quote:

---

To those Liberals urging him to enter political life, Mr. Ignatieff is seen as both a philosopher-king in Mr. Trudeau's iconic mould and someone who would generate excitement around progressive ideas in a party seen as having become lacklustre, drifting and visionless under Mr. Martin.

---

"The Liberals indeed hold every seat in Toronto except one -- New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton's -- and 90 per cent have been renominated. "

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050629/IGNATIEFF29/TPNational/TopStories

Unfortunately for this story-line, Ignatieff is far from progressive on the really important questions, like the war in Iraq. This very week he wrote a New York Times piece on Iraq that could have been written David Frum.

In it, he basically approves of the US desire to create "democracy" everywhere. He even claims that was the reason Bush went into Iraq. I guess
Bush had to hide his noble purpose from the American people. Instead, it was the Al-Quaeda link and WMD which were cited in the legislation the Republicans passed.

You know, the Iraq issue isn't black and white, unlike Afghanistan, which was a total no-brainer (go to war). Iraq is complex, and the reasons for invading Iraq turned out to be bogus. But then again, should the US have not have gone in? Don't know. Is Iraq better off now than it was under Hussein? Yes. Is it good that Iraqis are not allowed to vote in free elections? Yes.

quote:

---

Iraq is complex, and the reasons for invading Iraq turned out to be bogus. But then again, should the US have not have gone in? Don't know.

---

Sorry, but the US has no more right to invade Iraq than Iraq has to invade the US.

For sure, some Shiite could make an argument that the US has to be saved from immorality, they need to wear chadors, etc. etc.

Given that he was passionately for the Iraq war which is turning into a nightmare for the neo-cons, (as a leftie I'll say to you: WE TOLD YOU SO!) I suggest Little Lord Fauntelroy humbles himself instead and listens and learns from Canadians. He obviously has alot of Canadian culture to absorb and pick up still.
When I heard LLF wanted to run for politics I automatically thought he would run for the Harper cons.

[ 29 June 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big D:
Maybe the NDP should get this guy to run in another riding for us. He seems good.

You know, the Iraq issue isn't black and white, unlike Afghanistan, which was a total no-brainer (go to war).

---

Ignatieff has been steadily moving farther and farther to the right. Frankly, I think that living in the States for so long has clouded his vision to the point that he is just another appologist for the Bush administration.

Waging war on Afghanistan was not a "no-brainer (go to war)" as you put it. Afghanistan did not cause the attacks on the WTC on 9/11. Afghanistan was run by a nasty little theocracy, but that doesn't justify bombing it. There is some justification for tracking down Osama Bin Laden and bringing him to justice, but not for waging war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big D:
Is Iraq better off now than it was under Hussein? Yes.

---

-a vast but unknown number Iraqi civilians killed: 100000, 200000 or more?
-About 2000 U.S. and allied soldiers killed
-A large but unknown number of Iraqi soldiers killed.
-Destroyed infrastructure, with much of the country often without clean water or electricity.
-bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and other attacks leading to dozens of deaths per day.
-Iraq now the world centre for extremist Islamic terrorism, where there was none before the invasion.
-The U.S. isolated from the world and from most of its traditional allies.
-Hatred sewn among a whole generation of Muslims, many of whom will become the terrorists of tomorrow: George Bush is the greatest recruiter that Osama bin Laden ever had!
-U.S. taxpayers' money funnelled to well-connected corporations who get lucrative inflated contracts, often without public bid.
-Over US$180,000,000,000 (yup, that's 180 Billion) of U.S. taxpayers' dollars spent to accomplish all of the above.

What more do you need to convince you that Bush's invasion of Iraq was wrong?

quote:

---

Is it good that Iraqis are not allowed to vote in free elections? Yes.

---

[ 29 June 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]

This kind of fanatical militarism is the last thing the Liberals need.

edited to add: On the other hand, Ignatieff as Liberal leader would surely drive true liberal Liberals into the NDP.

[ 30 June 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

Unfortunately, only the first paragraph is available on-line, but it'll do for a start:

quote:

---

Ignatieff redux

By MARJORIE ROBERTSON

Thursday, June 30, 2005, Page A20

Ottawa -- No doubt Michael Ignatieff will be dusting off his Canadian version of the pronouns "we" and "us" as he readies for the launch of his bid to become a Liberal member of Parliament (Ignatieff Sets Sights On Ottawa -- June 29). But Mr. Ignatieff, professional mental gymnast and idea contortionist, lost his Canadian moorings long ago -- about the same time he lost his ethical moorings and set out his shingle as "mind for hire," putting his matchless vocabulary to whatever challenge his masters required.

