But these 2005 comments are in line with similar statements made at a lecture Ignatieff delivered in circa 2004 at a Jewish temple in Toronto, which was recently broadcast by BookTelevision in Canada.

In that lecture, Ignatieff spoke about how important it was to defend America and Israel against the evil in the world, and even though he delivered it in Toronto, he kept referring to Americans as “we” and “us”.

He also specifically said during that lecture in Toronto, placing his hand on his heart, that there was nothing more important for him than ensuring the continued existence and safety of the state of Israel – clearly comments that will now get him into major trouble with his Liberal Party, which is becoming more and more anti-Israel.

Nothing like hearing the eliminationist rhetoric about exterminating the “plague” of liberalism and progressivism, huh?

Reminds you of the kind of National Security State dictatorships that would shoot up universities because they had “red” in the name. Except, somehow, even less sane.

What Iggy was (and may still be) is the worst kind of enabling liberal hawk, the kind that uses the language of liberalism to support hilariously illiberal ends. Saying “the Pentagon is the only organization that can defend human rights” is just ludicrous/ But by tying together “Pentagon” and “defending human rights”, Iggy was doing Rumsfeld’s job for him, laying out enough FUD to derail the calls for investigations into Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld’s activities during that sorry time.

Pearson deployed troops to Cyprus because it was in Canada's interests to keep the NATO alliance together. The mission did save lives and Pearson was handsomely rewarded. meanwhile the lefty saw opportunity.

In lefty world, Canada had a glorious opportunity to bill itself as a super moralizer, preaching the gospel of peace, while lording over other countries who were involved in violent confrontations. it doesn't take much of a defense budget to equip a gathering of peacekeeper-they don't have to be soldiers-and the savings could be used-in fact they were used-to gorge the demands of this lefties who want more and more and more.

My memory of the event itself is that the Liberal trial balloon was part of the sequence that led to the Conservatives staking out the opposite position. Maybe that already was a Con position, and it just gave them an opportunity to highlight their opposite approach.

I'm a little disappointed that I don't remember, because I try to follow politics fairly closely (maybe not as closely as the typical poster on this board, but I would say closer than many voters). Sometimes I wish I could have a more relaxing hobby, but so it goes.

It's like political MAD. You launch ads with that, we'll launch ads with this. Everyone loses. ;)

Do you mean John MacCallum? If so, I agree with you completely. He leaves MUCH to be desired when it comes to sticking to a position OR having a sensible explanation for why his position has (suddenly) changed. In my view, he would almost be the poster boy for playing both sides of an issue, sometimes within the same speech, let alone within 2 years. If you actually mean John MacKay, I'll have to do some searching.

We also seem to agree that in and of itself there is nothing wrong with changing a position; it is the reasoning that went into the old and new positions on which I place a lot of emphasis when considering who to support.

Perfection (obviously a high standard) would be great, but that would be 'dreaming in technicolour'. Still, I ask for perfection, and then realizing that it is very unlikely ANY politician from ANY party will achieve that objective, I see who comes closest to achieving my particular version of perfection, and proceed from there.

</DIV> <DIV style=\”FONT: 10pt arial\”>

However, I was critical of Harper for changing his position, simply because at the time that he made the promise it was fairly obvious that it was a promise he was going to have a very tough time keeping.

As I have stated on other blogs, I don't believe that Harper explicitly knew he was going to remove the tax exemption a year or two later (ie outright lied during that campaign), but I do believe that he chose to ignore the warning signs and simply fervently hoped that conversions to income trusts would cease.

So, full marks for eventually doing the right thing, no marks for ignoring the warning signs.

In order to have a free thinking society , our lefties must be challenged vigorously, their "hog-wash" must be scrutinized and thrown back into their faces and we need to liberate Ontario's public school system ( choice should not be an evil word ) which is a large breeding ground for lefties.

The gloves are off, folks!

Isn't it just awful that once we are in that little voting booth all by our lonesome, politicians, journalists, and blogers will be excluded from our decision.

Many partisan Liberals are making the same criticism, so what's your point again?

