Ignatieff Running on Charm and Book Sense

[Progressive Tory]

A bad decision such as going to Iraq, shows me that this "Great Mind" lacks Wisdom. It also shows a lack of character when the going gets tough and public opinion goes against what is moral and proper.

Ignatieff spoke in favour of the War in Iraq in his own words. Like most people who originally believed in the hype, they now see things differently. In his own words, he later admitted that he was wrong. But if you honestly think he was free to speak his mind then, guess again.

Stephen Harper used his own words.....err...wait a minute. Used someone else's words to state why we should go to Iraq, but his own words to say he never said it.

It doesn't matter whether or not you think that Ignatieff has a great mind, but Harvard University thought so. That's why they invited him to head up their Human Rights Department. It's also why Oxford and Cambridge thought he'd make a great teacher for tomorrow's leaders.

That's good enough for me.

[Progressive Tory]

This least leadership race had three qualified candidates. The major problem was the length of time to elect a new leader, money, the weakness of the old Liberal leader, the inability to constitutionally appoint an interim leader and a possible looming snap election.

All Liberal contenders endorsed Ignatieff and urged Dion to step down immediately. Canadians were fine with the move and thought it was a good idea.

Ignatieff ascension to Liberal leader favourably viewed: Poll

To suggest that somehow Ignatieff's support of the War caused the death of Iraquis is ridiculous. Was he Bush's confident? Was he part of their administration? He was a civilian, who like most civilians now knows better. This is a very weak argument.

However, since he was then teaching at Harvard, any dissention would have had him out pretty quick.

[Alta4ever]

However, since he was then teaching at Harvard, any dissention would have had him out pretty quick.

So he is always willing to go along with what is politically expediant to keep his position. So in essence he doesn't ever do our say what he thinks is right, just what he thinks you want to hear. What a great quality for a politican, just same old same old.

[madmax]

....because, as usual, a member has proposed instant credibility for Iggy because of a foreign newspaper with curious alignments on Iraq and the political neurosis that is all consuming.

Yup.

[madmax]

At a huge cost to the lumber and beef industry, had he at least given words of support, I doubt these to industries would have suffered the fates that they did.

Not buying it.

[Alta4ever]

Not buying it.

So you don't think their is a link between national politics and trade negocaitions. Just like people aren't vindictive.

[Moonbox]

So you don't think their is a link between national politics and trade negocaitions. Just like people aren't vindictive.

The linkage exists, but what you imply is an EXTREMELY dubious leap in logic.

Americans didn't negotiate Free Trade with us just because we're good friends. They did it because it was to their economic advantage and still is.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Moonbox

[Progressive Tory]

So he is always willing to go along with what is politically expediant to keep his position. So in essence he doesn't ever do our say what he thinks is right, just what he thinks you want to hear. What a great quality for a politican, just same old same old.

Ok. I agree. Any political leader who supported the War in Iraq has blood on his hands.

Not sure who these guys are. Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day. The names do sound familiar.

Conservative Canadians Speak Out

Wall Street Journal | 3/28/03 | Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day

Or these guys

The point is that Harper was in a position to have input in the War in Iraq and he inputted all over the place. So the man who actually had input is innocent but the man who was teaching at Harvard could have somehow prevented the war. This is quite interesting.

[Alta4ever]

Ok. I agree. Any political leader who supported the War in Iraq has blood on his hands.

Not sure who these guys are. Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day. The names do sound familiar.

Conservative Canadians Speak Out

Wall Street Journal | 3/28/03 | Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day

Or these guys

The point is that Harper was in a position to have input in the War in Iraq and he inputted all over the place. So the man who actually had input is innocent but the man who was teaching at Harvard could have somehow prevented the war. This is quite interesting.

I didn't know that Harper formed the government in 2003. Although he did make a statement.

[Alta4ever]

The linkage exists, but what you imply is an EXTREMELY dubious leap in logic.

Americans didn't negotiate Free Trade with us just because we're good friends. They did it because it was to their economic advantage and still is.

An extreme leap in logic to think that when these issue were very prevelant, we decided not to offer any support, and the trade negocations got a little cold. I'm sure this stance had an effect. If I was in a possition where i really didn't have a despart need for the goods and you ticked me off, I would probably find another source, or give you a bit of a cold shoulder and let you twist in the wind a little.

[jdobbin]

People wanted gov't spending, Harper delivered.

People also wanted no deficit. Harper didn't deliver.

[Oleg Bach]

If Iggy who looks to be aristocratic (best to rule) .. was less institutionalized and less book smart he would probably make a great and pragmatic leader. The problem is with books smarts is that it is all theoretical - and with opinion that is just that - theory...political rule can not help but be hit and miss and experimental - key word EXPERIMENTAL = LIBERAL. So untill Iggy is un-conditioned we will surely expect more of the same and more of the same irritating problems that toying with society and being an intellectual social hobbyist generates.

[normanchateau]

You mean the NYT that supported the Iraq War. That New York Times? I don't believe the NYT had any kind words for Chretians decision NOT to go to Iraq.

Here's what the New York Times had to say about Chretien in 2003 when he left office:

"In his time in office, Mr. Chrétien brought a near bankrupt federal government back to solvency, doubled the size of the national park system, reformed campaign financing and championed increased international aid to Africa.

