Ignatieff on Bush
Michael Ignatieff has attacked the Bush Presidency calling it a disaster, specifically attacking the handling of Iraq. First off, I couldn't agree more. However, it seems to me this is a simple case of damage control. Iggy makes inflamatory statements about Israel, so his team scatters to find something big to talk about that Canadians of come to a consensus on -- we don't like George W. So here we are. Tell me, does the Ignatieff team really think Liberals and Canadians are just going to forget how sad a politician Iggy is with a single statement?
posted by Jordan | 3:21 PM
11 Comments:
Well, I guess your implying that 30% of Liberal Party members are sad as well.
Chalk one up for party unity!
Instead of bitching, why not tell me why you support your candidate of choice?
also Jordan.. people and that includes, you and me, and even Michael Ignatieff do see things differently over time.. and do and can change their mind/s.
now like anon 4:42 said why don't you tell us whom you support and present a case for his or Martha's behalf.. by far a better use of your time.
Liberal Woman
I fully agree. My only concern here is whoever is the next Liberal leader may have to work with Bush. Now we should continue to disagree, but we don't need to get into verbal fights over one's domestic policies, after all I don't think we appreciate Americans commenting on our prime-ministers. Still I doubt we can improve Canada-US relations as long as Bush is in the whitehouse, but lets at least make it look like Bush is at fault for bad relations.
This is nothing new. Michael has been saying this about Bush at least since last October when I saw him speak. That some media are paying attention and reporting it now doesn't mean he only came up with the views now.
And Bob Rae and others have criticized Bush as well. Rae in fact compared him to Hitler at the LPCO over softwood lumber. Which is more inflammatory?
This antic continues traditional Liberal adolescent policy development. Just like a 17 year old who is against everything his parents do or think, the Liberal policy is to be against everything the Americans do or say.
Iggy, Bob, etal, please grow up.
Another foot in the mouth incident for Ignatieff. It is really getting pathetic. It is one thing to disagree with the President of the US but to call his presidency a "disaster" and encourage Canadians to be "anti-Bush" is ridiculous. This is not the right language any future Leader of the Liberal Party or Prime Minster should be using.
But, Oh, that's right. Iggy is a professor, not a politician. Go back to Havard Iggy before you embarass the Liberal Party any further.
Cerberus,
I like Iggy. But I hate it when his detractors distort his views to his detriment and, just as much, when his supporters do it to create unfair distortions for convienence.
Michael was praising Republican foreign policy DURING the 2005-6 Federal Election campaign:
Ignatieff said that Republican foreign policy, focusing on promoting democracy, is better suited to the situation in the Middle East than what he termed the cautious, pragmatic neo-isolationism offered by the Democrats. “The times require real vision in the Middle East,” he said.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510552
Michael's never been lock in step with Bush on American domestic issues. He was a long time critic on that front and continues to be. However, he's praised Republicans for years with regards to their foreign policy. Don't lie about it. As long as you do, folks on the other end will keep lying about Iggy supporting tortue. It's an aimless mudfight.
What a farce. Ignatieff agrees with Bush to invade Iraq and then, when it is politically convenient, he calls his presidency a "disaster".
Not only are Ignatieff's words a lovely set-up for a Conservative attack ad (are we up to 20 Iggy moments, now? I lost count.)but his desperate attempt to look more "left" is not credible. Even more centre or left centre candidates would have the political smarts to not directly insult the leader of our greatest trading partner. Disagree yes. Insult no.
It is becoming obvious that the Iggster has spent too much time living in the USA. He thinks he is running against G.W.Bush. Iggy, you are in Canada now man!
I see no contradiction in someone saying they support a concept and an approach but then criticize the way it gets executed. That happens all of the time.
That Iggy believes in a liberal/humanitarian interventionism but then says Bush screwed up is no contradiction.
It is also hardly new, either for him (in a speech I attended in October 2005 he was saying Bush have made every mistake possible in Iraq) or for Rae who compared Bush to Hitler.
Tell me, which is more inflammatory and which is more accurate: saying Bush has been a disaster in Iraq and with the economy, or saying Bush has acted like Hitler with softwood lumber?
It truly irritates me when Iggy casts aspersions on all Americans when he should be talking specifically about the Bush administration.
Ignatieff says "I take full responsibility for not having anticipated how incompetent the Americans would be."
So Ignatieff apologizes for the incompetence of the "Americans" but not his own poor judgment, nor his role as lead cheerleader and marketeer of the illegal invasion by the Bush Administration. In other words, if all had gone well in Iraq, Ignatieff would not be apologizing today over the illegal pre-emptive war. Question: If a bank robber doesn't get caught does that mean that no crime was committed?
In his March 2005 article entitled "America the Mercurial" Ignatieff states in his own words "..the United States and Britain went to war [in Iraq] in defiance of international law,...".
Let's be clear, in 2003, Ignatieff not only agreed with America's and Britain's decision, he attempted to give the illegal invasion legitimacy through his frequent op-eds in prestigious journals and newspapers before, during and after the Iraq invasion. Does Ignatieff's pro-Iraq war stance by extension (and through his own words in 2005) not make him also defiant of international law... a international criminal of sorts? Not even Harper would have been so bold to defy international law.
Thanks to Ignatieff's daily deposits into the munitions dump, Harper's cannons are now fully loaded with
all the word fodder they need to secure a majority. Squarely in the conservative camp's crosshairs, Ignatieff is too big a target to miss.
Robyn Kall
Post a Comment
<< Home