Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Brian Lilley Is A Giant Idiot

I'm just this side of declaring him the new Glenn Beck:
As a politician in Canada, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has said that he was on the sidelines of the Iraq war, but new information reveals he was on the front lines of pre-invasion planning when he worked in the U.S.

Ignatieff — long known to be a supporter of the decision to invade — was part of an academic advisory team that helped U.S. state department and American military officials conduct strategy sessions.
The article Lilley has written goes on to describe how Pentagon and Air Force leaders worked with the Carr Centre for Human Rights, including work done by Michael Ignatieff, to, erm, find out how to limit civilian casualties. This was part of the US military's plans to try and bring in some outside opinion from such notable centres as the Carr Centre, NGO's, and media heads to figure out exactly how the Iraq War was going to play out, and how the Americans could win the PR battle (they didn't, fyi).

I don't know about Lilley, but this doesn't sound like "frontline" work to me, nor does it even sound like any Pentagon officials actually had personal contact with Ignatieff, but instead used his work, which was prolific at the time. The way the Sun is attempting to portray this, it's like Ignatieff was in Washington DC pointing out when and where to start bombing - not how to protect civilians.

To further point out, that was the only thing of notable substance in this article - the rest of it was pure waste and filler, designed to make it look like a bigger issue than it actually is. We don't need a primer on the Iraq War, Brian - if you had a point to make, you should have made it. Not wasted space.


  1. Yeah, and all Harper did was say we should be going with our Allies.

  2. Of course - I mean, its one thing to say you want to put troops in harms way in a war, it's quite another to be on the frontlines of this war with an opinion about how to protect civilian casualties.

    It's clear here who is really the warmonger.

  3. ...because what you say is infinitely more important than what you do.

    When it all comes down to it there are only two politicians with clean hands on Iraq.

    Jack Layton and Jean Cretien.

    The former because of consistency, the latter because he had a choice and went w/ Afghanistan solely.

  4. lance,

    I do disagree, in a general sense. Layton has never had to make the choice, nor been in the position to do so, so we'll never know.

    That compares to Iggy and Chretien, both who were in a position to have some weight on the subject, more than Jack anyways, at the time. Chretien opted not to go in, though he never said he didn't support the war effort or that Hussein didn't have to be removed, he just said that Canada wanted UN approval and without out, our troops would stay put.

    Iggy supported the invasion on the grounds that Hussein had to go, and this isn't a bad position, and its one that many people at the time held, including a lot of MPs and US representatives and Senators. All of them now regret thinking that, but that's with the benefit of hindsight; and can you really blame them for supporting an initial cause that seemed good? What if history were different, and Iraq turned out great from the beginning? It could be Layton turning around and saying that, hey, I was wrong, this was the right decision.

    It's just circumstances that give Jack his "consistency" on the issue. At the very least, Iggy was willing to admit his mistakes.