Rae on Ignatieff (III)


After a two-and-a-half minute opening question, Rae discusses Iraq, Israel and Michael Ignatieff.


Rae on Ignatieff (III)

  1. Thank you Aaron.
    when I checked earlier today – Bob hadn’t put this one up on his Facebook profile yet (and I had asked him when / if it was coming).
    The first two were interesting – but I felt Paul Jay had ducked some of the obvious followup questions. In this one, he has Mr. Rae boxed in – and some very fancy footwork took place there – as to how close is Bob Rae’s view of foreign policy and Mr. Ignatieff’s NOW!
    I read from his responses that they are sympatico (Bob Rae went so far to say – Michael read my article – told me it was great – and it is now Liberal Policy)…but I keep getting this feeling in the back of my mind that Mr. Ignatieff is saying these things – not because he believes them – but because he thinks this is what his current audience wants to hear – but – what will happen – in the future – in a hypothetical situation where he is hypothetically PM – which Michael Ignatieff will emerge!

  2. Rae’s confidence that an Ignatieff-led Liberal party would stand up for international law in the face of American policy that violated is touching, but it’s not grounded in anything real.

    If Ignatieff had been in the Liberal caucus back in 2003, he would not have been alone in his support for the illegal invasion of Iraq. David Pratt, for one, would have been only too happy to “move away from international law as a critical component of Canadian foreign policy.”

    And 2009 marks the 10th anniversary of the NATO operation in Kosovo–also championed by Ignatieff–in which Canada took part without UN authorization.

    There’s really nothing, then, in the institutional history of the Liberal party, or in Ignatieff’s personal history, that would justify Rae’s absolute confidence in his leader’s willingness to stand up for international law when push comes to shove.

Sign in to comment.