Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Ignatieff speaks out

MICHAEL VALPY

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 2:02 AM EDT 03/08/07

Liberal deputy leader awakens to grim reality of political betrayal ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. fred jones from Canada writes: maybe he was naive, maybe not. i still think he is way better than dion, and maybe the most intelligent and well read candidate of the past decade. canada would be better off with him more than just 'deputy'.
  2. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Poor Iggy. He is learning that what one says is, generally, taken at face value. As in, we assume that you are saying what you actually mean and intend, otherwise where are the qualifiers and caveats. Iggy has been loath to supply those when speaking in the past. Especially in terms of ethnic relations between Russians and their neighbours, Iraq, WMD, Torture and, related or similar subjects. Worse, Iggy has failed to recognize that his opinion is just that - an opinion. Especially since there are lots of documented facts, out there in the real world that, that pove, unequivically, that most of what Iggy says is nothing more than biased opinnion - driving an agenda. And this is what was parachuted in to be 'annointed' as leader of the Liberals? Give me a break. Dion, for all his shortcomings, at least has some ethics. Iggy has, out of his own mouth, none.
  3. AU GT from Long Beach, United States writes: Ignatief is a smart guy, but misses that politics is where the best neandertal wins. He shouldn't second guess himself about IRAQ 'but thousands and thousands and thousands of Iraqis are dead as a result of this set of choices that' a LOT OF THEM made. After the main military action has been over, the Iraquis have been mostly fighting against themselves. They could have done that with or without intervention.lots of us made.” Ignatief is too smart for politics, but he would be a top notch diplomat or senator...
  4. martha stewart from Canada writes: Poor Mr. Ignatieff. Who knew politics was harder than academia? And interesting to see that he weeps in the U.S. where his heart still is. Best if he would go back to Harvard, if they'll still take him, and stay there. Could lecture on 'Opportunism 101,' something both he and his 'disloyal' friend Bob Rae are experts on. Or maybe Belinda Stronach could hire him at Magna?
  5. Let me tell You How It Is-THE EXPERT from Seattle, Washington, United States writes: Once again a Canadian is famous in Canadian media only if he 'makes it big ' in the U.S. In this case Ignatieff loves the attention he receives in an article in the Sunday New York Times. He will likely be buried somewhere between the Classifieds and the article on designer toilet paper in the style section. Continuing the Canadian characteristics of envy and inferiority.
  6. Rhadamanthus behind the Rockies from Victoria, BC, Canada writes: Hmmm, being a Conservative, I harbor no excess affinity for Liberals. But David Bercuson is quite right, this was a courageous stand for Ignatieff to take. It is rare for anyone in public office to admit a mistake a principle, even rarer to admit it so eloquently:

    'politicians have a deeper responsibility.

    They have a responsibility for the consequences of their actions; a responsibility to see and understand the world as it is, not as they would wish it to be; a responsibility to be prudent, to listen to the voices of their opponents before they act, to recognize and learn from their mistakes, and to not let emotions be the primary determinant of their actions.'

    I do so like that word- responsibility. It's a word that deserves to heard far more, both in politics and general society.

    I commended the Liberal Party for selecting a thoughtful academic such as Dion as leader. I see now that Michael Ignatieff has an understanding of the concept of responsibility. Clearly the man has principles and has a deep enough understanding of them to admit when he's wrong.

    I still don't want the Liberals back in power anytime soon (they still have a lot of housecleaning to do within the party after all) but if these two men- Dion and Ignatieff are examples of the caliber of MP the party can attract, there's hope for the party yet.

    When the Conservatives do finally relinquish the reins of power (and that's not going to be for several years at least) either Liberal would be worthy to challenge for the post of Prime Minister. We certainly could do much worse (and have.)
  7. Fred Johnson from Canada writes: imagine having to employ an apologist in order to sift, parse, and reinvent. the liberal intelligentsia is trying oh so hard to say nothing. we got that the first time, michael.
  8. Aman Hayer from Calgary, AB, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada,

    If you had actually read the lesser evil, you would know that Michael Ignatieff does not support torture. He makes it quite clear when he says torture should be banned. You don’t need to read beyond the first chapter to figure it out.

    If you keep reading, he argues that torture would not only destroy the rights of those who are being tortured, but it would also destroy our modern democratic state.

    Don’t just believe what the media tells you. They can’t summarize the entire book, so they only take passages which can be mislead. If you want to see where else they do it, go read up on what the media said about his book “Blood and Belonging.” A book which won many international awards, yet they said he was racist against Ukrainians in it.
  9. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Rick in Redneckland:-- You are correct - it will be an interesting read.

    Some of the posters above are oh-so-quick to pass judgment, but they haven't even read it yet. Some of you might like to ask yourselves whether Mr. Harper, for example, would even tell one of his cats what he thought he'd done wrong or misunderstood, assuming that he's that self-aware. Mr. Ignatieff couldn't help but be influenced by the prevailing American zeitgeist - he'd been soaking in the culture for quite awhile. My reservations about him were (at campaign time) that he hadn't been in Canada long enough to reacquaint himself with Canadian views. No doubt the process continues...

    the Expert:-- Newsflash. I feel neither envy nor inferiority - mostly just irritation - that feeling you have when a friend keeps doing the same dumb thing over and over again.
  10. martha stewart from Canada writes: diane marie - Methinks you are being too kind, and too partisan. If it had been some American Tory who had parachuted into Canada to pretend to be the new Trudeau I doubt if you would be so generous.
  11. Rhadamanthus behind the Rockies from Victoria, BC, Canada writes: Diane Marie,

    Not all Harper Conservatives are rednecks. I like to think that I represent a more thoughtful Conservative than the stereotypes that are often put forward. 'Rednecks' certainly live in the Conservative Party, but to be fair, they also live in the Liberal Party as well (note the 1/3 of Liberals that voted against same-sex marriage and the Liberal that put forward a private members bill to outlaw abortion last year.)

