Posted by Mark Silva at 3:20 pm CDT
With a sea of red, white and blue U.S. and British flags lining the Cross Hall of the White House for the appearance of President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair in the East Room today, it was clear that Bush could not allow this first public appearance of the two since they were overheard on an open microphone last week exchanging frank and colorful views to pass without some comment from Bush.
And comment Bush did.
(British Prime Minister Tony Blair, left, and President Bush speak to reporters during a news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Friday, July 28, 2006. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
"As you know, we've got a close relationship,'' Bush said to Blair. " You tell me what you think. You share with me your perspective -- and you let me know when the microphone is on.''
With this deadpan reference to Blair's rescue of Bush over lunch at a summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, last week, the president drew brief laughter at a solemn ceremony today, a joint news conference to talk about their views on solving the conflict in the Middle East. After Bush had shared with Blair his advice for solving that conflict over lunch last week in Russia -- with the American leader spicing his remarks with an expletive -- Blair had noticed that the microphone in front of Bush at the luncheon table was still on, and the British prime minister quickly turned it off.
But today, the microphones in the East Room were on for nearly an hour as the two held forth
With only the King's English, the two attempted to frame the conflict in Lebanon today as the latest flash point in a broader war between democracy and terrorism in the world. At the same time, Bush appeared somber, and frustrated with a question about the declining influence of the U.S. in the region.
"For a while, American foreign policy was just, let's hope everything is calm, kind of managed calm,'' Bush said. "But beneath the surface brewed a lot of resentment and anger that was manifested in its -- on September the 11th. And so we've taken a foreign policy that says, on the one hand, we will protect ourselves from further attack in the short-run by being aggressive and chasing down the killers and bringing them to justice -- and make no mistake, they're still out there, and they would like to harm our respective peoples because of what we stand for -- in the long-term, to defeat this ideology, and they're bound by an ideology. You defeat it with a more hopeful ideology called freedom.
"I'm as determined as ever to continue fostering a foreign policy based upon liberty,'' Bush said. "And I think it's going to work, unless we lose our nerve and quit. And this government isn't going to quit.''
It was Blair who grew most animated about the "big picture'' that they face in the Middle East.
"I don't think, actually, it's anything to do with a loss of American influence at all,'' Blair said. "We've got to go back and ask what changed policy, because policy has changed in the past few years. And what changed policy was September the 11th. That changed policy, but actually, before September the 11th this global movement with a global ideology was already in being. September the 11th was the culmination of what they wanted to do. But, actually... even before September the 11th, this was happening in all sorts of different ways in different countries.
"Now, what is its purpose? Its purpose is to promote its ideology based upon the perversion of Islam, and to use any methods at all, but particularly terrorism, to do that, because they know that the value of terrorism to them is... It's not simply the act of terror, it's the chain reaction that terror brings with it. Terrorism brings the reprisal; the reprisal brings the additional hatred; the additional hatred breeds the additional terrorism, and so on.
"I have taken the view, and still take the view, that Britain and America should remain strong allies, shoulder-to-shoulder in fighting this battle...
"It's a global movement, it's a global ideology. And if there's any mistake that's ever made in these circumstances, it's if people are surprised that it's tough to fight, because you're up against an ideology that's prepared to use any means at all, including killing any number of wholly innocent people.
"I don't dispute part of the implication of your question at all, in the sense that you look at what is happening in the Middle East and what is happening in Iraq and Lebanon and Palestine, and, of course, there's a sense of shock and frustration and anger at what is happening, and grief at the loss of innocent lives. But it is not a reason for walking away. It's a reason for staying the course, and staying it no matter how tough it is, because the alternative is actually letting this ideology grip a larger and larger number of people.
"We're not going to defeat this ideology until we in the West go out with sufficient confidence in our own position and say, this is wrong. It's not just wrong in its methods, it's wrong in its ideas, it's wrong in its ideology, it's wrong in every single wretched reactionary thing about it. And it will be a long struggle, I'm afraid. But there's no alternative but to stay the course with it. And we will.''
