Khan as a "pundit"

Originally posted at Cherniak on Politics

Paul Wells doesn't like the Conservatives' excuse for not disclosing Khan's report:

"But the Conservative government will not release the report, said Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Mr. Harper. He argued that Mr. Khan's advice would become less valuable if his report is made public."'

It defeats the purpose of Mr. Khan being an adviser to the Prime Minister. He would then be a pundit rather than an adviser, on such an important issue,' Mr. Soudas wrote in an e-mail replying to The Globe's request for a copy of the report."

Unlike Wells, I am inclined to take Harper's people at their word. However, their word means more than it seems. If Khan's entire report is partisan in nature, then it would make perfect sense for the PMO to keep it secret. You don't give public political advice when you have a private ear. Why would the Tories want the Liberals to know their political strategy for selling Tory Middle Eastern policy to Muslim voters?

As I have been arguing for the past few days, this is likely further evidence that Khan has been pretending to support the Liberals for months now. As Khan said himself in a prepared statement, "Over the past six months, I been honoured to serve Prime Minister Harper and Canada's new Conservative Party". The real question in my mind is whether his partisan trip to the Middle East in September was paid for by the tax payers.

Or maybe Wells is right and Khan just didn't write anything worth reading. Take your pick.