    But you've read my posts, I'll let you be the judge.
  12. Jerry Cutler from Delta, BC, Canada writes: I am an old man, but I learned long ago not to trust someone who is dishonest. Ignatieff is just such a person. He is much more than just disingenuous in his change of position on Iraq. He is a classic, obfuscating political crook.
  13. Tim Robinson from United Kingdom writes: So Diane and Rick, what do you actually think. Aside from the pre-emptive hypocrisy of criticising others for being critical, do you have anything intelligent to add. Does Iggy belong in the Liberal party or not? I say no, because he is too honest. There; go rant about that for a while.
  14. Rhadamanthus behind the Rockies from Victoria, BC, Canada writes: Tim Robinson,

    Actually, you just gave me a fine idea!

    If Mr. Ignatieff cannot reconcile his position with Mr. Dion, he would make a fine addition to the Conservative Party, LOL.

    Paging Mr. Harper!
  15. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: martha stewart:-- Mr. Ignatieff is not an American, therefore he couldn't possibly be 'some American Grit who had parachuted...', so I really don't get your point. He was away from Canada a very long time, though he'd certainly stayed in touch and has historic family connections. My concerns at the time of the convention were twofold: that he'd been away long enough to have lost touch; and that he'd recommended the Iraq invasion. He's getting political experience - something that he apparently realizes he needs. I really don't have any strong opinions about him, and at this point I really don't have to form any.
  16. Nicholas Evans from Saanich British Columbia, writes: What I find bizzare, is the lack of realism in the speakers comments, and in Ignatieff's remarks; Have these people bn asleep all their lives? All they have to do is look in their own (or someone else's) garden to see how reality works. Death eats. It's utterly inane to think the universe cares about politics. Wake up, kids! All that matters in our little lives is is some sense, sensibility, and a bit of compassion. Blame is a self - deceiver's game.
  17. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Rhadamanthus:-- I liked your post - what gave you the idea that I didn't? I have noted that more conservatives on these fora seem to like Mr. Ignatieff than do liberals - it's not scientific, I've just noticed a lot of PC-type conservatives voice their approval of him.
  18. Jerry Cutler from Delta, BC, Canada writes: Diane Marie - and this war-mongering Americanised twit thinks he has the credentials to run Canada?
  19. martha stewart from Canada writes: diane marie - Oops, meant Americanized... and I see that Jerry Cutler just put that into a more blunt description. In any case, my point was obvious. He was and I think still is an opportunist and I am glad he didn't and won't get the chance to be our PM. Think the Liberals are stuck with Dion until 2009 at least and after that there will hopefully be some better choices.
  20. John Callaghan from Canada writes: What has become very clear in all of this is the same naivety that Mr Ignatief displayed as a proponent of the Iraq war has come to serve him very well in the rough and tumble world of politics.
  21. Reg Anderson from Canada writes: Ignatieff was a politician parachuted into our political scene by big money. His purpose was to divide the liberal party just as Harpers purpose was to divide Canada. Ignatieff's popularity was pushed on the people by the press. It came from nowhere. He came from nowhere. The liberals knew what was going on and so the 'anyone but Ignatieff' solution was done by pre-arrangement. Bring in people like Kennedy to take away support from Inatieff and give it to either Dion or Rae. And then have Dion or Rae support the other when the time comes. The 'anyone but Ignatieff' solution in action. The reason why Rae allowed his supporters the freedom to choose in the end, was because the numbers already supported a Dion win. It wasn't needed and came with the added benefit that it looked good. If I were Dion, I would never have given Ignateiff the courtesy of the deputy PM. He was a plant, a divider. He was there to destroy the LPC. And thats why the conservative prefer him over Dion. Because if he had won, Canada would have been left without political representation for the left-wing. BTW, I'm cheering for the 'none of the above' party.

  22. balding geezer from Ottawa, Canada writes: Bashing Ignatieff for being for years a teacher at one of the top universities in the western world does a disservice to the thousands of Canadians who live and work in distant lands but keep an abiding love, loyalty and interest for an imperfect country which is not afraid to deal with serious issues in the political arena with civil discourse, compromises and ideas rather than with burning, looting and raping like the janjaweed in Darfur or the ultra-nationalists of the Balkans. I, for one, admire his candor and intellectual honesty in a political void filled with opportunism, egos and pandering to the press.
  23. west slope from Greater Vancouver, Canada writes: Well said John Callaghan!

    What I don't understand how this guy can seriously promote violent regime change but has never made a coherent critique of modern European colonialism. To the well organized and the powerful go the spoils?

    Doesn't the man know the post war history of European colonialism and how it has resulted in massive economic losses?

