It’s too bad for Iggy. First he gets the Lebanese mad because he “wouldn’t lose sleep over” EnCana (a town, at one point occupied by Hezbollah, where Israel bombed and killed several civilians); then his “clarification” pisses off Israeli supporters because he later calls the bombings a war crime. It takes a truly unique talent to alienate the people on both sides of an argument at the same time. Tonight on The Hour Michael was busy “not backpedaling, not clarifying” but… talking(?) about his alleged anti-Israeli position. Apparently he wants to set the record straight by telling us that what he really believes is that it’s important for us to have a set of rules and regulations about ethical war-time conduct which we apply consistently. While I think this is a particularly noble aspiration—an example of why I have considered him my leading preference for Liberal leader– it doesn’t explain his position towards the Middle East. Although the claim made by his political rival Bob Rae that Ignatieff has switched positions three times is unfair, so are Iggy’s protests that his comments are clear but taken out of context. If their inflammatory nature is caused by a mere misunderstanding why doesn’t he clarify them by simply telling us his true stance towards the Middle East? ...I hope this isn’t a strategy to keep his attitude ambiguous so he can propagate the Liberal propensity to use opinion polls to develop foreign strategy.
2 comments:
Ignatieff looks like a smart men, but he doesn't deserve to be the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, because he really lacks stability with his stance on specific issues. That guy can't make a decision and keep it. Furthermore, he looks like the kind of guy who talks the talk, but who can't walk the walk.
I'm familiar with Ignatieff from his political science articles and his work seems structured around a consistent (categorical) ethical code. While this leads me to believe he intended this explanation to elucidate his approach to conflict resolution in the Middle East, this doesn’t preclude telling us what the consequences of this methodology might look like. It seems like he might have left it purposefully vague: so that we have to fill in the blanks.
Post a Comment