---

That opening line refers to Ignatieff's habit, over these last several years of his American ladder-climbing, of narrating in the first-person plural as though he were an American -- although one has noticed that he's had a couple of outings over the last year practising the same technique back home.

In his writings for a U.S. audience, he has acted as an apologist not only for the invasion of Iraq but also for torture. Canadians have to make it clear that the man is simply beyond the pale.

I laughed at a further report in the Grope this a.m., wherein several Liberal insiders are quoted as saying that Ignatieff has "no baggage." Hah! He has even more baggage than we've touched on here, and there are lots of people who know about it.

Ignatieff is possibly running in

Toronto Centre Rosedale

(Graham to Ambassador in Paris)

Or

St Paul's

(Bennet to Senate)

---

You know, the Iraq issue isn't black and white, unlike Afghanistan, which was a total no-brainer (go to war). Iraq is complex, and the reasons for invading Iraq turned out to be bogus. But then again, should the US have not have gone in? Don't know. Is Iraq better off now than it was under Hussein? Yes. Is it good that Iraqis are not allowed to vote in free elections? Yes.

I'm not totally against the war now...”

Perhaps Iraq isn’t black and white if you only listen to the story told by Bush and company(including Michael I). Before the Americans started bombing it incessantly after kicking Sadaam et al out of Kuwait, Iraq had good water purification across the country, excellent, widely accessible, education, was a responsible guardian of the cultural history of the region(what was left after being looted by the West), and stuff like that. Which is not to say that Sadaam was a good guy, only that he wasn’t any more odious than lots of crime-lords the West has supported around the world, and that he was a little hemmed in by the Ba’ath party legacy(it was fairly progressive and nationalist, when it took over, in the ‘60s and he was brought along as the “enforcer,” and second in command, mainly at the behest of American intelligence, to rein in the pro-Soviet wing of the party, which he quickly did with a number of purges.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Oui.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
"The Liberals indeed hold every seat in Toronto except one -- New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton's -- and 90 per cent have been renominated."

---

1) The Liberals know there's no way that they will knock off Layton now and they won't waste much effort (or talent) trying.

2) They had nominated in every seat in Toronto last spring and that didn't stop them from finding room for Ken Dryden (I note rumours of that happening are posted above).

Ignatieff was a popular TV commentator and writer in Britain for many years, and that's his claim to fame. He is one of those "popularizing academics" that we get all too much of these days, people who know a little bit about their topic and assume they know everything -- usually getting it badly wrong as a result. Harvard hired him because he was a minor celebrity already in a non-academic field. His Harvard colleagues often disagree strongly with him, and he does not have a strong reputation as a pure scholar.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
swallow has a point, though. Ignatieff is a poseur, and if the local naifs are trying to promote him as something more substantial, we need all the leverage and clear thinking about him that we can get.

---

Indeed, speaking from the world of the ivory tower, most academics (derisively) refer to the likes of Ignatieff as 'public intellectuals.' Now, part of this may be jealousy re. his fame and celebrity won on the back of poor thinking, logic, and scholarship (though cloaked nonetheless under the auspices of being a self-styled intellectual) , but it might also be because his insufferable arrogance (indeed a trademark of many academics) lacks the intellectual credentials that provide the foundation for such arrogance.

At any rate, it doesn't take a PhD to quickly realize that Ignatieff is nothing but a phony and pretender to boot. Layton would annihilate him.

[ 30 June 2005: Message edited by: Robert James ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
I don't care if he is ivory tower or not. I care that he advocates torture, defends war without need, and is a sickening apologist for Empire. Don't come home. We don't want you.

---

As far as Toronto's concerned, I can't imagine that a high-powered decapitation strike on the Danforth would be authorized by LPC HQ... gentleman's rules and all that. I'd also be skeptical about Bennett or Graham being the ones taking a knee for Ignatieff's benefit—they're both too close to Martin to openly abet the advancement of a future challenger.

