Ignatieff concedes he was wrong on Iraq

Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian Member of Parliament who very nearly became the leader of the Canadian Liberal Party, wants to explain how he may have been on the wrong side of this whole Iraq business.
Who, you might wonder, would care about Ignatieff's intellectual turnabout? I, too, thought it might be his Canadian voters, fellow citizens, etc. but we both must be wrong for Ignatieff chose to publish his thoughts on this Iraq stuff via a long essay in the magazine that is handed out free as part of the Sunday edition of the New York Times. New York is not in Canada — for those who don't have an atlas handy — but is, in fact, part of another country called the United States.
For foreign visitors to this blog, I feel compelled to point out that there are, in fact, several print outlets in Canada whose editors would likely have been more than pleased to consider publishing Ignatieff's essay.

Why just the other day, Canada's weekly newsmagazine, Maclean's, did 30-plus pages, on the Conrad Black verdict! Such excess, it seemed to me, was plainly a desperate cry from the editors of that magazine that they had lots of room to publish anything — anything! — if only people like Ignatieff would (please, pretty please!) send their submissions in.

Ah well …

So: as there is at least another eight or nine Canadian voters, fellow citizens, etc. (I hope) who read this blog, I'm pleased to add to Ignatieff's readership by encouraging all to read his essay, which includes the following:

The unfolding catastrophe in Iraq has condemned the political judgment of a president. But it has also condemned the judgment of many others, myself included, who as commentators supported the invasion. …

I’ve learned that good judgment in politics looks different from good judgment in intellectual life. Among intellectuals, judgment is about generalizing and interpreting particular facts as instances of some big idea. In politics, everything is what it is and not another thing. Specifics matter more than generalities. Theory gets in the way . . .