Howrd/Blair put things in perspective

[fintstone]

From a July 22 joint interview, Bliar (UK), Howard (AUS). Like GW, they are giants among the petty, whiney, short sighted of their generation.
Question:

Do you feel in any sense that you have put people in this position, do you feel that in a sense your policies may have put people in this position?

Blair:

Well I think I have said to you before, that I feel that people who are responsible for doing these things are the people who do them.

Question:

To both Prime Ministers, what was your immediate reaction on hearing that some incidents had occurred, was it here we go again? And do incidents like this, coming just 14 days after the horrific attacks, suggest that the war against terror is being lost on the streets? And yesterday an Australian bomb victim of July 7 linked the bombings to Iraq. Does that suggest that the propaganda war against terrorists is also being lost?

Mr Howard:

Could I start by saying the Prime Minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it, and my first reaction was to get some more information, and I really don't want to add to what the Prime Minister has said. It is a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here. Could I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government, and indeed the policies of the British and American government on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it has given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq; and could I remind you that the 11 September occurred before the operation in Iraq; can I also remind you that the very first occasion that Bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor.

Are people, by implication, suggesting that we shouldn't have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on 7 July, they talked about British policy, not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Melo was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, immensely respected for his work in the United Nations, when al Queda gloated about that they referred specifically to the role that de Melo had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. Now I don't know the mind of the terrorist, by definition you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber, I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I have cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq, and indeed all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggest to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances, rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

Blair:

I agree 100% with that.

Question:

Inaudible.

Blair:

No, I don't think so at all actually, I don't think so at all. I think that in the end though, I was asked this question I think it was at the press conference I had on Tuesday with President Karzai from Afghanistan, but the roots of this are deep. You know this is the mistake of people thinking this suddenly began in the past couple of years, the roots of this were deep, the terrorist attacks go back over 10 years. And the way of defeating it is to defeat it of course by security measures, but also by going after the ideas of these people, the ideology of these people, their arguments as well as their methods, taking them on and defeating them, and the best way of doing that is to show how the values of freedom, and tolerance, and respect for people of other religions and races is the best way to lead our lives.

But in the end what they want us to do is to turn round and say oh it is our fault. The people who are responsible for terrorist attacks are the terrorists, and this combination of this evil bankrupt ideology based on a perversion of Islam with terrorism, this is something that has built over a period of time, it will have to be dismantled over a period of time, but I have got no doubt at all that in the end the values that we represent are the values that will triumph.

And do you know why I say that, I say that because every time people in somewhere like Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Palestine, these causes that they try to pray upon, every time the ordinary people in those countries are given the chance to vote, they vote, and they actually prefer the democratic way of life too, and that is why in the end we will win.

[gavinlit]

"giants among the petty, whiney, short sighted of their generation"
Do a little research on howard before making such big statemtns. I'd say his track record says whiney and short sighted is pretty much what he's about. Don't know how he lies straight in bed at night or manages to sleep. History will not view his leadership kindly.

[bryanthompson]

He totally Howar-owned that reporter. One of the best press conferences I've seen in awhile. Although, what's up with the quality of everything we see from there? Does it have something to do with the PAL -> NTSC conversion that happens somewhere, or do they just have a lot of equipment left over from the 70's porn industry?

Gavin, are you just an angry lib, or do you have some real issue with Howard? he seems like a stand-up guy to me.

[gavinlit]

My main issues with the administration of howards govt are related to the use of scare/wedge politics - actively encouraging the scapegoating of certain minority groups (namely refugees), fairly strong hypocrisy and his govts disdain for human rights and basic democratic process. As a person he certainly stands by his personal beliefs which I think is an admiral trait in anyone- but has been responsible for some pretty disgraceful stuff over the last couple of terms of govt.

Had it been a different party govt I would feel exactly the same way. Think of the basic values you might teach your children (honesty, compassion,etc ) and then imagine how hard it would be to justify to them your govt/leader acting in quite the opposite fashion. The irony is that he appears to be quite a religious person yet dosn't follow the basic teachings of the church. To me he fails the basic values/good guy test. Not someone I'd want to know as a neighbour I guess.

Of course I realise that about 30% of my fellow countrymen would probably disagree with the above statements, which is what democracy is all about.

[fintstone]

He sounds like a pretty stand-up guy to me. Beats having a leader who would hide from his responsibilties or base his decisions on daily polling data instead of what he thinks is right. Have you ever considered that he might be right on the issues? Apparently lots of your countrymen do.

[gavinlit]

I'm not talking about whether he 'sounds like a straight up guy'. Credit where credit's due - he's a very clever politician, has become quite media savy and has his own party screwed down pretty tight. Matters of policy I can accept (but don't have to like) and understand that some agree and others don't - always going to be the way when you have a democratic country. That's why peanut butter is offered in both smooth and crunchy right We're similar to you in that we have a small proportion of swing voters that effect the result of an election.

What I can't accept from any govt is appealing to peoples prejudices, demonising segments of society and lying(plenty documented) to attract votes and play the wedge/fear game. Regardless of the issue it's not a great example to set & dosn't lead to a good society imo. I feel leadership should be exactly that - leading for the good.

I do agree fint that it's a good thing to act out of conviction and not on polling data. Most of this govts & JH's lowlights have come from appealing to the polls rather than acting on what's right, and these are precisely the sorts of actions that make me feel disappointed. I'd guess they were justified as 'for the greater good' ie you can't govern if you don't win the polls. Either way it leaves a very unpleasant taste in my mouth - whether he sounds like a stand up guy on a sound byte or not.

Edit - should add that it's not a politicians job to govern by their own moral code but rather to represent their citizens. It's not an autocracy or dictatorship. To me that means representing all of the countries citizens - not just the 30 to 40% that sit in your own corner.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by gavinlit
...Edit - should add that it's not a politicians job to govern by their own moral code but rather to represent their citizens. It's not an autocracy or dictatorship. To me that means representing all of the countries citizens - not just the 30 to 40% that sit in your own corner.

I would disagree on that issue. I think that a person must vote for a leader who is smarter, more educated, more moral, selfless and a better man than they (or the best possible combination of these)....to make the correct decisions for the nation. The rank and file will never have all the info since it is not their full time job and they are not privy to most of it..much less equipped to make the decisions. I would not want a president or prime minister to represent the citizens...I want one to lead....to do what is best for the nation...regardless of what the polls or one's constituents say/want. that is what lower level representatives/checks and balances are for. Otherwise it will/must degenerate into poll watching and vote buying.

[gavinlit]

My problem is not seeing enough of this "leader who is smarter, more educated, more moral, selfless and a better man than they" and too much of this "poll watching and vote buying". From both parties. It's probably just that only one has had an opportunity to act on it.

Keep in mind we don't have a president and we don't get to vote for a president. We vote for a party (who are meant to represent us) and they select a leader.

I admire you for having the faith to just elect someone and hope/trust they will make the correct decisions for you. I don't trust them as I believe they've caught out too many times. I particularly find the first sentence difficult to swallow given your nations current elected leader. Surely you're not insinuating that most of america is dumber, less educated, less moral, more selfish and less of a person than dubya?? I could only hope not.