Better yet prove you're a real man and go volunteer in Iraq to fight the insurgents you chickenshit. Get your effiminate hands dirty and see what's really going on there rather than be a pontificator for hire.

[ 30 June 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

3) Maybe Ignatieff should run in another riding that the Liberals don't hold... the riding of Cambridge

---

Oh God yes!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TeamNeedles:

Oh God yes!

Please rid the House of Commons of Gary Goodyear! (Cambridge is an oddly Conservative riding... the onyl chance of knocking off Goodyear may be to have a right-leaning Liberal).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by candle:

I guess Ianno won't budge - I understood that was Ignatieff's preference in Toronto. I think Chow would have a much better shot against Ignatieff than Ianno (although I think she would beat either one)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
Maybe Ignatieff should run in another riding that the Liberals don't hold

---

Pratt feeling jilted, the only declared candidate for the Liberal nomination so far is one Michael Gaffney, of whom OSSTF says:

quote:

---

Michael Gaffney, president of Learnsoft Corp, the Ottawa-based company which owns and administers Unexus, said in the Globe and Mail, "We're not here for charity or for the public good."

---

I recently read his book 'The Lesser Evil,' and found it deeply disturbing, both for the substance of its conclusions and for the hopeless, even dangerous naivete of its analysis. It's not too much of an exaggeration to say that those in power wishing to further erode international norms against the use of force between countries, or against the use of torture, could find strong support for their aims in Ignatieff's 'handbook for princes.' Certainly, a Canada governed by Ignatieff would contribute further to the erosion of such norms.

As for the naivete in particular, I was struck in reading his book by the faith he seemed to place in our courts, our press and our political system to check the worst excesses of extreme measures that might be taken to combat terrorism. I honestly have no idea what courts, media and politics he's basing that faith on: not those that exist in the real world, that's for sure. In fact, Ignatieff seems careful to keep the real world and its uncomfortable facts safely at bay in his analyses of international affairs. He's almost, if I can stretch an analogy, like some innocent ecclesiast in the 14th century writing volume after idealized volume about about how the grand office of the papacy functions within the one, holy, apostolic and catholic church without ever once addressing the messy reality of Avignon.

For instance, there's a New York Times piece by Ignatieff here.

In this essay, Ignatieff suggests George Bush might just be the one to spread the Jeffersonian dream of democracy for all around the globe because his presidency reflects a shift in policy: the US will no longer support tyrannies for the sake of stability.

Other howlers are to be found as well. Consider this:

quote:

---

It was Reagan who began the realignment of American politics, making the Republicans into internationalist Jeffersonians with his speech in London at the Palace of Westminster in 1982, which led to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy and the emergence of democracy promotion as a central goal of United States foreign policy.

---

I couldn't make this stuff up.

To be slightly more serious, look at this paragraph from Ignatieff, which purports to link strong support for Bush's Iraq policy among former East-Bloc European nations with American presidents' longstanding rhetorical support for 'democracy':

quote:

---

This is why much of the European support for Bush in Iraq came from the people who had grown up behind that wall. It wasn't just the promise of bases and money and strategic partnerships that tipped Poles, Romanians, Czechs and Hungarians into sending troops; it was the memory that when the chips were down, in the dying years of Soviet tyranny, American presidents were there, and Western European politicians looked the other way.

---

Note the elision: 'Poles' didn't send troops; the Polish government did. The same is true for the Czech and Hungarians: it's obvious even to the most casual observer of modern politics that governments routinely take positions opposed either to the interests or even the expressed will of their populations, a fact that does not seem to occur to the brilliant Ignatieff, who would rather draw (with a crayon?) a straight line between an American president's cold war-era speech and the Czech government's policy decision on Iraq.

Here's Noam Chomsky, who has a more realistic take on what Spaniards, Poles and Czechs thought about Iraq--no matter what their governments decided tgo do--because he's decided to deal with actual numbers instead of Ignatieff's fuzzy-headed elisions:

quote:

---

Spain is hailed as another prominent member of the new Europe -- with 75% totally opposed to the war, according to an international Gallup poll. According to the leading foreign policy analyst of Newsweek, pretty much the same is true of the most hopeful part of the new Europe, the former Communist countries that are counted on (quite openly) to serve US interests and undermine Europe’s despised social market and welfare states. He reports that in Czechoslovakia, 2/3 of the population oppose participation in a war, while in Poland only 1/4 would support a war even if the UN inspectors “prove that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.” The Polish press reports 37% approval in this case, still extremely low, at the heart of the “new Europe.”

