Ignatieff The American

[Smallc]

Actually, I don't think the US have enough evidence.

Then they should put him on trial and get it over with already.

[Progressive Tory]

Then they should put him on trial and get it over with already.

I just said that they don't have enough evidence to proceed with a trial.

It would appear that the U.S. is done with him and plan to send him home. The new question is what does Canada do with him if that happens? He was still in the compound. Innocent child? Child soldier?

Do we try him on terrorist charges or simply set him free?

[capricorn]

You missed the point where the poster was just agreeing with the blogger's feelings about Ignatieff. In review they were well articulated and intelligent arguments, whether or not you agree with them.

Thank you moonbox. Anyone who has read my previous posts on Ignatieff will find I raised some of the very criticisms Stickings discusses. Stickings uses a better writing style which is not surprising since English is my second language.

The fact that the blogger dislikes Harper more is unsurprising if he's speaking from the far left, nor does it change his criticism of Ignatieff.

Exactly. The "blogger", as waldo likes to describe him, is a regular contributor to the UK Guardian which is perceived to be left wing. Stickings is a columnist who also authors a blog. Waldo can't seem to grasp that.

[Alta4ever]

I just said that they don't have enough evidence to proceed with a trial.

It would appear that the U.S. is done with him and plan to send him home. The new question is what does Canada do with him if that happens? He was still in the compound. Innocent child? Child soldier?

Do we try him on terrorist charges or simply set him free?

That is for American or Afganistan courts to decide.

[waldo]

Thank you moonbox. Anyone who has read my previous posts on Ignatieff will find I raised some of the very criticisms Stickings discusses. Stickings uses a better writing style which is not surprising since English is my second language.

Exactly. The "blogger", as waldo likes to describe him, is a regular contributor to the UK Guardian which is perceived to be left wing. Stickings is a columnist who also authors a blog. Waldo can't seem to grasp that.

apparently, your English as a second language, continues to prevent you from actually bringing forward any actual criticisms, uniquely yours or one's you're in agreement with. As I said, other than the budget, Iraq and a hodge-podge of personalized assessment, lacking a supporting foundation, related to entitlement, ego, personality, etc., where's the criticism? Nothing new here... time to move along... nothing to see here.

the point you keep missing (intentionally ignoring) is that the same article appears on the bloggers site - with the most revealing and salient point of all, the point not included in the Guardian article and the point you have yet to acknowledge... again, the inconsequential blogger... the one you want to push forward as your model offering in Ignatieff criticism, still offers up that he feels Ignatieff is a better alternative than Harper. In spite of all the so-called criticism... that you won't actually mention or elaborate on yourself... the inconsequential blogger still offers up that he feels Ignatieff is a better alternative than Harper!. You can't seem to grasp that.

[capricorn]

He won't. Obama is closing it. I think he will stand trial here.

The question is when will all the hurdles to closing Guantanamo be cleared. Even Obama knows it's easier said than done.

"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done, but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication," Obama said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday when asked whether he would close the prison in his first 100 days.

Obama also said he was trying to develop a process that "adheres to rule of law" but "doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."

"I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak, to help design exactly what we need to do," Obama said.

"But I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/obama.gitmo/

The ball is in the US's court right now and that's where it will stay until the sticking points are resolved. It is premature and wishful thinking to predict that Khadr will stand trial in Canada.

[madmax]

Back to Ignatieff "the American"

The Guardian covers Ignatieff.

Neo Con Lite

As the Toronto Star's Haroon Siddiqui put it back in December, Ignatieff has been even more of a George Bush cheerleader than Harper:

As is well-known, Ignatieff supported the war in Iraq, a position he only semi-retreated from last year, in year four of the botched occupation. Even then, he argued that he had been wrong for the right reasons (saving the Kurds from Saddam Hussein), while opponents of the war may have been right for the wrong reasons (ideological opposition to Bush).

He also supported the use of such harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects as sleep deprivation and hooding, even while saying he opposed torture.

He was also an advocate for American exceptionalism in defiance of international law.

