Posted on 04/04/2003 5:46:24 PM PST by Cathryn Crawford
Blair’s Simple Stubbornness
Many people are asking, as this war enters it’s third week – where’s Tony Blair? He is gone from the televisions, replaced by the grainy night-vision images of troops and anti-aircraft fire. Now we carefully listen to Central Command briefings, instead of watching for Blair to set foot outside 10 Downing Street to assure us that Britain is still with us. He’s largely faded into the background, at least here in America.
Many people have wrongly compared Blair to Winston Churchill. Churchill was a man who suffered daily with his ‘black dog’, depression. He was a great wartime leader, always public and out front, but behind the scenes he fell victim to huffs and, at times, tantrums. However, he was a man who had the right temperament to lead a nation buckling under the weight of the blitzkrieg back from the edge of despair to victory.
Blair is of an altogether different temperament. He’s quieter, and, until about two years ago, seemed much, well, wimpier. He was a bit wishy-washy on domestic issues, and he wasn’t particularly outspoken on international ones. He was portrayed here in America as a sort of English Clinton, although with, perhaps, better family values.
Then came the day that changed the world. And, suddenly, he and every other world leader became our best friends. And by everybody, I mean everybody. Remember the press conference that Jacque Chirac had with Rudy Giuliani just a few days after 9/11? I remember quite clearly listening to Chirac’s voice, as it faded behind the interpreter, speaking French. Although my French is rudimentary, I could understand enough to hear him say that he and his country would stand by us through anything. You could see the tears on his face, real tears, as he expressed the sorrow and sympathy that he had for us. Cynic as I may be, at the time, it moved me. Now I think back and wonder how I could be such a sap.
Blair was not so emotional. He was simply quietly behind us. He pledged us any and all help that we needed, and he gave it to us when we asked for it.
Then came the next day that changed the world, September 12, 2002. On that day, President Bush stood before the U.N. General Assembly and told the world that the U.S. would not allow Saddam Hussein any more leeway to violate U.N. sanctions. And, lo and behold, when the other leaders who pledged us their undying love and support fell away, one man was still standing there, alone, but there – and that was Tony Blair.
He got heckled on the streets of London. His party split, some deciding to stay by the Prime Minister’s side, and some deciding to keep their hands out of the muck of war. His very administration split apart, and he endured public criticism every day from some of his former oldest and dearest friends. He was laughed at. He was jokingly referred to, both here and in the U.K., as Bush’s poodle. And still he stubbornly stood by us, refusing to cave to what must have been enormous pressure. He still said, in that quiet, passionate way of his, that Iraq was a threat, and that as the leader of a sovereign nation, it was his responsibility to the people of Britain to take care of it.
And, so, now that we are in the war that he did his best to avoid, yet never shrunk from, where is he? Is he hiding in fear of the media, as some say? I doubt it – it couldn’t get much worse than what he’s already been through.
He is doing what he has shown himself to be so proficient at in the last few years – taking care of business. He is not striving to make himself the hero of this war; on the contrary, he has given over that job to the generals running it. He hasn’t gone out of his way to be out front, flashing the victory sign and chomping on a cigar. Instead he is quietly sitting behind his desk, running Britain, reshaping his administration, and getting to all those domestic issues that have been simmering on the back burner for so many months. To put it simply - he is leading.
No matter whether you support this war or not, whether you like Bush and Blair or not, there is one thing that is simply unavoidable fact – Tony Blair is a man of his word. Like a marriage, for better or worse, in sickness or health, for richer or poorer – Blair has been by our side.
He has proven to the critics that he’s simple enough to believe in one truth, and stubborn enough to stick to his guns even when it hurts.
That’s what I call conviction.
[Stick to what you know]
integrity \in-te-gre-te\ n 1 : adherence to a code of values 2 : soundness 3 : completeness (C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
He’s quieter, and, until about two years ago, seemed much, well, wimpier. He was a bit wishy-washy on domestic issues, and he wasn’t particularly outspoken on international ones.It is the third way triangulation that had people considering him like Clinton. However, given that apt description, perhaps a better comparison would be with George Bush. George Herbert Walker Bush. He was quieter than Reagan, Clinton, and his son. He was often labelled a wimp. He was very wishy-washy on domestic issues. His strong suit was navigating international diplomacy, although he was not a bold leader in moving the world the way Reagan was, or his son is. And like Blair, he had an affinity for international organizations.
In the way he stood with America through the Iraq crisis, one can find evidence that George W. is not the only Anglo leader who learned from the mistakes of George H. W.
Third way triangulation is mostly what caused people to consider him like Clinton.
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.