An article in the Globe & Mail says:
Why would Lawrence MacAulay release any information which John Ashcroft was so closed-mouthed about? Ashcroft categorically refused to divulge any information about the nature or source of the intelligence. Of course MacAulay may be indulging in a bit of hubris, too. (Ashcroft stressed that there were a number of sources of information.) The opposition in the House of Commons is ripping into him for this. Are they justified? Or is it a tempest in a teapot?
No, no, it’s completely justified.
Plus, all the hijackers got into the States through Canada.
In fact, this whole thing is Canada’s fault.:rolleyes:
z
I don’t know the specifics here (*So why the hell are you posting? * Because I can’t get any sleep.), but this type of thing has been going on since last month; you know where foreign leaders will go ahead and make statements and announcements, while Bush and Company keep tightlipped. Sometimes it’s difficult to figure why, but this is keeping with a concealment fetish this administration seems to have had even before the terrorist attacks.
So a couple of years ago Chrétien had a problem with a dumb, loose-lipped Solicitor-General, Andy Scott.
To fix the problem, he replaced Andy with a new dumb, loose-lipped Solicitor-General.
And life goes on.
Do they, like, give classes on how to conceal, deny, cover-up, and obfuscate at the wrong times and the wrong times only??