Posted on 07/24/2005 6:29:43 PM PDT by blam
US Right turns on Blair for being 'soft on terror'
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 25/07/2005)
The American Right, for four years a fount of rapturous praise for Tony Blair, is showing signs of falling out of love with Britain over what it sees as its soft and ineffective record on terrorism.
The July 7 bombings prompted outpourings of sympathy from Americans. But the media coverage of the bombings was marked by a tone of frustration at London's record of tolerance for Islamist preachers. This has intensified on the Right in the wake of Thursday's botched attacks.
Two prominent articles in the latest edition of The Weekly Standard, the neo-conservative journal with close ties to the Bush administration, have laid into Britain's domestic approach to fighting terrorism.
Under the headline "Letter from Londonistan" Irwin Stelzer concludes that British policy amounts to "easy entry for potential terrorists" and "relative safety from deportation and detention as enemy combatants".
He concludes that Mr Blair is the "prisoner of a dominant political class that is preventing Britain from responding to the threat the nation faces".
Another article suggests President George W Bush's administration take the dramatic step of ending the 1986 visa waiver programme which allows Britons and citizens of most other western European states three months in the US without a visa.
"The transatlantic crowd in Washington might rise in high dudgeon at the damage this could do to US-European relations," writes Reuel Marc Gerecht, a security analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think-tank which primed many of the radical ideas of the Bush administration.
But, he said, warnings that this would lead to the swamping of embassies and consulates by visa applicants should be ignored.
"American-European relations were just fine when we required all Europeans to obtain visas before crossing our borders … Issuing visas to Europeans would be an annoying inconvenience for all; it would not, however, be an insult."
Calls for such drastic action, first raised in a column in the New York Times, are to date confined to the media. Officials say the Bush administration has not raised the issue and that rather it has just offered to help in any way it can.
Officials also point out that consular authorities proved no defence against the perpetrators of the September 11 terrorist attacks, as Mr Gerecht concedes.
But his frustration at British policy is shared by swaths of influential Americans, both on the Right and in the intelligence community.
The Heritage Foundation, another prominent Right-wing think-tank, last week called on Britain to strengthen its anti-terrorist laws and consider withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights.
It also wants Britain to adopt a policy of zero-tolerance against radical Islamic preachers.
Usually the Telegraph isn't quite so bitter toward America. This article surprises me.
Tony Blair is the ELECTED PRESIDENT of the World's Socialist party. For US right wingers to even like him at all should be the surprise.
Amount of times the terms "Right" or "right wing" is used in this article: 5
Amount of times the term "left wing" would have been used if this was an article about the liberal approach to immigration: 0
What the hell are you talking about?
I have a great deal of respect for the UK and the way it is tracking the latest terrorists. Certainly, they are doing a quickeer job than the rudolph fiasco here.
The Socialist internationale has an elected president. He is TONY BLAIR. He was elected to that position prior to the last British election - it is a position completely separate from English politics.
We don't need Blair's left-wing policies to allow British grown terrorists to enter the US.
A Visa should be required for Europeans to enter the US.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
I take it you've never heard of them?
Here in the US, our chapter is the Democratic Socialists of America. Over 70 members of Congress are card carrying members of the DSA. (The DSA is also a subchapter of the Communist Party.)
This article is highly exaggerated. The Weekly Standard is not an organ of the Bush administration. Sure, a lot of conservatives have criticized the Brits for allowing so many Muslim terrorists refuge. But they have also praised them for catching and/or identifying the perps so quickly.
Conservatives also have praised the Brits for standing up to terror instead of knuckling under, like the Spanish.
Smart American conservatives have always been in two minds about Tony Blair. We appreciate his allying with us in the Iraq war, but we have never approved of his domestic policies.
Oh, and here I was getting concerned, thinking that something new was about. I pay little attention to that farce of an organization, they do little but whine about various this and thats. Much like the UN, its members have some clout, but the organization itself means little.
And let me tell you, American friends, we're far better off with Tony Blair than Michael "I've got a boner for the EU" Howard and Charles "Open the borders!" Kennedy. Call him the lesser of 3 evils. Too bad the public were too bloody stupid to vote UKIP..
I approve of the correction...thank you.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
A reasonable suggestion, and one that any Western nation ignores at their peril.
Blair has done a great job of fighting terrorism elsewhere.
Turned a blind eye to the insiders.
We haven't criticized Blair as much as the left-wingers in his own party have.
Can we just get on with the business of fighting terrorists, without sniping back and forth? I get my fill of that from the idiot liberals and leftists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.