Posted on 10/19/2006 9:20:08 AM PDT by GMMAC
Commentary:
The man who would be PM hammers Bush
LAWRENCE MARTIN
Toronto Globe and Mail
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Michael Ignatieff wants to make one thing clear: He's not Washington's guy. “People seem to believe I want to live in an American imperial world. I do not. I do not.” The front-runner in the Liberal leadership race was hunched over lunch at an Ottawa restaurant, focused, eyes like a hawk. He wants the prize so badly.
He's criticized as being Harper-lite or Bush-lite or both. It bothers him.
On George W. Bush, he was pointed. “This president has been a disaster for the authority and the influence of the United States,” he said. Post-9/11, with the Western world at his feet, Mr. Bush missed a golden chance to unite it. “A historic opportunity was missed by the Bush administration that Americans are now realizing was a catastrophe — and a catastrophe not only against their values, but against their interests.”
The former Harvard professor made it clear he will not be hitching his wagon to any unilateralist empire-building. “I've supported the Afghan mission precisely because I don't want to live in an American imperial world. If we don't, as Canadians, want to live under American domination . . . then we have to have the courage to take on a difficult mission with our NATO partners and get it done. If we don't want a world run by the Americans, Canada has to lead.”
It's an interesting twist because the perception is the opposite. The conventional wisdom is that, if Canada becomes a warrior nation, it is following the U.S. lead. Mr. Ignatieff said he wants Canada to follow the Pearsonian example. “I'm a Mike Pearson Liberal. I want to reinvent the party as a progressive social force.”
He appears to be trying to reposition himself. Primarily because of his initial support for the Iraq war, he is considered to be to the right of other leadership contestants. This has fuelled the impression that he does not have much growth potential after the first convention ballot. It makes sense for him — though he says he's been a Pearsonian Liberal since 17 — to move left.
On Iraq, he said he takes “full responsibility for not having anticipated how incompetent the Americans would be. I don't have remaining confidence in the Americans. . . . The Bush operation in Iraq betrayed any hopes I had of Iraq transitioning to a stable political elite, and now all those hopes rest with my friends, the Iraqi political elite.”
On the economy, he said he feared that Mr. Bush's colossal national debt could result in a damaging blowback into Canada. On the social side, he said he was “particularly concerned about the importation of failed criminal justice policies and failed social policies in the United States.”
If elected Liberal leader and prime minister, Mr. Ignatieff might have to work with the President. In the past, pointedly criticizing Mr. Bush got Liberals into big trouble. The more colonially inclined reacted with rancour when a cabinet member, Herb Dhaliwal, called Mr. Bush a failed statesman. But Mr. Dhaliwal hardly proved to be wayward with his assessment. The mood has changed, however, and calling Mr. Bush a “disaster” may win him points for candour.
His harsh assessment is hardly unique. He pointed out, quite correctly, that millions of Americans now appear to feel the same way about the Bush presidency as Canadians do. The Canadian view, Mr. Ignatieff said, has been vindicated. It's not anti-Americanism, as polls demonstrate, but rather an anti-Bush conviction.
As he sat in the restaurant, the candidate was coming off a miserable week. He had made injudicious observations alleging Israeli war crimes. He had been punched around the ring in a leadership debate. The blood sport of politics, he allowed, was teaching him a thing or two. “What I've learned is the importance of words. Getting them right.”
He wasn't complaining of media treatment. “You put on your skates, your pads, your helmet, and whatever happens on the rink, it's your responsibility. So I accept that.”
Mr. Ignatieff has to create a greater comfort zone with the other camps, so distancing himself from Bush country could well help. Defining himself coherently has been a problem for him, partly because of his far-flung international career and myriad writings and pronouncements.
When in Britain, he often played to Britain. When in America, he often played to America (the famous “we” quote). He hasn't been home for long, and he is still trying to discover how to play to Canada. If he does, he will be in the best position to win on Dec. 2.
lmartin@globeandmail.com
PING!
Yet another snide insinuation by Larry Martin, a man equalled in licking Liberal spittle only by his G&M kennelmate John Allemang.
Well, I suppose there's more than two...
Now that's funny.
I'd bet FReepers have more ammo than the entire Canadian military.
Nice teacher for Harvard!
It seems to me that this character is trying to appeal to the far left and their arrogant, intolerant, and self-righteous nationalism. What does it take to make those on the far left to realise that the rest of the world does not share their values and never will?
You would be right, because all the Canadian Ammo Companies are busy filling US Defence Purchase Contracts.
Hell, I guess we can always buy some back.[grin]
Really? I didn't know Remington, Winchester, Speer, Hornady were running at full capacity fulfilling American contracts. There seems to be an abundance at all of the major wholsalers on the internet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.