    But then the editorial board of the newspaper believes in killing 'other' people and taking their land and resources regardless of the security risks and economic costs, so why should we expect more from ambitious, naive individuals like Ignatieff?
  24. tony d from Canada writes: MARTHA STEWART, do you remember a fellow Canadian, leader of the opposition who went on FOX ( Faux ) NEWS to show his support for the war in Iraq?! Well, you know, being ashamed of his government and country for not being there with the U.S. I'll refresh your memory if you can't recall, his name is Stevie Harper. That, my dear, cannot be compared with tenure at Harvard. Had that happened in any other Western country that party would be finished for good, but in Canada we elect them to govern us.
  25. Philip Van Bergen from Hashima, Japan writes: diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Rhadamanthus:-- I liked your post - what gave you the idea that I didn't? I have noted that more conservatives on these fora seem to like Mr. Ignatieff than do liberals - it's not scientific, I've just noticed a lot of PC-type conservatives voice their approval of him.

    Probably true. I liked the Liberals when they were centrist and
    fiscally conservative, and Ignatieff seems to be both. Besides
    he is intelligent and has made it on the world stage, something
    akin to Michael Bloomberg (NY's mayor). And as a Canadian
    living overseas, I resent the idea that people somehow
    lose their 'Canadianess' if they leave Canada. I am proud of
    my country and represent it as best I can, and I'm sure
    Ignatieff did as well in Britain and the US.
  26. Jack Bauer from Canada writes: The same posters who would execute Harper for supporting the Iraq invasion love Iggy??? I agree iGGY IS GREAT WHEN COMPARED TO DION...
  27. Philip Van Bergen from Hashima, Japan writes: Reg Anderson from Canada writes: Ignatieff was a politician parachuted into our political scene by big money. His purpose was to divide the liberal party just as Harpers purpose was to divide Canada.

    Actually my take on it is that exact opposite. Harper's purpose in life is
    to forever divide the Liberals, and Ignatieff's goal is to unite Canada.
    Actually trying to unite the Liberals is next to impossible, a party that
    split in the 60's with the new 'parachuted' Trudeau at the helm.
  28. R L from Calgary, Canada writes: I don't buy it at all.

    Michael Ignatieff is a war-monger (not only for his former position on Iraq, but for his long-term position for years on foreign policy in general), and will always be inclined to be gullible and sympathetic to US policy. His political mindset is that of an American, and when a new major situation occurs in the future, when the US pushes ahead with a new agenda in a few years time, you can be sure that Michael Ignatieff will be sympathizing with the Americans.

    I'm not afraid to say it, and neither should anyone... I despise the American way of doing things, and I do not hold American (US) values.

    Meanwhile, negotiations continue behind closed doors on the wholly-undemocratic SPP which is on the path toward total harmonization and the North American Union. Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, David Emerson, and the rest of those involved in the SPP (pushed on our side by the Manning fundamentalist think-tank fools), are undemocratic traitors to this country. The SPP negotiations make me sick to my stomach.
  29. Joe Espaldon from Manila, Philippines writes: For the intellectuals, Ignatieff speaks a thousand meaningful insights and wisdom about the war in Iraq. Reading the excerpts of his essay, one can not but be impressed by the depth of knowledge of this man about international and human affairs which would put to shame Peter McKay. But he was a rookie in the Liberal Convention; an unknown candidate who, as some said, came from nowhere. But the Liberals should have elected a leader who would lead them out of political wilderness and not voted because of political alliances. Look what happened to the party now. A party that is struggling financially and a Leader who cannot get it out of political doldrums despite the fact that support for the Conservatives is going down.

