Tony Blair Debate Video

I happened to catch the Prime Minister's Questions this morning on C-SPAN and was similarly impressed.

I would love to see our gov try such a forum.

Yeah, but that's parliamentary democracy. It's built on oratory. The executive branch in the US isn't built on oratory. Not that it doesn't help (look at Kennedy, Clinton, and Reagan).

It's sad that what some people love about their leaders is also what they hate about politicians -- persuasive oratory. If the argument's valid, it's hard to fault the president (but I guess not out of line) for his lack of impromptu presentation skills. For Bush to be so seemingly sophomoric and yet still command backing of 70% of the US public says a lot about that original argument and his team.

Interesting points, but I can't help but notice your use of the word literally. Is it possible for an opinion to literally flip, let alone 180 degrees? :)

Direct Link:

http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/ndrive/iraq031803_brit.rm

lol - funny point Jon :)

I still picture Blair as a war provoker (the kid that pushes your back in a fight). I feel like he's just egging the US to go to war with anyone anytime. We'll see if he backs the US if we go to war...

I respect your opinions, Todd, I really do. But speaking as a resident of the UK, I have to say even though Blair might have impressed with the force of his oratory, he's still a lying s**t and a disgrace to his party and to his (and my) country. The quicker he's booted out on his conniving, slimy backside, the better IMO. And to think I voted for him - oy.

Blair was very good in the House of Commons that was on yesterday. Overall the HOC is a hoot to watch. I can't imagane how Bush would do in a situation like that.

Elected officials are put into power to facilitate our existance, and they evidently know things that the common man couldn't possibly know about our security. Maybe it's the American in me, but the way that Tony Blair is standing up for what he feels is the right thing at risk of political death, proves that he is a man's man.

Bush couldn't even hold his own in the Q and A after one of his recent addresses. He's not a quick wit at all. More like a half-wit. :-)

It's funny, i think that Bill Clinton had many of the same qualities that you are hoping for in our current leader. He was a very sharp thinker with a very extensive knowledge of foreign affairs, characteristics that George Bush just doesn't have. I can't help but feel that Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick," is very appropriate these days as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld make the mistake of constantlty bad-mouthing countries and their leaders who don't agree with their decisions. I agree that Tony Blair has done an admirable job of keeping to the issues and behaving like a leader rather than a schoolyard bully, when faced with the same domestic opposition that Bush has. I can't help but feel, that while military action may be necessary, Clinton, like Blair, would have handled the foreign relations, especially with our allies, much more responsibly.

Blair is undoubtedly an extremely smart and charismatic individual, but so is Hussein. This doesn’t make either of them ‘great’ leaders (in the sense that they are doing the right thing for ‘their people’), and more importantly it doesn’t make either of them right.

Bush's job is to protect the American people. It's superficial to say that because he isn't a good orator, he's a half-wit. Yes, Clinton was a good speaker, but then again, he had no repect for the office he was elected to. Who gives a crap how the French or anybody else feels about his tone of voice? We don't elect people simply to be entertained. He's taking care of business, and I for one will sleep better knowing that there is one less nuke-wielding dictator in the world.

I must say I was highly impressed with Blair's speech. I do support the war with Iraq, but watching Blair makes me wish that our president wasn't such a bumbling moron when it comes to international tact.

It's very good for a british person (myself) to read an american's view on our government.

despite the usual political commentators Tony Blair is pretty widely recognised as a man of sincerity, it's not ridiculous to believe a politician is truthful in this modern media circus, it's just dificult, particularly in a country still in recovery from the 'Thatcher years'

although there isn't any visible support from the general public for the war. there is a strong support for our leader. a curious position and one we hope will end without more blood spilt.

In response to Martyn Reding's comments, as a fellow Brit it is a relief to hear a sane comment from the UK about Blair.

The media has been awash with protest & how the public are anti war. Of course the public are anti war, no sane person would'nt be, but eventually a line must be drawn, and I am proud we have a Prime Minister prepared to set aside (obvious) public opinion to do what needs to be done.

Although a million "marched for peace" last week, 59 million did'nt.

