In the end, the Great Dail Confrontation between Bertie Ahern and his detractors was a stiff affair. Dail procedures allowed for long set-piece speeches punctuated by occasional shouting. The Government won the vote, nobody won the argument.
Mr Ahern's defence of his actions in relation to Mr Burke still remains open to question, despite his script writers' best efforts yesterday to construct a plausible edifice. Who wins or loses this one is likely to be determined not in a staid Dail debate but in the information yet to emerge before the Flood Tribunal - or in the media.
The Taoiseach's tone regarding Mr Burke's political demise was tinged with regret. "I seriously underestimated the degree to which this and other controversies would dog the Minister and eventually make it impossible for him to carry on, notwithstanding the good work that he was doing at Stormont," he said.
He did say later he was "surprised and disappointed" at the picture now emerging, that he deeply regretted Mr Burke had not been "more open and frank" in the past. A full explanation "should not have to be extracted" by a tribunal from those who have held high office.
That was the closest he came to direct criticism of the man whose past behaviour has him - the most popular Taoiseach since records began - mired in controversy.
Fine Gael has chosen Mr Ahern's attitude to Mr Burke as the central point of its attack on the Government. Even before Mr Ahern spoke, Mr John Bruton had asked: "What special hold has Ray Burke over the Taoiseach's loyalty?"
His party colleague, Mr Ivan Yates, added to the innuendo: "Is it the case that a vengeful Ray Burke poses the biggest political threat of all to the Taoiseach?"
Mr Trevor Sargent of the Green Party spoke mysteriously about a public building in central Dublin, and the alleged soliciting of funds for "a certain political party" from those tendering for the contract to build it.
Fine Gael produced nothing concrete, but Mr Bruton listed circumstances he believed suggested Mr Burke had a "special hold" over the Taoiseach's loyalty. "He appointed Mr Burke to Government last June when dark clouds were already circling over Mr Burke's head," said Mr Bruton. He had never asked Mr Burke directly had he received £30,000 from JMSE before he appointed him. He did not tell the Flood Tribunal Mr Burke had got £30,000, and not £10,000, from Rennicks.
Mr Ahern's answers will not divert his critics from this line of questioning.
The first question, as Mr Ahern stated himself, was "why did I appoint former deputy Burke Minister for Foreign Affairs last June?".
He cited Mr Burke's experience and competence, the good working relationship he had with him and his judgment. But he also cited the fact that "to call a spade a spade, there were people insinuating that deputy Ray Burke was corrupt". There were various specific allegations of Mr Burke having received different amounts of money. Similar allegations had been around since 1974.
Yet beyond sending Dermot Ahern to London to ask a man if he gave Mr Burke money, little else was done. Mr Ahern did ask Mr Burke questions "on more than one occasion" before last June. Each time Mr Burke said "there was nothing troubling him or that he could not stand over".
And that was it. There was no explanation given for this cursory inquiry into such serious matters. "The benefit of hindsight", he said, showed he seriously underestimated the matter.
It was a far cry from past assurances that Mr Ahern had investigated the "array of allegations" against Mr Burke "inside out and upside down".
He did not explain why the investigation was not more thorough, and why it did not even involve speaking to Mr James Gogarty, the man who made the allegations against Mr Burke.
Mr Bruton's loaded query - "What special hold has Ray Burke over the Taoiseach's loyalty?" - was not addressed.
The next question he said he had been asked was why he had not been aware earlier of the Rennicks contribution to Ray Burke in 1989.
Last week he said he could not recall being given by Mr Dick Spring an anonymous note purporting to give information about this donation. Yesterday, he said he was now satisfied he had not been given this note at all. Therefore, he said, he had no specific details of this allegation until Fianna Fail headquarters brought it to his attention in March. Mr Ahern has been accused of inadvertently misleading the Dail. On September 5th last Mr Ahern supported Mr Burke's assertion that the £10,000 he gave to Fianna Fail headquarters in June 1989 related to the £30,000 donation he had received from Mr James Gogarty of JMSE. On October 8th he stuck by this assertion.
In fact the money came from Rennicks.
Yesterday he said: "I accepted Deputy Burke's explanation in good faith, as did other members of the House. If my statement is to be construed as inadvertently misleading the House, then I certainly regret that."
He is technically right when he says he wasn't asked by the Flood Tribunal for information about payments to Mr Burke.
But the decision not to tell the tribunal when it emerged that Rennicks had given £30,000 to Mr Burke is not in line with the extraordinarily co-operative attitude of Fianna Fail to the tribunal painted by Mr Ahern last week. Then, he said, Fianna Fail had "provided its fullest co-operation to the Flood Tribunal".
In the Dail in February 1997, when in opposition, Mr Ahern said: "What matters most is how a political party reacts to knowledge when it becomes available."
In the Dail last week, referring to this earlier statement, he said: "I am proud to say that in this matter Fianna Fail has lived up 100 per cent to this stern challenge by making available additional information that had not been specifically requested to the tribunal that has been delegated by the Dail to deal with this matter."
But now this image of a party positively piling unsolicited nuggets of information on to tribunal desks has been replaced by a legalistic defence. In early April, he said, the "full story emerged that a cheque for £30,000 had been made out to cash and given to Ray Burke".
But this "full story" was not passed on to the Flood Tribunal.
"Having been given more than one version of the situation and having no independent verification, the party stuck to supplying the documentation that it had been asked for and the information which it could vouch for," Mr Ahern said yesterday.
Mr David Byrne, the accountant with Rennicks, asked for an apology from Mr Ahern, which was given yesterday. Mr Ahern said last week: "A Mr David Byrne, on behalf of the company, made contact to say that they had given no money at all, under any circumstances, and that this was not correct. Some time later Mr Rennicks confirmed that it was the case."
Yesterday Mr Ahern said a Rennicks representative had stated initially that no money was paid to Mr Burke, but it was Mr Byrne himself who corrected this. "I wish to correct the record of the House in that respect and apologise to Mr Byrne for any distress caused in that regard."
The Tanaiste, Ms Harney, made a low-key contribution of studied concern. The allegations were undermining public confidence in the political system, a comprehensive investigation was needed and the Government was taking the steps to facilitate this.
She did not mention that the Taoiseach had not kept her fully informed of the information concerning payments to Mr Burke. The tribunals and inquiries continue, the press keeps digging, but there is no real Government instability at this stage.