New Europe soon identified itself in an open letter in the Wall Street Journal: along with Italy, Spain, Poland and Czechoslovakia – the leaders, that is, not the people – it includes Denmark (with popular opinion on the war about the same as Germany, therefore “old Europe”), Portugal (53% opposed to war under any circumstances, 96% opposed to war by the US and its allies unilaterally), Britain (40% opposed to war under any circumstances, 90% opposed to war by the US and its allies unilaterally), and Hungary (no figures available).

In brief, the exciting “new Europe” consists of some leaders who are willing to defy their populations.

---

As for his attitude to Canada, Ignatieff labels us one of the democracies that were once inspired by the Jeffersonian dream of 'American liberty as a moral universal,' but who now find it harder to recognize that dream within the current US.

So, he acknowledges a number of differences between Canadians and Americans (healthcare, guns, capital punishment, SSM), placing American democracy outside the Canadian/European mainstream.

Yet, progressive as this may sound, he still manages to write things like this":

quote:

---

The deafening silence [in response to the American president's democratic rallying cry] extends beyond Germany. Like Germany, Canada sat out the war in Iraq. Ask the Canadians why they aren't joining the American crusade to spread democracy, and you get this from their government's recent foreign-policy review: ''Canadians hold their values dear, but are not keen to see them imposed on others. This is not the Canadian way.'' One reason it is not the Canadian way is that when American presidents speak of liberty as God's plan for mankind, even God-fearing Canadians wonder when God began disclosing his plan to presidents.

---

Once again, and .... slowly .... this time so Mr. Ignatieff can follow along: 'The Canadians' (shouldn't that be 'We Canadians,' Michael?) did not write the document you (partially) quote as a response to a question 'The Canadians' weren't asked.

'Crusade for democracy'?

'God-fearing Canadians'?

Even if none of the other flaws in his typical analysis were as obvious as they are, these mindless phrases alone would be enough to show why Michael Ignatieff doesn't deserve to be taken seriously as a commentator on international affairs in general, and on Canada's role in particular.

A masterful deconstruction (or is that dismantling?) of The Pufferfish, Michael Ignatieff. The man should not be taken seriously.

quote:

---

It says much about the prevailing culture that our press and political parties nevertheless take such people seriously--casting them in the role of 'saviour' even--regardless of the evidence available to rational people.

---

I think it's because of a colonial mentality concerning Harvard (which gave us Henry Kissinger, too) coupled with an unwillingness to criticise those born into the Canadian ruling class.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

2) They had nominated in every seat in Toronto last spring and that didn't stop them from finding room for Ken Dryden.

---

And they made room for Ruby in Brampton and plenty of others.

I'm sure our Lord High Prime Minister has his ideas, some kind of a list perhaps ...

[music cue, PM starts singing] ...

As some day it may happen that an open seat must be found,
I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of backbenchers who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!

Add feckless ministers of a compromising kind,
Such as--What d'ye call him--Thing'em-bob, and likewise--Never-mind,
And 'St--'st--'st--and What's-her-name, and also You-know-who--
The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you.
But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed!

(Apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan)

[ 02 July 2005: Message edited by: Paul Gross ]

As was Christopher Hitchens...

As was (gasp, shudder, tremble)Barbara[MAD LADY BLACK]Amiel...

What happens to Lev Davidovitch's fallen away children, anyway?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
From the Department of Overexplained Jokes:

I suggested that he run in Cambridge (Ontario) because Harvard is in Cambridge (Massachusetts).

---

I don't usually read MacGregor, but it was a masterpiece of pouring cold water on Ingatieff's Canadian aspirations in the most round about way.

I'd post the link myself, but it doesn't work if you do that.

quote:

---

There's a long line over there, Mr. Ignatieff, and perhaps you should take a quick glance before heading out.

They come along every so often -- new, fresh, exciting names that, as one commentator once said about a relative unknown named Pierre Trudeau, arrive on the scene "like a stone through a stained-glass window."

Too often, however -- even when predicted success seems to have come about, as in the case of Kim Campbell -- it is more the moment than the stained-glass window that shatters. It just happens, with nothing to do but pick up the pieces and move on, often quite successfully but in another direction from the one originally presumed for them. It's not that they are losers; they just lose -- or else events just take an unexpected twist.