While "[his] supporters argue that he was merely thinking aloud as a public intellectual," he actually "was among those liberals – a professor of human rights at Harvard, no less – who provided intellectual cover for Bush's neoconservative policies," "a noisy apologist for some of the worst foreign and domestic policy disasters of American history," advocating positions that "were the exact opposite of where a majority of Canadians stood on issues that are a point of differentiation between Canada and the US." Ignatieff may be a liberal in the spirit of Isaiah Berlin, but he's also something of a neocon-lite.

[Progressive Tory]

Back to Ignatieff "the American"

The Guardian covers Ignatieff.

Back to Harper "the Opportunist."

From the same columnist in the same Guardian.

A sad day for Canada By agreeing to shut down parliament, the governor general saved the bacon of Stephen Harper's besieged Conservatives

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper, seeking to avoid a confidence motion - which he would lose...Their reality-denying economic plan contained nothing in the way of stimulation and a lot in the way of right-wing causes.... we can be sure that what they come up with next will be generous in its vote-winning ways. To preserves themselves in power, they will promise the world.

"The governor general's decision may or may not have been cowardly, but it was certainly a poor one – one that disrespects parliamentary democracy, disregards the will of a majority of MPs, and puts government on hold at this time of economic and financial crisis. Either Jean should have dissolved Parliament and called an election, or she should have given the coalition the opportunity to govern. Instead, in granting Harper's request, she has given the Conservatives exactly what they want, including a decisive advantage in the campaign to come. Basically, she has saved Harper's sorry bacon evidently putting his interests before the interests of the country. It is a sad, sad day for Canada."

Michael Stickings is a columnist who gives his opinion on certain matters. I'd never even heard of him before. It's clear he doesn't really like anybody. A blogger with a byline.

[capricorn]

Back to Harper "the Opportunist."

From the same columnist in the same Guardian.

Michael Stickings is a columnist who gives his opinion on certain matters. I'd never even heard of him before. It's clear he doesn't really like anybody. A blogger with a byline.

In the case of the Stickings article you linked in rebuttal to his deconstruction of Ignatieff, his views on the coalition are unsupported by the majority of Canadians who turned thumbs down on it. Stickings is obviously a Layton supporter who is miffed that the NDP came so close to making inroads into real political power in Ottawa.

What is interesting about his article aptly titled "The audacity of Michael Ignatieff - Naive and egotistical, Canada's Liberal leader isn't the saviour his supporters believe him to be", is that it is being reproduced in the UK, Canada and the US. Not the kind of media attention the Count wants in his quest to appear as the next Pierre Trudeau. Meanwhile, Harper's visit to the Big Apple is getting wide and positive media coverage notably in the US and Canada. He is actually accomplishing something positive for this country. A tad more productive than a Time Square picture of Obama with a person few ordinary Americans could identify. Man, Ignatieff must be green with envy.

[Oleg Bach]

There is nothing better than a bashing thread - Ignatieff is a good target...because we percieve him as smart and fairly tough - he can take it! Where as if this was a Dion bashing thread...we would be reprimanded by now for beating up the sissy.

[Alta4ever]

Great post Oleg

[Oleg Bach]

Great post Oleg

I just adore putting the boots to that guy with the big eye brows knowing he is a Harvard boy....could be my resentment of acedemics....lets not hurt him - just humiate him...If you bring him into a state of humility he may actually become a relevent and potent leader...it's those haughty arrogant eyes...he needs a tuning down. Iggy reminds me of the evil Russian prince....who they sent off to France to get some real culture and comes home but does not build a shipping industry - like say Peter the Great ----who secretly dawned the clothes of a worker and worked in the ship yards so he would actually understand things...If Ignateiff is afraid of getting his hands dirty - then we can roll him in the dirt....he can take it..

[Average Joe]

There's definitely a larger customer base, so in the entertainment business, that's where the money is. With hockey players it depends on the draft or trades.

A teaching position at an Ivy League school is definitely a high honour for a University professor, and only an idiot would turn it down.

