🚀 go-pugleaf

schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Schuck) wrote:

>In article <470k4o$nd6@sanjuan.islandnet.com>, eds@islandnet.com says...
>>
...
>>This is just sillyness.  Why then would the NDP start the Parks report
>>in motion at all?  They just had to stonewall and the whole fuss would
>>have died down.  

>Nonsense. Stonewalling causes all sorts of problems as Mikey
>is finding out. *Pretending* to do something is much better.
>Especially if you have a sanitation plan for cleaning up the
>books and a court challenge plan in place to delay the report
>until after the election.

Mr. Shuck has it right.  Actually, he has ignored a few facts which
strengthen his conclusion.  The first and most fundamental is that the
the NDP did indeed stonewall this thing for as long as it could.  The
Parks investigation only came after it was clear that the first
criminal investigation and the spurious internal "audit" wouldn't
suffice.

Even then remember, Mikey and the crew intially limited Parks mandate
to a review of the period 1988 to 1992 which, by an amazing
co-incidence, would have turned up nothing about the NDP's filching of
charity monery nor the 1993 cover  up.

That is stonewalling and, fortunately, such tactics occasionally
backfire.