    Incidentally, calling Ignatieff as more American than Canadian is like calling Dion as more French than Canadian. Comparatively speaking though, Ignatieff does not hold American passport whereas Dion holds a French one. Besides the study of the federal government shows that two-passports holders are no less than loyal than those who hold only one.
  30. Simply Red from Halifax, Canada writes: I have nothing for respect for Michael Ignatieff. I was a delegate to the National Liberal Convention, and watched as he refused to sell out people who had worked for him. One of the minor leadership contenders wanted to come on board but wanted guarantees he'd be the big man on campus -- or at least the main person for our region. Michael refused to dump the crew that had worked for him all along; the contender went to Rae. I don't think this refusal cost him the race. I DO think that my respect for Michael Ignatieff grew exponentially that day, just as it has today when I read that he is willing to admit he was wrong on Iraq. (Wouldn't it be nice if our current PM showed an occasional flash of brilliance and admitted he was wrong. He refusal to utter the word 'wrong' is really quite funny.... ) I've been impressed by Michael's steadfast loyalty to Stephane Dion during the latter's growing pains. Unlike certain other candidates, he hasn't tried to stack provincial and territorial organizations to prepare for a future run; believe me, it's happening. Michael is a man of integrity. He doesn't have a flexible morality -- ieven in the Iraq case, he made th error because he was focussed on the treatment of the Kurd population under Hussein.
  31. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: Rhadamanthus, first of all, just because one opposes gay marriage does not make one a redneck. We rednecks are just a tad more complex than that. Secondly, as a proud redneck AND Conservative, I resent the fact that you feel obligated to apologize on our behalf as though there is something wrong with us. There are a lot of us in the Conservative Party, and we aren't going away. If the 'progressive' Red Tories think they're going to regain the party by giving rednecks the short shrift like they did during the Mulroney years (or for that matter the Clark - Stanfield - Dief years) they'll be sorely disappointed. Ask Kim Campbell what it was like to fight an election after the rednecks abandoned the Tory ship. We didn't just go back to the farm to shoot pumpkins with our shotguns (though we certainly enjoy doing so). Does the word 'Reform' ring a bell? And before you go stereotyping rednecks, let me fill you in. I and many of my fellow knuckle-draggers are NON-religious. Many of us don't oppose abortion (though we almost universally oppose late-term or 'partial birth' abortions, as do many decent left-wingers). Hell, I even know a redneck who HAD an abortion...and she's STILL a redneck! While we don't favour gay marriage, we're willing to live with it. Though we are not racist, we do NOT favour sacrificing long-standing Canadian traditions at the shrine of multiculturalism. We do not hate Quebec, nor francophones, but we DO believe providing French services outside Quebec to be an expensive waste of time. (We do hate Trudeau -- hey, you gotta hate somebody right?) No doubt some rednecks do have some of the unsavoury characteristics I've itemized above. But we rednecks are a tolerant bunch, and we prefer to try to ease them into a more moderate stance, instead of vilifying them. Lately we've even been seen fraternizing with Red Tories. And you can't get much more tolerant than that.
  32. Terry Quinn from Canada writes: At least Iggy has the intellect that allows him to speak to issues very clearly and honestly. Dion has these features as well and, had the advantage of being in office for ten years at the Liberal convention. That being said I think Iggy realizes now he wasn't ready for the key leadership role but maybe a very good 2IC. My read into Iggy is that he will play an ever more important role with Dion in convincing people that Harpercrite as PM is a fraud.
    Paul Martin was the conscience of the liberals for many years, not just as finance minister but in many other ways he kept Johhny C. from doing stupid things. Iggy could be the conscience of the new leader who is much smarter that JC ever was.
    I think the liberals are well on their way to recovering their talent for good governance we have seen from them over the years and we at least know there is the possibility of good government once we get rid of the gang that can't shoot straight.
  33. Pamela Achurch from Peterborough, On, Canada writes: Somehow the mea culpa of Ignatieff doesn't ring true to me. He is without doubt a very well educated man with a wealth of cosmopolitan understanding. To support the invasion of Iraq without viewing it in the context of history and the current mideast complexity is the action of an uneducated mind. All war brings unintended consequence and human suffering. Is that suffering defined good or bad by the degree of suffering? Surely, he must have been aware of the deep divisions within Iraq and the power struggle that would ensue. Also he must have known of the Sunni/Shiite divide. It does not take genius to figure out what happens when the balance of power is disrupted in the enforced unity of Iraq. What does make sense is that he is politically agile enough to know that his earlier stance has to be softened for a future in Canadian politics. To do it this way makes very good sense. He is also writing to the disaffected Americans in powerful places who have to do the same. Academia is rife with the same back stabbing politics that he claims naiveity about. On the other hand, Harper can truly be seen as an undereducated man. His world was Alberta and the Calgary School unfettered by experience beyond Canada. There he was a bigger fish in a small pond. Once out of that pond, he has struggled with the complexies of the larger world. I see his rigidity and controlling behaviour as self protective. His conservative ideology and narrow fundamentalism are contstantly challenged by by people who are equal or superior to him. His new role demands far more expertise and finesse than he actually has. Unfortunately he has chosen George Bush as a role model. I guess I expected more of Ignatieff. Hence the disappointment is higher.
  34. Vince Porter from Canada writes: Having discerned the penetratingly obvious insight that actions and ideas have consequence, can we now make Ignatieff pope? Too many people and institutions routinely find their good intentions going bad, often because they blind themselves, almost willfully, to consequence derived, ostensibly, from principle. But, setting people free from tyrants in Iraq obviously has consequence, as does denying people condoms in Africa. Human beings often get chewed up to make others look good - and principled. It is why cloistered popes and presidents and prime ministers need to see the real world through something other than a television screen and sycophantic advisers.
  35. Terry Quinn from Canada writes: Alaistar McLaughlin...you describe red necks very well in the way your red neck friend had an abortion. Truth is most rednecks would have the abortion but try and stop others from doing the same.

    That's the Harpercrite government's mentality.

    Ask the people who lost billions in the income trust fiasco about hypocrisy.
    But I'm glad there appears to be hope for you since you do deign to speak with moderate tories..those are the ones,after all, who sometimes vote Liberal so maybe you can change after all.
  36. janfromthe bruce from Canada writes: Iggy says in a shorter version that he was wrong and didn't think about all the consequences of his support for 'regime change' and the resulting sectarian violence and death.
    I would have felt better if he came clean about the reasons Bush invaded - oil, oil, oil. Just plain old neocolonialism, and not some lofty ideal of democracy and freedom for the Iraq people. Iggy should have known he was getting in bed with the fox who was entering the henhouse.
  37. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: Terry Quinn, I can shoot very straight, thank you. In fact, I can handle a rifle, shotgun and handgun equally well. As for Dithers, he was not the 'conscience' of the Liberal party you seem to think. If anything, he was a ruthless conqueror who spent most of the 1990s taking over the Lib Party riding association by riding association, while attempting to undermine JC at every turn. Don't believe me? Read some of what Adam Radwanski (a Young Liberal during the Chretien years) or Paul Wells (in his book Right Side Up) have to say about Martin and his backroom machinations. I actually rather liked Martin myself once, back when I believed the Paul Martin mythology that was sold to me in the popular press. I never really soured on the guy until he became PM, when he showed the world what a total buffoon he was.
  38. Terry Quinn from Canada writes: Well Pamela Achurch.....I am a deep Liberal and I supported the invasion of Iraq mostly because of the experiences I had livng for many years in the region. What Iggy now regrets, as do I, is the sectarian fighting that followed.
    Who knew that Iran would unleash such a torrent of violence against its neighbour all in the effort of trying to replace saddam as the dictatorship of choice in th region. The iraqi situation, unfortunately for those killed and maimed has completly uncovered the naked ambitins that Iran would have exposed sooner or later. We now know there is another more determined enemy which makes Bush's decision to surround Iran a positive one.
  39. Terry Quinn from Canada writes: Alaistair Mclaughlin...I disagree with everything you wrote in the last post except for the last sentence.