However, much of Ignatieff's time outside the country was spent as a journalist and documentary filmmaker, in wartorn countries. He always travelled on a Canadian passport and his documentary won a Gemini (a Canadian award). He has always been a Canadian and has never sought any other passport of citizenship. Harvard recruited him to head up their Human Rights Department. He didn't answer an ad in the paper.

The Times Square thing was a lark. It won't mean a thing to Americans viewing it, anymore than Harper's insanity after Chretien's decision. When Harper got into trouble was coming back and assuming we don't get Fox, denied he ever supported the War in Iraq.

I''ve read this tread from start to finish and your knowledge of Iggy is scary. The love and life's facts of the man is impressive, do you work for him or just stalk him?

[Oleg Bach]

I''ve read this tread from start to finish and your knowledge of Iggy is scary. The love and life's facts of the man is impressive, do you work for him or just stalk him?

Everyone who works for the potential leader of Canada is probably stalking him at the same time....they may be behind him with cloaks --- and daggers....This could get real Shakespearian. Ignatieff could be scarey because of all the book smarts. Who knows what he absorbed..he could be a fundamentalist acedemic fanatic and severe idealog....who might want to take over the world --- those eyes ....yes sir reeee - dem is scary...

[Progressive Tory]

In the case of the Stickings article you linked in rebuttal to his deconstruction of Ignatieff, his views on the coalition are unsupported by the majority of Canadians who turned thumbs down on it.

You obviously didn't read the entire article, however, it's interesting that you suggest he's anti-Harper because he loves the NDP, but the NDP don't factor in to his criticism of Ignatieff.

Stickings was not anti-coalition as you suggest.

A very Canadian coup: This rare period of rapid political upheaval in Ottawa may be the best thing for the country if it brings in new leadership.

"It is an historic and somewhat unsettling development, plunging the country into the sort of instability of which it is unaccustomed. And yet Canada is not turning into Italy, which tends to change governments as frequently as some people change underwear. And it is not a coup, as some of its critics are suggesting. Rather, it is a strategic parliamentary move, made by three parties who hold a majority of the seats in the lower house of parliament to unite for a common purpose in a time of crisis. Canada will survive it. And, it may be, however rare in our history, the best thing for the country."

"After the October election, Harper, like George Bush in 2004, claimed that he had been given a stronger mandate to govern, a result of the Conservatives winning more seats than they had in 2006. The difference is that Bush actually did win a majority of the vote in 2004 (though, of course, his win over Kerry was narrow)."

"For their part, the Conservatives are, predictably, attacking the deal as undemocratic and even traitorous, arguing that it is a blatant effort to undermine the will of the people and their popular mandate (which they claim they have, despite the results of the election). They further claim that the coalition members are relying on an anti-Canadian party (the BQ, even though the Conservatives have a long history of playing to soft nationalism in Quebec (the BQ was born largely out of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative party)."

"Meanwhile, the Liberals and the New Democrats, with the support of their BQ colleagues, are rightly pointing out that each member of Parliament has a mandate and that the will of the people, as reflected in the results of the election, is with them, the majority. And, of course, they're quite right.

"With the country, like the rest of the world, in the middle of a serious economic and financial crisis, and with the government unable and unwilling to do anything about it, it's time for new and vigorous leadership in Ottawa. The three opposition parties think they can provide it, which is why they took this incredible and seemingly un-Canadian step. Let's hope they're right. And let's hope it happens."

My point is that the articles are the OPINIONS of one man. It's interesting that they appear in the UK, but fortunately for Harper the Brits can't vote in our election, so only Canadians can reject him, and we have.

[Progressive Tory]

There is nothing better than a bashing thread - Ignatieff is a good target...because we percieve him as smart and fairly tough - he can take it! Where as if this was a Dion bashing thread...we would be reprimanded by now for beating up the sissy.

I'm really pleased that Ignatieff is not taking the bait. The Conservatives (at least the handful that can read) are pouring over his books and lectures hoping to find something to convince Canadians to ignore his education and vast experience, that make him a natural to lead our country, especially in a time of crisis.

I came across an on-line book 'Canadian Who's Who' (It's also available in hard cover). This was the entry for Michael Igantieff as of 1997. Asking to head up the Human Rights Dep't at Harvard isn't yet on there.

