Michael Ignatieff offers another view on the value of apologies
Michael Ignatieff is demanding that the Minister of Defence resign over a mistake for which an apology was offered.
Strange, but the words "Michael Ignatieff", "mistake", and "apology" trigger a memory for me.
Michael Ignatieff must have extra indignity on his Cheeri-Os this morning:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's accusation that the Liberals care more about Taliban prisoners than Canadian troops has hurt Canada's reputation and put soldiers' lives at risk, Liberal MPs said Thursday.
"It's clear that this is a prime minister who thinks that no attack is beneath him, no shot is too cheap and no smear is too unbecoming," Deputy Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff charged during question period.
"If the prime minister really cared about the troops, really cared about human rights, really cared about the success of the Afghan mission, he would replace his incompetent [defence] minister."
Ignatieff said Harper, who was not in the House of Commons Thursday, was jeopardizing Canada's international reputation by "putting into question Canada's duty to uphold the Geneva Convention."
Right. Upholding the Geneva Convention.
Do you get the feeling that Michael Ignatieff loses a lot of sleep over the Geneva Convention?
Ignatieff said it would have been too early to push for a ceasefire last week because "it was very important for Israel to send Hezbollah a very clear message" that kidnapping soldiers and firing rockets on Israel will not be tolerated.
"A ceasefire on the Israeli side becomes logical for Israel when it has achieved its military objectives and when it reaches the point of diminishing returns, and that is the point we've reached now," he explained.
He was asked if a turning point came when Israel bombed the Lebanese village of Qana on Sunday, with 54 civilian deaths, 37 of them children.
"It wasn't Qana," replied Ignatieff, formerly head of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University. "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."
Of course, Ignatieff apologized for that remark, but did not think it was necessary to abort his leadership bid and thus the possibilty of becoming prime minister one day.
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor apologized for being mistaken in telling the House that the Red Cross was obligated to keep Canada informed about the whereabouts of Taliban prisoners handed over to Afghan authorities. Yet Ignatieff thinks it should cost O'Connor his job.
I guess some apologies are better than others.
Maybe that's true. Maybe the minister should resign. But it's hard to take that suggestion seriously when it comes from Michael Ignatieff.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Michael Ignatieff Gordon O'Connor Liberal Party Conservative Party Stephen Harper Afghanistan Taliban Red Cross Qana Lebanon Israel
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
With Michael Ignatieff, it's obviously a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." Hey, isn't that the definition of hypocrisy?
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at March 22, 2007 07:19 PM
O'Connor has been a disaster. The problem is that if you fire him, who would be the replacement.
There may be another problem.
Did O'Connor brief Harper at any point and was asked to be quiet about it? I sure hope something in writing doesn't pop up during an election.
Posted by: at March 22, 2007 07:32 PM
Tell you What.
Go to any military base in the country and tell the troops that OConnor is a disaster.
And pray thet you get out in one piece.
Posted by: Lee at March 22, 2007 07:43 PM
Ignatieff apologized for offending people's sensibilities. O'Connor apologized for giving false information to Parliament. Two very different things...
Posted by: chris at March 22, 2007 08:03 PM
How so Chris, It has already been determined that he was incorrectly briefed. The man has said he was sorry, Lets let it go. If every Minister had to resign who mis lead the House whither on the sly or accidentally everyone in there would have the name Honorable in front of their name.
Posted by: Ken at March 22, 2007 08:19 PM
Brian in Calgary says: "With Michael Ignatieff, it's obviously a case of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'" And then he asks, " Hey, isn't that the definition of hypocrisy?"
Yeah, it is. And it's also the definition of the Liberals and the Liberal Party.
Posted by: 'been around the block at March 22, 2007 09:07 PM
I'm confused. I can't keep any of the parties' policies, insults or apologies straight. Would you partisan fanatics mind taking yourselves, your squabbles and your own money overseas and have your little spat over there and either kill or give welfare to the Taliban and/or the Israelis as you see fit? I have enough trouble paying the bills and raising a family without having to put up with all your bitching and your expensive and pointless foreign boondoggles.
Posted by: at March 22, 2007 10:06 PM
My memory may be going the way my legs are but I can't recall Jean Chretien apologizing for attempting to throttle a protester nor for his comments at the APEC conference.
Posted by: Old & Grouchy at March 23, 2007 07:36 AM
The situation with the Afgan detainees and the Red Cross was in place under the previous Liberal govt, who got us into Afganistan and thus basically set up all the arrangements. O'Connor has been making the statements about detainees / Red Cross supervision for months now...........if it was so easy to know that his statements were wrong, why didn't the Liberal cabinet minister who was responsible for this, know the statements were incorrect right away? Why did we have to wait until the Red Cross came out with it? If the Liberals had known about it, you can be sure they would have shot O'Connor down right away. The Liberals didn't know either, and they are the ones who organized this little hoedown. Don't you think it's mighty rich that they expect O'Connor to resign because he had basically the same level of knowledge on this topic that they had?
People complain bitterly over the antics of politicians - well here's a thought for you. O'Connor's biggest problem is that he is NOT a politician..........he's a military man. The facile manuvering of facts and reality that we loathe in politicians does not come easily to him. When he became aware of the incorrect statement, he took steps to find out what was going on and fix it........isn't that what people in the real world do and expect our leaders to do? Then he stood up, took responsibility and apologized............isn't that what we expect of leaders? Further, in the military, that's how you deal with a problem - you take responsibility and fix it. The problem is that, in an overheated political environment, up becomes down and down becomes up. I suspect that we needed an military guy to clean up the horrid mess that our military has become and that O'Connor is likely operating very well at leading this function. The problem is that he is not a facile politician and there may be a public perception of him that is completely at odds with his real value to his portfolio.
Cautionary note for those of you who think they could do a better job than O'Connor: this is what happens when a non-politican enters the meat grinder of political life.
Posted by: WildRose at March 23, 2007 09:31 AM
WildRose has it correct at the end of his/her comment. This is why I tip my hat to all those non-politicians who enter political life because they honestly want to make a difference, no matter what party they run for.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at March 23, 2007 11:50 AM
 
|
|
