Safire: Together They Stand

The New York Times ^ | 11/17/03 | William Safire

[Pokey78]

LONDON — Hand-wringing diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic are saying that "it seemed like such a good idea at the time." They are having second thoughts about this week's full-fledged state visit of a U.S. president to the United Kingdom.

The invitation was made two years ago by Prime Minister Tony Blair, when America was popular as a Sept. 11 victim, but the visit will begin at a time when both Blair and President Bush are being reviled in Europe for joining forces to overthrow a dangerous tyrant. Because finishing that job is costing more in blood and treasure than was foreseen, the anti-any-war crowd is up in arms.

In Trafalgar Square, apostles of cut-and-run have put up stop-the-war signs (as if we aren't trying to). They are reported to be planning a demonstration, including the great photo-op of pulling down a mock statue of George Bush in front of BBC and Al Jazeera cameras.

Add to this the usual grumbling about traffic jams that are already beginning as barriers are put up and a thousand American officials and journalists descend on Britain with security requirements — not to mention complaints about the cost to the crown of providing accommodations at Buckingham Palace — and you have pressure to cut the visit short or to curtail the activities.

Blair is having none of that. Though under fire from many in his Labor Party, he has made certain that the visit will proceed with all the trimmings that are safe. He is determined to underscore what Churchill called "the special relationship" between the U.S. and its mother country.

Nor is Bush apologetic about being Her Majesty's official guest at a time of trial. On the contrary, in pre-trip interviews with the quality British press that triggered some stalwart editorial support, he delivered the message he refined in his "age of liberty" speech: that our necessary global war on terror cannot be separated from the political struggle to extend human freedom.

His half-hour advance interview with Sir David Frost was telecast here yesterday morning. Frost asks penetrating questions in a respectful manner, which is the best way to open up Bush. The response showed Britons an American far more rational, articulate and idealistic than the cowboy caricature of the leftist, Eurocentric press.

When asked about potential changes in a second term, Bush only said he would talk to cabinet members after the election, but made an unequivocal commitment on his running mate: "Cheney's for certain." His re-election would augur consistency in foreign policy; a return to appeasement is not in the offing.

British viewers were more interested in what Blair's unwavering support of the coalition meant for Britain's key role as a bridge between continents. First test: would the U.S. treat the proposed independent European defense force as undermining NATO? Bush's answer was to trust completely Tony Blair's assurance to the contrary: "I take his word for it." And as to the British captives being interrogated at Guantánamo — a source of irritation here — Bush indicated that something would be worked out on this trip.

Officials at the anti-Israel BBC, which has long blatantly sided with Palestinians in its Middle East coverage, must have been stunned at the next answer.

Asked if America's support of Israel obstructs peace, Bush recalled the hopes raised when Palestinians chose Abu Mazen as the prime minister who would confront terrorism. Bush said he had then advanced the idea of "two states side by side. I trusted Abu Mazen. I said to Sharon, `Listen — am I out there by myself?' " The Israeli prime minister said he was with him. "Progress was being made," Bush told Frost about Abu Mazen, "and he was shoved out."

Telling it as he sees it — in this case, showing how Yasir Arafat, not Ariel Sharon, is the roadblock to the road map — curries no favor with protesters, many of them Muslim. But it is what Bush believes to be true, and he says what he believes. History will respect that.

In Britain this week, two statesmen are tying their white ties without pomp in tough circumstances, united in taking the political heat. Like the allies they lead, they have been through the wars together.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Hmmm, so MOST of the protestors are MUSLIM.

I never would have guessed.

[motzman]

Blair is having none of that. Though under fire from many in his Labor Party, he has made certain that the visit will proceed with all the trimmings that are safe. He is determined to underscore what Churchill called "the special relationship" between the U.S. and its mother country.

God Bless Tony Blair.

I, for one, will never forget how he stood up for President Bush and us.

[Hobsonphile]

Do you know if any of Bush's interviews with the British press are online?

[Hobsonphile]

Ah, here we go:

Roundtable Interview of President Bush by British Print Journalists

[Hobsonphile]

And still more:

Interview with Sir David Frost, Part One

Interview with Sir David Frost, Part Two

[Eva]

...And from the Opinion Journal:

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."

[eliduc]

The Times also reported last week that the Bush Justice Department is working to overturn the large court settlement given to 17 american prisoners of war tortured by Iraq during the first Iraq war. The money was to come from frozen Iraqi assets. The justice department claims that since Bush confiscated the assets the plaintiffs have no legal claim and that the money is needed to rebuild Iraq.
The plaintiffs have appealed but the Times reports that the appeals court will probably find in favor of the Justice Department. Problamatic for Justice may be the fact that the case was filed before the confiscation. The same case is being made, according to the Times, for not compensating the victem families of 9/11.