The New York Times somewhat misrepresented prime Minister Blair’s speech to his party conference Wednesday, arguing in a headline that the prime minister had offered a partial apology for deposing Saddam Hussein. He didn’t. He merely said that he took responsibility for the wrong information that led to the invasion. It was more eloquent and more candid than anything President Bush has said. And precisely because it was so candid his defense of the war – now – is more persuasive. He sticks to his view that we are indeed in a global war against Jihadist fanatics who are intent on our obliteration:

If you take [this] view, you don’t believe the terrorists are in Iraq to liberate it. They’re not protesting about the rights of women – what, the same people who stopped Afghan girls going to school, made women wear the Burka and beat them in the streets of Kabul, who now assassinate women just for daring to register to vote in Afghanistan’s first ever democratic ballot, though four million have done so? They are not provoked by our actions; but by our existence.

They are in Iraq for the very reason we should be. They have chosen this battleground because they know success for us in Iraq is not success for America or Britain or even Iraq itself but for the values and way of life that democracy rep resents. They know that. That’s why they are there. That is why we should be there and whatever disagreements we have had, should unite in our determination to stand by the Iraqi people until the job is done.

Yes, I’ve been alarmed at the gross mismanagement of the war; and I do not believe it helps our effort to minimize or ignore it. But Mr. Blair reminds us why this current struggle in Iraq is indeed a critical struggle in the war. The reason, I think, that Mr. Bush is now ahead is simply because he reminded people in New York City that this is, indeed, the struggle; and because people don’t believe Senator Kerry has the will and steadiness to win it. Mr. Bush would be so much more appealing if he hadn’t botched the post-war, if he’d read the warnings, if he’d adapted swiftly enough to events, if he weren’t so beholden to the intolerant. But if he’s the best we’ve got, he’s the best we’ve got. To put it bluntly, I don’t believe Iraq is a “diversion” from the war on terror; I believe it’s the central front. If you share this view, Mr. Blair’s view, it’s extremely hard to support Mr. Kerry.

The Un-Kerry

And Mr. Blair’s indirect rebuff to Mr. Kerry is clear enough. Here it is:

When I hear people say: ‘I want the old Tony Blair back, the one who cares,’ I tell you something. I don’t think as a human being, as a family man, I’ve changed at all. But I have changed as a leader. I have come to realise that caring in politics isn’t really about “caring.” It’s about doing what you think is right and sticking to it. So I do not minimise whatever differences some of you have with me over Iraq and the only healing can come from understanding that the decision, whether agreed with or not, was taken because I believe, genuinely, Britain’s future security depends on it. There has been no third way, this time. Believe me, I’ve looked for it.

To all those on the left who seem to have forgotten that in this war against Islamofascism there is indeed no third way, take a look at Mr. Blair’s speech. Social justice means nothing if we are obliterated by a dirty bomb, nothing if we see our freedoms destroyed by an Islamic religious right with weapons of mass destruction. And it is obscene for some people who claim to believe in progressive ideas to be finding indirect solace from the acts of Jihadist thugs. Mr. Bush deserves to be scolded for his arrogance, his divisiveness, and his incompetence. But not for his fundamental judgment about the world we live in. There, he’s right. And Mr. Kerry’s wrong. And that, in the end, may be all that matters.

Living Without Democracy

You can debate the merits of the Washington, D.C., handgun bill. What you cannot debate is the obscene way in which the residents of D.C. have absolutely no say in how their city is governed; and the way in which the Republican Party uses the district’s “citizens” as pawns in their national electoral politics. Here’s a rich quote from the Washington Post account:

Bill sponsor Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.) called the vote a bipartisan victory for District residents’ constitutional right to bear arms.

Excuse me, but why should I give a fig what some Indiana congressman thinks? Thank God this won’t pass the Senate. But it’s a disgusting assault on the basic principles of democracy.

A Sea Change in Massachusetts?

The exit of Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Finneran and the elevation of a pro-marriage rights rival suggest a real moment in the battle over marriage rights. What it means is that it’s unlikely now that the establishment of such rights will be overturned by a constitutional convention or amendment. Money quote from the Boston Globe:

It is pretty much over,” said Senate minority leader Brian P. Lees, a Springfield Republican who cosponsored the amendment with Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini. The House and Senate, sitting in a constitutional convention, must vote a second time in the next session before it could go to the voters on the 2006 ballot. “In fact, there will be a question as to whether the issue will come up at all,” Lees said. He said the issue has faded to the “back burners of Massachusetts politics,” because few problems have surfaced with the implementation of the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage. “With the fact the law has been in effect for a number of months and with the change in the House leadership, it would appear any change in the constitution to ban marriage is quickly fading,” Lees said.

The real reason is that the change has become a non-event. The relatively small number of marriages for same-sex couples has barely made a dent in the social fabric and the upheaval of a constitutional amendment seems to many too big a deal for such an increasingly uncontroversial change. Still, I hope it moves forward. I would love to see a democratic majority back equality under the law, and I think that will happen in Massachusetts. Nevertheless, it now appears that marriage for gays is here to stay in one state in America.

Mr. Sullivan writes every day for www.andrewsullivan.com.