Ignatieff wants Canada that ‘takes risks'

[sanch]

Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff inched closer to announcing whether he'll enter the Liberal leadership race during a speech Thursday, saying his decision is coming shortly.

"My decision will be made soon," Mr. Ignatieff, a Liberal MP and author, told reporters following a major political speech to students at the University of Ottawa, where he spoke about why he was interested in entering politics and defended his support of the U.S.-led war in Iraq as an academic.

Continued

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060330.wignat0330/BNStory/National/home

 

[Jay]

"I'm in politics to speak up for a Canada that takes risks, that stands up for what's right," he said.

He's in the wrong party then.

 

[FiveParadox]

Yeah, we're a nation that supports a secretive government, one that only answers to state-sponsored questions from a strangleheld media; we support a government that shuts down the House of Commons when things aren't going its way; we support a government that denies quorum to committees when it doesn't like the subject matter. We support a government that stands up for stripping citizens of newly-recognized rights, on the basis that the Bible instructs us to do so.

 

[sanch]

Re: RE: Ignatieff wants Canada that ‘takes risks'

Yeah, we're a nation that supports a secretive government, one that only answers to state-sponsored questions from a strangleheld media; we support a government that shuts down the House of Commons when things aren't going its way; we support a government that denies quorum to committees when it doesn't like the subject matter. We support a government that stands up for stripping citizens of newly-recognized rights, on the basis that the Bible instructs us to do so.

I didn't see the text of the speech but is this what Ignatieff is advocating? People are generally very hostile to him but this is getting very weird.

 

[FiveParadox]

I was referring to our current Government of Canada, sanch, not Michael Ignatieff, lol.

 

[sanch]

Well I see that Ignatieff did not receive the perfunctory honorific in your post and so that must reflect something.

I don’t see the relevance of the other comments to the liberal leadership race though.

I am generally curious about the guy. What’s he all about? Why did he support the war with Iraq?

 

[FiveParadox]

My mistake, he's Michael Ignatieff, M.P., the Member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. However, he isn't entitled to be The Honourable.

 

[sanch]

Here is Ignatieff 's explanation for his support for the Iraq war. It should be mentioned that this kind of support from Harvard faculty was crucical for Bush as he sought to justify reasons for the invasion.

Although he is viewed as a leading contender, many believe his past as an academic and his support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq could harm him in Liberal politics.

Mr. Ignatieff sought to deal with the criticism yesterday.

"I went to Iraq in 1992 and saw what Saddam Hussein had done to the Kurds and the Shia. I decided then and there that I'd stand with them whatever happened," he said. "I've stuck with them ever since."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060331.IGNATIEFF31/TPStory/TPNational/

 

[sanch]

Comparatively this turn around on iraq is similar to John Kerry's change of mind.

It may not really matter as there appears to be little enthusiasm for liberals now. None of their announcements are really discussed in the globe and mail. Ignatieff may just return to the US when he gets bored.

 

[sanch]

Ignatieff is starting to fascinate me and I think he has a good shot at being the next liberal leader. These two paragraphs capture his feelings after he realized there were no WMD. It seems he would have supported the Iraq war anyway as he had his own reasons. But in the end they were no different than that of Bush or Blair.

The discovery that Hussein didn't have weapons after all surprises me, but it doesn't change my view of the essential issue. I never thought the key question was what weapons he actually possessed but rather what intentions he had. Having been to Halabja in 1992, and having talked to survivors of the chemical attack that killed 5,000 Iraqi Kurds in March 1988, I believed that while there could be doubt about Hussein's capabilities, there could be none about the malignancy of his intentions. True, there are a lot of malignant intentions loose in our world, but Hussein had actually used chemical weapons. Looking to the future, once sanctions collapsed, inspectors had been bamboozled and oil revenues began to pick up, he was certain, sooner or later, to match intentions with capabilities.

Critics of the war said all of this was irrelevant. The real issue was oil. But they got the relevance of oil backward. If all America cared about was oil, it would have cozied up to Hussein, as it had done in the past. Oil was an issue in the war precisely because its revenues distinguished Hussein from the run of other malignant dictators. It was the critical factor that would allow him, sooner or later, to acquire the weapons that would enable him to go after the Kurds again, complete the destruction of the Shiites, threaten Saudi Arabia and continue to support Palestinian suicide bombers and, just possibly, Al Qaeda as well.

http://www.novak.com/weblog/stories/2004/03/17/michaelIgnatieffOnIraq.html

 

[Toro]

RE: Ignatieff wants Canad

Does he mean by "risks" taking Canada's treasury to the craps tables in Vegas?