---

Still, the CBC treats this man with enormous respect and deference. About a year ago he had several evenings in a row on the CBC AM "Ideas" show to propound on his philosophy.

There is no emphasis with anti-women Martin on recruiting women in winnable Liberal ridings

Martins chant is " men men men"

by the way, my guess is that he doesn't run in spadina or danforth, rather in toronto-centre rosedale after pushing out the old battle-axe bill graham. this seat is so securely liberal that sitting here almost de-politicizes.

quote:

---

by the way, my guess is that he doesn't run in spadina or danforth, rather in toronto-centre rosedale after pushing out the old battle-axe bill graham. this seat is so securely liberal that sitting here almost de-politicizes.

---

And the Trudeau phenomenon raises questions even close to 40(!) years later:
To what extent did the "reluctant"" Prof. Trudeau engineer his Liberal candidac(ies) in '65 and '68?
To what extent did his supporters pull strings for the 3 Wise Men?
To what extent was the unprepared Trudeau fully prepared?

What element of spontaneous '60s zeitgeist pushed the inexperienced Trudeau past Cabinet heavyweight Liberals like Robert Winters, Mitchell Sharp and Paul Martin Sr.?
Still unknown, I think

Finally, the electorate is divided on the experience vs.outsider issue:
While berating "professional politicians", somebody who has a first career until age 45-50 can be called "inexperienced", even if they ran a large organization and/or had plentiful experience in national and public affairs, media or NGOs, culture/intellectual life, etc.

So, unless you rigidly follow the prescribed route (law school, then elected to office at 28, forever), your credentials are somehow in doubt

...........
the Roy MacGregor Globe piece IS good:
http://tinyurl.com/daoef

"" There's a long line over there, Mr. Ignatieff, and perhaps you should take a quick glance before heading out.

Some of the faces and names you may even recognize -- Claude Wagner, Bob de Cotret, Iona Campagnola, John Evans, Jean Charest, Bruno-Marie Béchard -- and many more that not even those of us hopelessly addicted to Canadian politics can recall.

They come along every so often -- new, fresh, exciting names that, as one commentator once said about a relative unknown named Pierre Trudeau, arrive on the scene "like a stone through a stained-glass window."

Too often, however -- even when predicted success seems to have come about, as in the case of Kim Campbell -- it is more the moment than the stained-glass window that shatters. It just happens, with nothing to do but pick up the pieces and move on, often quite successfully but in another direction from the one originally presumed for them. It's not that they are losers; they just lose -- or else events just take an unexpected twist.

[ 06 July 2005: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Do you think the general public regards anyone as a "star" because they were a backroom hack? That goes for people like John Duffy, Richard Mahoney, our own Jamey Heath

---

Trudeau had some experience in the civil service and among the mandarins. He wasn't a politico by a long shot, but nor was he unfamiliar with the Ottawa circuit. Can we say the same about Iggy?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aric H:
Perhaps Ignatieff should run in York West. It's a safe Liberal seat and since Judy Sgro is unlikely to get back into Cabinet after it was revealed that she wasn't as innocent as it originally seemed, she can be given a "retirement present" and vacate the seat.

---

quote:

---

But Stockholm I know you have said before that you don't think that Richard Mahoney is anyone important, but I live in the Ottawa area, and worked in Ottawa Centre last year and while we may not be a fan of him, Mahoney does have some popularity here. He has been working this riding for years in the hope of getting into his friend Martin's cabinet.

---

I made a presentation to the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario a few years ago. The only suggestion of mine that they accepted was to make Cambridge a separate riding and place all the rural townships around K-W together in Kitchener-Conestoga.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

Before she goes, maybe she could help him get back into the country.

---

Ibbitson details the many fine parts of Ignatieff that would show to advantage if set against those of current cabinet ministers:

quote:

---

Mr. Ignatieff, on the other hand, is a fine writer, with a mind to match, and is free of partisan political encumbrances. He espouses an agenda of social justice and national unity reminiscent of Pierre Trudeau, while also embracing the manifest civilizing destiny of the United States. To a party and a country impatient with the tired old men who have led us in recent years, Mr. Ignatieff could be a breath of rejuvenation.

