Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Blair’s war on two fronts

Friday, July 25, 2003 | 5:07 a.m.

A WEEK AGO today we watched British Prime Minister Tony Blair address Congress. Like past British leaders, his command of the language made an impression on me. His delivery was excellent but so was the content of the address. A good example was this look at terrorism:

"And because in the combination of these afflictions a new and deadly virus has emerged. The virus is terrorism whose intent to inflict destruction is unconstrained by human feeling and whose capacity to inflict it is enlarged by technology."

Then came the following words:

"There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior.

"Members of Congress, ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police."

After traveling around the world, Blair is returning home to face a firestorm of criticism because of his willingness to take Great Britain into the Iraq war. We can't predict if he will survive the political fallout from this decision, but he will certainly survive as a good example for future leaders. Strong leaders make big decisions no matter what political damage may come to them.

Blair is taking on the powerful British Broadcasting Corp., which has minced no words attacking his decision to enter Iraq with the United States. Blair's director of communications, Alastair Campbell, has fired back just as strongly. One of BBC's statements made most knowledgeable observers chuckle. The BBC board of directors stated that it "emphatically rejects Mr. Campbell's claim that large parts of the BBC had an agenda against the war."

I don't know Campbell, but the BBC in recent years has lost much of its reporting objectivity. Many years ago, the first words I would hear on the radio were, "This is BBC." It was a trusted voice that would bring me the world news when traveling. During recent years BBC television has allowed many news broadcasts to be nothing more than a harangue against Israel.

The Jerusalem Post recently reported how the director of the Israel Government Press Office, Daniel Seaman, views BBC:

"Seaman spoke as well of an ongoing bias in daily BBC coverage, saying that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is never mentioned 'without some critical reference to his alleged right-wing tendencies or military past, while Islamic terrorists are politely referred to as "militants" out of a reluctance by the BBC to upset Muslims by telling the truth.'

"He added that 'the attitude of the BBC is more than a pure journalistic matter; it is dangerous to the existence of the State of Israel because it demonizes the Israelis and gives our terrorist enemies reasons to attack us.' "

The BBC attitude about the war in Iraq has upset many of that country's own military people. During the months of March and April this year, I watched BBC, CNN, Sky News and some Arab news outlets. The work of CNN and Sky News reporters embedded with the military was outstanding.

In one column I noted that when CNN leaves these reporters and goes to its desk in London, the viewers may believe that they then are receiving Al-Jazeera television in English or another slanted BBC commentary.

I am not an expert on British politics, but Blair isn't alone in saying that BBC has an agenda. Some military men in Iraq are using a vulgar descriptive word to replace British as the first B. "