 

[elevennevele]

Ignatieff is starting to fascinate me and I think he has a good shot at being the next liberal leader. These two paragraphs capture his feelings after he realized there were no WMD. It seems he would have supported the Iraq war anyway as he had his own reasons. But in the end they were no different than that of Bush or Blair.

The accomplishment of removing Saddam doesn't seem to score considering the damage created on how it was brought about and the continuing damage and hostilities it is creating. Bush might end up being know as the president who put the Ayatollahs in charge of Iraq.

Americans are doing as much damage to the people now as Saddam. Through the hostility they create, and through the actions they take against the populous. They decided to use torture too.

http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-ed...itorPrimeKeyword=Billyard&editorLink=Billyard

If he becomes leader of the Liberals, I won’t be voting for the Liberals. My vote might then be a wasted one because gee, now where would I put it?

 

[elevennevele]

Critics of the war said all of this was irrelevant. The real issue was oil. But they got the relevance of oil backward. If all America cared about was oil, it would have cozied up to Hussein, as it had done in the past. Oil was an issue in the war precisely because its revenues distinguished Hussein from the run of other malignant dictators. It was the critical factor that would allow him, sooner or later, to acquire the weapons that would enable him to go after the Kurds again, complete the destruction of the Shiites, threaten Saudi Arabia and continue to support Palestinian suicide bombers and, just possibly, Al Qaeda as well.

What Ignatieff doesn’t seem to realize is that Iraq was considering pricing oil using the Euro as currency. Part of US hegemony is having oil in the world priced in US dollars. Using US dollars to price oil helps to boost the dollar and keeps it stable.

That is why trying to cozy up to Saddam wouldn’t have worked. Saddam, well, he didn’t really like the United States after the first Gulf War. Duh.

If Ignatieff doesn’t know this, then he is no academic.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CLA20060210&articleId=1937

“Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran's nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro" system for oil trade.

Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of 'petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but real challenge to US$ supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.”

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/10/10/001.html

Putin: Why Not Price Oil in Euros?

“President Vladimir Putin said Thursday Russia could switch its trade in oil from dollars to euros, a move that could have far-reaching repercussions for the global balance of power -- potentially hurting the U.S. dollar and economy and providing a massive boost to the euro zone.

"We do not rule out that it is possible. That would be interesting for our European partners," Putin said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in the Urals town of Yekaterinburg, where the two leaders conducted two-day talks.”

 

[sanch]

As Harper seems intent on self-destruction there may be greater urgency for the liberals to select a leader and Ignatieff is the front runner.

These essays give good insight into his thinking as they reflect his actual views more than what is thrown out for political expediency.

It is quite possible that by next year Ignatieff could be PM. As a liberal it seems that he has a lot in common with Blair and would see Canada's role internationally in a more activist sense.

I haven't made my mind up about him.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Ignatieff wants Canad

I have heard Ignatieff speak and he is not one I would see in government.

 

[Toro]

RE: Ignatieff wants Canad

Especially since he's joined the Liberal party, and they're going to be out of power for years!

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Ignatieff wants Canad

Hey you're right I forgot that, even better.

 

[sanch]

Re: RE: Ignatieff wants Canad

Especially since he's joined the Liberal party, and they're going to be out of power for years!

This they would surely deserve. The one thing that would bring them back quickly is an ineffective conservative government. If Harper gets the Acountability Act passed and hands out whistles to uncover more liberal corruption than they will be doomed. But this is a big if. Harper appears willing to find ways to insert his own agenda atop the corrupt structure that exists. So it will be more of the same.

Ignatieff as a leader would not be beholden to any class interests and this would be a plus.

 

[vishliberal]

Here is Ignatieff 's explanation for his support for the Iraq war. It should be mentioned that this kind of support from Harvard faculty was crucical for Bush as he sought to justify reasons for the invasion.

Although he is viewed as a leading contender, many believe his past as an academic and his support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq could harm him in Liberal politics.

Mr. Ignatieff sought to deal with the criticism yesterday.

"I went to Iraq in 1992 and saw what Saddam Hussein had done to the Kurds and the Shia. I decided then and there that I'd stand with them whatever happened," he said. "I've stuck with them ever since."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060331.IGNATIEFF31/TPStory/TPNational/

Wow, your WAY OFF (the Harvard Bush idea). That was not his reason for supporting the invasion, and it is presumptions like that are unneccesary.
As your link has proven, Ignatieff visited Iraq before the war, and was helping the Iraqis, and he saw what Saddam was doing. Since then, from first hand experience, he decided that something need to be done. Whether or not i agree is another thing. He did not support it because of Bush or because hes Harvard faculty. He also said if it was today he would re-consider the decision. This is barely a cover up.

 

[Hank C]

ignatieff pffffftt......I am still holding out hope for that former NDPer turned Liberal, because of his former parties hate for Isreal, go Rae