Michael IGNATIEFF

IGNATIEFF, Michael, Ph.D.; writer, historian; b. Toronto, Ont. 1947; e. Upper Can. Coll. 1965; Univ. of Toronto Trinity Coll. B.A. 1969; Harvard Univ. Ph.D. 1975; Cambridge Univ. M.A. 1978; Bishop's Univ. D.Litt. 1995; editorial columnist The Observer (London) 1990-93; Reporter, The Globe and Mail 1966-67; mem. Campaign Staff Lib. Party Can. 1968 el.; Teaching Fellow in Social Studies Harvard Univ. 1971-74; Asst. Prof. of Hist. Univ. of B.C. 1976-78; Sr. Rsch. Fellow King's Coll. Cambridge 1978-84; writer and broadcaster London 1984-- ; Alistair Horne Fellow, St. Anthony's Coll., Oxford 1994-95; Host, BBC TV Thinking Aloud 1986-- , Channel Four's Voices 1986; host The Late Show BBC-2, 1989-- ; Visiting Prof. Ecole des Hautes Etudes Paris 1985; awarded Hon. doctorate, Bishop's Univ. 1995; author A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution 1978; The Needs of Strangers 1984; The Russian Album 1987; Governor General's Award 1988; Asya 1990; Scar Tissue 1993; Blood and Belonging: Nationalism in the Nineties 1993 (winner, Lionel Gelber Award 1994); co-author Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Classical Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment 1983; 1919 (screenplay) 1985; recreations: tennis, swimming, wine; Club: The Groucho (London); Office: c/o Anthony Shiel Associates, 43 Doughty St., London WC1, England.

His Gemini Award came after that as well. Not bad for someone that people here have referred to as a 'slow learner' and 'wishy washy.' The cons are running that through their spin cycle but it keeps coming up "He's smarter than all of you - deal with it."

[Progressive Tory]

I''ve read this tread from start to finish and your knowledge of Iggy is scary. The love and life's facts of the man is impressive, do you work for him or just stalk him?

Neither. I only joined the Liberal Party before Christmas. Long time Conservative until MacKay sold out and Harper bought up. Been voting NDP until 2008, when I voted for Peter Milliken as part of strategic voting.

I learned of Michael Ignatieff, mainly because of the fervour from the right. Then when I did research him, I thought why in the hell are we against smart? Canadians deserve to have a well educated Prime Minister with a vast experience in foreign affairs. He was a war correspondent and has dealt with all of those influenced by conflict from the political leaders, warlords, soldiers and peasants. His father was a Canadian Diplomat.

The Americans chose smart this time, after eight years of sheer stupidity. We deserve better, and Mr. Ignatieff is better. He's not Dion and thankfully, is not Stephen Harper.

Finally a PM I can be proud of and I will defend him as the best candidate for the job.

But, on a personal note, we do share the same birthday, May 12 (different year) and he looks my dad.

[Progressive Tory]

who might want to take over the world --- those eyes ....yes sir reeee - dem is scary...

You could be right. He has a laboratory buried deep in the mountains. Nyuh, huh, huh.

[madmax]

Great post Oleg

I just want to frame that quote Alta4ever . I thought hell would freeze over before reading that . The fact that it would come from you..... I am impressed.

Oleg takes his beatings here and has survived, so he must have a much thicker skin the Dion defenders of the past.

I also agree with his comment.

[madmax]

In the case of the Stickings article you linked in rebuttal to his deconstruction of Ignatieff, his views on the coalition are unsupported by the majority of Canadians who turned thumbs down on it. Stickings is obviously a Layton supporter who is miffed that the NDP came so close to making inroads into real political power in Ottawa.

I highly doubt that. I agree with Progressive Torys assessment of Stickings. The part to which you replied or I would quote it again.

He made some valid points and there is enough meat to chew on before hitting the bone, for everyone.

[Progressive Tory]

I also agree with his comment.

I agree as well. Ignatieff is smart and tough.

