Missile Defense

Note: I just recently realized that this post got very jumbled in cutting and pasting I suppose. I've edited, not trying to change much, but not remembering exactly what was in the original.

On Ballistic Missile Defense, I thought I would mention that Michael Ignatieff's position does seem to have been misconstrued quite a bit. His speech to the LPC convention can be interpreted in a variety of ways on this issue. A common interpretation has been to suggest he supports BMD. This is inferred from what to me has always seemed far from unqualified, and surprisingly misunderstood. More concretely, I have heard him explicity say that he does not support BMD, for its unpredictability, potential to lead to the weaponization of space, etc. What he took issue with was the way in which the decision was made, in his opinion it was done indecisively and weakened our standing. Questions remain, of course, particularly with regards to what he means by not letting a "principled decision" stand in the way of our soveriegnty, if not alluding to support for missile defense. I'll leave an interpretation of that for now (However, he did say in the same speech that Liberals should not be continentalists), but I do think its important to state that the accepted reading has been incorrect. Ignatieff is not for BMD.

What is he for? Well, we are not completely clear on this, though as far as international relations he has written and spoken extensively. However, I think its important to remember that we also don't know other potential candidates' positions on a multitude of issues, including this one.

-Steve