    PM as PM was a buffoon.
  40. Rhadamanthus behind the Rockies from Victoria, BC, Canada writes: Alistair,

    Okay, I think you called me 'progressive' and a 'Red Tory.' All that was missing was to call me 'politically correct' and the last damning insult would have been written, LOL.

    Seriously, though, here's what I was referring to regarding the term redneck. I do style myself as a Tory although not a Red Tory (I believe too much in fiscal responsibility for that.) I harken back to the old idea (and the older the better right?) of a concept of societal order. This is, after all where the modern 'law-and-order agenda' came from.

    Back then, societal order was about hierarchy, class and aristocracy, but those concepts are quite outdated, and rightly so. Today societal order is more democratic and thus requires a democratic form- that of 'consensus.'

    Society has come to a clear consensus regarding both same-sex marriage and abortion. On the first, society is unequivocal- the issue is settled- permanently. The second is still controversial in the extreme but there is still a consensus- that the existing absence of law should not be changed- and that view has held fast for over 20 years.

    Rednecks are those who, even after having their views given a full and fair hearing, (on same-sex marriage there were 3 such times: courts, and two votes in Parliament) refuse to accept the democratically created consensus.

    Thought of this way, a redneck is anyone who continues to put their beliefs and principles above those of the greater society despite having been given a chance to put them forward. It does not mean just anti-abortionists or anti-same sex marriage activists. By my definition, those who keep pressing for the decriminalization of marijuana are just as redneck.

    Consensus is not a hard-and-fast percentage of society but it something that can be discerned quite easily by those of a political bend. (Wow, I think I just found a justification for politicians, LOL)

    How's that for 'a tad more complex'? LOL
  41. Clem Brown from Metcalfe, On., Canada writes: Poor old Iggy Munster. He has to do Mondays, Wednesdays, and half of Fridays now. This guy paratroops into the Liberal Party fully expecting to land the top job. Just as Belinda thought she and daddy's money could take over the Conservative Party. Sorry Iggy, Steph's henchmen have more clout than yours. Just wait until Boob and Kennedy get a front row seat in the house, better watch your back. The ultimate pissing contest is about to begin. Herman is already slamming Boob in the Yankee press. Monsieur le Presidente, deez iz not fair!
  42. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Interesting comments written. I'm looking forward to reading Mr. Ignatieff's article in full form.
  43. David Bakody from Dartmouth, writes: Good early morning read, thanks G&M. Politics is very tuff sled hey, and it going to get even tuffer, look south and see how in just a few short years neo conserative principals of shoot first and ask questions later have drained the countries banks and lowered the standard of living. Both the U es and Canader had bucks in the bank and were in a position to help their country and children by putting many hard working hours in the work place and their savings (retirement) to build that futlure. Now through lies upon lies and statements like 'We will not cut and run' and that dam foolish line 'Fight em over here because we won't have to fight em here' we have lost our net savings, health care is going down the tubes, our infrastructure is failing, and report after report tells us our children and grandchildren have nothing to look forward to. BUT, hell 'Dubia is booming' and we are constructing new targets in Iraq and Afghanistan daily with non accountable billions of dollars while eithier killing or wounding 1000's weekly. Just who are the fools anyway? Please try and stay healthy and vote 'ABC' Maybe the only chance for a future for us all> Tim Time for me, and then a trip over to Halifax via the ode bridge over some newly surfaced roads. Thanks to hard working peoole and a demanding population who scream at politicians to 'Fix em' dami Bill Casey rules....................
  44. Guillaume Afleck from Canada writes: What's really funny? Iggy was mostly right about what he said about Iraq and Saddam at the time. But he joined the wrong political party, he doesn't belong in there with them (his own fault for losing track of shifting Canadian political reality while away) and the knee-jerk Chamberlain-type pacifists inside the 'new' liberal party of Canada will never be able to understand what he meant, regardless of how subsequent events played out. He's the wrong guy, in the wrong party, at the wrong time - and now he's backtracking on the most important thing that he tried to explain to the world, just to fit in with that bunch? Kinda sad. No just plain sad.
  45. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    'if you think ‘Let's commit to the use of force,' you have to learn that this takes you into a set of circumstances that will not be fatal to you &8211; that's the other point of this: I don't pay any consequences other than the political consequences you pay as an individual &8211; but thousands and thousands and thousands of Iraqis are dead as a result of this set of choices that lots of us made.'

    Am incredibly honest ( some may say naive) statement and an opening into the soul of the individual. That stated, is having been an academic enough to be percieved as a leader? For all intents and purposes, does being a 'book worm'qualify one as a leader with automatic great judgement? Judgement, and the ability to think and problem solve, and the ability to understand the consequences of actions taken, would appear to be paramount in the selection of a true leader. These qualities appear to be sorely lacking today in al parties.

    I still firmly believe that Mr. Ignatieff is the 'best of the bunch' of the current political actors of all parties combined.......a rather sad testament to the current political landscape.

