Bush and Blair: why?

Andrew Sullivan asks the question. For a while he seems to be going with the realpolitik view…

“It has vaulted the British prime minister into the position of being the most influential global actor after the American president. This means he has unequalled clout with the president, but it also means he has unusually large influence with other world leaders. In Blair’s dealings abroad, from outreach to Russia and Pakistan and France, Blair speaks with far greater impact because of his tightness with Washington.”

…but then he stumbles off into la-la-land:

“Perhaps it’s his Christian faith, shared with Bush, that acknowledges that there are times when evil cannot be appeased, ignored or simply forgotten, but must be confronted. But both men clearly hold that there are times when political leaders must do things simply because they are the right and moral thing to do, that there are moments when conscience matters, in fact, when conscience is the only thing that matters.”

Worth a read, nevertheless. (Via Radio Free Blogistan)

“They lie a lot”

Joshua Micah Marshall:

“The more ardent supporters of regime change lie a lot. I really don’t know how else to put it. I’m not talking about disagreements over interpretation. I mean people saying things they either know to be false or have no reason to believe are true. Perhaps the word ‘lie’ is a very slight exaggeration. Perhaps it’s better to say they have a marked propensity to assert as fact points for which there is virtually or absolutely no evidence. How’s that?”

(via Patrick Nielsen Hayden)

Will Hutton on Liberty

Oh, this is sweet. I only just now read it, but three weeks ago, Will Hutton wrote a column in the Guardian on the abuse of freedom as a concept, in particula with regard to countryside campaigners claiming “Liberty to hunt”:

“[…] they pass a threshold which in practice and theory represents real constitutional and substantive liberty: you only have to think of the struggles against apartheid or communism to know what real liberty means. The idea that hunting with dogs ranks alongside such values is laughable, but because those championing the cause think it does they arrogate themselves the right to civil disobedience and disruption.”