Gordon Brown: The Maverick. This man will change the nature of the relationship between the U.S. and Britain. He will change the language of war. He will be partner not a "lap dog" like Blair. And the British press, both left and right, want out of Iraq. Up until today, Brown gave signals that he felt the same way. Here is what Brown said:
But in an article today in the Washington Post, Mr Brown quoted the former US president Franklin Roosevelt when he said that the "arsenal of democracy" - schools, museums, newspapers and the arts - was just as important as weapons in defeating terrorists.Gordon Brown says flowery words, but as of today, will keep troops in Southern Iraq, much to the fury of the left in Britain. Will Gordon Brown's words save him at home?
And Mr Brown again avoided using the term "war on terror", in favour of calling terrorism "a war against humanity".
A theory has been put forward that the left won't take terrorism seriously until they have the power. Only then would they act like adults and honestly engage the problem. Nancy Pelosi has yet to grow up. She looked rather silly sitting with the Syrian tyrant Assad. Senator Obama says he'll engage all the rogue states if he's president. Would Clinton and Obama keep the flowery rhetoric while seriously dealing with the War on Terror? I'm not so sure--they have a lot of anti-war promises to keep.
More optimistically, is there a tough Republican who could continue the fight and encourage citizens with articulate, reasoned and inspiring arguments? Before the Bush presidency I thought deeds were enough; and they are still the most important indicator of a man's character. In our next president, though, it would be nice if he could be a master of words, too.
Cross posted at Right Wing News.