---

Yet, says Ibbitson, compared to outside contenders with real personal connections to the Liberal party like McKenna and Cauchon, Ignatieff lacks the organizational muscle to make a real run for the top job.

Nevertheless, Ibbitson thinks Ignatieff would make a fine addition to the Liberal cabinet, in part because 'the Liberal Party desperately needs someone who understands the United States.'

quote:

---

Ibbitson may believe that person to be Ignatieff, embracer of the Americans' 'manifest civilizing destiny,' though I suspect many of those who've been on the receiving end of the 'civilizing' might conclude that the Liberal party is not alone in its desperate need for understanding. Harvard University and the Globe and Mail could use some help, too.

---

Socialist?

Damn!!! You need a subscription.

[ 13 July 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Go here to download the PDF for the column...

Damn!!! You need a subscription.

[ 13 July 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
Nevertheless, Ibbitson thinks Ignatieff would make a fine addition to the Liberal cabinet, in part because 'the Liberal Party desperately needs someone who understands the United States.'

---

It doesn't seem that people have hit directly on the idea that it seems someone may be pushing for more Bush alignement in the Liberal party. I mean, it all seems pretty odd, really. I mean, does he have really strong Canadian name recognition. No. Nor does he sound like the kind of guy people would take to.

Something of an idealogue with an agenda.

[ 15 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Ignatieff, 58, will teach an undergraduate political science course on human rights and intervention, and deliver a series of public lectures at the university.

Rumours have swirled through political circles that Ignatieff has the leadership of the federal Liberal party in his sights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big D:
Maybe the NDP should get this guy to run in another riding for us. He seems good.

You know, the Iraq issue isn't black and white, unlike Afghanistan, which was a total no-brainer (go to war). Iraq is complex, and the reasons for invading Iraq turned out to be bogus. But then again, should the US have not have gone in? Don't know. Is Iraq better off now than it was under Hussein? Yes. Is it good that Iraqis are not allowed to vote in free elections? Yes.

I'm not totally against the war now...

---

Bush's approval rating is down to 36 per cent. If the war is unpopular there endorsing it is political suicide here. Even Harper won't touch it.

The second Ignatieff dares to enter the ring his opponents will rip him apart. Imagine what a Kinsella or a David Herle would do with Ignatieff's wide array of praise for the American Empire, the War on Iraq or Bush. He can't run from his position on this issue and - unless the war suddenly ends - his position on it will matter. A lot.

quote:

---

I hope to Christ the Liberals do pick him. He'll lose. Badly.

---

If you mean his proposed seat, it depends on which riding. If you mean as a leader, the Cons will need a better leader than Harper.

Including this piece where he seems to call on the US to punish Canada for not joining the war on Iraq, "America's chief problem is not with its enemies but with its friends. Over Iraq, the alliances of the cold war collapsed and old allies such as Canada, France and Germany discovered they could defy the US with impunity."

[ 29 August 2005: Message edited by: Burns ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Burns:
By the way, here is an archive with many of Ignatieff's writings on Iraq, the war on terror, etc.

Including this piece where he seems to call on the US to punish Canada for not joining the war on Iraq, "America's chief problem is not with its enemies but with its friends. Over Iraq, the alliances of the cold war collapsed and old allies such as Canada, France and Germany discovered they could defy the US with impunity."

---

quote:

---

"The Achilles heel of American power has been its inability to understand its dependence on others. It is dependent on Mexico and Canada to keep its border secure; it needs Europe's police forces to track terrorist cells in the Islamic diaspora. It cannot contain the North Korean nuclear threat without the Chinese, Japanese and South Koreans. Preventing the Pakistani regime from collapsing and its nuclear weapons from falling into terrorist hands depends on the co-operation of the Indian government.

Without friends and allies, a war against terror will fail. Where the US combines its strength with others', everyone's security improves, especially its own. The war on terror is no exception to this rule."

---

quote:

---

But I think his waffling on Iraq, the war on terror and torture leave him wide-open for a full-on assault.

---

quote:

---

America's chief problem is not with its enemies but with its friends. Over Iraq, the alliances of the cold war collapsed and old allies such as Canada, France and Germany discovered they could defy the US with impunity. For all the talk of an American empire, the price of saying No to the US has been going down. These wayward friends will be punished, of course,

---

And here I thought that the US was the "wayward friend".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
I don't care if he is ivory tower or not. I care that he advocates torture, defends war without need, and is a sickening apologist for Empire. Don't come home. We don't want you.

