The Liberals go long, very long

All the way back to 2003 for their latest attack on Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Bob Rae, one of the leading contenders to replace Dion when the Liberals lose launched this attack on Harper today:
Rae released transcripts and videos of both speeches and suggested they serve as evidence that a vote for the Conservatives is akin to voting for a "Republican-Conservative" government.

Rae, the Liberal foreign affairs critic, also said the revelation raises questions about whether Harper's foreign policy views can be trusted.

"How does a leader in Canada's Parliament, on such a crucial issue, end up giving almost the exact same speech as any another country's leader, let alone a leader who was a key member of George W. Bush's Coalition of the Willing?" Rae said in a statement.

Are you kidding me? So the Liberals have added another plank to their attacks, anti-Americanism. Trying to tie Harper to the coalition of the willing. The coalition of the willing that included most of the western English speaking world.

Is the Liberal Party really that desperate to not implode that this is what they come up with? The Liberal Party has sunk to a new low.

Since I am sure Stephane Dion didn't want to get his hands dirty with this muckraking, I still have to wonder why Michael Ignatieff didn't deliver this speech?

Oh yeah, Michael Ignatieff supported the invasion of Iraq.
The discovery that Hussein didn't have weapons after all surprises me, but it doesn't change my view of the essential issue. I never thought the key question was what weapons he actually possessed but rather what intentions he had. Having been to Halabja in 1992, and having talked to survivors of the chemical attack that killed 5,000 Iraqi Kurds in March 1988, I believed that while there could be doubt about Hussein's capabilities, there could be none about the malignancy of his intentions. True, there are a lot of malignant intentions loose in our world, but Hussein had actually used chemical weapons. Looking to the future, once sanctions collapsed, inspectors had been bamboozled and oil revenues began to pick up, he was certain, sooner or later, to match intentions with capabilities.
...
I still do not believe that American or British leaders misrepresented Hussein's intentions or lied about the weapons they believed he possessed. In his new memoirs, Hans Blix makes it clear that he and his fellow U.N. inspectors thought Hussein was hiding something, and every intelligence service they consulted thought so too.

But that is different, Michael Ignatieff is a Liberal. Or something.

Michael Ignatieff supported the Iraq invasion, he kept supporting the Iraq invasion for years afterward. He only stopped supporting the Iraq invasion when it became an impediment for his quest for the Liberal leadership.

Michael Ignatieff stopped living by his principles when he started his quest of the Liberal leadership. How very Liberal of him.

We're better off with Harper.