    Where are you, Frank McKenna? The country needs you!
  46. Bill M from Canada writes: Good to see Iggy has finally learned the Liberal mantra: 'Just say what the people want to hear, then screw them once you're elected.'
  47. tedandrews andrewa from Canada writes:

    These are Politicians People, why put them on a Pedestal? Do you honestly think they give a foke about you? Get with the game Power and MONEY.
  48. Simon Proxy from Canada writes: I think this says more about the disconnect between the Academic world and the Real world than it does about anything else. Too many people graduate with MBAs and other degrees feeling superior in knowledge and then go out and destroy whatever institutions they climb up the ladder of because they don't understand the holistic nature of organizations, or the dynamic of groups that you can only learn by stopping and paying attention to the real world.

    Far too much of current academia is short-term theory, and too lacking in vision, which is unfortunate because the institution is so very capable of creating strategic thinkers who could come out and change the world with broad strokes. But I applaud anyone who can admit their theortical knowledge was far short of what their experiences became.

    However, anyone who couldn't see that in the absense of a central force Iraq would breakdown into chaos failed to read the history of post-World War I Germany, Bosnia, and a host of other placed where 'regime change' has occurred over the centuries.

    The Americans knew better in World War II which is why they left the Nazi civil service in place and Japan's Imperial house. I get that GWB and his buds never cracked a history book but Iggy should've known better.
  49. f c from Canada writes: Oh, those Academics....what makes him think he could have ever run our Country....he is barely a citizen! Get over yourself Mikey and go back to teaching in England or the U.S. You don't speak for Canadians , you just want the limelight baby!! Just because you consider yourself to be well educated and a member of the Upper Crust, you beluieve that gives you free reign....sorry , it does not!
  50. Bogo Pogo from Canada writes: The Saddam lovers can rejoice now - Iggy has joined their ranks.
  51. Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: Some contributors here make the statement that he is better than Dion. That is simply to paraphrase the expression 'Better than nothing.' He speaks of betrayal. If you want to see betrayal in action, I say, watch his strategy in the daily question period. When he gets his turn at delivering a question, immediately following Dion. He almost invariably asks the same question in dramatically delivered carefully chosen non scripted words in his best pedantic style. This is clearly aimed at showing he is indeed better than Dion. Which he is, but so what? Electing him as their next leader would simply add to the already rampant ruination of the Liberal party. Another act of betrayal. This time to what ever party supporters may still exist.
  52. Rachel M. from welcome to the real world, Canada writes: Iggy may have done much better in previous Liberal political spectrum. The Tories has broaden into a more center right collective and has induced the Liberals to shift to the left ideologically.

    Emerson has thrived under the Tories. Should Iggy escape the backstabbing and do the same? Lets hope not. If Dion continue to stumble, I see Iggy a better choice to lead than the like of a Bob Rae.
  53. George Hall from Canada writes: Simon I think you are right about the dicconnect between thr ivory strerile walls of academia and the real world.
    He is stuck too much in his head, too nieve...he needs to come more from the heart he is somewhat paralysed by his intellect....it is pretty screwed up for some posters to still be promoting this war in Iraq...
    Some Americans are so brainwashed they still support the war in vietnam believing America could have won if they stayed longer...
  54. George Hall from Canada writes: Not Iggy , not Harper, not Mckay, not Dion or Rae...but I think Ken Dryden would make an excellent Prime Minister of Canada.
  55. Queen Street from Canada writes: Mr. Ignatieff parachuted onto the Lakeshore-Etobicoke constituency coming from nowhere and without anyone knowing him.
    He is no less no more than Bob Rae… well Rae is more because he seats on the Board of few government owned enterprises and is paid around $ 5000 of taxpayers money for each meeting he attends.
    We all know who is moving the strings for Mr. Rae.
    We do not know who Mr. Ignatieff puppet handler is. Well, perhaps some know, I don&8217;t.
    Politicians are a special breed and so are whores and storytellers and fortune readers; and others but definitely they are not regular Joe&8217;s.
    In my opinion he is just ready to cross the gallery and most likely he is already voting with the Harperian movement.
  56. André Villeneuve from Canada writes: Ignatieff was brought on too fast and was cut between the Chretien and the Martin clans. As he arrived on the political scene, already some of his backers were appointing him the next leader of the party thus irritating of lot of us that were trying to change the effect of the internal war between the two liberal clans. A few days prior to the convention there was a wind of certainty that Ignatieff could not win this race and without any influence from others, the needed number of delegates went with Dion instead of Rea or Ignatieff and the convention was over.
    I will read this piece because I believe it is an honest piece and that Mr. Ignatieff has certainly learned a very rude lesson about politic. Would it be enough for him to stage a come backí? I doubt very much...
  57. Waiting and Seeing from GTA, Canada writes: Simon Proxy from Canada writes: 'I think this says more about the disconnect between the Academic world and the Real world than it does about anything else.'

    EXACTLY! I was reading down the board with this in mind. Your comment nailed it. The history comments are on the money too.

    What a huge learning experience for Iggy! To really connect with the average voter will be a big adjustment for him considering the circles he normally moves in. I don't know if he'll ever get through all the infighting to get another crack at the top job, but if he does I expect him to be smart enough to make the necessary adjustments.

    While I would never vote Liberal in a million years, I'd at least like to see the LPC produce competant leaders. This for my own self-inerest as I know they will be running the country again at some time in the future. I'm not sure if Iggy is up to it, but I'm dead-certain that Dion isn't.

    Oh, and how about Iggy's and the LPC's debts from the last election. They're going to be a big hurdle to get over too, don't you think?
  58. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'Bogo Pogo from Canada writes: The Saddam lovers can rejoice now - Iggy has joined their ranks'

    That is an impressively silly statement.

