About Ignatieff, you say: “This is the best defense of Bush on Iraq I have seen.”
I disagree. I thought the piece was fluff, and worse, essentially dishonest. Ignatieff couldn’t argue the facts, which are a mess. The war was first sold as a problem with WMDs. Then the justification of the war drifted from WMDs to imposing democracy. Now the justification for it has drifted even more, to the need to fight terrorism in Iraq.
(This last justification is truly hilarious. Bush invades Iraq, and turns it into a training school for terrorism, then justifies the need to keep fighting because the place is a training ground for terrorism. As one person said, this is like shooting yourself in the foot, then wanting kudos for carrying out a courageous fight against gangrene.)
I expect Ignatieff is a Zionist and supports the war because he thinks it will help Israel. All his verbiage about Jefferson is the kind of dishonesty you hear lawyers talk about, i.e., “when you have the facts, argue the facts. When don’t have the facts, argue theory.”
|
