The dominant theme among the left wing, Latte slurping Cafeista's during our usual Sunday morning Latte slurping session was Tony Blair and his appearance at the Chillcott Enquiry.
I decided long ago to avoid it on the day, i had no faith that Chillcott or any of the others would be able to nail down Blair, especially as he has had months of previous notice to work on his answers.
What i did do was read about it in the newspapers over the weekend and as expected, those who backed him in Iraq painted it a triumph for Blair while those who were against him called it a disaster for the former Prime Minister.
I can't possibly comment as i didn't see it but i read some very telling parts that were reported in all the newspapers.
He stated that the international community must now be prepared to 'take a very hard, tough line with Tehran' as he thought that 'Iran now poses as serious a threat as Saddam Hussein's Iraq'. He also stated that he had 'responsibility but no regrets' and would 'frankly, do it all again'.
First thought this raises is one about the disturbing insight this gives into his mentality. Does he really sees things so differently to others? How can he be so blasé about the hundreds of thousands of dead, the millions displaced and the damage reaped upon a whole country?
The nonexistence of weapons of mass destruction doesn't seem to trouble him, though at the time it was the reason he told the British public that war was necessary, because as he said in an earlier interview, he would have found other ways to justify an invasion anyway.
The second thought is what would we be into now if he was still in power? Judging by the way he constantly kept moving the argument to the present day and the threat of Iran, it is easy to imagine him leading the charge for another bout of military action against Tehran. A terrifying thought.
Thirdly, the idea that after everything his actions in Iraq had bought, he would 'frankly do it all again'.
The clincher for me was when he claimed that "we didn't end up with a humanitarian disaster" in Iraq. That was when i came to the realisation that it may not have been Bush who was widely thought of as the madman of the duo, it was actually Blair.
He readily admits he did it, doesn't regret anything about it and if he had the chance, would do it all over again in Iran. I really do suspect that the man has been driven quite insane by it all. Not that it should stop the War Crimes tribunal though.
15 comments:
Well fortunately for y'all, neither Brown nor Blair will have a playmate on this side of the Atlantic for at least the next couple of years. Obama isn't as adventure-prone as Bush, and probably won't care to start a war with Iran even if he had some good reason to.
Nog, I find your comment surprising given that Obama, so far, has shown little pacifism.
He's surged in Afghanistan, fired cruise missiles into Yemen, invaded Haiti, sold 6.5 billions dollars worth of weapons to Taiwan, given Israel the nod regarding Iran, has his drones filling the skies in Pakistan, is setting up a new Command in Africa, has got himself involved in Mexico, etc.
Where ever there is the potential for more war, America is always in the front line, all guns blazing!
P.S. Nog, I forgot to mention that America is also increasing missile defense systems in the Gulf region and many of the Gulf States have bought many billions of dollars worth of American armaments!
Obama has also increased defense spending to over a trillion dollars. Not bad for a pacifist, is it?
David, out of courtesy for our host, will you kindly stop threadjacking? This is three in a row now.
If you have another look, the topic of this post is NOT 'Evil America' or 'Indoctrinated Americans'. When Lucy DOES write another post that's loosely connected to these themes, then I'm sure we'll all welcome the return of your always penetrative and informative commentary - and I'm confident we'll learn a lot by reading your nuanced analysis.
But please respect our host and defer our joy until such a time arrives.
As for Blair, I think denial on this scale IS a form of madness. That's if he was being candid with his actual opinions on the debacle that was the invasion of Iraq.
However, I don't think he was being candid. I think - as always - he knows a lot more than he's letting on. I also think this whole experience has really put the shits up him, so what we saw on Friday was a sugar-coated veneer of confidence and no regrets, because he's genuinely fearful of - if not actual criminal proceedings - then at least of a lasting legacy of being an unprosecuted war criminal (which he has anyway among a great many people, possibly even a majority in this country).
It was a generally polished performance as usual from Blair. But what we're left with, as ever, is that dodgy dossier - the one that was changed beyond recognition from its raw intelligence roots and was apparently written by a Mr Nobody. Campbell says he didn't write it; Blair says he didn't write it, he just signed it (and ain't it funny how that excuse doesn't wash when you're talking to your bank manager or the Inland Revenue eh?)...
I don't think Brown will around much longer to find any playmates anywhere Nog. He has the stench of a dead man not so much walking as shambling along (in the political sense).
What i missed was the questions asked to Blair by Chillcott although i had very little faith that they would be very probing. I did read that he was shaking though at the start. He really does seem worried. Hopefully Chilcott will recall him later.
Cheezy, thanks for your silly little lecture.
If you could read you would see that my first comment on this thread was in response to Nog who asserted that the U.S. would not be interested in anymore wars for a couple of years.
I responded to that ridiculous assertion as I assumed that interaction between contributors was what this blog was about. I also assumed that this blog was interested in dealing with serious issues at least some of the time.
Perhaps you'd prefer to talk about the weather?
"I also assumed that this blog was interested in dealing with serious issues at least some of the time."
OK... if we're discussing your assumptions.... then if, from now on, you could assume that everyone reading the comments on this blog are about a million times less interested in reading your (to put it generously) 'thoughts', than you are in writing them, then I'm sure this would be very helpful.
It would save having to scroll past your mechanical 'Anti-Americanism 101', onto the posters who are capable of independent thought.
Cheezy, I visited your blog, noted the small number of comments and who they were from.
That explained a lot!
You're starting to talk me round to your point of view about everything, David. I think it's all the exclamation points that are doing it.
Trying law is not a good idea, Cheezy. You need brains for that.
How about hamburger-flipping! You'd surely be a success at that, more so than running a blog.
Cheers.
David,
being mean to Nog accomplishes nothing.
I've visited your blog. You removed my comments more than once. not very "open" at times which doesn't go along with your kind, loving, caring, sweet i'm just here for humanity branding...
True, you have more followers than nog but he hasn't tried to build a large base of followers. by the way, he has a lot on facebook.
Also, your followers have been the same core few for quite a while and they are wackos in my opinion. In general they are doomers that act like they are nice but spew hate on a regular basis.
q
OK, I'm not usually one to indulge in a peurile "my blog's bigger than your blog" contest (particularly since I don't actually run one anymore)... so I won't do that...
However, my curiosity was piqued by David's obvious pride in his little empire, so I finally took the plunge and clicked onto his blog.
Wow, I'm so glad I did!
If anyone hasn't had the pleasure yet, I suggest you read the italicised text down the right hand side - a more fantastically vainglorious bag o' shite it has never been my pleasure to read.
Self-deluded too. You wouldn't know that he was a nasty little racist just from reading that; you'd just assume he was a self-important sandal-wearing hippy tosser. However, as we know from his comments here on Lucy's blog, you don't have to scratch the surface too hard for this side of his character to reveal itself.
And if anyone knows of a more accurate 'wanker-meter' than someone who talks about themselves in the third person, then I'm all ears.
If you're 'all ears', Cheezy, you could try doing donkey impersonations.
You've certainly got the intellect for it!
P.S. Cheezy, I'm truly sorry your blog is struggling. If you keep visiting my blog you might learn a thing or two.
Then again, you might not!
Ah, I see... 'ears'... 'donkey impersonations'... I geddit.
Jesus Christ mate...
For someone who only posts digs at other people, it's pretty sad that you can't do it with any more wit or panache than that.
Post a Comment