Photo: BBC
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The comments were right on the money. Let's see how the lefties argue Mr. Blair's statement that
"of course, there's a sense of shock and frustration and anger at what is happening, and grief at the loss of innocent lives. But it is not a reason for walking away. It's a reason for staying the course, and staying it no matter how tough it is, because the alternative is actually letting this ideology grip a larger and larger number of people."
I think we can all agree that this conflict with muslim extremists is not going to end peacefully, so that being said, how brilliant was it for the US to open a front to fight in Iraq? We now have 2 fronts to fight on, neither of which is anywhere near US soil, so although our honorable men and women in the armed forces are putting their lives in danger on a daily basis, the majority of us are safe (even more so when we shut our borders) and have the ability to go about our daily lives without interference. Given the alternative, I think we should be thankful.
Posted by: Jay | July 28, 2006 3:50 PM
At the press conference today, David Gregory asked George this question:
Mr. President, three years ago you argued that an invasion of Iraq would create a new stage of Arab, Israeli peace. And today there is an Iraqi Prime Minister who has been sharply critical of Israel. Arab governments, despite your arguments, who first criticized Hezbollah have now changed their tune. Now they are sharply critical of Israel. And despite from both of you, warnings to Syria and Iran to back off support from Hezbollah, effectively Mr. President, your words are being ignored. So, what has happened to America's clout in this region that you've commited yourself to transforming?
You can read George's answer in this diary:
Bush: Frighteningly Stupid
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/28/164830/476
(Scroll to the bottom of the diary to get a summary of his answer...)
Posted by: dylan | July 28, 2006 4:54 PM
What are you drinking? The very thought that "we will fight them over there so we don't have to do it over here" is preposterous.
I lean left, but I agree that we should stay the course, and if anything, this president has not done enough to gain victory in Iraq. I think he should send over 100,000 MORE Troops, because until we do Iraq will not be secure, and the mission will not be complete, and our soldiers will be in harms way forever. At least this way the mission can be completed, although we risk more American lives. But of course, this goes against the Rumsfeld doctrine.
Posted by: Kool Aid Kraze | July 28, 2006 5:04 PM
Dylan, these people don't understand clout. They could give a $&%$*&^. They're on a mission to die and take out as many others with them as possible. That's what I'm sure he wanted to say. It was a lame question designed to elicit a non-response.
Posted by: Jay | July 28, 2006 8:15 PM
Jay, today, 4 more dead honorable soldiers in the brilliant front in Iraq, so you and all the chickenhawks can go about your daily lives.
I'm sure you are so upset that you will run to the local White Hen and buy one of those $1.99 "support our troops" stickers.
Posted by: john scanlon | July 29, 2006 9:00 AM
What's you're answer John? Let's here the genius speak? Give me something besides let's quit the wars because I don't feel like having this nonsense go on for the next 50 years until people like you become depu&*ified.
Posted by: Jay | July 29, 2006 10:55 AM
Jay,why don't you wing nuts like to discuss the dead soldiers? Guys like you and the rest of the chickenhawks are great arm-chair military warriors. Tell me when you or anyone else is your family decides to join the real war.I know this might alter your daily life style,but I'm sure Rush and Wm.Krystol can talk about opening another front.Such great miltary warriors! Until then,have fun playing miltary games on your computer.
Posted by: john scanlon | July 29, 2006 11:11 AM
John, still waiting for you to descend down upon us mortals to share your wise and almighty soltions.
Posted by: Jay | July 29, 2006 2:16 PM
Jay, this is a just war. We found the WMD!Let's stay the course. Now, what about the dead soldiers? What is the course?
Posted by: john scanlon | July 29, 2006 2:28 PM
War is hell Scanlon, what do you want me to say? By the way, I pay taxes, so if that doesn't give me the right to ask my gov't to protect the country, then I don't know what does. Maybe there's no war in your fairytale land of candy canes and unicorns, but this is real life, so unless you want to be muslim, you should get past your pacifism.
Posted by: Jay | July 29, 2006 5:57 PM
Hey, Jay, the war in Iraq IS over. Remember Bush's photo-op aboard the aircraft carrier declaring "Mission Accomplished?" What we're in now is the occupation of Iraq. What irritates me is that my hard earned tax dollars aren't going to programs or places that will improve this county and make it more safe. Most of it is going to Iraq, and what do we have to show for it? Dead soldiers? I don't care what side of the aisle your on, what kind of crap is that?! So, please for the sake of our soldiers, stop ignoring the elephant in the room, and start being a responsible citizen demanding more accountability from Bush and congress to get a plan to get them out. We owe that much to our soldiers.
Posted by: John K | July 29, 2006 9:27 PM
This situation won't be fixed overnight, John K., but if anybody can fix it, it's the US. Leaving the fight will only delay the innevitable, so it behooves us to keep plugging away, as unfortunate as that is. We spent for years to outdual the USSR, but we finally brought them to their knees. The sooner we make these rats capitulate, the sooner we can enjoy the peace that ensues. I don't think I'm calling Bush some genius, but you have to admit this is not an enviable position for any president to be in. And as always, if a Dem could come up with an alternative solution, I'm sure we all would be interested in listening.
Posted by: Jay | July 29, 2006 10:57 PM
Jay, growing up on the south side of chicago,i've been called many things,but pacifist is a first.My family got a great chuckle from that.Jay,you feel Dems should solve the war,so i'll give it a shot.Based on what i hear from you and other wingers,Newt Gingrich proclaimed this WW3.If that's the case and i don't beleive it,let's go with that scenario.
Based on the above,frat boy should do the following:fire cheney and replace him w/colin powell,fire rummy the dummy and replace him w/wesley clark,fire condi rice and replace her with chuck hagel.Then he should go to congress,and declare war on all terrosist groups.These moves would show the citizens of this country and the world that we are ready to go.He should then install a draft and every citizen in this country between 18 and 35 would be eligbile,no exceptions.If we are going to fight a global war,we need millions of troops.Then,hopefully with a new administration,we could actually build a coalition of countries to fight this war as we did in ww1 and ww2.Then we would have enough troops to stabilize Iraq and send thousands of troops into Pakistan and kill bin laden.Then frat boy should should institute mileage restrictions on auto's,investigate oil co's, tax large vehicles that do not get at least 35mpg.We need to free our country from the nut cases that supply us oil.We should also suck up to Chavez because we need his oil.We need to assure him we're not trying to remove him from power.This war that you claim we're fighting,would be fought in many countries and mostly hand to hand combat.There would be many casualties for our country as in previous wars.There would be tax increases and every person in this country would feel the effects from such a war.Our lives would change.This war would last for years untill all terrosist groups are wiped out.That's all I can think of for now.Do you think frat boy has the ****'s to take this on.Or do we stay the coure as he has suggested,for the next several President's to solve.The course has to date killed over 2500 soldiers,18,000 maimed and over 400 bl.spent.Your party runs the show,you guys got us in now get us out.
Posted by: john scanlon | July 30, 2006 6:20 PM
Sounds good to me John, but you failed to mention Iran, Syria and North Korea. North Korea must be included because Kim will sell weapons to terrorists. If your guys can figure out a way to get the UNreliable and the "Coalition" they always want to go in with to agree, and your guys have the stones to follow through when diplomatic pressure arises, then I don't see the argument here. But the US must be willing to do this with or without the approval of any other nations. This is our safety, not theirs.
Posted by: Jay | July 31, 2006 7:40 AM
Jay,
Your great leader ,the National Guard flunky, George Dubya said "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"!!
I guess that means we won.
Jay -monday morning arm chair neo-cons are a dying breed these days,You need to check in with the RNC for new talking points.
Posted by: FOX LIES!! | July 31, 2006 1:16 PM
Fox Lies, at least John Scanlon had good insults. You're just pez dispenser.
Posted by: Jay | July 31, 2006 3:18 PM