Maclean’s (2/18 ’11): More ado about Oda
[Canadian Minister for International Cooperation Bev] Oda’s explanation, that she ordered the insertion of the word “not” in the document in order that she could then reject its recommendation by signing it, makes no earthly sense. If she had wanted to reject the recommendation, all she had to do was refuse to sign it. The fact that the document does bear her signature suggests she signed it before the document was altered: that is, that she initially accepted the recommendation, approved the funding, then changed her mind — or had it changed for her. // But …
I alluded to this story earlier today in the introductory ramblings to the H.4.1 update post. Maclean’s Andrew Coyne first asks if this is “history’s first palindromic scandal?” and then goes on to explain/analyze the issues using the most tortured logic I’ve seen since I tried to read the text of FASB’s Rule 140 on achieving sales treatment for an asset given into the hands of an off-balance-sheet vehicle. The above quote is just a taste.
Of course Coyne is satirizing our ruling party’s efforts to back out of a very bad place, and in the bolded part of that quote I’ve highlighted where he reveals the key aspect of the situation which is a dagger pointed at the heart of our tradition of responsible government.
Which means that it’s most urgent to find the actual author of the document’s alteration and question them as to under what authority it was made, and above all when.