What will Liberals think of Michael Ignatieff's having said stuff like this?
Who is this Ignatieff guy, really?
Yet Michael Ignatieff, Harvard professor and public intellectual, was once slightly more harsh toward his native land. Following a 2005 lecture at the University of Dublin’s Trinity College, Ignatieff excoriated Canadians for trading on Canada’s “entirely bogus reputation as peacekeepers” for 40 years and for favouring “hospitals and schools and roads” over international citizenship. “If you are a human rights defender and you want something done to stop [a] massacre, you have to go to the Pentagon, because no one else is serious,” Ignatieff said.
"Go (crying) to the Pentagon". What, no confidence in Canada? Why not tell Canada to build up her armed forces to be able to do what America is able to do?
I guess this demonstrates his preference for his adopted country, America, and his dismissal of Canada, ironically his birthplace.
“It’s disgusting in my own country, and I love my country, Canada, but they would rather bitch about their rich neighbour to the south than actually pay the note,” he said, in response to a question about peacekeeping. “To pay the bill to be an international citizen is not something that they want to do.”
That paragraph would more likely annoy Liberals and other left-wing extremists than it would annoy me, admittedly. But Liberals and other lefties ought to know how he feels on these things. It might make them think twice.
This paragraph, Liberals/leftists ought to read, too:
Ignatieff spoke favourably about America’s peacekeeping capabilities and the need to use “men with guns” when protecting the world’s vulnerable. Ignatieff had already backed away from his support of the Iraq war when he gave the speech, though he still praised George W. Bush’s foreign policy at a time when then-Liberal prime minister Paul Martin was attacking Bush for what he said was the U.S. president’s lack of “global conscience.” Canada certainly didn’t fare well in Ignatieff’s speech; Ignatieff portrays the country as a somewhat frustrated, reflexively anti-American middling power that has become something of a pretender on the world stage.
And just listen to the lies of this Liberal damage-control spin doctor:
Liberal spokesperson Dan Lauzon, who declined to answer specific questions about Ignatieff’s speech, said the address didn’t contradict any Liberal party principles. “It’s provocative, sure, but consistent with our long-held position,” Lauzon wrote in an email to Maclean’s. “Though the language used in the quote is more provocative than we’re used to in the political realm, I think it’s consistent with our position that cuts made to the military in the past were too deep, that we’re glad they were corrected, and that we intend to ensure that it never happens again.”
I guess Lauzon doesn't know anything about the Liberal Party and its grassroots membership, judging from the incorrect characterizations he's making.
Geez... them Liberals, and particularly Michael Ignatieff, they twist themselves like pretzels, perhaps going too far in their myopic zeal to be as much like their Prophet Obama as possible.