What to do about the Mulroney misunderstanding

First let me say that I was disappointed, but not surprised. with Brian's performance this week at the Ethics Committee. He could have simply stated that he did a stupid thing in accepting the cash payments, apologized for being so stupid and then stated, correctly, that this is a personal issue between Schrieber and himself.

After all the police have looked into this thing and found that nothing illegal has taken place... and they are probably correct.

But what did Brian do? He slighted every person he could think of, told the committee that they were sold a basket of dog crap by Schrieber and accused Schrieber of everything from lying to having weapons of mass destruction.

Mulroney's appearance before the committee took four hours, in which he lectured rather than answering questions. He could have done it all in 10 seconds by saying," I was wrong, I apologize and I am taking Schrieber to court to clear my name." Then, if the committee asked any more questions, he would then answer with, "I cannot comment on the issue as it is now before the courts!"

Hey... it works all the time for politicians.

Mulroney got it partially right.

When Brian Mulroney took the witness chair at the Ethics Committee today I noted that he passed on the offer to be sworn in. It was his choice but I wonder why he decided against it and then launched into a tirade of accusations that Mr. Schrieber lied, even though he, Schrieber, was voluntarily under oath.

But that is not important, it is just a question.

The real issue on the table is why Mulroney's former talking head, Lucky Luc, maintained that after Mulroney left office he was in dire financial straights and needed the $300,000, or $225,000 depending on who you believe, to keep his family happy and himself in Guccis? Now it turns out that Mulroney did not need the money at all. In fact the first $100,000 went into a New York safety deposit box and was used to pay the expenses for his international travel. It seems that of whatever money he received from Schrieber, he only used about $120,000 of it. Where is the rest of the money?

Also, Mulroney could not remember if he filed a US tax return on the $100,000 he stashed in New York. Maybe someone should look into that? And did he use any of that money to pay expenses that he claimed against his income tax here in Canada. Remember, it is illegal to bring more than $10,000 into Canada without declaring it, including if you wire it into Canada or write yourself a cheque.

What Mulroney did get correct is that when he first met Schrieber, he, Schreiber, was a well known business man with a large arms manufacturer and not subject to German legal charges as he is today. True enough; but Brian is not a stupid person. Why didn't his antennae go up when Schrieber offered him cash in small bills?

The soap opera continues.

Liberal media? Bull feathers!

For years the Cons have been yelling and screaming that there is a liberal media in this country. Even the much-revered, voice of reason (copyright: L Green), L. Green at CFRA constantly spouts off about the commie-pinko mainstream media... those liberal-thinking, cappuccino-sucking, Birkenstock-wearing reporters and media outlets that are not part of CNN or working out of the "Broadcast Mega-Centre of the World (copyright: CFRA)

So why is it that a great majority of the media seem to think that Mulroney's crap does not stink and that Schreiber should not be believed. I would have thought that a liberal media's eye teeth would have been bared trying to go for Mulroney's jugular.

Why, for example, does the Ottawa Citizen buff-boy, Dan Gardner, suggest that the $300,000 cash payment Mulroney received from Schreiber shortly after leaving office and apparently negotiated while still in office is, "greasy and dubious but it barely raises the needle of public significance above zero." Sound liberal to you?

How about the liberal (must be 'cause he is with the CBC) Rex Murphy who asks, "Why are we listening to Schreiber?" Hey Rex, did someone forget to mention the $300,000 to you?

With a few notable exceptions, the media, who ignored this story for years, has rolled out the red carpet for the former Con PM. I hope that he does not disappoint them when he testifies on Thursday at the Commons Ethics Committee. I would hate to see so many pundits simultaneously swallow their chewin' tobacco.

And while we are awaiting Mr. Mulroney's testimony, I have a few questions that the Committee might want to ponder about asking the Great Man (copyright: B Mulroney) For example, "Mr. Mulroney, if you were so hard up for cash at the end of your tenure as PM, why did you not approach any number of companies to sit on their Boards of Directors and have them loan you $300,000?" I bet you that Quebecor would have helped out?

How about asking, "Given your poor state of finances, perhaps a multi-million home in Montreal, with a $600,000 face lift to it, might have been a bit extravagant expense and perhaps you would have been better off to use the $300,000 from Schreiber to put food on the table while living in subsidized housing?"

Better yet, let's get the non-mainstream media to ask the questions. There must one of you that would like to know the answers?

The gnashing of teeth in Ottawa

The gnashing of teeth, ripping out of hair and general cries of anguish are being heard all across Ottawa these days. KarlHans is a pariah, Brian's crap does not stink and Luc is not abandoning a sinking ship... he has time problems.

Lowell Green, the jovial CFRA host, says that he is tired of the whole affair and that it is old news... so drop it and get over it. Seems that most of his brain dead Green Beanies agree. After all, the RCMP found no crime.

Where was this kind of logic from good old Lowell when Gomery was digging in the dirt and not coming up with anything against the Liberals?

Conservatives are a complex beast. The Mulroney Misunderstanding is old news, even though he was awarded $2.1 million of our money after making misleading comments about his relationship with Schreiber. Drop it because it is not important or it's old news? Or is just embarrassing for Cons to find out that they have problems in their camp also?

What do you think, dear Cons, the Mayor Larry bribery allegations are old news and should be dropped also? What about the Air India enquiry... old news? How about the Pickton trial?

OK, maybe Pickton stretches the point but do you get it? Old news is no news is the mantra of the Conservatives only when they are on the receiving end of the stick.

Suck it up lads and ladies. When the Libs are back in power you get to stick it to them again!