October 01, 2004
Where Bush and Blair stand
The Presidential campaign has so far reconfirmed to me that President Bush will win by a landslide. By landslide, I of course mean 51-55% of the popular vote in most states.
That's from a piece in the Guardian in a series about the election...written by an American. Some other viewpoints in the series can be found here, most of them anti-Bush. If you or your friends would like to spout off, the Guardian is looking for a viewpoint from each state.
The Guardian's reputation precedes it but if you don't know it, it's the type of paper that reported 'Blair avoids Iraq vote defeat' when 80% of Labour delegates at the recent Labour conference voted to keep British troops in Iraq. Seems like a heck of a score to me. I would have written that he'd WON the vote and big, but, hey, I'm not getting paid to write for the Guardian, am I.
Speaking of the Labour conference, Blair made a speech there. An excerpt follows.
There was talk before this Conference that I wanted to put aside discussion of Iraq. That was never my intention.
I want to deal with it head on.
The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong.
I acknowledge that and accept it.
I simply point out, such evidence was agreed by the whole international community, not least because Saddam had used such weapons against his own people and neighbouring countries.
And the problem is I can apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam. The world is a better place with Saddam in prison not in power.
But at the heart of this, is a belief that the basic judgment I have made since September 11th, including on Iraq, is wrong, that by our actions we have made matters worse not better.
I know this issue has divided the country. I entirely understand why many disagree.
I know, too, that as people see me struggling with it, they think he's stopped caring about us; or worse he's just pandering to George Bush and what's more in a cause that's irrelevant to us.
It's been hard for you. Like the delegate who told me: "I've defended you so well to everyone I've almost convinced myself."
Do I know I'm right?
Judgements aren't the same as facts. Instinct is not science. I'm like any other human being as fallible and as capable of being wrong.
I only know what I believe.
There are two views of what is happening in the world today.
One view is that there are isolated individuals, extremists, engaged in essentially isolated acts of terrorism. That what is happening is not qualitatively different from the terrorism we have always lived with.
If you believe this, we carry on the same path as before 11 September. We try not to provoke them and hope in time they will wither.
The other view is that this is a wholly new phenomenon, worldwide global terrorism based on a perversion of the true, peaceful and honourable faith of Islam; that's its roots are not superficial but deep, in the madrassehs of Pakistan, in the extreme forms of Wahabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the former training camps of Al Qaida in Afghanistan; in the cauldron of Chechnya; in parts of the 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.
If you take this view, you believe September 11th changed the world; that Bali, Beslan, Madrid and scores of other atrocities that never make the news are part of the same threat and the only path to take is to confront this terrorism, remove it root and branch and at all costs stop them acquiring the weapons to kill on a massive scale because these terrorists would not hesitate to use them.
Likewise take the first view, then when you see the terror brought to Iraq you say:
there, we told you; look what you have stirred up; now stop provoking them.
But if you take the second view, you don't believe the terrorists are in Iraq to liberate it.
They're not protesting about the rights of women - what, the same people who stopped Afghan girls going to school, made women wear the Burka and beat them in the streets of Kabul, who now assassinate women just for daring to register to vote in Afghanistan's first ever democratic ballot, though 4m have done so?
They are not provoked by our actions; but by our existence.
They are in Iraq for the very reason we should be.
They have chosen this battleground because they know success for us in Iraq is not success for America or Britain or even Iraq itself but for the values and way of life that democracy represents.
They know that.
That's why they are there.
That is why we should be there and whatever disagreements we have had, should unite in our determination to stand by the Iraqi people until the job is done.
And, of course, at first the consequence is more fighting.
Posted by Valerie at October 1, 2004 06:19 PMPlease send The Guardian my condolences on the death of any common sense at that rag.
Please also inform them that as a British rag their opinion means diddely/squat. Translated mathematicly that would be diddley over squat.
In other words tell them I said nobody over here in America really cares what a bunch of Euro-Socialist think about us.
Please be so kind as to also tell them that until they can reach our degree of democracy and our degree of freedom and oppertunity, until they can reach the lofty hights that America has attained with our system of democracy which is the envy of the world, until they can reach that kind of freedom, they aren`t qualified to pontificate to us about our politics.
And since you have their attention, remind them that we don`t vote our elected officials in to office to promote and defend the causes and ideals of Britian, Phrance(spit),Germany or any other country who`s goals aren`t the same as ours. Those particular kinds of politicians don`t last long, ask Jimmy Carter.
