Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: microhoogle! who wrote (494001)	11/17/2003 10:51:41 AM
From: jackhach	Respond to of 769669

That is EXACTLY what they are doing. CUT (claim they won) & RUN like hell. -JH

To: microhoogle! who wrote (494001)	11/17/2003 10:57:33 AM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769669

Blair and Bush Only leaders of small achievement avoid controversy. Monday, November 17, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll, always feeling one's pulse and taking one's temperature."--Winston Churchill, 1941 You don't need an advanced degree in public relations to recognize that the timing of President George W. Bush's long-planned visit to London this week isn't exactly a PR gift for either him or Prime Minister Tony Blair. The visit comes at a particularly sensitive time in the political cycle for both leaders and so has become a venue for almost any grievance under the sun. Mr. Bush wouldn't win any popularity contests in Britain, it's fair to say. The latest polls show that some 60% of the British public has an unfavorable view of the President, and some of the invective that has appeared in the British media in the run-up to the visit would feel right at home in Le Monde. Widescale protests are planned. The chattering classes in Britain have, rather too gleefully, used this to all but declare the special relationship dead. It of course suits the political interests of Mr. Blair's and Mr. Bush's opponents to foment discord. The Labour left opposed the war in Iraq as well as many of Mr. Blair's public service reforms and it has nothing but contempt for what is often described in Britain simply as the "neo-con" cast in the White House. Many of the opposition Conservatives are reluctant internationalists and all are eager to capitalize on public discontent over Iraq if it will weaken the prime minister. Mr. Bush's detractors equally delight in the prospect of an embarrassing or at least strained visit with his closest ally. Fortunately, Mr. Blair appears to be having none of it. In a speech to the Lord Mayor's banquet last Monday, the Prime Minister defended both Mr. Bush and their joint policies: "I believe this is exactly the right time for him to come. Let us be clear what is happening in Iraq. Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the conflict, upon which I admit there can be legitimate disagreement. What is happening now is very simple. It is the battle of seminal importance for the early 21st century and it will define relations between the Muslim world and the West. It will have far-reaching implications for the future conduct of American and Western democracy." Nicely put, we'd say. The British and American leaders are so controversial because they are trying to achieve large things. To wit, a redefinition of the threats to Western security and how to deal with them. They are attempting to drain the swamp of terror nurtured for generations in a dictatorial Middle East. And they are trying to change the thinking of their own security and political establishments to help in the cause. Another word for this is leadership. Leaders who aim for little nearly always achieve it, while stirring much less opposition. As Churchill observed, this is especially dangerous in wartime because the polls will never tell a leader until it is too late the risks that need to be taken on behalf of long-term security or peace. If Ronald Reagan had been cowed by the millions of protesters in Europe who opposed the deployment of medium-range nuclear missiles in the 1980s, the Cold War might still be going on. opinionjournal.com