As an american residing in England, I too have been impressed with Tony Blair's intelligence, charisma and oratory skill. I've heard him speak in Parliament on a number of occasions, but I was really impressed when I saw a televised Q & A session where members of the public were asking the questions. And Blair sat alone on stage, on a stool, without notes, teleprompter or aides. I think his only prop was a glass of water. The questions (and comments) came from regular people and they weren't tossing him softballs. His responses proved that he has an excellent knowledge of what's going on around him and what is (or isn't) being done to address the concerns of the British people. I couldn't even imagine an american president -- especially not Bush -- with the intelligence and balls to do something like that on national TV.

I also thought that Blair did very well the other day. And although I don't know much about the current state of affairs in Great Britain, it seems that Blair has Parliamentary support, as evidenced by the results of the vote.

As for those who think that George Bush is a half-wit, you need to think about that. The man has never been anything but successful. He always backs up what he says, and he always delivers. He respects us, the American people, and people all over the world who want to live in freedom. That's a far cry from Bill Clinton, who never ceased to insult our intelligence. Case in point: "Well, it depends on what you're definition of 'is' is."

debate? anytime someone opens their mouths in criticism of the white house, they are blasted for being unpatriotic! it was the same way after 911. if you even dared to suggest the crisis may have been caused by america's inane foriegn policy towards the middle east, you were blacklisted! the press couldn't utter it, educators were fired for mentioning it, ect.

i personally support Bush and Blair in this effort, but the intense debasement of any oposing faction through the media in the US has to stop! why can't a politician, when asked what they think of remarks by a person of the other party, say "He has a right to say what he belives... "

Robin Williams called it when he said the English HOC is the U.S. Senate with a two drink minimum.

I'm not sure what media Rob up there has been paying attention to. How can the media be blacklisting people when Peter Jennings, after the President's 'ulitmatum' speech, was calling this action the "Bush Administration's War on Iraq?"

And America does not have an inane foreign policy in the Middle East. It doesn't matter what our foreign policy is over there. Radical Muslims will still hate America. For nothing other than the American way of life is about freedom and democracy.

And people have to understand, in America, this is about terrorism. To most of those who oppose us, it is a religious crusade. There is more than enough ample proof out there to see this. Not everyone in the world thinks like Americans. The sooner Americans begin to realize this, the better off we'll be in this country.

It's a religious crusade for George Bush as well. Nothing but his assertions of faith have brought us this far. And protesting is not, could never be, a selfish act, unless being an American is a selfish act -- which is perhaps a truism for the rest of the world.

This is Bush's war. And to him and his own the winnings. So Mr. Jennings is correct.

Our prosperity and security is in the hands of some interesting folks, isn't it?

This here about Tony Blair and the attitude of rationalizing the wrong. Period.

When someone lays in the street to protest war, they obviously think that their opinion is more important than the traffic they have stoped. More important than the people who they are keeping from getting to where they need to go.

That's being selfish.

And another point. Where were all of these people when we went into Kosovo? Nowhere to be found that I can remember. I get the impression that they're not against war. They're against Republicans, and anything that doesn't go along with their viewpoint.

Don't misunderstand me, these people are entitled to their opinion. This is America, after all. What I disagree with is their method of protest. There is a time and a place for everything.

And my opinion is that these people who are protesting against military action in Iraq are therefore in support of Saddam Hussein's murderous regime staying in power.

Let's not equate Kosavo with Iraq, Mr. Rust. This is not the arena to discuss the finer distinctions of American opportunism (because, God knows, I'll start at McKinley), but your assertion is utterly specious.

As to whether one must be Manichean in protesting either war or peace, that's another gross simplification. Why is disagreeing with Bush/Republicans automatic assignation to the side of Dictator de Jour? I'd rather get stuck in traffic than watch while Republican-owned media conglomerates transmute agit-prop into 'news,' but as long as it's legal, then it's their right, and my inconvenience. Having served honorably in the U.S. military, and read Mark Twain, and protested Bush's policies at home and abroad, I'd say my definition of patriotism is flexible enough to withstand contradictions.

Jarod, your opinion that Blair is a war provoker is totally wrong. Blair has been holding Bush back, trying to get him to wait.

I've got a lot of faith in Blair and I believe that he is a good leader.

I believe that Saddam has to go. I'm not sure I believe that Bush's reasons for this war, but I believe that Saddam has to go.

Speaking as someone who cheered Tony Blair into No.10 on the morning of his first election victory, I feel dissapointed and angry by his current backing of the war against Iraq.

Sure, he's a better speaker than Bush, but that isn't really very hard, or really the point. Blair should have had the courage to say 'no' to the Bush Administration and no amount of eloquence on his part can justify this war.

I feel that Blair has backed himself into a corner, and our troops are now paying the price for his lack of courage to continue persuing a diplomatic solution to this crisis. In addition, in doing so, he has undermined the UN and Britain's relationship with the rest of our European allies.

Here in London, there is no one that I know that supports this war and there have been massive public outcry to that effect. Even schoolkids are marching on Downing Street against this war!

Don't get me wrong, no one believes that Saddam is a nice guy, but things really didn't have to be this way.

It does not cease to amaze me how people continue to think that a 'diplomatic' solution can be reached with Saddam Hussein.

We are talking about a regime that:

1) Is forcing it's civilians to take up arms, or they will be shot.
2) Has missiles that they said they did not, and is using them.
3) Continues to lie prolifically about the state of the war to its own people, and to the world.
4) Has been known to use chemical weapons against its own people.
5) Beats, and even executes Olympic athletes for poor performance.
6) Breached the cease fire that it agreed to in order to end the Gulf War.

These are the actions of a sane, reasonable government that can be dealt with diplomatically.

“our” developers.… fuck me, todd’s turned into zeldman...

And I thought he stopped posting becuse he was afraid to betray his Republican leanings…

If you want real eloquence, force of argument, clarity and sincerity in a British politician, it’s here.

Meanwhile (and this paragraph goes out to Randal Rust), we in the west are living in countries where the media continue to lie prolifically about the state of the war to its own people, and to the world. Some of us live in a country which, contrary to what Colin Powell said to the UN Security council on Feb 5th about Iraq, is a country which “conducted the largest chemical warfare campaign in history”, a country which has ignored the Geneva Convention on human rights in its detaining, without possibilty of trial, over 300 people at Camp X-Ray. That’s before we get on to the fact that the United States refuses to sign up to the International Criminal Court, for fear of being subject to the same laws that the rest of the world has agreed to abide by, or the fact that we’re quite happy for Israel to ignore resolution after resolution from the UN security council. i could go on, but you get the picture. Yes, Saddam Hussein ought to be removed from power, but the “liberation” of the Iraqi people is not why Iraq is being invaded; the real reason is to establish American dominance of resources, specifically oil. If you don’t believe me, go here and do a word search for “carter doctrine”. You might also want to do a goole search on “Project for the New American Century”.

Isn't it wonderful how people can find things scattered all throughout the Internet to make a case for their point-of-view?

I could rebut all of the articles that Leon posted, but I will only discuss one, and then I'm dropping out of this discussion altogether.

What the US did in Vietnam was wrong, no doubt about it. But those chemicals were used with the intent defoliate, not with the intent to kill.

There is a huge physical and moral difference between the US use and the Iraqi use.

Randal, yes, that's why the internet is a wonderful thing. I'd be interested in seeing what you have to say on rebutting PNAC (seriously; my email address is up there).
Anyway: yes, there's a physical and moral difference between a defoliant that happens to be toxic and chemical weapons such as VX gas. However, what about the idea of "forseen but unintended" consequences? If you know that dropping a highly toxic chemical on a large region of a country will lead to the deaths of civilians and will affect their descendants in all manner of horrific ways, does it make it less wrong if you don't intend to kill them, but go ahead and do so anyway? (This isn't a dig at US operations in Vietnam; any number of countries, the world over, have done things like that)

i also elected blair, and i also feel badly let down by his leadership. I have learned about blair that he prefers rhetoric over fact, yeah he enunciates his sentences rather well, and it can be charming, but he uses his charisma to mask his questionalbe convictions. The more you see and here of him, the more you see through his act. Blair is a trained lawyer of unquetionalbe intelligence, and in a coutroom his pursausive powers would certainly be formidable, but very few court cases last 7 years (his time as prime minister), and after 7 years his questionalbe convictions have stretched his pursausive powers to breaking point, infact they may have already broken. Blair needs to remember he works for us, and we can make him or break him, and i will be doing my best to break him in the next election