Well, let's back up a bit. Yesterday, Ivison quoted Dion in his column yesterday, 'New' Clean Air Act is bad - for Dion:
"In 2008, I will be part of Kyoto but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it."
Stephane Dion responded in the Post's "Letter's to the Editor". (Didn't even make Letter of the Day, BTW). Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your POV) the letter is not available on-line at the moment. I sent them an inquiry about it and am still waiting. One can only assume that the online editor did not think it merited inclusion.
However, Mr. Dion attempts to clarify his position:
"What I said and wrote many times last summer - and I seem to be obligated to repeat again - is that the important part of my comment is in 2008".
(That sounded a tad whiny, Stephane.)
The fatal error here however, is that you should never take on a political pundit on their own turf. Ivison shot back with his column in today's paper "Duplicitous or duped?"
Ivison is basically suggesting that Dion is either deliberately misleading Canadians for political gain, or else he is just so naive he doesn't have a clue.
CCC has analyzed this in detail so I won't duplicate his efforts.
Here's what I want to know - Is Paul Russell going to enforce his two-week rule if Dion wants to file another rebuttal?
From the 15 Tips:I don't want to see any two-tier letter selection going on here, Paul.
"- Know the two-week rule. In an effort to allow as many readers as possible to have their say on our pages, we aim to space out contributions by letter writers by at least two weeks."