In Today’s Toronto Star there runs a continuation over the hoo-hah over Yet-Another-Politician’s Disgrace.
A Politician Caught Lying.
What a surprise!
Forget all that sugar-coated nonsense of “Being Economical with the Truth” or “Terminological Inexactitudes”.
The politician (“she”) is quoted as calling the controversy “a mistake”.
He controversy isn’t a mistake. I think that she would like to label her action as a mistake.
It wasn’t a mistake.
It was a lie.
Read on ...
“She could have been more clear when ... she told Parliament ... that she’d never used a Limousine Service”.
I’ll cut her some slack here and let it be supposed that she meant “she’d never used a Limousine Service with regard to these two or three trips.”. After all, who hasn’t EVER used a Limousine Service? Many of us have used a Limousine to get to and from the airport. I was treated to two Limousine rides from a New Jersey client to Newark airport many years ago.
I cannot conceive of a Federal Minister NOT using a Limousine Service – ever. I am not sure that I would agree with all uses, but I can concede some uses. The statement “She could have been more clear when ... she told Parliament ... that she’d never used a Limousine Service” becomes clearer if you replace the phrase “Limousine Service” with “Assistant” or “Aide” or “Secretary” or “Research Assistant” or “Paper and Pencil”.
It is tantamount to me claiming that I’d “never used electricity in posting these words”.
That would be a lie, right?
I mean, quite apart from the cost, how can you sit in a Limousine for a trip of at least half an hour and not remember it?
Tell you something else: That New Jersey deal quite filled me with importance. I told all my friends about it on my return. Being picked up by a placard bearing uniformed driver at a busy airport gives one quite a feeling of je ne sais quoi.
You don’t forget your first pampered trip.
Not even when a Limo ride becomes so common that you no longer think of it as anything special anyway.