From Richard Colvin. She admits that she has redacted copies (which seem to be better than our elected officials have. I wonder how that happened?), but that doesn't stop her from coming to the conclusion that Colvin needs to explain himself. You see, Colvin apparently insulted Christie's buds. I am not sure where he did this, but maybe when she wrote this: "In condemning with the same brush highly professional Canadian soldiers, and to complain that they were complicit in breaches of the law of armed conflict and knowingly buried his reports, it is Mr. Colvin who has some explaining left to do.", she was staring longingly at a picture of Rick Hillier. I presume it is Rick Hillier she is talking about because who else would have allegedly "buried his reports". However, Rick Hillier, she might be surprised to learn, is not the army and the army is not Rick Hillier. As far as I know Colvin made absolutely no claims that Canadian soldiers tortured people. That he did suggest that the higher ups in the military should have known that people were getting tortured is another matter, one that they need to explain, not Mr. Colvin.
Update: The Dawg is on her trail. Woof. As he says, there is evidence that Christie is presenting partial evidence as if it was the complete package.
Update: Kady asks some interesting questions too.
Recommend this Post