Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Michael Ignatieff is making sense, despite himself

Just getting around to watching Iggy's appearance on The Hour. (The video's on their site here.) In it, he says - citing his authority as a human rights scholar - that "we need one standard for everybody."

I couldn't agree more.

Dead at Qana, Lebanon on August 26 (according to Human Rights Watch): 28, with 13 missing. This, according to Ignatieff, is a war crime.

Dead in Iraq, since March 2003: 650,000 from destruction and disease, approximately 500 a day. Even comparing only the dead from airstrikes - those deaths attributable to Qana-like means - gives us more than two Qanas, every day, for three years.

Ignatieff continues to support the war in Iraq.

Michael Ignatieff - by his own words - continues to support war crimes. Similarly, 30% of Liberals support a man who openly advocates for the commission of war crimes, want him to lead their party, and presumably the country.

There's really nothing else to say, is there?

(Update: Edited and expanded for clarity.)


david sandford said...


Cerberus said...

"Michael Ignatieff - by his own words - continues to support war crimes."

Nice try, but not quite.

You know, I think Canada did the right thing in going to war against Hitler's Germany and Toto's Japan, as well as against the Chinese backed North Koreans. Does that mean I support the war crimes that occurred? No, that's a ridiculous assertion. Especially if I said expressly I did not.

So in that vein, how do you with a straight face say that Ignatieff who has condemned the US for Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo, attacks on civilians, etc. is supporting war crimes?

Or is this yet another one of those NDP divorced from reality things?

Anonymous said...

Cerberus, regarding Ignatieff and his assertions on international law...

In his March 2005 article entitled "America the Mercurial" Ignatieff states "..the United States and Britain went to war [in Iraq] in defiance of international law,...". Ignatieff not only agreed with America's and Britain's decision, he attempted to give the illegal invasion legitimacy through his frequent op-eds in prestigious journals and newspapers. Does Ignatieff's pro-Iraq war stance by extension (and through his own words) not make him also defiant of international law? ... a criminal of sorts?

I'm not a lawyer, just an observer.

Robyn Kall

Divyang Shah said...

As a Canadian living abroad I haven't been following the Liberal leadership race closely but I must say I am completely baffled by the controversy over Ignatieff's representation of the Qana massacre as a war crime.

Evidently, in Canada the Walt/Mearsheimer paper never happened. How long has slavish devotion to Israel been a prerequisite for being a party leader in Canada? Is this a recent development?