Sunday, February 20, 2011

The Bev Oda Pile On

As more people find out more facts about the latest opposition attack of another Conservative woman, the more this faux controversy will simmer. I feel as though some people were too quick to pile on, before they had actually learned the rest of the story. The more we learn, the less outrageous the alleged offense becomes. Bev Oda did not do anything wrong, and if you don't agree with me, read this Liberal blog, which presents the most detailed and precise analysis of this so called controversy.

If the Prime Minister expels her from cabinet and we confirm that she did nothing wrong, expect the Liberal party to rally around Bev Oda calling her a victim of Harper's misogyny. It is the same thing that they did with Helena Guergis. Hows about we find out all the facts before you summarily demand her resignation on the first day of the crisis? The Liberals have been sitting on this for months, waiting for the most opportunistic time for a drive by smear. And in the immediate aftermath, some voices on the right took the bait, swinging at what they saw as the low hanging fruit.

Some of you are going to end up owing Bev Oda an apology.


  1. Your link is missing. You are right about the people who jumped to accuse Oda before the real facts, NOT the Liberal fabrications, came to light.

  2. Rabbit:

    Here is the link

  3. This is even actual video of the lying CBC Terry Milesky

  4. I just watched as much CTV as I could stand. Watching the senile old clown Oliver give Jack Layton uninterrupted air time to spew his budget ideas and try to stir up anti-Harper sentiment. Then we went to Giggle Tabor about to have an orgasm on air while riding the Bev Oda pile on. The whole thing wasted 10 or 15 minutes of my life that I can never get back. It won't happen again. Come on Sun News.

    Rob C

  5. Bunch of so called (Blogging) Tories were outraged, disgusted etcetera. Sounded like the usual delusional Lefties.

  6. Sandy on 'Crux of the Matter' lays out how government department administration and process functions. The opposition parties are showing their ignorance of departmental process and management. Since they have no understanding of how departments function why would I vote them into office?

  7. Oda lied to PArliament. What is wrong with that? Leave her alone.

  8. That is a complete fabrication and very unfair to say that Oda told parliament in Feb. that she inserted the "not" in the document.Oda never ever changed her story. I enclose her statement in the House on Monday Feb. 15 from Hansard and you can see she never ever said she inserted the "not". Enclosed is the Hansard statement and I enclosed the Hansard URL for your benefit to prove it.
    and go to Line approx. 1515 Points of Order

    I would love to know who is responsible for the utterly false statement you quoted in your email.

    From Hansard Number 130 Monday Feb 14 2011
    Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): previous intervention
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight regarding the funding application for KAIROS. I wish to clearly inform the House of the matter and clear up any misunderstandings that exist.

    The CIDA officials did forward a document in which they sought approval of the recommendation for funding of the KAIROS proposal, but ultimately the decision to not provide funding was mine, as Minister of International Cooperation.

    As you know, Mr. Speaker, departments do make recommendations to ministers and ministers, in carrying out their responsibilities, can agree with those recommendations or, as is the case with this issue, they can disagree. In this case, the process in place requires the department to make recommendations, not to make the decision.

    There was no decision taken by the department to provide funding. It was only a recommendation. It was my decision to disagree with the recommendation based on discussions with advisers. I was fully aware that my decision was not aligned with the recommendation of the department.

    In the matter before you, Mr. Speaker, the opposition has asked you to rule on whether I intentionally or knowingly misled the House by saying it was a department decision.

    At no time have I stated that the decision for funding was that of the department. I have repeatedly and clearly stated in response to questions in the House and at committee that the funding decision was mine. 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.

    I have consistently taken responsibility for that decision. I have consistently informed the House of the government’s aid and effectiveness agenda, stating that our government’s policy is to achieve impact, making a sustainable difference in the lives of those it is intended to help. In no way have I intentionally or knowingly misled the House or the committee.

  9. Another nauseating aspect of this whole sordid, reptilian smear job is the fact that the people enjoying it the most are the snivelling, smirking pimps of the "Liberal" party encrusted within the media. Those snakes are loving every minute of it.

  10. Check out this new website...

    super funny