POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY MARGARET WENTE IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Quebec is not leaving Confederation.
There is not the tiniest bit of evidence for saying that.
So why do people keep saying it?
Because it's such an emotionally charged statement it gets
people's attention, quickly.
Ergo, Ignatieff pathetic comments: words from a man who has
proven, over and over, he is not all that perceptive, and a man who sure wants
attention.
The man spent most of his life writing books - and as any
good professional writer will tell you - that is a lonely business. Indeed
Graham Greene wrote of the writer having a splinter of ice in his heart.
Further still, writing books is not necessarily the same
thing as either having genuine new ideas or of being a perceptive analyst of
current affairs.
The Toronto Liberal Party insiders who lured Ignatieff back
to Canada with the promise of his leading the Party never understood these
facts.
And, clearly, Ignatieff did not understand them either. He
does not truly know even himself.
He has proved a remarkably unperceptive and narrow academic
with little ability to relate to society.
It is only natural that Margaret Wente would choose to
defend his empty observations. That's the kind of thing she specializes in.
After all, they are pretty well cut from the same cloth,
only Wente has no academic standing.
Two streams of humid air blowing against the realities and
subtleties of their time.
_________________________________
"Get off it Cons,
Iggy is not really anti-Canadian in any sense. It is only your stupidity (based
on Harper's 15 sec. talking points) that makes it seem so in your own minds
only.”
That would be a laughable comment were it not so sad.
You totally confuse the Right Wing with critics of
Ignatieff.
Sorry, but there are many, many genuinely liberal-minded
people in this world who do not think well of Ignatieff.
Indeed, there is a strong argument for consigning Ignatieff
to the softer wing of the neo-conservatives.
His record during his time at Harvard is quite unpleasant,
including, of course, writing in support of our generation's biggest war crime,
the invasion of Iraq, which killed about a million people, destroyed a
promising society for a generation, and left about 2 million refugees. He also
supported "torture-lite."
Ignatieff has never qualified as a genuine liberal. He is a
special interest man, and his aura of being a significant voice in human rights
is just that an aura. His record is a poor one if you scrutinize the details.
Ms Wente's entire
background in writing of world affairs reflects the neo-con position,
from endless apologies for Israel's savagery to her almost putrid embrace of the same invasion of Iraq.
Again, here is a near-demented Ms Wente some years ago on
all that death and destruction in Iraq:
_______________________________________
"He is entitled
to his opinion, but its clear he was never a great choice for Liberal
leader."
But he never was a choice, was he, in the sense of the word choice we assume in a democracy?
He was parachuted into the role by a group of Party bosses.
Just as he was parachuted into his West End riding when he
first showed up on stage playing his return-of-the-native act.
Now, what kind of a principled politician, or would-be
politician in this case - principled in democratic and human values - accepts
such gifts from a group of insiders?
To answer the question is to summarize Ignatieff’s credentials as a principled politician.
______________________________
"To be honest, in
travelling across Canada, I have found far more of a sense of separation and
even hostility in Western Canada. I have rarely heard from a Quebecker the kind
of vitriol towards other Canadians as some of the comments/attitudes I' ve
encountered In B.C. & Alberta in recent years."
Well said.
Your observation confirms my own over some years.
I've never heard such genuine low-life comments as I've
heard in Alberta.
Stephen Harper serves as a kind of bellows blowing on hot
coals in this matter.
Wente's ignorance here is little short of phenomenal,
exceeded only by the man of proven poor judgment she's defending.
Again, here's what a woman of genuine perceptive
intelligence - one of Canada's best political columnists - has to say:
__________________________________
The following two
postings are mine from the original column by Michael Ignatieff:
Please, go away, boring man.
You were a complete flop as a political leader.
And in your previous efforts to get some attention in the Globe,
you've demonstrated less-than-Sterling abilities as an idea man.
Indeed, it was your poor judgment and blind ambition which are
responsible for the Harper's licence to act against much of what Canada has
represented in my adult lifetime.
Now, you play the old "look out for Quebec" card.
Tiresome and inaccurate.
__________________________
"This is what
this guy does best. Babble. Of course in their little world he is known as a
deep thinker."
His reputation as a thinker is immensely overblown, as all
thoughtful people came to understand from most of what has come out of his
mouth since accepting as an inheritance, as it were, the promise of leadership
of the Liberal Party.
I cannot believe how trivial and unperceptive he has proven
himself.
But, then, he did support criminal invasion and torture when
still doing his blubbering in the United States, didn't he?
Globe, you do readers no service giving this guy free space
for advertising himself.
Indeed, there is almost a touch of black comedy here with a
man proven to be so out of touch, and not just concerning Canada, still coming
back repeatedly to offer views and advice.
The term "idiot-savant" comes to mind here, but
I'm not so sure about the "savant' half of the phrase.