---

I would wonder if you've listened to his series of lectures, called I believe, 'the lesser evil,' which were broadcast on CBC one a few months ago, in which he denounces torture in the war on terror, stating that not only is it fraught with moral peril, but not particularly effective. He is for the use of force in fighting terror. (Fine we do that with other crime) And the explanation I've heard of Iraq from him, which I don't agree with at all, is essentially, right war, wrong reasons.

quote:

---

I would wonder if you've listened to his series of lectures, called I believe, 'the lesser evil,' which were broadcast on CBC one a few months ago, in which he denounces torture in the war on terror, stating that not only is it fraught with moral peril, but not particularly effective.

---

No, I haven't, but that doesn't quite square with this (from "No More Mr. Nice Guy"):

quote:

---

There is one other possible explanation for Ignatieff's swinging attack upon the Index. For years he managed to present himself as an apostle of universal liberalism. His record in this respect earned him some tolerance when he first came out in support of the second Iraq war.

But even this tolerance started to wear thin when he embarked upon a series of articles for The New York Times Magazine that were even more stridently pro-war and pro-Bush.

On May 2, 2004, he argued in those pages for new forms of coercive interrogation. "Permissible duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental health or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress."

It was unfortunate, to say the least, that this article was on its way to the distributors when the first pictures came through from Abu Ghraib prison, one of which showed a hooded Iraqi standing on a box.

America's historic role was now defined, with reference to Jefferson, as bringing democracy and freedom to the world and anyone who refused to go along with that project could be written off as backsliders.

All this might have been meat and drink to the neo-conservatives and military officers with whom Ignatieff enjoyed conversations at Harvard. But it was a step too far for his former human rights colleagues. Ignatieff was no longer merely a supporter of a war to get rid of Hussein: he was now an active proselytizer on behalf of all American interventionism.

The new U.S. empire's "grace notes," he declared, "are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known."

His outraged response to the Index article was perhaps an acknowledgement that he could no longer keep his former colleagues on board. The circle could no longer be squared.

---

Has he repented, then? If not, do we want a Prime Minister who refuses to admit mistakes, and calls his critics "lacking in the ability to reason?"

[ 29 August 2005: Message edited by: majorvictory64 ]

His academic credentials are impressive, but he has yet to demonstrate any talent for public policy. This may be true of 95% of our political class, but I think we deserve better.

His "right war, wrong reasons" take on Iraq is especially odious. There is no defensible moral justification for doing the "right" thing for the "wrong" reasons -- or for that matter, the "wrong" thing for the "right" reasons.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am fed up to the back teeth with these well travelled, well known, media talking heads from this country who decide to come back and tell simple folk of this country how backward and insignificant we are and that they have the ideas to save us. Isn't there some way we can prevent these sucks from coming back here?

I think Ignatieff is either deliberately obtuse or shockingly ignorant if he believes that a unilateralist empire is going to sweep in and save humanity from itself. It's almost as if he hasn't noticed that human rights abuse, torture, and weapons of mass destruction are sadly abundant in US-aligned countries like Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Does he honestly think that the US decision to use diplomacy against Iran proves anything other than the fact that Iran can actually defend itself?

His political science is gibberish but - more importantly - his political positioning is bad.

The speech has confirmed my opinion of Ignatieff and his views: where his speech wasn't superficial and incoherent, it was morally repugnant.

Having been introduced by Bob Rae as someone of great 'moral courage,' Ignatieff started by explaining that terrorism is sometimes successful: Algerian terrorism forced the French from Algeria, while 'Jewish terrorism' (Ignatieff's term) forced the British from Palestine in the 1940s. Both countries, said Ignatieff, failed the test of terrorism because neither had made a clear decision about what in their respective colonial positions was 'non-negotiable.' (He finds a lesson in that.) Yet, actually, Ignatieff wasn't too upset by terrorism's success (his term, remember) in Algeria and Palestine. He argued that De Gaulle's brave sacrifice of something ‛essential'--1,000,000 French Algerian settlers--was a tough but proper choice to save the French Republic, which somehow persevered despite the sacrifice of what was ‛essential' to it.

