Blair offers a new world vision

#1
Help me out here. Has T.Blair actually managed to contradict himself within (almost) the same breath.

Daily Telegraph said:
As Bush admits making mistakes over Iraq, Blair offers a new world vision

Tony Blair last night challenged the world to unite around a policy of "progressive pre-emption" as he sought to shore up his legacy by linking the invasion of Iraq to a range of problems, from global warming and poverty to immigration.

Full text here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...r27.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/27/ixuknews.html
Now here's the (apparent) contradiction:

He [Blair] stressed, however, that in nine years as prime minister he had become convinced that the traditional distinction between foreign policies driven by values and interests was wrong.
Followed by,

"We have to be prepared to think sooner and act quicker in defence of (those) values - progressive pre-emption, if you will."
So, on the one hand, foreign policy based on our democratic-liberal-christian values and self-interest is "wrong", but in the future we need to uphold, and by implication enforce on others, those very democratic-liberal-christian values with "progressive pre-emption."

Wow!!!!!!! Ho hum!

Have a missed something?
 
#2
merkator said:
Help me out here. Has T.Blair actually managed to contradict himself within (almost) the same breath.

Daily Telegraph said:
As Bush admits making mistakes over Iraq, Blair offers a new world vision

Tony Blair last night challenged the world to unite around a policy of "progressive pre-emption" as he sought to shore up his legacy by linking the invasion of Iraq to a range of problems, from global warming and poverty to immigration.

Full text here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...r27.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/27/ixuknews.html
Now here's the (apparent) contradiction:

He [Blair] stressed, however, that in nine years as prime minister he had become convinced that the traditional distinction between foreign policies driven by values and interests was wrong.
Followed by,

"We have to be prepared to think sooner and act quicker in defence of (those) values - progressive pre-emption, if you will."
So, on the one hand, foreign policy based on our democratic-liberal-christian values and self-interest is "wrong", but in the future we need to uphold, and by implication enforce on others, those very democratic-liberal-christian values with "progressive pre-emption."

Wow!!!!!!! Ho hum!

Have a missed something?
No not at all, I've believed for some time now that Blair is a sanctimonious waffler who says the first thing that comes into his head so long as it makes him feel good and will read well in the Guardian. This is just more of the same vacuous cant which won't stand the light of day IMHO. Situation normal, Blairwise!
 
#3
So, on the one hand, foreign policy based on our democratic-liberal-christian values and self-interest is "wrong", but in the future we need to uphold, and by implication enforce on others, those very democratic-liberal-christian values with "progressive pre-emption."
Wow!!!!!!! Ho hum!
Have a missed something?
a writer by the name of Eric Blair (George Orwell) did a good book once about this type of political behaviour, he called it 'doublespeak'
 
#4
Good point. We have Goldstein (Osama Bin Laden). That bit of the masterplan is in place and paying dividends. I don't think Blair comes up with phrases like 'progressive pre-emption' as part of aimless waffle, without somebody pulling the strings in the background. It will be a hint towards some future action that will get fleshed out gradually. It's a distraction for now and a titbit for the chattering classes to feed on in the meantime.
 
#5
Is that something like "the third way" bollix he was spouting after he was first elected. Hmmmmmmmmmm, progressive pre-emption is that like turning the middle east into a big glass covered desert because all the problems come from there.
 
#6
I've just had a thought. Bush is driven by a neo-con ideology: where neo=new and con=conservative.

Now, it seems, Blair is driven by pro-con ideology: where pro=progressive pre-emption and con=new labour.

No wonder he's confusing us, he's offering pros and cons in one mouthful.


_________________
Number Crunching
Palestinian contribution to Jerusalem's municipal taxes: NIS 89 million
Jerusalem municipal spending in Palestinian areas: NIS 301 million

 
#7
merkator said:
He [Blair] stressed, however, that in nine years as prime minister he had become convinced that the traditional distinction between foreign policies driven by values and interests was wrong.
Followed by,

"We have to be prepared to think sooner and act quicker in defence of (those) values - progressive pre-emption, if you will."
So according to highly esteemed mr.Blair foreigh policy can't be driven by values and interests. What does it mean? Probably that

Internal policy should be driven only by interests and it is possible to use methods that contradict the values to defend them.

In this case there is no contradiction.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top