12.09.2008

note to michael ignatieff supporters who are visiting wmtc

I have read many articles by Mr. Ignatieff that were published in the New York Times Magazine.

My low opinion of Mr. Ignatieff was formed by reading his own words, in long, in-depth stories. He helped make the case for pre-emptive invasion, he supports the use of torture, he supports overthrowing governments to install new regimes. This comes from the man's own words.

Some links were posted in comments in this thread, but they are only a small sample of what I've read.

Again: my judgement of this man was formed by reading his own words. Got it? Thanks.

Update: A reader alerts me that on a pro-Ignatieff blog, I am listed, along with a bunch of other people, as a "Rae Liberal". Do these people bother to read before they write? (Silly question, I know.) Earth to trolls: I am not a "Rae Liberal". I am not a Liberal at all!

Upperdate: Go look up the definition of "smear campaign". You will find it does not mention quoting the person's own published, well-chosen words.

9 comments:

Devo said...

How about you something substantive wherein you provide support for your vague allegations and accusations... I have no problem with you disliking or disagreeing with Ignatieff, but don't say things like he is a war mongerer (that is an opinion) or that he supports and promotes torture (that's an opinion) unless you are prepared to back it up. And don't feed me short snippets from books he has written either, because I could do the same to prove you wrong. A person's life, personality and ideology can not be summed up in two lines from something he wrote 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

L-girl said...

Devo, are you not reading what I've written here? Your questions have been answered here and earlier threads.

This is the second comment you've left. Both comments clearly show you are not reading what I've written.

If you're going to leave comments without even reading what you're responding to, please don't return. Thank you.

L-girl said...

he is a war mongerer (that is an opinion) or that he supports and promotes torture (that's an opinion)

Both facts, both amply backed up from Mr. Ignatieff's own writing. Not everything is available online, but here are some titles that anyone is free to check.

"A Mess of Intervention. Peacekeeping. Pre-emption. Liberation. Revenge. When should we send in the Troops?"

The New York Times Magazine cover story, September 2003

"I am Iraq"

The New York Times Magazine, March 2003

"American Empire: The Burden"

New York Times Magazine cover story, January 2003

"Why Bush Must Send in His Troops"

The Guardian, April 2002

redsock said...

You want back up?

How about this?

Michael Ignateiff, New York Times, May 2, 2004:

To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil. The question is not whether we should be trafficking in lesser evils but whether we can keep lesser evils under the control of free institutions."

The link above goes to the ENTIRE article -- so fuck you and your bullshit accusation of "short snippets".

redsock said...

If Michael Ignatieff does not want people to say that he supports "indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war", then perhaps he should refrain from publishing articles in which he states that he supports "indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war".

Just an idea.

Eric said...

Well put, redsock. Ignatieff has a "talent" for obfuscation meaning and intentions, but you clarified it well here.

Ignatieff is a Bush backing neocon, who will say/write anything for political expedience.

In my opinion Ignatieff is far more dangerous than Stephen Harper, mainly because Iggy is so unreliable when it comes to standing for basic social principles (anti-torture would be a good start).

Anyone who has (tried to) read his "lesser evil" knows how convoluted his opinions are.

His psyche makes for an "interesting" professor but a dangerous prime minister.

JimBobby said...

His psyche makes for an "interesting" professor but a dangerous prime minister.

Well, now we got a choice between dangerous and dangerouser. Harper's small-minded power lust is a danger on one hand. Iggy's big eggheaded convoluted mental contortions is a danger on the other hand.

I figger Igg's about as keen on torture as Harper but maybe he's smarter and less of a control freak. Iggy's biggest asset: he ain't Dion.

JB

L-girl said...

Much like the US Republicans and Democrats, Harper and Ignatieff would likely be very similar on foreign policy, but more different on domestic issues. One would hope they'd be different, anyway!

But I'm quite sure I'd rather have a Liberal-NDP coalition over what we have now. Whether we'll get that or not is another story.

Eric said...

But I'm quite sure I'd rather have a Liberal-NDP coalition over what we have now. Whether we'll get that or not is another story.

Chances are slim with Ignatieff. If his favoured "selection" process for party leader is any indicator then we don't have to expect he'll be much inclined to listen-to/support grassroots movements.

I believe he's an elitist. And I mean that in the bad sense of the word, one of those people that thinks that he's above the electorate. Those type of elitists (apposed to those who just use their intellectual capacity/superiority to improve the lives of Canadians) don't believe in democracy (IMHO), but use it mostly as tool for their own purposes (much like right-wing uses "freedom of ...." for theirs.

I feel sorry for the left-wing of the Liberal party, I really do.