Some can see the emperor has no clothes, but their very unpopular because of it.
$1:
When one comes across one of Iggy’s or his apologists bald attempts to rewrite history, to pretend he never called himself American, or promoted the American Empire, or defended torture methods like sleep deprivation & hooding as “permissible duress” during interrogation, or advocated the invasion of Iraq as enlightened imperialism rather than some rescue mission for the Kurds, his eventual post-invasion, post-morass justification, one sometimes wonders whether one has fallen down the rabbit hole. And this is precisely as it should be, as Iggy is indeed a Humpty Dumpty figure, who believes his words’ meaning is independent of any recognised conventions of linguistics, logic & precedent. Unfortunately, he seeks not to govern Never Never Land but Canada.
One faces a dilemma when judging Iggy: Does he exist? By this I mean by what standard should one judge him. Should one pay him the compliment of taking him seriously? Or should one see him as an imaginary, unreal figure, an unconscious actor, a “real phony”, a character who seems to have stepped straight out of “l’Illusion comique”, “A Midsummer’s Night Dream”, Kundera, etc., and whose words should be treated as lightly?
It is quite accepted to think of public figures as actors, who are not the roles they play and who only hope their performance will allow them to advance on to bigger & better jobs. However, actors, however much they may lose themselves in a role, for a time, know themselves to be actors. Iggy does not, seemingly.
http://eugeneforseyliberal.blogspot.com ... gists.htmlThis is from a Libblogger.. at least for the moment.
Active Member 
