Warren Kinsella wrote on his blog October 11, 2006. "I agree with this. Big time." (Note: Link is now dead)
And what is "this"?
October 11, 2006
Mr. Michael Ignatieff, M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Dear Mr. Ignatieff:
On behalf of the Canada-Israel Committee, I am writing to express profound concern about your comments over the weekend regarding the recent conflict in Lebanon. In what appears to be very straightforward language, you accused Israel of having committed war crimes in Qa’na – an assertion you explicitly anchored in your expertise in the area of international law and the conduct of war. Notwithstanding attempts by your campaign team to provide a different context for the remarks, we remain troubled by them and what it may suggest about your overall orientation to the Middle East, Israel’s values as a vibrant democracy and the challenges Israel faces from those determined to destroy the Jewish state.
If your intentions were not to accuse Israel of having committed war crimes in Qa’na, we would ask that you issue an immediate clarification – in both official languages – that clearly sets out your view of the issue and unambiguously rejects the suggestion that Israel is guilty of any such conduct. Should you choose to offer such a clarification, we will undertake to circulate it widely within the pro-Israel community. Should you choose not to issue a statement, we would feel obliged to convey that message to our constituency as well.
Sincerely,
Marc Gold, National Chair
Thomas Hubert, Vice President of Communications for the Young Liberal of Canada (B.C.), wrote the following on his blog:
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter ... History will remember Hezbollah as an organization that stood up to the most vile ‘nation’ in human history.”
And this from the comment section on another Liberal Blog
BigCityLib had some thoughts on the "monster" within here.
A run down of Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj quotes can be found here. (Worth reading)
And finally back to Warren again who wrote the following: August 20, 2006 – Why is the author of this blog (deadlink to thelongwalk.ca) a putative supporter of Gerard Kennedy, and claiming to be a member of the Liberal Party of Canada’s executive in BC, writing things like this on Cherniak’s blog?(see photo above) Is anything going to be done about this? If Bill Graham and Denis Coderre have any say in the matter, I doubt it. And people still ask me why I don’t feel comfortable in the Liberal Party of Canada anymore. It’s rather self-evident, I’d say.
and for an added bonus this on
August 22, 2006 - By the by, some folks are asking why Jason and I are now paying attention to the likes of the (for now) anonymous "Big City Lib" and, in Jason's case, Martha's anti-Israel communications guy. It's a fair question.
My grandmother, God rest her eternal soul, had the best view on situations like this one. "Once you've decided to clean out one toilet," said she, "you may as well clean out all the toilets."
Well, she didn't actually say that, but I can see her saying that. And it makes sense, don't it?
Pass the Brillo pads.
August 21, 2006 - Just received this, late, from the Kennedy campaign. Good statement, albeit late. It should have mentioned Hubert, however.
Now - does anyone know who is behind "Big City Lib"? Say this much for Thomas: he at least used his real name when spewing hate. Big City Lib lacks the courage of his convictions, it seems.
***
Those Liberals. One big happy bunch.
The facts on the Liberals spin on Durban1, and as you may have guessed the facts get in the way again.
23 comments:
What is old is new again
News reports: “Liberal Strategist Warren Kinsella made little attempt to control his anger on CTV News Channel’s Power Play, calling the leaflets a “goddamn disgrace.” Federal Liberals are furious and are accusing the Conservatives of distributing taxpayer-funded leaflets that suggest the Grits are anti-Semitic.”
How can the media be sure Mr. Kinsella’s statements are in fact on behalf of the Liberal Party. History suggests that this assumption should require a double source. On previous occasions, the Liberal Party has distanced itself from Mr. Kinsella’s on Canada-Isreal matters.
Who can forget this little recent nugget from the Spring of 2009, as reported in Maclean’s Magazine:
“Shimon Fogel witnessed Kinsella’s tactics first-hand. Fogel, who is CEO of the Canada-Israel Committee, says he received an email from Kinsella in February [2009] in which the self-styled political ass-kicker said he would effectively reduce the CIC’s influence within the Liberal Party if the organization didn’t do his bidding. In an email obtained by Maclean’s from a source in the organization, Kinsella said the CIC “would be making a huge mistake” that it “will regret profoundly” if it proceeded with inviting two right-wing bloggers, who are in the midst of a protracted war of words with Kinsella, on one of its “study missions” to Israel. (These missions, which aim to educate members of the public and the media on issues facing Israel, are often, though not always, paid for by the CIC.)
