Monday, August 24, 2009

Liar!

Michael Ignatieff lies again. Ledevoir: ''But, let’s be clear, I’ve always spoken of arrangements, not of a coalition.''

Is there something in the water at the OLO or do all Liberal leaders think Canadians are stupid and are unable to remember anything.


First the signature:



Dec 1, 2008: "I support the [coalition] accord because it's fiscally responsible, it provides responsible economic leadership in tough times and it also conserves the basic principles of national unity, equality, that our party has always believed in." and upholds Dion as party leader until May. "We are at one, the three of us, that the only person who can lead the party is the duly elected leader of the party Mr. Stephane Dion,". “I stand at one with other parliamentary colleagues in believing that we need to present the alternative of a coalition.”

Dec 5, 2008: "Canadians can have confidence in a coalition, provided they know certain things are on the table and certain things are off it at all times. And they have our iron-clad assurance they we will govern in their best interest.

"I think this is what Canadian people pay us to do. They pay us to get it right, and I think we have to find a way out of this for all Canadians. I am convinced we can do this. We are up to it. "We are aware we are we are living historic moments. We are aware of the responsibility."

Dec 11, 2008:(Now as leader of the LPC) "I told the caucus this morning very clearly I am prepared to vote non confidence in this government and I am prepared to enter into a coalition government with our partners if that is what the Governor General asks me to do,"

Jan 21, 2009:"The choice is up to Mr. Harper," Ignatieff said after the meeting. "It's up to him to make the right decision and up to me to decide if he made it. A coalition is still a possibility . . . a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily, a coalition."

The man is a liar but I will entertain opinions to the contrary if you got something to back it up. So come on Liberal spin meisters; please explain to us all how this is not another bald faced lie from the leader of your party Michael Ignatieff. Oh and before the fun starts "because I say he isn't" won't cut it.


From the comments: a link to a Liberals view of Ignatieff's coalition problems, H/T Wilson
and anon gives us an example of Ardvark's Law in use.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excellent work! Iggy's told so many whoppers he can't keep them straight.

The Coalition is his to wear in the next election and there is nothing much he can do about it.

The CPC have successfully defined Iggy.

Bill said...

That depends on what your definition of "always" is.

wilson said...

Lot's of Iffy quotes here from a coalition Liblogger, spelling out the 'coalition of losers monkey' on his back.

http://puzzledcat.blogspot.com/2009/08/stephen-frames-while-michael-munches.html

Anonymous said...

He did not, in any portion of the interview, say that he had not supported the coalition in December.

The quote, in it's fullest, stated that the Conservatives will likely use the threat of a coalition moving forward. Iggy said that when he became interim leader of the Libs, he put and end to the coalition, and that moving forward, he would not enter into one as Leader.

Ardvark said...

He became leader on Dec 10th. Would you like to again read his quotes made after that date where he supported the coalition or are you having a problem with the words "I’ve always spoken of arrangements, not of a coalition.''

Calgary Junkie said...

We all understand that a politician is going to spin things as favorably as possible for themselves. But that spin has got bear SOME resemblance to the truth.

What Iggy said is about as far from the truth as you can get.
It's just totally ridiculous.
What's his new line going to be:

"An arrangement if necessary, but not necessarily an arrangement" ?

I dunno, it's like the guy is trying to re-write history or something. It could have come straight out of Orwell's 1984. Next thing you know, he will claim "the LPC is allied with the NDP, at war with the Greens. We have ALWAYS been at war with the Greens. We have NEVER been at war with the NDP"

So yah, the guy's liar. And a buffoon, for thinking anybody but the Red Koolaid drinkers are going to swallow this crap.

Ardvark said...

Anon, if Ignatieff never had any intention of going along with the coalition than what exactly was the 'big crisis' that caused the Liberals to abandon Dion and any semblance of democracy and propel Ignatieff into the leadership of the party?

Bec said...

All that I know (and my family for that matter) was THAT was the absolute WORST Christmas and New Year, in my entire adult life.
Michael Ignatieff, did absolutely nothing to improve that until the week of the budget.

For those ranting LIEberals that think Michael deserves a pass, try and recall the statement he made about 'him giving up the opportunity to be PM'.

