Thursday, October 12, 2006

Where Does Ignatieff Stand?

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." - John F. Kerry, 2003.

I have compared Ignatieff to Kerry before. Smart man, a not so smart politician.

On the Israeli war against Lebanon he told the Canadian Press on August 12 that he had miss-spoken when he told the Toronto Star earlier that he was "not losing sleep" over civilian deaths in Lebanon. But the words and the attitude behind them were not the least bit hesitant at the time. In the Star interview -- where he was asked to comment on the Israeli bombing of the village of Qana, where at least 28 Lebanese civilians were killed, he said dismissively:

"It wasn't Qana. Qana was frankly inevitable in a situation in which you have rocket launchers within 100 yards of a civilian population. This is the nature of the war that's going on ...This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that. [link]"

And now, we are to suddenly believe Ignatieff thinks Israel has committed a war crime [National Post]? Why did Michael Ignatieff change his position? What new evidence does he have? And if there is no new evidence, what changed his views?

This (new) view of Ignatieff is actually closer to my views. I have always held the belief that Israel went overboard in its reaction and thought it could finish off the Hezb ollah, and then got stuck in a war it couldn't "win" in the technical sense of the term. Typical neo-con mentality. At that time, after perusing all of Ignatieff's quotes, I had the feeling he was very pro-Israel.

Which is fine. You are free to be pro-Israel. When I choose my leader, that is just one factor I take into consideration. I know Bob Rae is staunchly pro-Israel and that does not discourage me from him (his NDP past does that). I know where most of the other candidates stand.

But now, I don't know where Ignatieff stands. And please - don't give me the crap about he stands for the truth. Either he

a) made a gaffe when trying to explain another gaffe
b) genuinely switched his views after coming into contact with some new evidence that the rest of the world does not know about
c) saw that he was the most popular person after Super Weekend and thought changing his position would help him more
d) didn't change his position at all - huh?

So, which of the above is it?



Anonymous said...

Perhaps another question Toronto Liberals should be asking is why when Iggy made the 'not loosing any sleep' comment, Susan Kadis didn't find that morally offensive and resign, but when it comes to Iggy making stupid comments about Israel, suddenly it's extremely offensive, to the point where she resigns.

That's called hypocrisy, and it's one of the reasons why there is no place for ANY 'church/religion' in the affairs of state.

Anonymous said...

Both of Ignatieff's comments were stupid.
He is done.

Just another Liberal said...

Susan Kadis is thinking about her own political future when she made her decision to leave Ignatieff campaign. Which in politics is a reality that takes place all the time. Considering a large portion of her riding his Jewish, she based her decision on what she thought was best. Saying that, I am not condoning nor condemning her actions. But I will say that it is always a shame when values are thown out the window for political reasons.

Ignatieff's comments about 'not losing sleep' over the war, were followed up by him clarifying he was pointing to the realities of war. Today he has stated that Israel and Lebanon have committed war crimes, and this is not a contraditory statement.

Like I said before, Ignatieff doesn't comment just to have an opinion. He makes relevant comments after he has considered the situation and its circumstances. Ignatieff defended accusations from Harper that he and other Liberals were Anti-Israel. Look at where this comes from; Harper. His tactics: prevent unity in the Liberal Party, try to secure his own political career.

The issue is not are the Liberals Anti-Israel, is Ignatieff Anti-Israel (because we know this not to be true), but what role Canada has to play in the situation as it sits today.