Blair and Bush: We Need Plain Speech

Re “Tony Blair Puts Bush to Shame,” Opinion, Oct. 7: I am an admirer of Prime Minister Tony Blair and appreciate his leadership and his loyalty to the U.S., but how can David Corn equate his wonderful British delivery to the passion, commitment and competence of our president? We finally got rid of an orator president who could not be trusted and would have never provided the proper leadership on the issues now facing our country.

For Corn to ask President Bush to “dump his empty rhetoric and truly tether his war on terrorism” simply means that he is looking for smooth, slick words, not the strategic vision and implementation of a real war on terrorism that is now underway. Bush has nothing to be ashamed of, and Blair would be the first to agree.

H.T. Bowling

Studio City

*

In the past 10 months, we’ve all heard the drivel that Bush is not qualified. I am angered that Bush would be compared to Blair. The lamentations that we need a Tony Blair on these shores discount the little war we fought in the 1700s to break away from England. We don’t need an eloquent speaker whose flowery speech requires a dictionary, as we had in the past years. Blair is quite able to carry on the Clinton speech legacy. In America, we need a plain-speaking citizen who happens to be president to speak for us now. Give Bush a break. He’s doing an outstanding job.

Christina Andrada

Huntington Beach

*

Blair needs to eradicate his internal terrorism before he is eulogized as being superior to our great president.

Hazrat M. Adam

Lynwood

*

How may we elect Prime Minister Blair as president of the U.S.?

Jeff Glenn

Los Angeles