Monday, 24 January 2011

Liddle on Blair

A reasoned critique of Blair's critics by Rod Liddle on his Speccie blog here; he concludes
It is the other issue, a separate issue, upon which Blair is terribly culpable; more terribly culpable than any PM before or since. We know for sure now and had indications at the time that Blair’s reasons for taking our country to war were not those which he deemed to share with the country or with parliament. They were not shared because he was well aware that neither public nor parliamentary opinion would go along with him. And in attempting to convince the public of Saddam’s ownership of WMD he misled parliament, misled the public and pressurised, perverted or twisted every institution which might have acted as a check upon his messianic determination to wage war. This included the select committees, the civil service, the security services, the government scientists and even in the end the BBC. Cabinet was ignored. As John Denham put it at the time, Blair demanded evidence of WMD regardless or not of whether WMD existed. This is incontestable; it is the subtext of all those Blair year diaries produced by the either supine, or in Alastair Campbell’s case, conniving, former members of the administration. I do not think it is stretching it to suggest that this was the closest Britain has come to totalitarianism. Regardless or not of whether we were right to have invaded Iraq, we were lied to, repeatedly and the processes corrupted.
We don't have a Tarpeian Rock in London, but perhaps readers can suggest an alternative point from which murderers, traitors and perjurors can be flung to their death? 


Angry Exile said...

How about repeated defenestration at the palace of Westminster itself? Lots of windows. Could go on all day before you even left the ground floor.

Suggestion Box said...

Canary Wharf high enough for you? Or the useless and largely unwanted (by Londoners) eyesore revolving wheel at Westminster?

formertory said...

Appointment as button boy on Ganges, and then run a sweep on how long they can stay up there?

Weekend Yachtsman said...

I believe traitors' gate at the Tower is still there.

Why it was not brought into service to hasten the demise of Heath (hawk, spit) I have never been able to understand.

David C said...

Raedwald should know full well that if we were to have such a facility it would be reserved for the 'real' traitors like e.g. Booker, Delingpole, rather than those of the establishment, who would, by virtue of their former office, have immunity.

Edward Spalton said...

I have never been entirely clear about America's real reason for going to war in Iraq with Blair tagging along so enthusiastically. Saddam Hussein was caged and under aerial supervision with rapid air strikes if he transgressed. He was not a threat militarily.

People say "oil" knowingly and I think that is partly right but not in the obvious way. One reason why the French were so disobliging in the UN was that they and the Germans had made large contracts with Saddam Hussein to buy oil in EUROS. If ever that became fashionable, the whole raison d'etre for the international reserve status of the dollar would become even more shaky. I just wonder whether "shock and awe" was designed to warn the rest of the Arab world not even to think of going down that road.