Perhaps it should be renamed as well... How about 'The Never Ending Circus'?
Sad, really.
...Mr. White said he "stopped the presses" to update the book with Mr. Harper's denial and to remove the May 17 date.More from the Province.
"Now Wallace has acknowledged a meeting and he's given a date for it, so we've had to take that into account," he said.
"We're just backing off on the date. We don't know how many meetings there were and when they were, so we're not going to hang our hat on either date" . . .
Still planning to run with this one, Stephane?
Then don't forget to use this ammo in court.
* * * *
17 comments:
What kind of an author writes a book like this, without any facts at all. Guess they do, and it's called "fiction".
because "we simply don't know," Mr. White said...
Which sums up this whole "scandal" very nicely.
===
Platty, exactly.
I wonder when that apology will be coming?
Gee - seems like the wheels are starting to fall off this bus.
Watch for carefully framed questions - like the "million dollar life insurance policy" has gone to "financial considerations".
What author releases a books details before printing then goes back to change details. Shouldn't he have "checked" all this before. If the assistant knows there was only one meeting, why did the author say there were two.
Who ELSE is the author getting the "facts" for his book from? Makes one wonder since Paul Martin got an advance copy.
How many "facts" have been massaged or changed to "create" a scandal where none exists?.
This book went from an obscure book to potential bestseller status and back to the $5 table at Chapters within a week.
given the fact that dona cadman still stands by the may 17th meeting date, this story should send chills down your spine.
has the publisher changed his tune for fear of being sued? when the PM uses his office and the threat of legal action to silence journalists and their publishers, it's hardly a great day for freedom of speech in canada.... unless of course you're so blindly partisan that the truth doesn't matter.
it ain't over yet. not by a long shot.
If Paul Martin had a copy for over a year, why is it just getting printed now. Who else has a copy, they better keep it in good condition.
Another question: When was the conservative candidate nominated for a future election? He says he was not approached to step down.
That should tell us that Chuck said NO, and there was no reason to step down. That could also mean that the party would assist Chuck to run as an Independant, or find another safe riding for one of them.
But first, Chuck had to agree to rejoin the party. He said NO.
I still keep wondering if that other meeting wasn't with Liberal people. What was Paul Martin offering in all this mess. Nobody has mentioned any meetings that Cadman had with the Liberals.
The MSM is already resetting the counter ... this story was a confabulation from the start and at this point only the most feeble minded loons are hanging onto the hope that Zataruk's book is viable ammunition for smearing our Prime Minister or the Conservative party.
That'd be you Bug Boy.....
"given the fact that dona cadman still stands by the may 17th meeting date, this story should send chills down your spine."
Jeff - What are you talking about - She maintains she was not at the meeting - can you honestly say where you were on a certain date three years ago. Please give a link to your "data"
Yeah that chill is because of the thrill that the wheels are falling off this bus.
Now I know you are going to say, because of this it was important but Jeffy, it wasn't thought to be important until the Libs decided to make a pseudo scandal out of it so I would challenge anyone to say a meeting took place on a certain day three years ago.
Ruth..... Excellent question - unfortunately, the MSM has NO inerest in persuing that angle, do they.
someone should seriously investigate this author, and his relationship to Paul Martin.
Don Martin's column is similar(but later) that what Kinsella said on the matter on his blog.
Can we now expect Dion and the MSM to bury this?
Harper kind of reminds me of the kid on Home Alone, when he confronts the bandits with his cocked slingshot and asks "Have you had enough? Or are you thirsty for more?"
Where's Rick Mercer when you need him this week - reruns.
keep dreaming jeff my boy as your party tanks a little bit more each and every day.
perhaps you could advise the boys to be more selective when they decide to change channels and land on a new scandal.
What's that you say? They've already sent Jr. Snoop Mark Holland on the case? Get ready for it folks.
Who ELSE is the author getting the "facts" for his book from?
Exactly. And what else will get changed in the final copy?
Many liberals keep talking about the tape. Whenever it is produced, it will be subjected to a forensic audit to see if it has been tampered with. Then anyone with a copy that they paid big bucks for will have to have it compared to the original.
Should be interesting, if a passage has been removed from the book, what has been removed from the tape.
TangoJuliette sez:
I've had a thing or two published. Have associated with a number of other published writers.
Have NEVER BEFORE heard of a book go through "Stop The Presses!" orders. Certainly not ten days prior to release date. Talk about your case of classical last-second fact checking. This kind of publishing house mismanagment sure burns up the budget.
Hope Harper goes after the publisher as well. Burn up some more of the budget.
As for Jeff D and his naive understanding of what he seems to think constitutes freedom of speech in Canada?
Jeff: under Canadian law, as this humble layperson understands it, freedom of speech stops, and becomes a legally actionable event, when slander and libel rear their combined ugly and shaggy heads.
Try to remeber: It's called "freedom of speech," not "freedom to libel." Note too, that libel is illegal, and, as such, is frowned upon by the Statutes and Judiciary of this fair land.
Further: Any dolt, Liberal or otherwise, who considers notice of potential legal action to be a "threat" or some form of "libel chill," truly shows one's ignorance, of the law, and of all things Canadian.
Jeff: Check out Stphane Dion having sued, to the tune of $400,000, for libel, one Mr.Bloc - Gilles D., regarding misrepresentations in Bloc campaign literature, around 2005. Dion won the libel action. Gilles had to apologize.
Whose freedoms do you think the judgement was supporting in this instance? And was freedom of speech ever under threat in this instance?
And as for Truth Jeff?
Sounds like you probably couldn't recognize truth if Truth, or Justice for that matter, if the two of them took turns trying to give you mouth to mouth recussitation, trying to get sorely-needed life support to your oxygen-starved brain.
tj
t.e.& o.e.
Dion and Iggy were at it again during QP. PMSH gave his standard answers.
Don't think Iggy got Dona's stmt as he again mentioned her, daughter and son-in-law.
mary - if the tape has been doctored, why doesn't Harper tell us what he really said? It would be pretty easy for him to straighten this out were that the case.
Joanne - that article was not legal mumbo jumbo, though I think it was unnecessarily complicated.
The statements Cadman made to his family may be admitted in court. However, whether or not they are admitted they can be countered by statements he made to the media. In my opinion it does not matter whether the statements are admitted because any criminal charge could not be proven.
"... if the tape has been doctored, why doesn't Harper tell us what he really said?"
Gayle, I know that you possess a superior intellect, but I doubt even you can reproduce verbatim what you replied to someone peppering you with questions on your way to the water-cooler, or the grocery store, or to the operating room to perform brain surgery, or to a flight back to Ottawa - almost three years ago.
Let's face it, even if PM Harper were to reproduce word-for-word what he said to Tom Zytaruk, filling in whatever blanks you think there are, you probably wouldn't believe him.
Post a Comment