"This president has been a disaster for the authority and the influence of the United States," Ignatieff told The Globe and Mail during a recent interview.... "A historic opportunity was missed by the Bush administration that Americans are now realizing was a catastrophe -- and a catastrophe not only against their values, but against their interests."...Shorter Michael Ignatieff: I was so fucking stupid I trusted George Bush, when smarter Liberals (like Jean Chretien) didn't. Please elect me, so I can be exactly as stupid in the Prime Minister's Office.
"(I take) full responsibility for not having anticipated how incompetent the Americans would be. I don't have remaining confidence in the Americans... The Bush operation in Iraq betrayed any hopes I had of Iraq transitioning to a stable political elite, and now all those hopes rest with my friends, the Iraqi political elite."
And I have no idea what his remarks even mean anymore. Is he saying he regrets supporting this misbegotten war? Not really, he just blames Bush for screwing up his precious theories. See, it would have been okay to violate international law, and lie about WMDs to do so, if only Bush had done so competently.
Ignatieff isn't saying he was wrong - he's saying Bush was wrong. Well no kidding, perfesser. But some of us knew he was wrong before the bodies started piling up, and it's taken you too long to come to this point.
As if this weren't confusing enough, we get this bit:
The former Harvard professor made it clear he will not be hitching his wagon to any unilateralist empire-building. “I've supported the Afghan mission precisely because I don't want to live in an American imperial world. If we don't, as Canadians, want to live under American domination . . . then we have to have the courage to take on a difficult mission with our NATO partners and get it done. If we don't want a world run by the Americans, Canada has to lead.”I really, really don't see how Canada's 2,000 soldiers are "leading" America's 20,000 in Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter. Canada is participating in NATO's mission in Afghanistan - and I'm a big believer in multilateral fora - but we're hardly leading. And to portray Afghanistan as a challenge to American hegemony is so incredibly stupid I can't even begin to imagine what he's been smoking. The two concepts have nothing to do with each other.
To say he supports Afghanistan because Canada has to lead is like saying he supports killing Iraqis because he wants to liberate them. Oh, wait.
Lawrence Martin gets it right when he says:
Mr. Ignatieff has to create a greater comfort zone with the other camps, so distancing himself from Bush country could well help. Defining himself coherently has been a problem for him [Ha!], partly because of his far-flung international career and myriad writings and pronouncements.Shorter Lawrence Martin: Don't trust anything Ignatieff says - he won't be here long.
When in Britain, he often played to Britain. When in America, he often played to America (the famous “we” quote). He hasn't been home for long, and he is still trying to discover how to play to Canada. If he does, he will be in the best position to win on Dec. 2.
4 comments:
Bang on John,
As I commented in my news round-up today, the irony of Iggy's latest comments are quite sickening. I mean, hes advocated everything from the Iraq war, to 'torture-lite'... how he can come out now and bash GWB is beyond me.
I know he's just trying to bolster his Liberal credentials, but it would be nice if he'd do so without looking like a giant hypocrit.
By the way,
Might I say you've been very prolific lately - which is not to say that you've been particularly insightful, but very productive; 6 substantial posts in one day? I need to sleep, you know!
Well, wish me luck, 1 down...
It truly irritates me when Iggy cast aspersions on all Americans when he should be talking specifically about the Bush administration.[The administration he supported]
Ignatieff says "I take full responsibility for not having anticipated how incompetent the Americans would be."
So Ignatieff apologizes for the incompetence of the "Americans", but not his own poor judgment, nor his role as lead cheerleader and marketeer of the illegal invasion by the Bush Administration. In other words, if all had gone well in Iraq, Ignatieff would not be apologizing today over the illegal pre-emptive war. Question: If a bank robber doesn't get caught after robbing a bank does that mean that no crime was committed?
Thanks to Ignatieff's daily deposits into the munitions dump, Harper's cannons are now fully loaded with
all the word fodder they need to secure a majority. Squarely in the conservative camp's crosshairs, Ignatieff is too big a target to miss.
I can hardly wait until the topic of the legality of the Iraq war (or international law in general) resurfaces...
In his March 2005 article entitled "America the Mercurial" Ignatieff states in his own words "..the United States and Britain went to war [in Iraq] in defiance of international law,...".
Let's be clear, in 2003, Ignatieff not only agreed with the Bush-Blair decision, he attempted to give the illegal invasion legitimacy through his frequent op-eds in prestigious journals and newspapers before, during and after the Iraq invasion. Does Ignatieff's pro-Iraq war stance by extension (and through his own words in 2005) not make him also defiant of international law... a international criminal of sorts? Not even Harper would have been so bold to defy international law.
Why Ignatieff may think he's "come home", he is still clinging to Karl Rove's playbook on the "The Art of Hypocrisy".
Robyn Kall
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment