I am simply blown away. I am compelled to watch the whole thing because it is interesting, articulate, and informative. Hurrah hurrah to Blair.

heheh, “Irak”

:)

hmmm…so you don’t actually know that Irak and Iraq are both valid English names for that country? Check your favorite encyclopedia/dictionary….but well, at least you did not venture any further opinions.

Sorry I disagree, Jeb:
1. Bush and Blair disagree on their vision for both how to act BEFORE and AFTER the war. Blair would NOT have conducted diplomacy in such a grating, arrogant way, and after the war, he does NOT want to go attack Iran, etc. Blair does not buy the Paul Wolfowitz idea of “pre-emptive strikes,” but instead wants to focus, after war, on solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the main causes for terrorism in the first place. Bush is unilateralist, while Blair is multilateralist. More on their differences: http://rg.blogspot.com/2003_03.....l#91066614

2. This debate is “routine at best,” with “no new arguments”? So when was the last time they had a major comprehensive debate on the Iraq question in the House of Commons? I had not really studied Blair’s arguments before, but the British press and his fellow MPs were also blown away by his speech. Most people in the U.S. HAVEN’T heard Blair’s more moderate view, which resonates right for moderates like me. I believed more of what Robin Cook said in his resignation speech.

3. If you want Joe Millionaire to run the country, go for it, man. Clinton is usually considered as being one of the highest-IQ presidents of the 20th century, and I think he was incredibly successful! Most Democrats and I agreed with Bush on Afghanistan. That’s not an issue.

4. Yeah Bush technically does not have to debate like Blair. I think that is a problem with the American system. Because he did not try to answer his harshes critics with courage and detail, most of the world population is against the war, and the country was deeply divided. He and Rumsfeld did NOT make a clear, persuasive case for war besides repeating the same assertions over and saying “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Selling the war is almost as important as fighting it.

His speech after 9/11? What does that have to do with anything? Congress and the public would have been ready to applaud a rubber chicken after 9/11. We didn’t care what he said—we just wanted revenge. Any so-so performance would have gotten cheers.

I disagree with about everything you said.

I guess Eric’s blog is probably not intended for these discussions (as the tiny size of the comment box hints). That of course won’t deter me from one final volley :-)

The differences that Raymond talks about are differences of style not of substance. In short, those are the ways that European and US politics and diplomacy work. These styles have solid reasons to be what they are (and the reader can find those out as an exercise). But they go well beyond Blair and Bush, they are an intrinsic aspect of each region. Just to illustrate that point, your own man, Clinton, went into Kosovo without UN support, EU agreement, or coalition of the willing. How is that for unilateral? It is just the way the US and Europe work, that’s all. Blair and Bush just play their roles as they should.

The debate, again, had nothing new. Go back just a few weeks and all those “Blair/European” points of view were listed on a front page article on the Wall Street Journal that related PM Aznar’s visit to Bush’s ranch. The European point ot view about the middle east conflict is also very well known. I’m sure that even if Raymond or some Americans did not happen to read that article, the British MPs know all about these issues. As far as press coverage of the debate, again this is unfamiliarity with British press. These debates get reviewed in the British press just the same as restaurants and movies are.

Regarding whether the US could use some British-style debate, well, let’s just say that Bush has been able to convince 75% of the country about his point of view, while Blair is struggling for 50%. Maybe it is Blair who needs to learn from Bush. The after 9/11 speech of course is important and was a great Bush win; probably no point in discussing it if you think that anyone (hmmm Gore, perhaps?) could have done well under those circumstances.

The comment about Joe Millionare is another thing. Basically, what this implies is “I’m so intelligent, educated, and well versed that how could we possibly compare my illustrious opinion with that of the hoi polloi”. Well, let me tell you that the last place on earth I’d like to live is in a country ruled by intellectuals, especially self-proclaimed ones. I’d suggest reviewing your concepts of democracy, classes, and elites. And in the end, I don’t
know, it seems as though it took you twice as long to come to the same conclusion as 75% of the people have done already (and without having to watch Blair). Not sure on what side
brilliance resides in this matter.

And finally (good! :-)), you must be getting your Clinton history from the DNC. Highly successful? Not much agreement there from reputable historians. Clinton rode the economic
gains of the Reagan years and the Internet boom, was prevented from enacting damaging new taxes and spending plans by a republican congress, morally bankrupt the white house, came within inches of impeachment, and set us all up for 9/11 with half-baked foreign policies and military actions. If that is your concept of a good president, then no wonder this discussion took place.

Between your comments section and mine, I’m exhausted. :)

One more thing. That 75% of the country supporting the war is slowly going down. Why was it so high in the first place? Because, as I said, Bush refused tell the public details about how much the war could cost, how many months it would take or deaths of troops we could see. That’s a way he got more support—by withholding the negative side and by not preparing Americans for that.

Now that troops are dying and Bush is submitting figures of at least $70 billion to Congress, people are having second thoughts. It took me twice as long to support the need for war because I had not wanted to pay at least $100 billion, spend decades in reconstruction, and suffer the deaths for it.

whut?