Yeah that seems right. Also, he never mentions the illegality of the war in the first place. He talks as if it is OK to invade because Saddam H. was a bad guy. Of course he applauds the intervention in Kosovo that resulted in the end in the ethnic cleansing of Serbs except for a few isolated pockets. Fortunately the Liberals did not elect him leader.
Cheers, Ken Hanly --- Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Louis Proyect wrote: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/magazine/05iraq-t.html > > my, he does go on and on, doesn't he? among other > things, he writes: > > >>The decision facing the United States over Iraq is > paradigmatic of > political judgment at its most difficult. Staying > and leaving each > have huge costs. One thing is clear: The costs of > staying will be > borne by Americans, while the cost of leaving will > be mostly borne by > Iraqis. That in itself suggests how American leaders > are likely to > decide the question.<< > > this totally ignores the costs to Iraqis of the US > staying in Iraq and > the way in which the US invasion and occupation have > created problems > in Iraq. Ignatieff's basic assumptions haven't > changed. > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le > genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing > Dante. > Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
