Bush Needs To Follow Advice of Blair on Fighting Terror
Bush Needs To Follow Advice of Blair on Fighting Terror
Compare two recent speeches of Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush on fighting terrorism following the London bombings on July 7. Despite being the closest of allies, they portray the battle against terrorism in starkly different terms.
President Bush continues to misconstrue his “war on terror” for his own political purposes, providing vague and superficial strategies for addressing terrorism and diverting all attention to Iraq. In a speech on July 11, 2005 at the FBI Academy, President Bush states:
In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front. The terrorists fight in Iraq because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, on the other hand, never uses the terminology the “war on terror” and recognizes that fighting terrorism requires more than force and superficial actions, but a deeper confrontation of causes and symptoms. In a speech on July 16, 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair had a different take than President Bush:
It is not a clash of civilizations–all civilized people, Muslim or other, feel revulsion at it. But it is a global struggle and it is a battle of ideas, hearts and minds, both within Islam and outside it.
He continues:
Its [ideology of terrorism] roots are not superficial, but deep. In the madrassas of Pakistan, in the extreme forms of Wahabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the former training camps of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; in the cauldron of Chechnya; in parts of politics of most countries of the Middle East and many in Asia; in the extremist minority that now in every European city preach hatred of the West and our way of life. This is what we are up against. It cannot be beaten except by confronting it, symptoms and causes, head-on. Without compromise and without delusion.
Note — Prime Minister Blair does not even mention Iraq.
We must be clear about how we win this struggle. We should take what security measures we can. But let us not kid ourselves. In the end, it is by power of argument, debate, true religious faith and true legitimate politics that will defeat this threat.
President Bush needs to move beyond the rhetoric of the “war on terrorism” and “spreading the hope of freeedom across the broader Middle East” and listen a little bit more closely to Prime Minister Blair and others about what fighting terrorism will actually entail in practical terms.
- Caroline Wadhams
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Blair is preparing indictments. What does Karl Rove think about that?
July 18th, 2005 at 7:17 pmBe careful of giving Blair too much credit. The speech is different, but he still doesn’t want to admit that the invasion/occupation of Iraq has created more potential terrorists in the world. Perhaps he should have mentioned Iraq?
July 18th, 2005 at 7:18 pmBlair recognizes the central theme of the problem and is trying to fashion policy according to its movement. Not always correct,nor even that innovative…..but Bush only sees the glitter of gold, the sweet sound of avarice as it coos into his ear….
July 18th, 2005 at 8:39 pmDid I hear Bush and his admistration was going to fire themselves today. He did say anyone guilty of a crime (lies and untrue statements is a crime) would not have a job. I think that just about covers the whole bunch.
July 18th, 2005 at 8:55 pmBrilliant Navy Vet. Love it!
July 18th, 2005 at 8:58 pmsorry Navy Vet bushed added the caveat unless of course I really don’t want to fire that person.
July 18th, 2005 at 9:09 pmBlair is covering his ass. At least he know’s when he’s been beaten.
July 18th, 2005 at 9:18 pmThere’s no indication in Caroline Wadhams’ post where President Bush and Prime Minister Blair disagree. So typical of the left, she seems to have just made it up.
July 18th, 2005 at 9:26 pmAFJ,
The omission of a key ‘point’ is a polite method of disagreement among gentlemen. And your inability to distinguish this is typical of the right. But then again the inability to distinguish ambiguity is one definition of insanity, so it is no surprise…
July 18th, 2005 at 9:40 pmYep Ryan, some folks just don’t get it.
July 18th, 2005 at 9:52 pmThere’s no educating them, all they understand is “the wheels on the bus go round and round”…..
Blair simply has a better command of the english language.
Compare the language of Civil War soldiers (both sides) to that of Bush.
Brits and americans are the same. Brits probably have bigger balls.
July 18th, 2005 at 10:17 pmSusan,
When someone is in a delusional state, they require feeding their own delusion and they make sport of ignoring and disregarding facts that overwhelm that delusion. This is very typical of ‘fringe’ thinking, and particularly so on the right which seems to relish wallowing in their own ignorance to the point of being proud of it. The old tired attack at the ‘intellectual elite’ is just a way of saying they’re proud of being stupid, and that they feel ’smarter’ because of it… It’s really perverted logic, and it takes a ‘fine mind’ to master that kind of upside down logic to the point of self delusion. And it seems to be a particularly common disease among the neo-fascist/neo-cons like AFJ…
July 18th, 2005 at 10:18 pmCouldn’t have said it better Ryan.
