Today's Menu from the Conservative Caucus.. a load of Crap

Ok.

Enough sunshine and lollipops.

More bitching.

This time, about the party I support - or at least one MP in particular. 

I can deal with decisions made that I disagree with, even stupid decisions.

I can deal with mistakes being made, which are acknowledged - shit happens.

What I can't deal with is politicians feeding us bullshit and telling us that it's Pâté.

I would hope fellow conservatives would put down their partisan blinders for a moment with me and look at the Bev Oda situation objectively as possible.

The hubbub, as most are aware, surrounds the decision to turn down funding for KAIROS

Now - don't get me wrong - as a Conservative I often have differences of opinions with other Conservatives who aren't quite as libertarian as me, and see no difficulty in supporting a Christian theocracy in Canada, even as they bemoan the travesty of Islamic theocracies elsewhere.. and as such, I'm good with the government not giving money to a faith-based organization - no matter how laudable their purposes, KAIROS describing themselves as:

KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives is a web of people and partnerships dedicated to a faithful and decisive response to God’s call for respect for the earth and justice for its people. A faith-based ecumenical organization, inspired by a vision of God’s compassionate justice, KAIROS effects social change through advocacy, education and research programs in: Ecological Justice, Economic Justice, Energy and Extraction, Human Rights, Just and Sustainable Livelihoods, and Indigenous Peoples.

The problem, however, isn't that the government declined the funding - it's how.

And it all surrounds one little piece of paper - here:

Here's the rub.

Firstly, the two previous signatories to the document, signed a document approving the recommendation, their signatures being placed on the document on September 25, 2009. 

It was clearly after they endorsed their signature on a recommendation that the offending "NOT" was added, turning the recommendation into a recommendation NOT to approve funding.

Let's just digest that for a moment.

You are one of three people charged with the obligation to review a document and make a recommendation.  You and another individual agree to make the recommendation and sign a document to that effect.  Later, unknown to you, someone else changes the document to do exactly the opposite of what you intended, and effectively, forge your signature to a document you never intended to sign.

No difference, really, from giving your business partner a cheque for $10.00, letting him sign it, and then after the fact, adding three zeroes and turning it into a $10,000.00 cheque, n'est pas?

But it gets worse.

As I say.

People make mistakes.  Though that's a pretty big mistake.

But does Bev Oda just to a mea culpa, and ask forgiveness?

Nope.

She then tries to blow off some very legitimate questions about this, stating, "“It’s like we’re on CSI or an investigative forensic thing – who’s put the ‘not’ in. I’d like to know what your issue is,” she said then. “What is your issue?”

Alright - well, firstly, the issue is why did you change a document already signed by two others without their knowledge and approval.  That's a pretty big "that's why".  Beyond that, a legitimate issue was raised in commons to the suggestion that she did approve it, and then, hamfistedly changed (again) not only her approval but two other persons' as well, by adding "NOT", presumably at the direction of another - implied to be Stephen Harper.  In other words, if someone FORCED you to forge someone else's signature, that's a pretty big question too.

So.

Then.

The final "explanation" today from Oda?

The “not” was inserted at my direction.


Given the way the document was formatted, allowing only for concurrence, this was the only way to reflect my decision. If some were led to conclude that my language implied that the department and I were of one mind on this application, then I apologize.

I would, Mr. Speaker, indicate to you that the way in which this case has been handled, including by myself, has been unfortunate.

In conclusion, let me be clear. In the memo the department did make a recommendation to me, as the minister for funding. My decision, as the minister, did not concur with the recommendation of the department. My instructions were to indicate on the document my decision not to provide funding

. Note - she did not deny signing the document.  So, then, she signed the document - but for some reason, had someone else insert the "NOT" at her "direction".

If this doesn't stink like hell, you're drinking too much kool-aid. 

If we want to take the moral high ground on issues like Adscam, we'd better be prepared to walk the walk when our own are dirty - and this is dirty.

Shame on our party and our government for this piece of crap.  Man up and be honest.  There is no question that she approved it, and someone higher up, maybe Harper, said, "nope".

If that's the truth - say so - but don't insult us and the Party with this load of crap.

Please.