Your guy, NEVER had 'the opportunity to be, PM'.
In this country, it involves first, being a leader of a party, second, being elected as a MP in a FEDERAL ELECTION. At the time he made that statement, none of those variables were applicable.
That in itself has been the defining moment for me re: Mike.
An arrogant, self absorbed egotist. It has NEVER been about Canada, only himself.

Bubba said...

My problem or concern with the new leader of the Liberal Party boils down to the fact I don't trust him. Why was he the last Liberal to sign onto the coalition?

Was the "deal" was already in place prior to the Economic Update. Was Iggy just another "dupe" who was coerced into signing?

The Gov't dropped all three "contentious" issues, but the opposition MP's chose to (overplay)upsurp the political party with the largest plurality.

Lukewarm support, lack of courage?

Why did it take him until May 21, 2009 before he publicly confessed the "Accord" was wrong?

"He could have stopped it, cold. But he didn’t."-Andrew Coyne

If their was ever a reason to stand up against your party this COALITION was it.

The coalition, he told a gathering in Montreal last weekend, would have “profoundly and durably divided the country.”-Michael Ignatieff

wilson said...

I have no doubt in my mind that in exchange for Rae dropping out of the leadership race, Iffy made him a promise.
A promise that if PMSH wins another minority, Iffy will resurrect the coalition of losers.

Now, Iffy has strongly stated he would not go into a coalition which included the BLOC...
And only arrangements (hinting that Jack would not get a cabinet seat)
but he lies, he back tracks, and he flip flops.

So God only knows what this rookie PM wannabe would do.

One thing for sure, Jack and Gilles would take turns wearing the pants in that trio.

hunter said...

We know that Alberta has a NDP MP because the Liberals all voted for her. That is a coalition. Be prepared because it will happen next election too.

Ardvark said...

Hunter, in the next election that little coalition deal Linda Duncan supported(s) so overwhelmingly, will be responsible for her electoral demise. Edmonton Strathcona is going to be blue again.

IMHO, the coalition will be a larger burden for Ignatieff and the Liberals than the green-shift was for Dion. Canadians do remember.

Gayle said...

You know, if lying prevented one from being Prime Minister, Harper would have been disqualified before he even got in.

With the fact that our country is now in a huge deficit (you know, the one Harper said he would never allow) and the fact that we are still climing out of a recession (you know, the one Harper said would not happen in Canada), no wonder the CPC would like to distract Canadians by bringing up the coalition.

So, will people find the fact that Ignatieff signed the coalition agreement, and now talks of arrangements rather than a coalition, so heinous an offence that they will never elect him?

I mean, the actual agreement to work with other parties is not something Harper can attack, since he has proposed the very same thing in the past.

So Harper hangs his hat on the coalition, and Ignatieff's re-writing his position on same. Ignatieff hangs his hat on the deficit, and Harper's broken promise to keep our country in the black.

I guess we will see what voters think are important.

Gayle said...

"Your guy, NEVER had 'the opportunity to be, PM'.
In this country, it involves first, being a leader of a party, second, being elected as a MP in a FEDERAL ELECTION."

Actually, no.

It does not involve "first" being the leader. It involves only a combination of being the leader of the party that commands the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons, and being elected an MP. It does not matter which came first.

Ignatieff did, indeed, give up his opportunity to be the Prime Minister by backing out of the coalition.

Michael Harkov said...

Ignatieff hangs his hat on the deficit, and Harper's broken promise to keep our country in the black.

Oh, no no no no NO, Gayle, it doesn't and won't work like that.

If you think that Harper and the Tories are going to have sole blame placed on them for deficit spending that the Liberals and their leader supported, after screaming shrilly to spend more, then you are way out to lunch - well, more than usual anyways. The Liberals gave up their credibility to complain about the deficit when they supported the budget that authorized that spending AND as a desired partner in a coalition that would have spent way more.

And it won't only be the Tories reminding everyone of that support. The NDP has been saying that and more about the Liberals supporting the Tories on those measures, let alone the other 75+ times they've supported the Tories on confidence measures.