Don’t they have pills for that? Or cages?
July 18th, 2005 at 10:28 pmPoodle Blair is just as irresponsible and Empire-obsessed as is Bush.
Don’t be fooled by that British accent. When you deconstruct the words of the men, they’re two peas in a pod.
. . .
July 18th, 2005 at 11:46 pmNote, Blair does mention Iraq:
“If it is Afghanistan that motivates them, why blow up innocent Afghans on their way to their first ever election? If it is Iraq that motivates them, why is the same ideology killing Iraqis by terror in defiance of an elected Iraqi government?”
And consistant with Bush’s message throughout. You guys are so paranoid you can’t even see straight. Raise your hand if you fell for it.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:15 amDid either one of them mention Pakistan? You know, where the terrorists were trained and where bin Laden is protected?
July 19th, 2005 at 12:25 amDid they mention Saudi Arabia? You know, the Islamofascists that Bush likes to kiss and hold hands as he walks them through through a flowered path, right in the heartland of America?
Boy am I glad I didn’t vote for the guy who walks hand-in-hand through the bluebonnets with Crown Prince Jihad of Burkastan. The patriots on this board would mock my support of friendly dictators to no end! Those who provided funds to al Qaeda before and after 9/11, walking free on American soil! Just think of it!
July 19th, 2005 at 12:44 amHey Ryan, how are you? What no link to your hypocritical blog? Liked the mission statement at the top followed by the deletion of comments on the first post that even allowed comments. What’s wrong ryan, you like to call a mans wife what was it, a “nitwit” or some crap like that, then you get your own blog named after you and you disappear, what’s wrong? Well I cooled off, changed the name, no hard feelings, I will only get as personal with you as you do with me. Right suzy?
As for this BS thread, I’ll admit that Bush and Blair are not telling the truth about the war on terror, because trying to be PC and divorce islam from the terror it breeds is dangerous. They dance around it, I may be banned for even posting the truth. Read the Koran, read what President John Adams wrote about islam, what 200 years ago. You can’t make treaties with them, they can lie to nonmuslims. Hell read the al qaida handbook, it’s out there. Google it for gods sake. Their goal is restore the caliphate under sharia law. (yes ladies, you think Bush has hurt women, I know you are just posturing, but look who you are helping!) The idea al qaida is motivated to kill westerners more now than before the invasion of iraq is not based in reality. I could name all the times they hit us before we invaded iraq, but why? You people are unable to grasp this war, and I’m sure most of you have little understanding of past wars fought. So just keep dividing America, bin laden thanks you.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:58 amSo hippy you support invading the saudis? medina and mecca? I’m with you man, but you realize what you are saying right?
July 19th, 2005 at 1:01 amThe Pakis have nukes hippy, thank plame, isn’t that what she was doing back in the 90’s when they got them? North Korea got them, India, who else? I don’t know either and I bet plame herself could not tell you. I remember now, clintoon was prez, the Paneta’s were helping the Chinese, berger was, well we can’t be sure, he got rid of the evidence didn’t he? now,
July 19th, 2005 at 1:08 amWhen someone is in a delusional state, they require feeding their own delusion and they make sport of ignoring and disregarding facts that overwhelm that delusion. Ryan
You mean like GITMO as a gulag? Bush = Hitler? Saddam didn’t harbor and fund terrorism? The WMD never existed? ETC…
“Couldn’t have said it better Ryan.”
July 19th, 2005 at 1:14 amditto suzy.
Actually, most of their nuke work was done in the 1980s. Remember the electronic triggers they got caught with? No? Well, at the time, the story wasn’t as big as India being a bunch of no-good commies. But if you want to blame the governor of Arkansas go right ahead.