    Saddam had loyal supporters too. In fact, Bush and Saddam have a LOT in common. Both are elected to office from the ranks of political parties. Both were ruthless dictators (aka 'the decider'). Both started illegal invasions for political gain. Both used foul means to crush political opponents (i.e. Joe Fisher).

    About the only difference is that Saddam provided free universal health care and education, while Bush is just padding the pockets of his friends. I can see why you might be upset, as a 'loyal bushie' feeling that people don't respect total ruthlessness or recklessness any more.
  59. Montgomery C. Burns from Springfield, Canada writes: It's only a matter of time before Michael Ignatieff moves back to the U.S. to join Conrad Black and other pompous windbags.
  60. Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: George Hall: Spoken like true hockey fan. My guess is you weren't around when Dryden played behind what was arguably one of the best teams, particlarly the defence in NHL history and he basked in their glory. There were all kind of goal keepers at the time who would have achieved his success under the circumstances. As a political leader he would be a joke. A uniligual, inexperienced boring speaker at best. Where do you find his qualifications, in some NHL Hall of Fame publication?
  61. Brandan Matchett from Halifax, Canada writes: Looks like Iggy has some integrity. This would explain his failure to win the leadership race. It will also be the reason he isn't in politics a couple of years from now.
  62. Rachelle W from Kirkland, WA, United States writes: Rhadamanthus... of Victoria, B.C. I couldn't have said it better. No one is infallible and some of the comments on this blog are in very bad taste imo. I wish Mr. Ignatieff all the best in his new career as a (diplomatic) politician.
  63. Jo Geoghegan from Heart's Delight, Canada writes: PATHETIC!
  64. john chuckman from Canada writes: It's appropriate the piece was in the New York Times.

    Ignatieff's core values are not what I call Canadian. He's always been an apologist for American imperialism.

    He regrets his support for the invasion of Iraq because he knows he will never gain the leadership with this shame on his record.

    Saying you're sorry for supporting major destruction of a country is a trifle ridiculous. The total damage inflicted on Iraq by this aggression was the equivalent of dropping an atomic bomb.

    A man's instincts count in politics. Ignatieff's instincts are not good, no matter how much blubbering he does when it's too late.
  65. Crusty Curmudgeon from Ottawa, Canada writes:

    I find it interesting that someone who taught politics for a living would be so naive about what real world politics are like.

    It is a dirty filthy business.

    It still never ceases to amaze me how anybody could fall in love with any political party to the point where they would defend the actions of said party almost to the death.

    The behaviour is very lemming like.

    Having said that -- Mr. Ignatief seems to be genuine -- and this is not to be ridiculed -- but rather applauded.
  66. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: Rhadamanthus, I guess we just have totally different definitions of 'redneck'. For you it's a pejorative. For me it's.......an identity and a way of life. But I disagree with you on the 'consensus' of not having any law governing abortions. France, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, all more liberal than Canada, all have some sort of 'cut-off' beyond which abortions cannot be performed, except in extreme cases. Many Canadians don't realize we have NO law regarding the stage of pregnancy at all. We would have had a very reasonable compromise, crafted by Kim Campbell when she was Justice Minister, but it died due to a tied vote in the unelected Senate. An unholy alliance of rabid pro-lifers and rabid pro-choicers combined forces to lobby the Senate against the bill (for the opposite reasons of course) and Pat Carney ended up caving and voting against it, leading to the tie. A travesty really, since the bill had already passed a Commons vote. It hasn't come up again not so much because of any consensus, but because it has become 'impolite' to even discuss the matter. Britain right now is having a very open debate about moving the cutoff back from 24 weeks to 20. It's unlikely to happen, but at least they can have a discussion about it without all sides going bonkers. We could learn something from that.
  67. Rusty Waters from Canada writes: Michael Ignatieff has learned the first important lesson in politics and that is most politicans are self serving scumbags and dirt bags. When a politician is patting you on the back he/she is just looking for a soft spot to stick the knife. In the past the public had some respect for politicans and that was only because people did not question anyone in authority. People trusted politicans as much as they trusted priests. People are more educated today and since the 60s and the Vietnam War people have lost trust in public figures and question their motives. When someone introduces themselves as a politican at a social gathering the first thought comes across my mind is sewer rat. Michael Ignatieff must also learn a second lesson and that not only in politics you can't trust anyone but also in life, ...people have trusted their wives and husbands only to find out they are sleeping with their best friend...and a third lesson, sometimes you can't even trust yourself. He's a classical example of not trusting yourself. He supported a war of killing women and children and now changed his mind. Bad judgement, a lot of innocdent people have died. You can't drop a bomb on a city and after its half way down change your mind. I admit though, that the fact he admitted he was wrong on the war, portraying a sense of sincerity is as good sucker punch as I've ever heard from a politican.
  68. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: John Chuckman, the Americans are doing their damnedest to rebuild Iraq. If you want to know who is destroying it, read Terry Quinn's comment on it above. I'm not defending Bush, nor the lies he and his cronies told to convince the American public to support the invasion. But the sectarion violence happening there now is NOT the Americans' doing. In fact, they're doing what they can to stop it.
  69. Canadian Adventurer from Muskoka, Canada writes: Another overly sensitive personality, a perfect match for the acutely over sensitive Dion. Neither of these guys make very good politicians, which is why the Liberals are on the outs with most Canadians.
  70. Proud Canadian from United States writes: I couldn't even finish the article, what a boring, pompas arse. But I will agree with one thing, the only person who can fix the Liberal party would have to be educated in the US.
  71. dwight steadman from Fort Macleod from Canada writes: The man's 58 years old with a PhD in political science and he suddenly discovers that you can' trust people and decision making 'isn't an exact science'. Foreign policy experts like Ignatieff must be the biggest 'idiots savants' on the planet. These are people supposedly paid to know what they are talking about, paid to advise our leaders wisely. They write books and earn six figure salaries, and yet they are disastrously, cataclsymically wrong, time and time again. Look at the incompetent eggheads in the Bush administration or the blunderers in the Clinton administration before that. They can write up a nice page of prose or win points on a TV debate but you'd better not take their advice on anything or you'll end up in Iraq or Viet Nam or on the wrong end of North Korean nuclear missile.
  72. Jonathan Kilius from Mississauga, Canada writes: Yawn.....................another globe puff piece on iggy.
  73. Let's Be Prudent from Toronto, Canada writes: Many notable things here but I will comment on only one.

