ad contributed just as much to this fiasco. Had they just left good enough alone, it would never have become the fiasco it had become. Really, neither side has dealt with this issue very responsibly. If the PMO absolutely had to reveal that there were serious allegations turned over to the police, it could have done more to defend her from the opposition too, though granted the opposition should never have put the government in such a position to begin with.
That's pretty much what was done.
Why? So the opposition and partisan pundits could have a field day with it?
As a counterbalance to the shenanigans of the opposition. They're all acting like children.
Then again, knowing how immature the opposition is, that alone would have been a good reason for the PMO to take her out of Cabinet quietly.
I guess in the end there is no solution. Parliament is so partisan now that you're right, it doesn't matter what he does, the opposition would have pounced. Though of course I'm not suggesting the Conservatives are eny better judging from the way the PM had handled prorogation. And even then, the opposition was not much better if at all.
I remember reading an article once of a primary school teacher taking her kids to see parliament and saying how embarrassed she was at how the Parliamentarians were behaving. They were doing things she'd never have tolerated form her students. Or was that on TV? I can't remember, but I remember a few comments from others too just pointing out how parliament has become way too partisan and confrontational.
As a confirmed hater of the LPoC, I can't agree here, lol. I think opposition is doing what they should in this matter.
And risk giving them the fodder to claim the Gov't is trying to hide serious wrong doing from the public?
Right...Damned if does, damned if he don't.
Although Hellena Ghuergis probably isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, her biggest problem seems to be her husband.
Guergis?s future in doubt; husband Jaffer faces more accusations
Guergis?s future in doubt; husband Jaffer faces more accusations
Ouch:
CBC News - Politics - No evidence of Guergis wrongdoing: PI
Harper was well within his rights to have removed Guergis from Cabinet. Removing her from the Party Caucus is an internal matter for the Conservative Party to decide and has nothing to do with us. But when he'd announced the allegations publicly, he'd just committed political suicide. As it turns out, his 'credible' informant is either backtracking, was misunderstood, or through a game of telephone his story got blown out of proportion by the time it had reached Harper's ear.
Had he quietly removed her from the Cabinet, sure the opposition might try to make something of it, but it woudl probably have been nothing more than 'to little too late', much less harmful than the current accusations that Harper senselessly destroyed a person's life. That won't look good on him in his riding. Whether Guergis will win a seat in her riding remains to be seen. As it turns out, she'd actually gained sympathy in her her riding through this ordeal, so you never know.
She's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but Harper may unwittingly have given her a second chance by garnering public sympathy for her in her riding, at the cost of his own hide of course. Ironic seeing that he may very well have done this to save his hide from her.
CBC News - Politics - No evidence of Guergis wrongdoing: PI
Harper was well within his rights to have removed Guergis from Cabinet. Removing her from the Party Caucus is an internal matter for the Conservative Party to decide and has nothing to do with us. But when he'd announced the allegations publicly, he'd just committed political suicide. As it turns out, his 'credible' informant is either backtracking, was misunderstood, or through a game of telephone his story got blown out of proportion by the time it had reached Harper's ear.
Had he quietly removed her from the Cabinet, sure the opposition might try to make something of it, but it woudl probably have been nothing more than 'to little too late', much less harmful than the current accusations that Harper senselessly destroyed a person's life. That won't look good on him in his riding. Whether Guergis will win a seat in her riding remains to be seen. As it turns out, she'd actually gained sympathy in her her riding through this ordeal, so you never know.
She's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but Harper may unwittingly have given her a second chance by garnering public sympathy for her in her riding, at the cost of his own hide of course. Ironic seeing that he may very well have done this to save his hide from her.
Ah, assumptions.
As it turned out, Snowdy saw Guergis and her husband at table with Gillani and 'an escort'. So, was it an escort or another assumption because she was prettier than Gillani? And it seemed suspicious because Gillani supposedly has criminal charges against him.
Now seeing that there could be various reasons why I'd be sitting at table with another person, would it be reasonable to expect me to know that the person sitting next to him is a hired escort, let alone for what reason he may have hired her and chosen to present her to me (why would he show me an escort)? And even if he has a pending criminal case or that he's involved in fraud, is it reasonable to expect me to know this or assume that I know this? Maybe he's trying to defraud me too, no?
It seems the whole case is based on asumptions.
As it turned out, Snowdy saw Guergis and her husband at table with Gillani and 'an escort'. So, was it an escort or another assumption because she was prettier than Gillani? And it seemed suspicious because Gillani supposedly has criminal charges against him.
Now seeing that there could be various reasons why I'd be sitting at table with another person, would it be reasonable to expect me to know that the person sitting next to him is a hired escort, let alone for what reason he may have hired her and chosen to present her to me (why would he show me an escort)? And even if he has a pending criminal case or that he's involved in fraud, is it reasonable to expect me to know this or assume that I know this? Maybe he's trying to defraud me too, no?
It seems the whole case is based on asumptions.