When he kept the army out of Iraq, he broke historical precedent by becoming the first Canadian leader to refuse to send troops to a war being fought by this country's two closest traditional allies, the United States and Britain."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...mp;pagewanted=1

Sounds like the New York Times was not particularly upset by Chretien's decision.

[tango]

Good thread!

I just read Iggy's Iraq apologia, where he actually seemed to be apologizing for Bush ... hmm ...

Fixed principle matters. There are some goods that cannot be traded, some lines that cannot be crossed, some people who must never be betrayed

Who would they be ? hmm ...

Still trying to figure him out ...

Of course, I don't trust any politicians much ...

[normanchateau]

At a huge cost to the lumber and beef industry, had he at least given words of support, I doubt these to industries would have suffered the fates that they did.

Why did David Emerson, a CPC Cabinet Minister accept the same US-Canada lumber agreement that was turned down earlier by David Emerson, then a LPC Cabinet Minister? The answer of course is that the US offered the Liberals and the Conservatives the same agreement. The Liberals turned it down. The Harper Conservatives accepted it and hailed it as a great victory and evidence that George Bush likes Harper.

It's curious that when then Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna presented the US plan for a negotiated settlement on softwood lumber to the Liberal government late in 2005, the government rejected the plan on the advice of Liberal Cabinet Minister David Emerson. Yet when a similar US plan was delivered to the Harper government in April, 2006, that plan was accepted, apparently on the advice of Conservative Cabinet Minister David Emerson.

Here's what David Gray, BC spokesman for the Montreal-based Free Trade Lumber Council, had to say about the plan that Emerson suddenly and inexplicably found was good enough to betray the softwood lumber industry:

"They've taken McKenna, they've put lipstick on it, they've put a girdle on it, high heels and a wig, but it's still a pig." He later modified his metaphor: "It's still a pig, but now we're trying to make it fly."

Here's the link:

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/s...d3c&k=48564

The deal which the incompetent Harper approved allowed the US to keep a billion dollars of illegal duties obtained from Canadian lumber companies. Half that money went directly to US lumber companies giving them the funds to hire battalions of lawyers to launch decades of attacks against the Canadian lumber industry.

The US lumber lobby continues to oppose free trade in Canadian lumber despite Obama, who opposed the Iraq war, being President:

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/b...a7b&k=51623

To suggest that the US lumber lobby continues to obstruct the Canadian lumber industry because Chretien would not invade Iraq is as absurd as Harper's credibility.

[Progressive Tory]

I didn't know that Harper formed the government in 2003. Although he did make a statement.

He was leader of the Opposition, very much a position in our government. However, when Chretien made his decision, Harper published letters in US newspapers and went on US talk shows, claiming to belong to the 'silent majority' who wanted to join the War. In a different time and different place, these would have been treasonable offences.

[Progressive Tory]

The problem is with books smarts is that it is all theoretical - and with opinion that is just that - theory...political rule can not help but be hit and miss and experimental

I don't agree, at least not in Ignatieff's case. When I read his resume, I admit that I was impressed. Harvard PhD, teaching at Ivy League schools, etc.

But what we have to remember, and I keep going back to, is that in order to teach at schools like Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard; being smart is not enough. You have to be able to inspire. Many graduates of those schools become future leaders; not just political leaders, but leaders in industry, finance, etc. A professor cannot just put notes on the board and expect his students to memorize them. He has to challenge them, constantly.

I've read some of his lectures. He starts out with a profound statement that will provoke discussion and thought, and then follows with ...but, but... and gives an alternative viewpoint. He now has a debate.

When I picked up his first book, I thought what am I doing? I'm obviously over my head here. However, I was pleasantly surprised. His riding is clear, concise and provocative. I have scanned down his list of books, and for some just the titles have left me light headed, but those he wrote for the academics.

However, his journals as a war correspondent, are written for everyone. He doesn't go for the shock value, though will discuss the destruction and inhumanities. Instead, he speaks to the people, and how the war affects them.

It's like every stage of his life helped to pave the path he has chosen. As a teenager, when his father was a Canadian Diplomat, he met Tito and had an inside look at the Communist dictator's life. Years later, covering the war in the former Yugoslavia, he saw what happens when a regime is toppled and it's people left to fend for themselves. You pick up on his sorrow, without him having to say that it makes him sad.

But then when the reader is feeling overwhelmed with grief, he adds his 'but, but'... "when you finally cross the last Serbian checkpoint and turn on the radio, and find an aria from Puccini playing, and look out your window and see the wet fields in the rain, you find yourself uncoiling like a tightly wound spring, absurdly surprised to discover that a world of innocent beauty still exists." (sob)

As Prime Minister he will use all of his life's experiences to not only inspire us, but positively represent Canada to the rest of the world. We can be very proud.

If the best the Conservatives can come up with is that he's 'arrogant', or in Stockwell Day's mathematical theory, that 4 + 5 = 30; I think he'll have a very good chance of doing that.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Progressive Tory]

Good thread!

I just read Iggy's Iraq apologia, where he actually seemed to be apologizing for Bush ... hmm ...

Somebody needs to apologize for Bush. Many people have since changed their opinion of the Iraq War; even Colin Powell, one of the people I've long admired. A heightened sense of patriotism after 9/11 and strong desire to make someone pay, corrupted reason.

Now most of those duped are just pissed off.