In an end-of-year interview with radio stations, Ahern outlined the hounding he says he suffered during Bertiegate, the affair surrounding the revelations that he has received large sums of money when he was minister for finance in 1993 and 1994.

He told radio reporters that the whole thing was "hugely unfair from my perspective, but you fight your corner, you explain your position. I was glad to be able to do that."

He went on to say that some people were out to get him for 20 years, but "you tell it as it is and hope it works out for the best".

You have to admire the gall.

At a time when unanswered questions were being raised once more about Ahern and money, he skillfully queered the pitch. It's not about accountability on his part, stupid. It's about the hounding of an honourable man. You explain your position? You tell it like it is? He hasn't done that. But the way he tells it now, well, what more do ye want? Blood?

Simple facts. Last September, it emerged that deposits of around £100,000 were made to Ahern's back account in 1993 and 1994. He says that £39,000 of this was loans from friends, loans that went unpaid for 12 years until knowledge of the payments became public.

The donors were identified and some came forward and confirmed the payments. The facts were presented. People made up their own minds.

According to a poll at the time, two thirds of respondents thought the payments were wrong, but didn't merit resignation.

In his doe-eyed interview with Bryan Dobson, Ahern revealed that he got £8,000 sterling in a whip-round in Manchester in 1994. He has never confirmed the date of this payment. None of the alleged 20 or so donors has ever been located. The man who is alleged to have organised the whipround is dead.

Another man, who drove the bus on the night, but didn't eat his dinner, says he gave no money.

How come there is practically no supporting evidence to his version of the lodgement? Did 20-odd admirers happen to have 400 quid a skull handy? How do we, or Ahern, know that there wasn't one donor? Is the whole scenario credible?

Then there is the lodgement of £50,000 in 1994. This, he says, was the result of six years saving when he didn't have an account.

Where did he keep such large sums of cash? Is it not highly unusual that a minister for finance would be hoarding money in this way?

Again, he hasn't explained his position. His reluctance to clear the air is even more baffling when you consider that, at the time in question, developers were shovelling cash at politicians. Surely Ahern would want to distance himself from any whiff of that?

Then last week, the Moriarty report laid bare the thieving of Ahern's mentor, Charlie Haughey. We were told things are different now, everybody has moved on. Never again would such a lack of accountability be tolerated in public life.

Ahern is no Charvet-shirt man, but parallels do exist in terms of screaming questions going unanswered. Jim Glennon has related how Bertiegate wasn't discussed at parliamentary party meetings when it was live because it would be impolitic to do so.

Why all this tip-toeing around the matter? Where is the accountability that is supposed to be a legacy of the dark Haughey days?

Last Thursday, we were offered a reprise of his doeeyed Dobson interview.

Instead of accountability, we got the hounding of an honourable man. What exactly was hugely unfair about inquiring after large lodgements to the account of a senior politician?

Once again, he has shown his human side to the public as a weapon against awkward questions. His mentor used to deflect these type of inquiries by displaying a hard neck or instilling fear. Cuddly Bertie just beseeches people to look in his eyes and see what a nice man he is. No question about it, he has the kind of talent that is vital in modern politics.