Explanation required please

JANE TABER CLARIFICATION/APOLOGY:

On 5/1/09 8:29 PM, "Taber, Jane" wrote:

So sorry

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


Jane: Very good of you to say you are “so sorry” , as I caught wind of this comment contained your article in the Globe from a posting on the Toronto Star website. I really could not believe what I was reading with my own eyes, so I naturally went back to read the source (your article) from which the person had been quoting to confirm whether it was accurate or not. I read your piece and left with the interpretation that these were, indeed the word and thoughts attributed to Michael Ignatieff , when in fact you are now confirming they are Tom Flanagan’s. Never could their be two different ends to the academic and political spectrum than Micahel Ignatieff and Tom Flanagan. I was not alone in my misinterpretation of your article. Therefore out of sense of fair play and good journalism and the reputation of Michael Ignatieff. I would strongly encourage you to correct this widespread misunderstanding that exists amongst your readers that Flanagan and NOT Ignatieff is of the moral standing that: “As an academic, he said, "you just build up a habit of trying to give honest answers to questions. ... Then once you get into politics your task is mostly to conceal the truth. The truth becomes a gaffe”

Thank you and knowing you will do the right thing, given that reputations are essential to whom we are.

Or as Michael Ignatieff himself has written...”“We need words to keep us human”. An essential aspect of which requires that they be the actual “words” of the “human” in question.

Brent Fullard







CORRECTION:

I think you have misread the quotation. The Globe is quoting Tom Flanagan about Ignatieff, not what Ignatieff is saying there.

It is poorly written but read it again after reading the prior paragraphs and I think you'll see.

"So far, however, Mr. Flanagan said, Mr. Ignatieff is improving and has made few missteps, with the exception of recent musings on raising taxes to pay down the deficit.

The problem lies in Mr. Ignatieff's years as a university professor. As an academic, he said, "you just build up a habit of trying to give honest answers to questions. ... Then once you get into politics your task is mostly to conceal the truth. The truth becomes a gaffe."Flanagan is the gift that keeps on giving... to the Liberals. First he tells us that 'yeah, there is a hidden agenda' then he tells us that 'Harper's budget is bad but it is necessary for him to keep his job', he had the helpful comment that we are not any longer a "constitutional democracy but an electoral democracy" in trying to pretzel around the Constitution to say that the coalition was un-Constitutional.

And now he reveals the inner modus operendi of the Harper government.






Today’s Globe: The problem lies in Mr. Ignatieff's years as a university professor. As an academic, he said, "you just build up a habit of trying to give honest answers to questions. ... Then once you get into politics your task is mostly to conceal the truth. The truth becomes a gaffe."

What became of Ignatieff’s “Canadians deserve the truth”. That is beginning to sound more like the incomplete thought that it is.

This is very disconcerting to hear, especially given that I have been totally perplexed as to why the Liberals are NOT exposing Flaherty’s TOTAL LIE about tax leakage or HIGHLIGHTING the fact that $100 billion in takeovers have been triggered by this policy causing the loss of over $1 billion in ANNUAL TAX LOSSES, a number that will grow to $7.5 billion, unless we can find some PAID ELECTED POLITICIAN who thinks their job is something other than “ mostly to conceal the truth.”

Just exactly who does the Liberal Party stand for in the income trust fraud: Taxpayers or Bay Street?

Explanation required please