[madmax]

Then when I did research him, I thought why in the hell are we against smart? Canadians deserve to have a well educated Prime Minister with a vast experience in foreign affairs.

Were you a teacher at one time?

[Progressive Tory]

Were you a teacher at one time?

Not me. My husband is though, but in the trades. Welding, machine shop, millwright. Mostly apprentices. I was in accounting and wrote a small sports column for several years (local sports). I've recently been invited to join the Editorial Board at the Kingston Whig Standard (part of the Sun Media Group) and will now be allowed to attend media scrums. I'm going to push for Ignatieff to visit Kingston now. Of course I'll probably get tongue tied and slip in my drool, or at least that's what you think I'll do, right?

However, I can't believe that Canadians have such a low esteem that they don't believe we deserve to have someone academically equal, and perhaps superior to other world leaders. Even if his education doesn't impress you, it definitely shouldn't hinder you.

If it was just based on academics, that's one thing. Dion also had a PhD and is a brilliant man. He just isn't a leader.

However, Ignatieff has a pair and I envy his career as journalist. I'm on the chapter in his book where he visits Kurdistan. The people tell him there are Iraqi soldiers just over a hill, so he convinces a shepherd to let him help drive his sheep over to get a closer look. When peering in his binoculars, he spots the soldiers just as one of them has his binoculars on Ignatieff. I would have crapped my pants.

When he denounces Saddam Hussein, it's based on personal experience, after seeing first hand the devastation of the Kurdish people. He didn't read it in a book, but wrote the book that others read.

I just find him very fascinating as an individual and find nothing in his education or life experience that would inhibit his ability to lead this country.

You don't have to agree with me, but don't attack his education. It's a good thing.

The topic of this thread is in itself ridiculous. I know that Stockwell Day thinks that 4 + 5 = 30; but if it was going to be anything, it would be Michael Ignatieff 'the Brit', because he was based there for 20 years. He hosted political commentary programs for the BBC, wrote books, and taught at Oxford and Cambridge.

However, he never gave up his Canadian citizenship and always travelled on a Canadian passport. He is indeed Micahel Ignatieff 'the Canadian'. He wouldn't have been eligible for his Gemini if he wasn't.

[capricorn]

You obviously didn't read the entire article, however, it's interesting that you suggest he's anti-Harper because he loves the NDP, but the NDP don't factor in to his criticism of Ignatieff.

Just as you don't factor in the NDP in your criticism of Harper or your glorification of Ignatieff.

Stickings was not anti-coalition as you suggest.

Huh? I suggested the opposite. I said Stickings is on the opposite side of public opinion as Canadians turned thumbs down on the coalition. The rest of your post illustrates his endorsement of the coalition and supports my observation that he loved the coalition idea.

My point is that the articles are the OPINIONS of one man.

Just like your mushy posts on MI are the OPINIONS of one woman.

It's interesting that they appear in the UK, but fortunately for Harper the Brits can't vote in our election,

It's also interesting that the Time Square photo of MI posing as the Prime Minister with Obama won't win Inatieff any votes in the US.

so only Canadians can reject him, and we have.

Your conversion to the Liberals is complete. You now pretend to speak for all Canadians.

[capricorn]

Neither. I only joined the Liberal Party before Christmas. Long time Conservative until MacKay sold out and Harper bought up. Been voting NDP until 2008, when I voted for Peter Milliken as part of strategic voting.

I learned of Michael Ignatieff, mainly because of the fervour from the right. Then when I did research him, I thought why in the hell are we against smart? Canadians deserve to have a well educated Prime Minister with a vast experience in foreign affairs. He was a war correspondent and has dealt with all of those influenced by conflict from the political leaders, warlords, soldiers and peasants. His father was a Canadian Diplomat.

The Americans chose smart this time, after eight years of sheer stupidity. We deserve better, and Mr. Ignatieff is better. He's not Dion and thankfully, is not Stephen Harper.

Finally a PM I can be proud of and I will defend him as the best candidate for the job.

But, on a personal note, we do share the same birthday, May 12 (different year) and he looks my dad.

Rinse and repeat.