Posted 8:41 AM by Blah blah

Tony Blair for President! It Matters WHY You Fight

I've joined PeaceBlogs.org. I'm not against war in all cases. I'm a pragmatist who supports the U.N. way. I'm a moderate who's against going it alone and in such a heavy-handed way. Join me in the list of PeaceBlogs!

By the director of Bowling for Columbine: A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War. Hilarious! Check out his whole site. He has a razor sharp wit like Kevin Smith. See Moore's blog Operation Oily Residue. Fight Bush's "weapons of mass distraction."
______________
British Prime Minister Blair has shown the best leadership throughout this crisis, with grace under the most difficult circumstances. He has fought flu, a backbench rebellion from his own party, and an angry British public. He has driven himself to physical exhaustion by also taking on issues like peace in N. Ireland and national health care. Watching Robin Cook's resignation speech (RealPlayer), I was struck by how respectful and warm he was to Blair, his long-time friend, though they differ politically. I highly admire Blair and would much rather go to war if he were my president. I'd rather fight war for HIS reasons and with his style, not Bush's.

I see how much better a leader Tony is, because every time I watch Bush speak, I hate the war and and feel ready to set my Speedos on fire, while every time I watch Blair, I want to don my uniform and go march in the military parade. Bravo Blair!!!

Why? Please read:
Whatever the anxieties over this conflict, Mr Blair has shown himself to be a leader for troubled times (The Independent).

Even when wronged, Blair fights for the right reasons (Atlanta Journal-Constitution):

"Blair, under enormous pressure at home and undercut by his allies, had to understand what was happening to him, which makes his performance all the more magnificent. Like a child in a divorce, he has been fighting vainly to save a marriage in which one party had already decided to leave and the other party, sick and tired of it all, was ready to let him go. [i.e. French President Chirac]

So Blair, forced in the end to choose sides, chose wisely. He knew that if Britain, too, abandoned the United States, it would greatly diminish this nation as a potential force for good in the world. It would also ensure that no remnant of the multilateral world would survive the war.

'If our plea is for America to work with others, to be good as well as powerful allies, will our retreat make them multilateralist?' he plaintively asked the British Parliament on Tuesday. 'Will it not instead be the biggest impulse to unilateralism there could ever be?'

We will never know for sure, but a war against Iraq fought to pursue the realistic goals outlined by Blair might have won U.N. support. It would also have enjoyed support from Americans such as myself, who accept the necessity of U.S. military intervention in the modern world but do not accept this country in the role of bully.

I understand that such a distinction might seem odd. After all, Blair's war or Bush's war, it's the same war either way. But again, it matters why you fight."

Blair's speech (The Guardian) to the House of Commons this Tuesday. He gives thoughtful, excellent reasons for supporting war. He and Jack Straw are so much more convincing to me, because they care about BOTH sides of the issue and have a more mature view of what must happen for everyone to benefit. Bush acts like a spoiled brat pushing all the other boys away and throwing a tantrum with billion dollar toys. Blair acts like a MAN making a difficult, responsible choice with reluctance and compassion. THAT is the difference.

The War After War With Iraq (NY Times). More about why Blair's view is better than Bush's or Chirac's.