“As far as the LPC [Liberal Party of Canada] goes, if [I’m] asked for my advice–and I am all the time–I will say that the CIC has utterly marginalized itself, and that it is not a voice we need to necessarily heed going forward,” Kinsella wrote to Fogel. “[I]f the media contacts me about this, I will not observe silence.” Kinsella further promised to “contact friends in Israel to suggest they not be permitted entry.” Fogel later characterized Kinsella’s emails as “threats” and “blackmail” and suggested to the CIC that it not give in to the Liberal strategist.
When contacted by Maclean’s, Kinsella would neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of the emails. … And Kinsella’s lawyer served Maclean’s with a notice indicating that Kinsella had resigned from the Canadian Jewish Congress, where he had served as a volunteer–although Maclean’s hadn’t asked about Kinsella’s relationship with the CJC, which is wholly independent from the CIC. For the Liberal Party’s part, spokesperson Daniel Lauzon said Kinsella “was speaking in his own name, and not for the Liberal Party of Canada” in the emails to the CIC. The Liberal Party, Lauzon later added, was never involved in Kinsella’s attempt to block the two bloggers from travelling to Israel.
Source: The “Prince of Darkness” is back in the Liberal fold And where there is Warren Kinsella, there is drama… by Martin Patriquin on Friday, April 10, 2009
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/10/the-prince-of-darkness-is-back-in-the-liberal-fold/
Other interesting online background here:
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2009/04/jackal-issues-bizarre-warning-ignatieff.html
It is quite ironic that he calls other people "Mr. Angry".He has used the "disgrace" line so much it has no meaning.
And people still ask me why I don’t feel comfortable in the Liberal Party of Canada anymore. It’s rather self-evident, I’d say.
That says it all.
From Ezra'a post
http://ezralevant.com/2009/11/is-michael-ignatieff-an-antise.html
http://ezralevant.com/Jewish%20comparison.pdf
You know what I love about all this?
You are pointing out how important Kinsella believes the fight against anti-semitism is. He clearly takes it seriously and stands behind his principles.
Then you rely on a statement made by Ignatieff - one that he has never denied responsibility for, and in fact, one that he apologized for (some conservatives could learn from that).
Kinsella clearly expressed his anger over those comments. Ignatieff apologized - and it appears Kinsella - he who has long participated in the fight against anti-semitism, has accepted that apology since he is now working for the guy.
He left the party when he disagreed with it, and returned when that changed.
So thank you so much for reinforcing the fact the Liberal Party of Canada is not anti-semitic, contrary to the claims in the 10%'er.
Delusion: : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.
What I luv is AA finding these treasures.
And the parade of fuming Libs declaring 'we are not anti-semitic'....
but the facts Gayle, the facts
According to Gayle "So thank you so much for reinforcing the fact the Liberal Party of Canada is not anti-semitic, contrary to the claims in the 10%'er."
Because Gayle donates to the Liberals,the most corrupt party in Canadian history,she has to justify her delusionary beliefs with illogical statements.
"but the facts Gayle, the facts"
What would you know about them wilson? The flier has been proven to be full of lies and distortions.
Unless, of course, you think Warren Kinsella and Irwin Cotler are anti-semitic.
I suggest you look up the term "fact" before you post again on this topic wilson.
But don't bother dealing with the merits of the argument, attack me instead.
That TOTALLY proves I am wrong.
(or it proves you are incapable of addressing the argument, so you opt for the personal attack, yet again...)
gayle:
Take another look at what Kinsella wrote back in 2006 about the comments Iggy made about Israel and then remember where he's doing "volunteer work" now.
So offended that he posted that Iggy wasn't fit to lead the LPC, now he wants to help him become PM.
Is that a flip-flop, being disingenuous, or that he never means what he says he's just a carpet bagger trying to find a meal ticket?
I heard more than one leader in the Jewish community today, on talk radio and elsewhere, say that they did not feel the Conservatives were in any way attempting to paint the Liberals with an anti-semitic brush.
However, why should we listen to leaders in the Jewish community when we have Gayle to tell us how it really is....
-
We all know you don't deal in facts Gayle.
And you have proven nothing.
Kantsellit is a weasel who is for sale to the highest bidder.
Quite amazing that he could so quickly change his opinion of Iggy and take over the helm of the LPC war room. What is the story there?
And what of his work for the CIC? It seems strange to me that someone so opposed to anti-semitism could work for a body whos president stated that the killing of any Israeli adult was valid.