So Harper hangs his hat on the coalition, and Ignatieff's re-writing his position on same.

Ignatieff has a habit of re-writing his past positions. Well, the rather inconvenient ones anyways. :D

Ardvark said...

And Gayle comes rushing in from the sidelines with some distractions in an attempt to cover for Iggy.

So predictable that when I originally wrote this line "Oh and before the fun starts "because I say he isn't" won't cut it." it read "Oh and before the fun starts "because I say he isn't" won't cut it nor will bringing up the alleged lies of other people. I wrote that with Gayle and the usual Liberal spin fire brigade that was for sure to bring up Harper as a defense for Iggy. I edited the end out knowing they would show up either way and bring up something the PM had said in the past. LOL, and sure enough guess who showed up.

Gayle answer the following or go away.
The topic of my post was Ignatieff being a liar; so Gayle is Ignatieff a liar?

Anonymous said...

We have two Bubba's ?
Bubba Brown

kursk said...

Gayle, if the Canadian people had a chance to vote on a proposed coalition ticket vs. the Conservatives, how large do you think the Conservative majority would be?

It would be the most historic defeat of the left in modern times, one that would take a generation (or more..) to recover from.

Please ask your comrades to bring back the coalition..

Platty said...

Gayle answer the following or go away.
The topic of my post was Ignatieff being a liar; so Gayle is Ignatieff a liar?


That's not fair AA, you know full well that Gayle is not in any position to give a straight answer to such questions! And as long as Ignatieff is the leader of the Liberal party, she never will be.


==

Gayle said...

AA - where, in my post, did I suggest Ignatieff was being truthful about his previously held position on the coalition?

I am merely pointing out that a lie about the coalition may pale to some voters when compared to the lie about the deficit, and the lie about the economy.

Or maybe not - we shall have to wait and see. But if you are going to pin your hopes on the lies of Ignatieff, then Harper's lies are fair game, even if you want to make the rules that what is bad from Ignatieff is A OK when it comes from Harper.

And Michael, you may have a point, however you cannot dispute that during the campaign Harper claimed Canada would be spared the negative impact of the world wide recession, and then changed his mind a few days after the election. He also promised no deficit, and then admitted we already had one.

Nor can the entire deficit be placed on the stimulus budget, since there was already a deficit before that budget. That was a direct result of the economic mismanagement of the Harper conservatives.

Gayle said...

"Gayle, if the Canadian people had a chance to vote on a proposed coalition ticket vs. the Conservatives, how large do you think the Conservative majority would be?"

Well, I guess we will find out, since Harper is going to do his best to distract people from the real issues by pretending the election is about the coalition.

Ardvark said...

"Well, I guess we will find out, since Harper is going to do his best to distract people from the real issues by pretending to...

Harper is an amateur at distraction compared to a troll like yourself Gayle.

This was about Ignatieff and his tendency to lie, it was not about what you think the PM has been untruthful about, nor was it about a deficit budget that Ignatieff helped force upon us and complained one week that it was not large enough and the next that it was too large. I guess he will lie about that too when the time comes eh Gayle.

Is answering a yes or no question really that hard for you to do Gayle?

Last chance.

Gayle said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ardvark said...

If you can't even answer a simple yes or no question and would rather go on and on about other things perhaps you should not bother commenting here.

See ya Gayle.

Gayle said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ardvark said...

If you could EVER stay on topic and not desperately spin and distract perhaps it would be worth my time to bother but since we have been down this road too many times already. Comment deleted.

maryT said...

If the coalition has been successful, it would have been PM Dion. And who believes he would have resigned that office. And, if the coalition had been successful, and Dion did resign, who believes that Iggy would have been crowned without a fight over the leadership. Would Rae have given up so easily, I doubt it.
The coalition will be a big topic if there is an election.

Ardvark said...

Mary I the quotes I listed in the post this little part from Ignatieff really stands out, "We are at one, the three of us, that the only person who can lead the party is the duly elected leader of the party Mr. Stephane Dion,"

1 week later Dion was forced to resign by the very same people who claimed to stand behind him as the only leader for the party.

With friends like those....

Hey, come to think of it, aren't those very same people now Ignatieff's friends?