Disappointed In Ignatieff?

[Progressive Tory]

Toro Kaka. You are laying it on way to thick. Your support for Iggy has no bounds. I should get you some Maple Syrup.

Iggy supported the invasion. Deal with it.

So did Harper. Deal with it. He just couldn't express himself so let someone else put the words in his mouth.

My support of Iggy has many bounds. I mostly joke around when I call him heaven sent or my dream come true. (Be still my heart)

People who know me, realize that I follow no one blindly. My respect and new found loyalty are based on many things. However, there are also many things he believes in that I don't agree with. Palestine for one. When he's Prime Minister I will still complain about the government and the weather. I wouldn't be Canadian if I didn't.

[Progressive Tory]

One cannot get in front of a mic everyday unscripted and never screw up. It'll most likely be pretty funny so I'm just waiting.

I'll put on the popcorn, because if he does, I can guarantee he'll laugh along with you. I just like that he is unscripted. Bloopers are a riot but scripts are just scripts.

[waldo]

Ignatieff has recanted his initial support many times - this NY Times article says it all: Getting Iraq Wrong

oh my - imagine a politician actually admitting mistakes in judgment

The fact that the man had no courage to stand up against the war is more important then his position to run away from a disaster zone after the fact.

He choose to be with Bush and Harper.

that list of those who initially stood up against the war is quite short. How much longer is the list of those willing to acknowledge a mistake in judgment? Ignatieff eloquently and candidly speaks to his failing. Many haven't... and never will. But you are correct and I wholeheartedly endorse your recognition of Chretien's courage in standing up against Bush and the farcical Coalition of the Willing.

[Progressive Tory]

that list of those who initially stood up against the war is quite short. How much longer is the list of those willing to acknowledge a mistake in judgment? Ignatieff eloquently and candidly speaks to his failing. Many haven't... and never will. But you are correct and I wholeheartedly endorse your recognition of Chretien's courage in standing up against Bush and the farcical Coalition of the Willing.

When Mr. Chretien made that announcement I actually felt guilty that I'd never voted for him. I have never been so proud. What was also nice was that he went to the Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, to let her know before making it. A real gentleman with respect for tradition.

[madmax]

So did Harper. Deal with it.

Exactly. Nothing to be proud of, but I expect it from Harper. Just as I expect someone who has a PHD and is supposedly supports Human Rights Shouldn't be an advocate of Torture or Naked Agression.

[LesterDC]

Iggy supported the Iraq War on the basis of the R2P doctrine.

Anyhow, the opposition holding the leading party by a leash - how parliament is supposed to work. Sounds like "team work" to me; I like it.

[madmax]

Iggy supported the Iraq War

There is no excuse for Iggy.

[capricorn]

Anyhow, the opposition holding the leading party by a leash - how parliament is supposed to work. Sounds like "team work" to me; I like it.

Exactly. The opposition's role is to hold the government's feet to the fire. I'm waiting to see how long the Liberals push their principles aside in order to avoid an election. I hope Iggy is not another Dion.

[LesterDC]

Exactly. The opposition's role is to hold the government's feet to the fire. I'm waiting to see how long the Liberals push their principles aside in order to avoid an election. I hope Iggy is not another Dion.

It is refreshing to see the opposition party being the opposition and the leading party being the leading party; not all parties attempting to become Prime Minister at the same time.

[LesterDC]

There is no excuse for Iggy.

If you read the R2P report, you could support the fundamental idea of removing Saddam from power.

[waldo]

If you read the R2P report, you could support the fundamental idea of removing Saddam from power.

not clear that his support was based on R2P or that he accepts R2P as a legitimization for the Iraq invasion:

"Ignatieff said that the R2P doctrine was never invoked to justify the Iraq War in 2003. Instead, the invasion was justified on grounds that Saddam Hussein possed weapons of mass destruction, later proven to be untrue. Ignatieff said he supported the Iraq Invasion because of Hussein’s gross abuse of the UN Oil-for-Food program and history of genocide.

