Angry in the Great White North

Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff can't seem to take a position on anything.  By way of recap:

• Israel was justified in the attack on Qana.  Israel committed a war crime when it attacked Qana.
• Canada ought not to export asbestos.  Canada ought to export asbestos.
• Michael Ignatieff supports a carbon tax.  Michael Ignatieff does not support a carbon tax.
• Stephen Harper must fill in vacant Senate seats.  Stephen Harper should not have filled in vacant Senate seats.
• The Conservatives must not spend the $3 billion in stimulus.  The Conservatives can spend the $3 billion.
• Michael Ignatieff will definitely raise taxes.  He definitely won't raise taxes unless he definitely decides he definitely needs to raise taxes, definitely .
• The coalition would have been legitimate and stable.  The coalition would have been illegitimate and destabilizing.

Now we can add Michael Ignatieff's support for Ruby Dhalla to the list.  In this case, the situation is subtly different.  Instead of flip-flopping, Michael Ignatieff is redefining concepts such as "support" and "credibility", on the fly:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he's standing by Ruby Dhalla in her dispute with three foreign workers.

But he insists that this doesn't mean he takes her side of the story against the women, two of whom testified yesterday at the Commons immigration committee.

Taking reporters' questions for the first time on the Dhalla controversy, Ignatieff said yesterday: "I think Ruby made a vigorous defence of her integrity, her honour and her treatment of these - the people in her employ."

So he stands by Ruby Dhalla, but won't take her side?

This is confusing.  Maybe we need to take this from the top.

Does Michael Ignatieff think the caregivers are lying?

When asked if this meant he disputed the word of the caregivers, as Dhalla has, Ignatieff said he refused to be drawn into taking sides. "People who are temporary caregivers on these visas must not be subject to abuse and mistreatment of any kind. So the moral I draw from this difficult story is that it's cast a needed light on a problem ... and when we get into government we're going to need to look at (it) to make absolutely sure that none of the good people who come to this country are ever subjected to abuse because of their immigration status."

So if Michael Ignatieff can't bring himself to categorically say that the live-in caregivers are lying, then he can't categorically say that Ruby Dhalla is telling the truth.  Right?

"A member of my caucus has been accused of a serious, serious issue. She's mounted a vigorous and convincing defence ... and I take her at her word," Ignatieff said.

So Ruby Dhalla is telling the truth and the live-in caregivers are lying.  I mean, if you take Ruby Dhalla at her word, there is no other conclusion.

Except that Michael Ignatieff doesn't seem to think Ruby Dhalla's word is good enough, at least not if it means taking a stand on the matter:

The Liberal leader appeared to indicate there still are not enough facts on the table to judge the matter. "What has happened shows that our system works. Allegations have been made about a member of Parliament. The persons who made those allegations have come to Parliament, been allowed to testify. They've done so. The public will judge and then the question will then follow as to whether there needs to be any further action taken by either the federal or provincial governments."

Maybe Michael Ignatieff was smart to stay in his office and refuse to talk to reporters.  Yet again he tries to satisfy both sides simultaneously, and ends up making mutually incompatible statements.  In the past, hours or even days separated Michael Ignatieff's logically incompatible utterances.  Now he's flipping back and forth in the same conversation.

To be fair, part of what Michael Ignatieff makes sense.  The facts are not all in, and much of what is going on is based on unsubstantiated statements from both sides.  But Michael Ignatieff can't seem to bring himself to take a position.  He could simply say that there are serious allegations, and that he knows it is important that they be taken seriously even though it is causing Ruby Dhalla and the Liberal Party a lot of discomfort, but he hasn't seen or heard anything that causes him to reconsider his position of giving Ruby Dhalla the benefit of the doubt.

There.  That was simple.  It's honest, supportive, but balanced, and even has an escape hatch built in.  How hard was that?  Jeez, I thought Michael Ignatieff was supposed to be the smart one.