    Mr. Igantieff gave this interview in his downtown Toronto condo. Yet he moved back from Boston to rpresent a west-end Toronto riding.

    If people send you to the House of Commons, can you not do a better job by living in your riding rather than several miles away in the Annex or a similar neighbourhood. Itès one thing for a

    Is Royal York and Bloor too downmarket for Mr. Ignatieff.

    Another basic truth of retail politics rather than advocating for a discretionary war in Iraq is that you dance with the person that brings you to the ball. It can help on reelection.
  74. Kim Huynh from Montreal, Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes,
    Perhaps Mr McKenna is too smart to come in for a piece of cheese.
  75. Adam D from Canada writes: Well, not being a Liberal supporter, part of me does not feel any empathy for Ignatieff, but I must say that if I were to vote for one, he would be it.

    I believe he at least has a firm grasp of reality, undestands political strategy (without the mudslinging) and has the intelligence required to do the job of PM. I do think that he alienates some people however, who likely see him as over-confident, or even 'too-booksmart'.
  76. Vickky Angstrom from Calgary, Canada writes: Ignatieff still has a blind spot about loyalty. He was not living in Canada - yet thought he could represent Canadians politically. If he had been living in Canada -- instead of being bathed in military industrial complex propaganda at Harvard -- he never would have made such an obvious mistake as to support the invasion of Iraq.

    I think we need to distinguish between a valid, and very necessary intellectualism, and a life of rationalizing without much ownership which Ignatieff is now beginning to apprehend. Ignatieff and Paul Martin have this in common, Martin because he thought he could move all his assets offshore and still be a loyal Canadian; and Ignatieff because he didn't understand how our daily context shapes our belief system -- perhaps even more than our upbringing. If he stays in Canada and works on the loyalty and ownership issues he might be a half-decent leader in about 15 years.
  77. Bill M from Canada writes: This reminds me of an old saying, and it is a perfect example of it: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
  78. Jason U from Toronto, Canada writes: I am right wing .. can't tolerate liberal pity for those who deliberately and continuously make wrong choices and expect the world to pay for their mistakes … but I found Mr Ignatieff’s article a breath of fresh air… I don’t expect leaders, be political, business or academic to have all the answers … but I do expect them to openly and honestly, not theatrically, debate an issue such as invasion of Irag, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon etc. and publicly wrestle with their choices and accept responsibility for their actions… well done Mr I ….. keep it up and I hope other leaders can take a cue from you …. Cheers
  79. Holden Hiscock from Toronto, Canada writes: I agree this was not Mr. I's time. After all, he did not have the deft touch for our truly Canadian situation. He was after all away for most of our big events and traumas. I have always admired his honesty and his willingness to try understand himself. Sometimes you need to understand how unlovable you are before you can begin to love yourself.
  80. John Arthur from Canada writes: Why is this newsworthy? More importantly, why is anyone buying this sad tale of woe. Sounds more like sour grapes than anything else. But if its' any consolation, he should have been the Liberal leader, not what's his name.
  81. Gerry Dunnhaupt from Toronto, Canada writes: Politics is a dog-eat-dog world of backstabbing and infighting. It was perhaps naive of an intellectual to enter it. Look what happened to people like Adlai Stevenson. Although I would never vote for the corrupt Liberals, I can't help feeling sorry for him. He should run for the Conservatives. They could use an intellectual.
  82. Vern MCPherson from byanicelake, Canada writes: Bill M from Canada writes: This reminds me of an old saying, and it is a perfect example of it: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

    --------------------------------

    Leave it to a dumb uneducated sourpuss like billy here to characterize an entire profession in the negative because one of them might not know how to split wood or haul a bucket of water. I know what your profession is billy. You wipe up the COns toilet bowls and cheer lead here every day. Tell us it's true.

    Better yet spell C.A.T. !!! Study hard - test is next month. LMAO !!!!
  83. Gerald McBoing Boing from Canada writes: Rick in Redneckland: So far, Troll of the Day.

    But the day is young....
  84. shoshana berman from Canada writes: I'm sorry if Mr. Ignatief can't say what he means after 37 years as an academic, then he has no business lecturing or being interviewed far less being in politics. Are 30 million Canadians supposed to be psychic Mr. Ignatief? What he really means here is that Liberals didn't like his opinions and he has to back track and lie about what he said now to try to save face. This man didn't mean what he said so many times over the course of his career, it's amazing he's still getting print. The man was completely unsuitable for leader of the Liberal Party and Canadians would never have voted for him, no matter how many Liberal delegates Mr. Smith bought for him. Perhaps Mr. Rae simply backed the candidate he felt was best for the Liberal