“The parable [of the] lesson,” Ignatieff explained, “is that Iraq was a big mistake.” He highlighted that even if the Bush administration did use R2P to legitimize the invasion of Iraq, it did not justify intervening after the fact. The key idea in R2P is that harm is “happening” or “imminent.” Under these definitions, R2P could never have been used to justify invading Iraq."

? R2P as a basis for the Iraq war/invasion ?

[Progressive Tory]

Exactly. Nothing to be proud of, but I expect it from Harper. Just as I expect someone who has a PHD and is supposedly supports Human Rights Shouldn't be an advocate of Torture or Naked Agression.

Did you read his paper on torture? I have it somewhere and I can post it, though I think I did already. If you had read it you would know that he was discussing it from a Human Rights point of view.

He spoke of the stand against the use of some form of torture, by saying something like 'are those of us who oppose torture completely right? Were they leaving themselves vulnerable to terrorism?'

It was meant to encourage discussion and debate by telling both sides of the story. He wouldn't have been hired by Harvard to head up their Human Rights dep't if all he could say was 'Me good. Torture bad. Ugh!'

[Barts]

Put it this way. I would rather be in Iggy's position right now than Harper's. Michael Ignatieff did not go around saying 'I will never allow a deficit'. He did not say lets throw money around on useless endeavors. He called for a 'modest deficit' and no 'broad base tax cuts' to stimulate the economy. He also makes it clear that this is a Conservative budget. They want to govern and that is an integral part.

...

This is a Conservative budget. They alone own it. They alone will get the backlash if it doesn't work.

I'd rather be in Harper's position (and I loathe him) because he is the Prime Minister and, as result, has more control over events than Ignatieff. By putting a stake into the coalition, Ignatieff made himself irrelevant, because it's Duceppe who Harper has to appease, and that will be cheap to do, particularly because it's in Duceppe's and the Bloc's financial interest to avoid an election as long as possible. A goody for Quebec and Duceppe is owned by Harper.

Within three years the recession will have bottomed out and we'll be on the mend. Harper will claim he was right. Ignatieff will try to take credit by saying he forced the budget on Harper. But who would you vote for? The man who led Canada through the shoals of recession, or the guy who said he could have done a better job?

As history shows, Canadians will forget what has transpired over these few months.

Harper has only one serious enemy he needs to concern himself with--and that's Stephen Harper.

[Alta4ever]

Within three years the recession will have bottomed out and we'll be on the mend. Harper will claim he was right. Ignatieff will try to take credit by saying he forced the budget on Harper. But who would you vote for? The man who led Canada through the shoals of recession, or the guy who said he could have done a better job?

A recession typically last 18 months, we are already more that a couple of months in, the economicy will have already been on the mend in 3 years. I doubt Quebec will see anything significant at all this budget did reduce their transfer payaments. Quebec has esentially removed the chance of getting anything more, this budget shows the conservatives are done with appeasing quebec (over the next year any how) Watch them focus on Ont and Atlantic Canada, this is were they will try to get their majority.

[Griz]

A recession typically last 18 months, we are already more that a couple of months in, the economicy will have already been on the mend in 3 years. I doubt Quebec will see anything significant at all this budget did reduce their transfer payaments. Quebec has esentially removed the chance of getting anything more, this budget shows the conservatives are done with appeasing quebec (over the next year any how) Watch them focus on Ont and Atlantic Canada, this is were they will try to get their majority.

At the end of the day--they all still put on the same nitie! The only diff between extreme right and centre is how much the extreme right buy insurance for their so-called loved ones YIKKES!!

[Alta4ever]

At the end of the day--they all still put on the same nitie! The only diff between extreme right and centre is how much the extreme right buy insurance for their so-called loved ones YIKKES!!

The only differnce between a facist, socialist, and a communist, is the moustache.

