Ignatieff on the Iraq Debacle

"The unfolding catastrophe in Iraq has condemned the political judgment of a president."

In an interesting article in the New York Times, Michael Ignatieff retreats from his earlier, unpopular position on Iraq, admitting that he was misguided in supporting the invasion.

Ignatieff says that, "The philosopher Isaiah Berlin once said that the trouble with academics and commentators is that they care more about whether ideas are interesting than whether they are true." I think that this is a problem for too many of us and not merely for academics and commentators. It clearly is a problem for Giorgio Dubaya Borgia's administration, which went beyond misjudging the status of Iraq to deliberately lying about the situation.

Ignatieff goes on to clarify that, "The attribute that underpins good judgment in politicians is a sense of reality." This is the attribute that underpins good judgement in all of us, particularly in voters. Voters need to understand that too many politicians care only whether they can sell an idea rather than caring, or knowing, whether the idea represents reality.

Ignatieff is far too kind about Dubaya's mismanagement, stating that those who accurately predicted the outcome did not "suppose, as President Bush did, that because they believed in the integrity of their own motives everyone else in the region would believe in it, too."

Ultimately, political events stem from the individual psychologies of the players, and a good politician must understand people. I watched Dubaya's barely disguised excitement after 9/11. While most of the world was dismayed at this blatant squandering of human life, Dubaya had a glint in his eye and an unsuppressed smirk. In other words, Dubaya appeared delighted by the opportunity to become the War-on-Terror-President. I very much doubt that even Dubaya believed in the integrity of his motives, though the American public appears to have been deluded along those lines for far too long. I can say this, but a politican could not afford to be so overtly critical.

Of course, Ignatieff presumably wishes to achieve more success in politics than his failed bid for the Liberal leadership and he admits to having learned that, "The slightest crack in your armor — between what you meant and what you said — can be pried open and the knife driven home."

During the leadership campaign, it was painfully obvious that Ignatieff was accustomed to having his listeners attempt to understand the drift of his ideas. He appeared unprepared for the media tactics of attacking strawman misrepresentations of his position. Ignatieff is such a bright fellow that many listeners would have had difficulty discerning what he actually meant to say. To succeed in politics he will need to learn to be more succinct and not to appear to be prevaricating on his position.

Sadly, most voters are deluded by media tactics and cannot comprehend the meaning beneath the message. The media filters content through a ratings-motivated distortion because the livelihood of too many members of the media depends upon exaggerating conflict or selling the network's politics rather than assessing reality.

Adding to the problem, voters are often poor judges of character and motive, and these are the determinants of a politician's performance.

Do Canadians hate Americans?

Most Canadians cannot abide George Bush and his administration. Most Canadians did not believe the lies that Bush told to get America into the Iraq war. Most Canadians applauded the Liberal stand against joining the invasion of Iraq. In that most Americans did not vote for Bush in either election and most Americans have come to realize that they were duped, most Canadians agree with most Americans about Bush and his administration. Given the inhumanity and debacle of the Iraq war, most Canadians were absolutely correct in applauding the Liberal stand against joining the invasion of Iraq.

Canadians appear to have short memories on this, as though keeping us out of an unjust and futile war pales in comparison to the antics of some party-hangers-on.

Janice Stein claims that most Canadians "cannot tell the difference" between the Bush administration and Americans. I believe that we can, in that we recognize the difference between the individual American and the national hubris. I believe that most Canadians recognize that the political administration elected (or not elected) by any nation is distinct from an individual within that nation.

However, Canadians do personally object to the vocal America-the-greatest arrogance of some Americans. We have long despised the way some Americans have treated slaves and their descendents – we were the last whistle stop on the underground railroad, after all. We are not happy about a nation that imposes illegal tariffs on our softwood lumber, and then refuses to pay the legal compensation ordered by the NAFTA panel. We are not happy with a nation that closes its borders to our beef while hiding its own several cases of Mad Cow.

Has anti-American dislike of some aspects of America risen only since Bush took office? My personal observation has been that many Canadians have long disliked the American political ethos – we were simply too polite to say so. However, anti-USian sentiment has risen dramatically since Giorgio Dubaya Borgio took office. (By "took" office, I indicate that I believe that the outcome of both elections that placed such an incompetent in power were rigged. First, by the deliberate mis-aligned printing of ballots in brother Jed Bush's home state, and next, by tampering with electronic ballots in the swing states.)

Do we define ourselves in terms of not being American? No. Most of us hold "Canadian" values because of the intrinsic merit of certain moral principles. As a friend said, "we prefer to spend our money on social programs rather than bombs". (Obviously, we too have our share of rednecks, bigots, and self-serving individuals.) We compare much of the American ethos with Canadian values, and find the American political and social scene desperately wanting in some areas. We thus declare ourselves proud that we do not share the more egregious aspects of the American Weltenschauen. In other words, we decry some American attitudes in terms of their not being the more liberal of Canadian values.