I realize what I am saying. Apparently you do not. If you see the only possible course of action as either hand-holding or military invasion, that’s your hang-up.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:20 amBut of course if YOU want to invade Mecca, I won’t stop you.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:22 am“You mean like GITMO as a gulag? Bush = Hitler? Saddam didn’t harbor and fund terrorism? The WMD never existed? ETC…”
Yes, exactly like that. You maintain the delusion that the majority of Democrats hold those views. That’s right up there with “You idolize Castro” and “you want to give them therapy and understanding.”
Of course, if you were to even entertain the notion that the WMDs existed and their use was countenanced by none other than GOP hero Ronald Reagan, that would tear the illusion in half and you can’t let that happen.
So when a liberal says Saddam couldn’t rebuild his WMD stockpiles once we withdrew American support, Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, and PTSD must be running rampant among Iraqi civilians right now, you just take it to mean all those things you think we think.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:29 amPerhaps I should point out that while Saddam was gassing civilians by the thousands, anyone who protested American support was called soft on communism, unpatriotic, and all those things you call those people who don’t support Bush today.
And that included Amnesty International.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:33 amThe numbers are out. 25,000 civilians killed in Iraq in two years, and a whopping 37% DIRECTLY by US-led forces . Even though most of the 37% (9,270 innocent men, women and children) were slaughtered in the invasion phase, it paints a grim picture of how bloody the invasion was. So next time an armchair general talks about how smooth the invasion went, think of these people, 3 times those who dies on 9/11, killed in YOUR name.
(Need Adobe Acrobat to read link)
July 19th, 2005 at 10:01 amFun Yahoo article. I would imagine it will make Fake blue in the face but whatever.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/republicansmustchoosebushoramerica;_ylt=AnTh7y95BVRmZT6_QRaWS34__8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4MzQ0N2p2BHNlYwMxNzA0
July 19th, 2005 at 10:23 amI think the bombings in London would have happened regardless of whether Britain was in Iraq or not. OBL just wants to murder people. He doesn’t care about the wherefor or why.
That being said however, Blair is closer to actually getting what is really at stake, than Dubya is or ever will be. Perhaps why the PM didn’t mention Iraq, though, was because of the UK’s attempts to colonize and then democratize Iraq … and how that blew up in their faces.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:35 amBlair does seem to have a better grasp on the situation. Anyone who believes that we can win through military force alone is delusional.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:48 am“Tory” Blair is as much a hack on terror as is Bush. Please stop focusing on what he says – look at what he’s doing. And he’s doing the same things as Bush – politicizing intelligence and trying to shift blame.
I just don’t get this deluded American liberal attempt to constantly paint Blair as this “good” guy. He faked intelligence, he launched this disastrous war, and he suppressed questioning within his own party.
Is it because he’s got this British accent?
July 19th, 2005 at 10:54 amThen right after following Blair’s advice ….
July 19th, 2005 at 10:56 amhe should run his fraudulent thieving ass over
to Iraq and take his place in the invasion he
just couldn’t live without.
Samuel Knight, my sentiments exactly. Being more Biden-ish than Bush-ish helps, but not that much. A warmonger is a warmonger is a warmonger.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:45 amI think the bombings in London would have happened regardless of whether Britain was in Iraq or not. OBL just wants to murder people. He doesn’t care about the wherefor or why.
This is ridiculous on it’s face. You can read and listen to translations of his statements. He has objectives he wishes to achieve. Like it or not, he is rational. You can believe whatever you want. I’ve got to tell you he is just as rational, if not more so, than fundies here, or anywhere.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:49 amAnd if it is true that “OBL just wants to murder people. He doesn’t care about the wherefor or why”, then why has Bushie allowed him to live?
July 19th, 2005 at 12:00 pmBush just doesn’t spend that much time thinking about him, to tell you the truth.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:05 pmBlastfurnace, Blair did mention Iraq.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:47 pm“If it is Afghanistan that motivates them, why blow up innocent Afghans on their way to their first ever election? If it is Iraq that motivates them, why is the same ideology killing Iraqis by terror in defiance of an elected Iraqi government?�
Caroline Wadhams lied and you fell for it.
Jessie
Thanks for sharing. I agree and would add that th
April 9th, 2008 at 8:49 amConsolidation Debt Loans
Credit card debt and consolidation programs who lends consolidation.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:13 am