I have noticed a heightened agression in left/lib commenters of late, since about the middle of June when the polls started moving in the wrong direction, but you're right, it's more overt than passive so I stand corrected on that.

As for Dion being old news, well the thing is the Green Shift was rejected in large measure because it was seen as being economically risky. Iggy by the way was foursquare behind a carbon tax. As you point out there are no new policies that have been announced by the Libs to replace it. Will the next Liberal policy be as hare-brained as the Green Shift? Do the Liberals still beleive we should meet the Kyoto targets which would also tank the Canadian economy? The Liberals began promoting fiscally irresponsible policies under Dion. I've yet to see any evidence of a change of direction of the Liberal Party in that regard.

Yes, I'm such a Liberal that further down in this same board, you'll find me criticizing Iggy and the lack of policy in that party.

Look up passive-aggressive, by the way. Not the proper insult in this case, as I've been reasonably above board in my derision.

Most sane observers would have balked at “serious”. “Human rights” wasn’t even in the same ballpark.

Ginseng and less sugar.

I did some quick research for you, and that's supposed to help your mental focus. You're welcome.

By the way, speaking of unanswered questions – I thought I had queried you about the recession. Were you in fact referring to the current one that Dion predicted and Harper categorically denied, while warning us that the Liberals would plunge us into recession? (I, like you, am SO glad we avoided that fate.)

Anyway, the question not a policy that was never enacted, but rather the track record of recent Liberal governments (you remember, the ones that balanced the budget?), as opposed to the Harper Conservatives (well staffed with Harris Conservatives – nuff said there). They weren't able to see the recession coming that most everyone else did (and mocked others for speaking the truth on that account). They have proven wholly incapable of anticipating obvious consequences of spending decisions and tax cuts, and their entire strategy for rebalancing the books seems to hinge on hope and crossed fingers. They are doing to Canada what Harris did to Ontario. Only Harris did it during boom times, so we have good reason to be afraid of how bad the mess will be with these guys at the helm in a recession.

I know you miss Dion, but it's really time to move on and find fresh fodder.

Iggy is polling worse than Dion was, way too funny.

The BlocTorontois Champaigne Socialist Elitist Liberals really screwed up big time by installing this loser.

I am slightly more optimistic about the future of name-calling, but only slightly; it is unlikely to disappear completely, but we can hope and we can provide feedback to our own political representatives and we can at least make sure that we hold ourselves to the higher standard.

-Pearson, functioning as chairman of the General Assembly's Special Committee on Palestine laid the groundwork for the creation of the state of Israel in 1947.

-Pearson drafted the speech in which Prime Minister St. Laurent proposed the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

-Pearson headed the Canadian delegation to NATO until 1957,

-Pearson was willing to accept nuclear warheads from the United States

-As PM, Pearson pursued a bipartisan foreign policy based on a philosophy of internationalism

The Two Faces of Pearson Peacekeeping

-Canada had a vital
national interest in holding off the
Soviet threat. During the Suez Crisis,
the split between Britain and France
— the aggressors — and the United
States was huge. Canada’s actions
were directed as much to repairing
the breach among allies ( face #1) as to restoring
peace in the area (face #2)

– posters should not call other posters names,
– political parties are fair game, and
– political leaders might be fair game?

But a political party is just a collection of individuals, some of whom might be blog commenters, or party supporters if not members, so the distinction seems somewhat minor and irrelevant. Basically it is an unsuccessful attempt to disguise personal name-calling as something else.

I also don't see why political leaders should have to accept name-calling. As a slight tangent, I will agree that political leaders do need to accept a somewhat higher level of scrutiny than the average citizen (as it relates to past statements and decisions).

To me it still comes down to the same question: What is achieved by name-calling in any form? Certainly that can't be the only way to challenge different viewpoints and assumptions, and I have serious doubts about its effectiveness.

Btw, I am also a huge fan of 10pt arial font. I use it in almost all of my correspondence.

Those Canadians not we Canadians.

Could catch biff, it's what Paul Wells calls Iggy's pronoun problem.

Is Iggy really sunning himself in southern France as we speak? Tell me that isn't so. Anon? Anyone?