Quite curious.
You Libs are so full of shit, and trying to deflect the light shone upon you by the Con 10%er is only causing the public to read for themselves what was said and by whom.
Bravo and thanks.
Gayle said...
But don't bother dealing with the merits of the argument, attack me instead.
Oh, an this just makes me laugh.
There are no merits to your arguement...or even an arguement, just statements and talking points, you offer no facts (as usual).
As well, where has anyone here attacked you? Put away your Liberal victim card, it doesn't work anymore.
I for one see right through you.
"But don't bother dealing with the merits of the argument,"
What argument?
Pretend that Liberal savior MickyIffy didn't say what he said about Israel?
"attack me instead."
Your not proud anymore to admit that you donated your money to the Liberals?
"That TOTALLY proves I am wrong."
Yep, TOTALLY.
"(or it proves you are incapable of addressing the argument, so you opt for the personal attack, yet again...)"
Anyone who donates money to the Liberal Party deserves all the attention they can muster.
"So offended that he posted that Iggy wasn't fit to lead the LPC, now he wants to help him become PM.
Is that a flip-flop, being disingenuous, or that he never means what he says he's just a carpet bagger trying to find a meal ticket?"
Of course, there is another possibility. It could be that, having met with Ignatieff, and having noted Ignatieff apologized for the comment, that he accepts that apology as sincere, and knows Ignatieff is not anti-semitic.
But don't allow the most obvious explanation deter you from presuming the worst.
Platty - what "leaders" would those be?
Jim
I am going to help you out here:
"ar⋅gu⋅ment [ahr-gyuh-muhnt]
–noun
1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.
2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.
3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.
4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.
5. an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse."
As in, I put forward a theory, an "argument" suggesting that since AA here brought out all this history of Kinsella fighting anti-semitism, it kind of supports the fact that Ignatieff, and the LPC, are not anti-semitic.
Now you may not agree, but if you want to sound intelligent, you would tell us why you do not agree.
Here is a hint - calling people names is not the same thing as mature discourse.
PS, I am not a liberal.
Go out for a couple of hours and...
Gayle, I thought you said that you were not going to come back here; again. Since you are here I guess I will go through the motions.
Nice argument. WK is busy fighting antisemitism in a party where it does not even exist. You are slipping Gayle.
Jim nailed you on your facts BS nicely; you do not rely on facts but regurgitate inane talking points like the 10%er "has been proven to be full of lies and distortions".
What lies? Lets go through the 10%er Durban: the Liberals did attend, and they did not walk out as did the US and a few others a few days in. Granted they did not know it was going to be a hate fest before it happened but they did go.
Hezbollah: The Liberals did oppose the defunding and contrary to what you have been spinning all over the net Borys Wrzesnewskyj did say “Yes, I would be.” when asked if he was in favour of Hezbollah being taken off the terror list.
And of course Ignatieff did call what happened in Qana a war crime which he reversed on only after having reversed his position even earlier still when he first said he would not lose sleep over it. Actually the learned Professor who cited his expertise in the field when he declared it a war crime has never taken it back but rather said that it was not up to him to determine if it was a war crime or not. That is some decision making skills on display there.
So no, the 10%er is not full of lies and distortions.
I don't care if Ignatieff has sort of reversed himself, or if Borys has done the same, the point is that nobody knows for sure just what the position of the LPC is on any given day.
With the Conservatives there are no gray areas,no policy reversals,and no questions. When it comes to the conservatives there has been unequivocal support for Israel.
That is what the 10%er says and that is why you guys are putting up such a fuss about it.
BTW Gayle, nobody on the conservative side called the liberals antisemitic. I am not sure where it comes from, whether it be spin to play the sympathy card or perhaps even guilt, but as a talking point it is hurting the libs more than it is helping them.
I don't have time to rewrite what I have posted elsewhere, so here is a cut and paste:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/727587--liberals-say-tory-flyers-accuse-them-of-anti-semitism?bn=1
"The former Liberal attorney general noted it was a Liberal government in 2002 that banned financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah. "Let the facts show ... that it was the Liberal Party in 2002 ... (that) listed Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. This notion that we somehow sought the delisting of Hezbollah or somehow (we are) indulging terrorism is a scandalous misrepresentation," Cotler said. The reference to Durban, the controversial UN World Conference against Racism held from Aug. 31 to Sept. 8, 2001, in Durban, South Africa, which provided a platform for anti-Israeli sentiment, is also misleading, the Liberals said. Cotler said he went to Durban 1 as an observer and noted that the then-Israeli government specifically asked Canada to remain at the conference "and make its voice felt and bear witness to what was happening."