[Progressive Tory]

A recession typically last 18 months, we are already more that a couple of months in, the economicy will have already been on the mend in 3 years. I doubt Quebec will see anything significant at all this budget did reduce their transfer payaments. Quebec has esentially removed the chance of getting anything more, this budget shows the conservatives are done with appeasing quebec (over the next year any how) Watch them focus on Ont and Atlantic Canada, this is were they will try to get their majority.

The truth is no one really knows how long this recession will last. The one positive this time around is that interest rates are low. That'll help. However, our biggest problem is that no matter when it ends we are still left with a huge deficit, with little chance of eliminating it. I think we'll wear this for awhile.

[madmax]

If you read the R2P report, you could support the fundamental idea of removing Saddam from power.

There is NO excuse for IGGY. Don't try to cover his incompetent decision making to support Naked Aggression. This is something you cannot sugarcoat or back out of.

He supported a war or Aggression. Had he been Prime Minister he would have had our troops there.

Perhaps he didn't notice that there were 100s of millions of people around the globe against this.

Perhaps you should look at the people of Iraq then and compare there situation today. It has been 6 years and it is a bloody mess. Few are happy with the situation.

When you are in a position of power, it is these decisions you have to get right.

I cannot understand why you would dare bring up the

BUSH defence for Iggy.

Good luck with that.

[madmax]

He spoke of the stand against the use of some form of torture, by saying something like 'are those of us who oppose torture completely right? Were they leaving themselves vulnerable to terrorism?'

That is the most pathetic and lame excuse I have ever heard.

Waterboarding is an ok form of torture? Maybe cutting off 1 finger is ok? Perhaps just the ear is alright? One testicle seems popular?

The fact is, when it is important for someone educated like him, to stand up for what is right, he coward and caved or he took up a chair beside Harper and said... Right on Brother, I am with you an Bush.

Just because Iggy and Harper share the same ideology is no reason to be an apologist.

[Argus]

If a Harvard PhD is setting my standards low, can't wait to see who I get when I set them high.

You are really impressed by that, aren't you?

I acknowledge he is educated. But almost all politicians are. And lke I said, Clinton was awfully well-educated, and still a fool with attrocious judgement. So forgive me if I wait to see Ignatieff actually do something with all that towering intellect and wordly education before I start bending my knee to him.

[Keepitsimple]

You are really impressed by that, aren't you?

I acknowledge he is educated. But almost all politicians are. And lke I said, Clinton was awfully well-educated, and still a fool with attrocious judgement. So forgive me if I wait to see Ignatieff actually do something with all that towering intellect and wordly education before I start bending my knee to him.

Right on Argus.....he might yet work out, but the problem with Professors - especially those with "towering intellect" is that they always feel they are the smartest person in the room. There often is very little room for compromise, for team building, and for consensus building. Dion showed that in spades and there's a strong likelihood that Ignatieff will trip himself up with "unscripted" remarks. They are unscripted because he can't help himself. Bob Rae and Danny Williams are both Rhodes Scholars and in their own way, just as smart, if not smarter than Ignatieff.....but they both have demonstrated poor judgement in their roles as Premiers. Good luck to Iggy.....but Professors tend to be patronizing - and that will grate on Canadians as time goes on. But I'm with Argus....let's just see if he can get beyond his professorial ego.

[normanchateau]

the problem with Professors - especially those with "towering intellect" is that they always feel they are the smartest person in the room.

Amazing that you know how an entire professional group "feels".

Or do you actually have a citation or reference for this blatant fabrication?

[Bryan]

I honestly believe Ignatieff is going to be easier to beat than Dion was. Assuming, of course, that the CPC is still intact as a party by the next election.

[Smallc]

I honestly believe Ignatieff is going to be easier to beat than Dion was.

And why do you believe that exactly?

[madmax]

I honestly believe Ignatieff is going to be easier to beat than Dion was. Assuming, of course, that the CPC is still intact as a party by the next election.

You opened a can of worms...

2 Questions.

1) Why Iggy easier then Dion?

2) Why might the CPC NOT be intack by the next election?