ANDREW SULLIVAN: Blair’s courage makes the anti-Americans look small

The Sunday Times ^ | January 19, 2003 | Andrew Sullivan

[MadIvan]

Interesting from Andrew. I have to say I liked the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. The 1996 one in Atlanta just seemed not quite right.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Support Free Republic]

Raise Your Hand If You Want To Donate To Free Republic!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[jwalsh07]

Aside from Mr Sullivan's assertion of the great nineties military buildup, an excellent screed. We ain't perfect but we're the best there is.

[OldFriend]

A bit too much babbling but the end note says it all. We are indeed lucky to have Blair recognizing the truth of the dangers to the world and willing to stand up and be a true stateman along side our President.

[OBone]

For what it's worth, I thought the opening ceremonies of 1984 were fantastic, but that is beside the point.

I think Tony Blair gained the respect of many Americans when he declared his intention of standing by our side. Not via communique, but he came directly in person. Andrew makes a good point when he states that his party should also support Tony in this respect.

[6323cd]

Teatime Bump!

[ckilmer]

The anglosphere is something that I've been mentioning in recent months.

Its something that's been basically taken for granted for 100 years or so--since WWI.

Recently there has been a drift east for the brits, a drift south for the USA and a drift north for the australians.

The great gift of the anglosphere to the world has been relatively good government. A crack up of the anglsophere would mean the quality of government worldwide would decline.

[Nick Danger]

...the Bush administration’s now collapsed policy towards North Korea, an incoherent mix of bluster and appeasement.

Here is something that is worth kicking around. I don't think Sullivan's characterization is unfair. In the matter of Korea, what we have seen is "an incoherent mix of bluster and appeasment."

Given who these people are -- Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. -- why would anyone suspect that any policy we see coming out of them is caused by incompetence or confusion?

There is a case taught at the Harvard Business School about the son of a company founder who is placed in charge of the purchasing department. He does not have any known expertise in purchasing, and in fact as we tune in is royally screwing up negotiations with the company's largest vendor... one that is critical to their manufacturing process and that they have been doing business with for twenty years.

Now that he's a big-shot purchasing agent, the son is insisting on concessions from this vendor that are, well, irrational. Everyone can see this but him. The manufacturing guy is terrified that the son is going to so piss off this vendor that the vendor will walk away. The vendor's salesman knows everybody in the place, including the founder. He's telling anyone who will listen that his company is willing to be reasonable, but this kid is asking for things that can't be done.

The way this works at Harvard is that everybody yaks about this for an hour, offering up ideas for how to resolve this mess. As with most of these cases, there was a true story behind it, and at the end everybody gets to find out what was really done and what really happened.

What happened here is that the vendor caved, and the company got concessions the previous purchasing agent hadn't won in twenty years. The moral of which is... sometimes when you are negotiating, and you fundamentally have the stronger hand (you're the buyer, not the seller) acting irrationally pays off.

[CyberCowboy777]

Thanks for the post. It is nice to have a few friends in the world.

God Bless the Queen and Prime Minister Blair.

[Torie]

Er, what policy exactly would you pursue regarding Korea? I asked my anti Bush brother that a few nights ago, as we sipped some adult beverages. Now I ask you.

[Torie]

There must have been some high tech military toys developed during Clinton's watch, which is really the key frankly in giving the US the ability to win wars without much blood. It may not be due to anything Clinton did, but it was under his watch. Give him his due, or at least his watch.

[jhofmann]

If any of you are planning vacations, consider England rather than the continent. While I would of course suggest America first, if you do have a hankering to go across the pond, let's vote with our dollars as to who are best friends are in the world. (As for the other pond, I suggest Australia and Singapore!).

[jhofmann]

The only reason anything happened military-wise during Clinton's "watch" was because he was afraid of the military and afraid that any perception that he was anti-military in a post-Gulf War America would affect his standing in the polls. Where he could, Clinton and his adminstration and his wife did everything they could to undermine the military. All three of his SecDefs were compromised pygmies compared to Rumsfeld.

I agree with what you said but I do not think Clinton wanted nor had anything in the R&D investment made during his administration. So, I won't give this bastard his due.

[Steel Wolf]

If I read his post correctly, I think our man Nick is pretty clearly in favor of the 'feigned schizophrenia' technique coming out of the Adminsitration. It's a great strategy. It fools liberals. They think we're being ever so reasonable, letting Richardson use his rappor (ha ha) and going to the U.N. and our regional allies first. "Bush is finally listening to us."

It fools neocons. The only line they want to see is the shrill hard line, and Bush's use of keeping people off balance until he's ready to move in for the kill makes them look single minded and unsophisticated.

It buys us time to get things in order, while leaving North Korea on hold, listening to the slow, sad sound of their regime crumbling away.

Bush just feeds them the rope that they're all to eager to hang themselves with. They can't help but tie the noose and make it tighter it with each passing day.

[NJJ]

In re "an incoherent mix of bluster and appeasment."

I think it's more a matter of, "I,ve got news for you but this ain't the time to tell you."

[Torie]

This Neocon (and I am one in good standing, and pretty much a pure bred) is rarely fooled. LOL. I amuse myself in thinking that my very presence in this neighborhood has somewhat slowed down lazy anti-Neocon comments on this forum. At least, I read fewer of them.

[Mr. Mojo]

Just look at the anti-war demonstrations in America and Europe. “Bomb Texas. I Like Iraq” was a recent slogan.

That protester would last maybe 10 minutes in Iraq.

When you're the king of the hill, you're public enemy #1. ....That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it'll always be.

[GOPJ]

bump

[MJY1288]

Thanks for the ping MadIvan, Tony Blair has shown himself to be a strong leader and a Statesman. Thank God Great Britian and the U.S. have remained such strong friends over the years. We have no better friend in the world PERIOD