A few kudos points at least for Michael ignatieff's apology on Tout le monde en parle this weekend. He finally owned up to his insensitive comments re the Israeli attack on Qana ("I'm not losing sleep [over it]"). From The National Post:
"It was a mistake. I showed a lack of compassion. It was a mistake and when you make a mistake like that, you have to admit it."
A bunch more kudos points for calling a spade a spade, and referring to the attack on Qana as a "war crime":
"I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime, and I should have said that. That's clear."
Of course, B'nai Brith Canada is already going after him for this, so we will see how long he hangs tough. The latest word is, he will not retract the term "war crime", but Leslie Church, director of communications for the Ignatieff campaign, is starting to wriggle a bit:
"This isn't a deliberation that Michael would make on his feet. There is no way that he would make a pronouncement on international law in this format, and that's not what he's driving at here," Ms. Church said.
"He meant that this was a tragedy of war, that this was a deplorable act in war, that this was a terrible consequence of war."
If Iggy stands fast on this issue, then he still won't be off my shit list, but he will move a couple places towards the bottom of the list. But can he stand fast? Given the Liberal Party Purges this summer over perceived anti-semitism, it is hard to say. Will Warren Kinsella get medieval on Iggy's ass? Will All Heck be raised in the Liberal Blogosphere?
We shalll see.
Whooee! Up on the Pergressive Boogers website, I seen a buncha IggyQuotes jest this mornin'. Have a looksee fer yerself --
ReplyDeletehttp://www.progressivebloggers.ca/blog/diary.php?cmd=view&id=1369.
I ain't seen anything anywhere that sez IgMan sez any o' them things he sed was a mistake. Anybuddy who supported the Iraq invasion an' still won't admit it was the stoopidest thing BushBoy coulda done, ain't worth leadin' my Canadee. Anybuddy who justifies torture in any way ain't the kinda person who deserves t' be pryminister o' Canadee, sez I.
Yores trooly,
JimBobby
There is just NO WAY any honest person can reconcile "not losing sleep" with "war crimes." That BigCity doesn't even care says something, if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteThe Iggy camp has already realized this, which is why the spokesperson has started to backtrack.
Michael Ignatieff is a boob, and it has nothing to do with what side of the issue he or anyone else endorses.
He either put his foot in his mouth (which is what I think he did) or he's guilty of the most clumsy and obvious flip-flop one could imagine.
Hey, he's your front-runner, Libs. Enjoy. I'm sure Harper is.
Cybermenace,
ReplyDeleteIggy's change of heart could also be the result of gaining new knowledge as time went by. It took several weeks for Human Rights Watch to do its investigation and conclude that the Israeli bombardments of civilian areas constituted war crimes.
It's good that Ignatieff has admitted the truth here: Amnesty and HRW have both been pointing in this direction for some weeks.
ReplyDeleteHysterical denunciations from any quarter (pro-Hezbollah, pro-Israeli, pro-whatever) should be dismissed for what they are.
The real question remains: when will Ignatieff admit that the Iraq war he vocally supported was also illegal, indeed an instance of the 'supreme international crime'?
Admitting that, and what follows from it, would take even more courage.
There is no backtracking. Obviously he didn't mean it as a legal conclusion but let the spinning begin regardless, eh?
ReplyDeleteHe is a strong backer of Israel but is bold enough to say when they messed up. Unlike a lot of professional politicians, he will speak the truth as he sees it even if that means making the Harper's of the world angry.
More at Cerberus.
Ted
Cerberus
Ted,
ReplyDeleteIf that is what its about I will defend him 100%. ALthough the preface to his remarks did make it sound like a conclusion based on his knowledge of law.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteStephen wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe real question remains: when will Ignatieff admit that the Iraq war he vocally supported was also illegal, indeed an instance of the 'supreme international crime'?
What we see here in Ignatieff accusing Israel of war crimes is an almost picture perfect illustration of George Orwell's laws of propaganda.
Orwell said that those who deal in propaganda may deny or spin a fact, but they must also know the fact (though they might not consciously admit it).
Then, at some point, when current policy requires a rehabilitation of the fact, those in Ignatieff's position -- the intellectual class -- can retrieve the fact, and use it as required. The Soviet Union under Stalin was famous for this.
In Ignatieff's case, the fact is that Western nations like the US, Israel and Canada are capable of, and perhaps have committed, war crimes -- something usually only denounced in our enemies (i.e. the Nazis).
Ignatieff has until recently served his propaganda function well by explaining how Western war crimes are not really war crimes. But it appears in this case he has retrieved the repressed fact -- international NGOs actually identifying Western war crimes -- though he has done so, not for his masters, but to save his own ass.
Good point, Simon.
ReplyDeleteAnd how would you gauge the reaction from the media and political elites charged with maintaining the official version of events (i.e. 'What they do is a crime, what we do is a regrettable necessity or perhaps even an instance of brave leadership.')?
It looks like predictable over-reaction to me, almost designed to make his relatively mild criticism sound outrageous, beyond the pale.
I also find it interesting that the news stories I've seen and read so far focus on Ignatieff's 'mistake' or his 'lack of experience': not much that I've seen has picked up the question of whether he's right in this instance.
Stephen said:
ReplyDeleteI also find it interesting that the news stories I've seen and read so far focus on Ignatieff's 'mistake' or his 'lack of experience': not much that I've seen has picked up the question of whether he's right in this instance.
This part has been fascinating.
Michael Ignatieff -- sold nationally as an expert in human rights and international law, and whose condemnation of Saddam Hussein carried great weight -- says a friendly nation has committed war crimes.
In the coverage of this event, shouldn't there at least be a sentence or two weighing what evidence prompted Ignatieff to say this, and whether the accusation is true or false?
Sorry folks, war crimes are only committed by our enemies (or in the case of Iraq, friends who have fallen out of favour). By definition, "friends" like Israel don't commit war crimes, so the issue isn't even debated in the news.
The depth of indoctrination of our media into this "propaganda model" is nothing short of breathtaking. But then, what do you expect, a free press?