Says it all, really
His voice fading, Mr Blair insisted that Britain – especially its armed forces – should feel an "immense sense of pride" over the Iraq war.
And not only this, he also despoiled the occasion by carrying a lot of water for the US/Israel, repeatedly urging a war against Iran. He also disclosed that the Israelis were there, in the shadows, (where, naturally, it's anti-Semitic to suggest they might be) at the Crawford, Texas summit with Bush.
However, I feel there were enough slips here to reward a forensic analysis and cross-checking of what Blair said, to pinpoint the elisions, for example, from being sure that Saddam Hussein had WMD, to minutes later being sure that he had what was necessary to reconstitute his WMD programs.
That was far too obvious a substitution, but unfortunately, the deferential questioners engaged in no cross-questioning of any kind in the two and a half-hours I managed to stay awake for.
To the claim that the 45 minutes-claim has become overstated after the fact, Blair should have been asked to consider this, for example:
X
I'll leave you with Baha, who remains firmly committed to staying the course in Iraq, and is happy to have played his part in ridding the world of that monster, Saddam Hussein. Yes, he was only a lowly hotel receptionist, kicked and stomped to his death by patriotic brave British tommies, but men like Baha know that it is the smallest of gestures that can make all the difference, and that no man, no matter how seemingly insignificant, should be spared the glorious chance to advance the cause of freedom and international brotherhood.
January 30th, 2010 - 19:49
The intense questioning Blair had to endure in the Chilcott Inquiry was equivalent to entering the dungeon court of the Spanish Inquisition and proffered a dry martini whilst being wanked off by supermodels wearing mink-gloves to the lascivious pleasings of a lute.
Little wonder he cracked under such pressure. His hands (visibly) shook as he struggled easily to maintain the fiction that this whole bloody imperial criminality was in the cause of democracy, as indeed it was.
Of course, this is a particularly perverted understanding of democracy. This conception involves removing a dictator which you have established, then supported, then got pissed off with, then removed by bombing the whole country and destroying millions of lives. This apparently results in a better future for those who remain in the smouldering ruins.
Nick Cohen’s article in the Guardian (17th January) is a despicable example of ‘liberal’ apologism for this wholly disastrous policy of US militarism backed up by the UK Labour government. His opening gambit says it all:
“Consider the response of liberal Europeans to the last 40 years of Iraqi history”
Well, Nick, that’s the point. There was no response 40 years ago by liberals. Liberals are more interested in pickling the radical ideas of the enlightenment, (and placing the picklejars on the High Table next to the port and stilton), rather than actively trying to change the world to the benefit of the mass of suffering humanity in face of a global ruling class.
On a lighter note… at least Monsignor Blair managed to leaven his war-mongering by suggesting that Iran should be next on the list.