Did the LPC support delisting Hezbollah as the pamphlet claims? The answer to that question would be "no", for those of you who are fact challenged. Did the liberal government participate in Durban knowing it was going to be a platform for racism, as the leaflet implies? Again the answer is "no". Does the leaflet explain the circumstances of the liberal government's attendance? Does it explain we were represented by Irwin Cotler?
Does the leaflet explain Ignatieff apologized for his comments?
Lies and half-truths, designed to give a false impression. How do you define dishonesty? Should the LPC pass out leaflets suggesting all consrvatives are white supremists by referring to Rob Anders calling Nelson Mandella a terrorist?
Face it. You support liars. Your defence of the pamphlet only brings you down to their level.
And AA - try addressing everything I said, rather than selecting the parts you think you can respond to. And try not to make things up - I never said Kinsella was fighting anti-semitism in the LPC.
Gayle said...
PS, I am not a liberal.
Well then, you must be a whore, like Worn Kantsellit.
You spend so much time as a Liberal apologist that if your motivations are not ideological, they must be monetary.
"Did the LPC support delisting Hezbollah as the pamphlet claims?"
Borys did...Coderre marched with the Hezbollah.
"Did the liberal government participate in Durban knowing it was going to be a platform for racism, as the leaflet implies?"
If the Liberals had no idea what Durban was going to be then they are stupid or lying.
"Does it explain we were represented by Irwin Cotler?"
I have great respect for Irwin Cotler, and believe he would be a fine addition to the CPC, but trotting out a Jewish member of caucus does not automatically give you credibility on the issue. Explain why his wife left the party, or Susan Kadis for that matter?
"Should the LPC pass out leaflets suggesting all consrvatives are white supremists by referring to Rob Anders calling Nelson Mandella a terrorist?"
Pretty flawed comparison, but just the same, please point out where the CPC called the LPC anti-semites.
Are the Liberals soft on terror. Certainly.
Does the leader of the LPC have a habit of putting his foot in his mouth and the have to retract? Definately.
Is apologizing for something the same as never having said it? Sorry, no.
Poor little Gayle. The Koolaid has poisoned her so badly that any capacity for logical, nonpartisan reasoning appears to be lost.
Actually, I have no problem believing that you are not a liberal.
In fact, I don't think there are actually any liberals in the LPC, not by the true definition anyway.
Gayle from your link it is only 15 words in that I call BS. They did NOT stop financial aid to Hamas in 2002. That is a fabrication.
On Durban I admit the 10% went overboard on the spin but the Liberals did go so it is factual.
As for delisting Hezbollah, no the LPC did not ask for this, Borys W did. Is this LPC policy? We don't know because we have no idea what LPC policy is on this or just about everything else for that matter and it looks like Borys must have been confused as well because he did say it. Did he do it knowing the LPC policy? You tell me.
And Ignatieff has NOT backed off on his war crimes claim of "I was a professor of human rights and I am also a professor of the laws of war and what happened in Qana was a war crime and I should have said that." That's clear." other than to say he was not qualified to make a determination if it was a war crime or not. He spews out his qualifications, adds the "thats clear" part and then says he is not qualified. Brilliant and inspiring leadership indeed!
With the Liberals it is anybody's guess as to what the think, but with the CPC the support for Israel has been clear and consistent.
On the last part. You said "thank you so much for reinforcing the fact the Liberal Party of Canada is not anti-semitic, contrary to the claims in the 10%'er." My entire post was about Kinsella vs the LPC, did you miss all of that? What about the Libloggers kicked for being antisemitic (there were at least 3 that I know of)? What about the convention and Bob Rae's wife? Denis Coderre? Etc.
BTW you should thank Warren for keeping an eye on this for the LPC, if it was not for him it would be much much worse and for this he gets full marks from myself.
Thanks for highlighting this clear support from the CPC with your feeble attempts at spinning the true Liberal record.
Snippets from Gayle's last comment which has been deleted.
So you are calling Erwin Cotler a liar.
...is tantamount to lying.
There are plenty of BT'ers who are racist
-otherwise known as being untruthful
(Stay classy Gayle or just stay away)
Post a Comment