Moralist like Tony Blair

Sugary excerpt from Lionel Barber's review of George W. Bush's memoirs Decision Points:

Like Tony Blair, painted in the book as a fervent supporter of the invasion of Iraq, Bush is a moralist. Like Blair, Bush insists all the major intelligence agencies thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and the threat of WMD falling into terrorist hands was too great to bear. Like Blair, he cannot understand why more people still do not accept the moral argument for removing Saddam. “I didn’t see how anyone could deny that liberating Iraq advanced human rights,” he writes.

I'm tempted to accept this excerpt with  a quote from John Steinbeck: only fools do not learn fro experience. However, neither Blair no Bush are fools, they are just complaisant moralists who believe that God made them kings because it/s/he knew they could make the right decision based on faith, on what it/s/he wanted them to do. What is the difference between Bush, Blair, other political leaders who believe religiously that God is on their side and  Ahmadinejad?

Comments

[BlairSupporter]

The FIRST difference, and there are countless - Bush and Blair do NOT kill their own people.

Want another difference? OK, neither Bush nor Blair belong to a religion which is directed to "kill the unbeliever".

Another difference? Bush and Blair believe in democracy. REAL democracy.

Another difference? Bush and Blair believe in religious inclusivity at home and overseas.

Amanutjob would happily lock up or perhaps even kill you, me and any kufar, non-muslim or muslim, who didn't subscribe to HIS worldview.

Apart from that, you're right. What's the difference?

[Christelle Nadia]

Hum, you are making distinctions without differences for your point is simply that Bush and Blair are better because they are not Ahmadinejad. You seem to believe that some human lives have greater values than others and that some forms of extremism are acceptable if they don't make you feel uncomfortable. That's all well and good, but you are neither persuasive nor rational for your sole point is that you like Blair and really resent the idea that he might have something in common with Ahmadinejad. My point is precisely that because I refuse to let my feelings limit my reason, I cannot make a difference between moralism and fundamentalism especially when the argument of the moralist and the fundamentalist is that the goal of their political choices is to accomplish moral aims. The point is NOT that Bush and Blair = Ahmadinejad, but that as Ahmadinejad, they are too obsessed with God and the idea that their politics is following its/her/his wishes. That's what a little thing called nuance enables people to do.