Moreover, Ignatieff explicitly said this of 'Jewish terrrorism's' success (his term) against the British: 'thank God, I might add [that the terrorism succeeded].' Apparently, some people may justifiably resort to terrorism, and the Deity is to be thanked for their terrorist successes.

And yet somehow, later in the same morally courageous speech, George Bush is still open to Ignatieff's criticism for assuming that Providence supports American foreign policy, even while Yasser Arafat is dismissed as a ‛late, unlamented terrorist'--'terrorist' becoming an unproblematic term of abuse, despite the divine favour occasionally extended to terrorists in the past, according to Ignatieff.

Of course, as the morally courageous Michael Ignatieff went on to argue, it's not terrorism per se with which ‛The West' is currently at war, but a 'revolutionary movement, with a coherent and fundamentalist ideology motivated by consistent hatred of US policy,' along with that of its allies, as well as their values. And, as he of the moral courage made very clear, they started it, not we, with their hatred of our policies which, logically, could not have existed prior to the terrorists' hatred of them, since they started everything.

Seriously, this is nothing but a transparent attempt to tart up 'They hate our freedoms' in polysyllabic nonsense, in the hopes that people will be too distracted to commit the thought-crime of wondering about the effects of American/Western foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere.

There's literally too much to comment on in this load of nonsense from Ignatieff, so I'll just note how wrong it is to suggest, as the morally courageous one does, that the 'terrorists' provoked the US into the abuses of Abu Ghraib.

And further, I'll note how disappointing it is that the morally courageous Michael Ignatieff could mount only tactical arguments in favour of Israeli withdrawal from the illegally settled territories while speaking at Holy Blossom in Toronto: giving the Palestinians a contiguous, viable, well-governed and demilitarized state in Gaza and the West Bank is a ‛hard swallow' for Ignatieff, a ‛lesser evil' he and other hard-headed thinkers are forced to contemplate, under the circumstances.

Indeed, though he criticized Sharon's plan for disengagement from Gaza and small parts of the West Bank by pointing out that this plan would lead to the ‛cantonization' (his term) of the West Bank into a non-viable, doomed-to-fail Bantustan-type state (his term) whose ‛enraged denizens' (his term) would threaten Israeli security both tactically and strategically, Ignatieff strongly cautioned his audience against thinking he was trying to engage their sympathy for the Palestinians, or was even trying to address the issue of justice: ‛My point is not to make you feel sorry for the Palestinians,' he says, since they are mostly to blame for their current fate, according to the man praised for his 'moral courage' by Bob Rae.

This celebrated Professor of Human Rights need not have feared his television audience would make such a mistake, when de-humanization of the Palestinians and deliberate avoidance of even the discussion of the justice of their claims were the hallmarks of this part of his speech.

Before I shut up and get attacked, I'll point out that in this same speech, Ignatieff courageously and morally offers his audience a warning that the United States might soon re-evaluate its support for Israel and force a solution on the country if Israel doesn't act to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in a way that will remove this 'pretext' (Ignatieff's word) for terrorism.

When Ignatieff's analysis was brought to Noam Chomsky's attention over at ZNet, he said the following:

quote:

---

On the comments by Ignatieff, etc., those too we can ignore. Similar figures, some of them serious people, have been making similar observations for 40 years, and indeed much harsher criticisms than these. The question always is: Where's the evidence?

---

'Some of them serious people.'

'Nuff said.

[ 30 August 2005: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Seriously, this is nothing but a transparent attempt to tart up 'They hate our freedoms' in polysyllabic nonsense

---

Awesome report, sgm. Thank you so much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason J. W. Lisenchuk:
While I can certainly appreciate the yearning for a Trudeauesque leader, Michael Ignatieff is no Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

---

(And fortunately for him, Margeret is still safely remarried. Right?)

...His "right war, wrong reasons" take on Iraq is especially odious.Jason[QUOTE]

And it is the position that cost the Democratic ticket the last US position, so it doesn't even have the merits of being politically pragmatic.

[ 30 August 2005: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 30 August 2005: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

(And fortunately for him, Margeret is still safely remarried. Right?)

---

1. Wrong.

2. Margaret Trudeau has done nothing public lately to deserve being raised as an object of ridicule in this discussion.

[ 30 August 2005: Message edited by: Hugo the Liberator ]

quote:

---

Awesome report, sgm. Thank you so much.

---