Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Sunday, 13 December 2009

Blair wriggling

Faced with the poisonous drip of damning evidence against the credibility of Blair's WMD claims to the Chilcot enquiry, he has launched a pre-emptive strike to steal the thunder of Chilcot's inevitable findings. "Yes of course the WMD thing was a sham" Blair almost says "but we needed a reason to do the right thing".

This false candour, I suspect, will work with more than a few people. The reality of course is that Blair is lying again; the leopard can't change his spots. His contention that he would have 'deployed different arguments' to remove Saddam had anyone been able to prove he made-up the WMDs at the time is specious.

In the absence of WMDs military action would have been unlawful. The Attorney General would have had to say so. The CGS would have refused to deploy. Blair's back benchers would have deserted him during a crucial vote and the UK would not have gone to war. The US, unencumbered by the recognition of international law, would have acted alone.

In other words, the outcome Blair wanted - the removal of Saddam - would have happened anyway without his having to lie about WMDs, and without the UK's involvement. To this extent Blair does indeed have blood on his hands - blood shed, it now seems certain, not for the UK but for the benefit of the USA, Blair's adopted home, and at his mendacious connivance.

If Chilcot makes only one thing clear, it should be this.


Anonymous said...

Blair + US + invasion = oil. If we don't want the oil, they were wrong.

Budgie said...

I don't like Blair - he is an oleaginous liar, and worse he holds his listeners in contempt because he repeats his lies.

Yet I have problems with the repeated attempts by many to label the second (2003) Iraq war as "illegal" or "unlawful".

Whose laws are being broken here? Certainly not ours or the Hague Convention. The UN? But Iraq flouted a number of post first Gulf war surrender terms and UN resolutions. So the first Gulf war makes the second legal. For what it's worth.

This does not mean, of course, that we should have gone to war in 2003.

Anonymous said...

As far as Blair and Iraq is concerned , him saying what he's apparently said recently comes as no surprise - he has little option. We were ill prepared, badly led for the most part and eventually we got our arses kicked (Brits that is). Blair would do well to read this:

every day on his way to see the priest:

I personally believe Blair is a deluded grasping creep with a heavy spice of the 3 S's (shallow, stupid and selfish)- that doesn't negate animal cunning....

As somebody who has fairly extensive experience of that part of the world (and approved of removing Saddam) - my gripe with the whole business is the execution and almost non existent or wildly misjudged strategic planning. Rather than slog through a bullet list I suggest that if one has more than a simple passing curiosity about the pickle we're in regarding "The War on Terror" one gets tooled up with a couple of books:

FIASCO Thomas E Ricks
(Heavy on research - devastating critique)

The Siege of Mecca Yaroslav Trofimov
(A rollicking read - a Technicolor® insight into the weird world of Islamic nutters - required reading for anybody wanting to grasp what Islamic fundamentalism is)

A perusal of Richard North's Defence of the Realm blog is also illuminating.

There's going to be nothing new come out of this inquiry apart from a few swimming pools on lawyers mansions in Oxfordshire - all the dirt in it's miserable totality is enumerated in the FIASCO book for anybody to read for £8 not the £8000000 or more that this crowd of legal vultures and moonlighting bureaucrats are presently feasting on