OK, now I'm really confused

Remember how I didn't understand why DND lawyers would challenge the jurisdiction of the MPCC on the detainee transfer investigation, even if the MPCC was overstepping the spirit of its mandate? Well, now it looks like Gordon O'Connor is trying to un-ring that bell:

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the role of the Red Cross is not the only issue on which the minister is misleading Canadians.

Last week we learned that the Minister of National Defence was challenging the jurisdiction of the Military Police Complaints Commission to investigate alleged abuse of detainees in Afghanistan. The minister's action contradicts the commitment made in the House, “there are three investigations going on. We are not going to interfere with those investigations”.

Why did the minister mislead the House saying he would not interfere when he is interfering?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am not interfering in any of the ongoing investigations. There are four ongoing investigations and they will continue.

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the minister was questioned in this House about the investigation by the Military Police Complaints Commission, he stated, “—I do not interfere with, nor will ever interfere with, any investigative process”.

Now his department is contesting the commission's jurisdiction.

Why did the minister mislead this House by stating that he would support this investigation when he knew very well that his department was plotting to derail it?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, currently four investigations are ongoing and four investigations will carry on to their conclusion, at which point we will learn whether there has been any wrongdoing or improper following of procedures. We will wait for the outcome of the four investigations.

So, has the department decided not to challenge the MPCC's jurisdiction? And if so, why not? I mean, if you thought you had a case a week ago, a good enough case to send letters that you had to know would be made public, then what's changed since then?

This seems amateurish to me. If you're going to take the PR hit by pushing back against a watchdog, then you'd better be prepared to see it through. Instead, it looks like DND has decided to fritter away some of their stock of public goodwill by sending the letter, and subsequently to reverse position at the first sign of trouble.

Way to find two ways to lose this battle, folks.

Update: A friend has reminded me that the "conclusion" the MND speaks of might well be shutting the investigation down due to judicial injunction. He's left himself some wiggle room in his words. Of course, if he now chooses to use that wiggle room, he'll get trashed in the court of public opinion. Semantics don't play well in politics these days.