Ever since career diplomat Richard Colvin came forward with testimony of possible Canadian complicity in the torture of detainees in Afghanistan, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay has shown himself to be consistent only in his inconsistencies.

Richard Colvin who?

"The first time I heard Mr. Colvin's name was in regard to the Military Police Complaints Commission." (National Post, October 16, 2009)

Oh, that Richard Colvin:

“I received briefings from the deputy minister and there were attachments to which Mr. Colvin was a contributor but I have not received direct reports from Mr. Colvin. (Quoted in Canwest blog by David Akin, November 25, 2009 [5])

What documents?

“As for this report, we receive hundreds, if not thousands, of reports annually through the Department of National Defence, as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs. That is why it did not make it to my desk. I intend to hear from the Department of Defence, as well as Foreign Affairs, as to where this report stopped, because it did not make it to the deputy minister or my desk". – Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, Hansard, October 19, 2009

Did I mention the one my Deputy Minister briefed me on?

MacKay: So we had a report that came to the deputy minister and it was attached, so it was a...

Solomon: Did you see it?

MacKay: Yeah, it was a report referenced by Len Edwards...my former deputy minister saying these are concerns being raised among other things that were being reported.

Solomon: When [was this]?

MacKay: In June 2007. Just before I went to Defence. (Power and Politics with Evan Solomon, CBC, November 19 2009)

What smear job?

“His evidence yesterday was not credible. His statements that he made yesterday do not stand up to scrutiny…what we’re talking about here is not only hearsay, we’re talking about basing much of his evidence on what the Taliban have been specifically instructed to lie about if captured.” – Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, media scrum, November 19, 2009.

Colvin is alright

“I’m not getting into the personality, the professionalism. I want to be clear: I’m not talking about the individual. I’m talking about evidence. (Quoted in Canwest blog by David Akin, November 25, 2009 [5])