Monday, February 01, 2010

Tony Blair: Man of God.

The man is the master of evasion techniques, wriggling out of questions like a maggot on speed.

Tony Blair's appearance at the Chilcot inquiry reminded us of the guy's exceptionally slippery eel-like qualities.

Also, like Andrew Rawnsley remarked in yesterday's Observer, the former PM's job was made a lot easier by the "feeble" nature of the panel:
"Time and again, they approached an interesting subject area, stumbled around like people in the dark trying to find the light switch and then abandoned the quest without leaving themselves or anyone watching much the wiser about the most divisive war in the last century of our history".
I don't normally agree with Peter Hitchens, but he nailed it right on the head when he wrote:
"Mr Blair, questioned in a feeble and disorganised way, talked himself out of trouble by answering questions he hadn’t been asked and not answering the ones he was asked. His interrogators mostly didn’t notice this simple trick, which dishonest people instinctively use".
All we learnt is that, after years of reasons for going to war mutating faster than the Sars virus (in succession, WMDs, violation of UN resolutions, Al Quaeda, human rights and 'regime change'), we are now told that 9/11 was what really did it. In the words of Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph:
"In a significant moment, Blair admitted that the danger from Iraq had not in fact changed at all in 2001 and 2002 - merely that his "perception" of it altered in the wake of 9/11".
The former PM said: "The crucial thing after 9/11 is that the calculus of risk changed... After September 11, if you were a regime engaged in WMD (weapons of mass destruction), you had to stop."

Yet, even if you agreed with this line of thought, it would only make sense if they'd held accountable each and every regime that was suspected of engaging in WMDs. You do it only with one and it's like trying to contain a bursting dam with a brolly.

And, in any case, hadn't the slippery christian said in the infamous Fern Britton interview that he'd have gone to war anyway regardless of WMDs?

Not to mention that no-one raised the simple straightforward objection that Iraq had jack to do with 9/11. If anything, a number of countries were far higher in the list of potential involvement. The hijiackers, for instance, were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. No evidence whatsoever existed of any link between Iraq and Al Quaeda.

The panel also failed when Blair was asked why he had insisted on a second UN resolution if he now thinks that the first one was enough to legally justify the war. They allowed him to slip out of that contradiction without further prodding.

Fair enough suspicion. Fair enough emotions running high. Fair enough the desire to appear tough before so-called rogue states. But can you raise an entire country to the ground purely on that basis - in the 21st century? Can you be so geo-politically inept and blind to the extra oil you're going to pour on the flames? Can you play with so many people's lives just like that, when the motivations are so hit and miss?

It has been years now that Tony Blair has been getting away with lame justifications such as "God will be my judge on Iraq", "I did what I thought was right for the country", or " I believed in it. I believed in it then, I believe in it now".

But you ask any prime minister, president, f├╝hrer or member of a junta and they'd probably say, through history, that they too believed in what they thought was right. And that is just shit.

8 comments:

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

It's funny how many people speak of him as the finest politician of his era.

*Sigh*

So being good at lying, bizarre moral compass, no-fallacy complex and an ego the size of baby Jesus are all good things are they?

Jim Koenig said...

The Tories would have gone in, in exactly the same way but maybe more astutely.

Only the LIbdems said "no". Whether that was an act of conviction, or a shallow stunt, we will never know.

I hope Bliar is right in his faith and an eternal hot poker up the jacksie awaits.

the patriot said...

Your reconstruction of the events is shabby and manipulative. Everybody believed Saddam had WMD at the time. What Tony Blair said to Fern Britton was simply that they went to war BECAUSE OF WMD and that he'd have done so also on the basis of regime change. He never said that WMDs were not the reason.

the patriot said...

Also...D H-G: Blair is good at lying and has a bizarre moral compass and an ego the size of baby jesus, right? And guess what? Hes one of you lot. You lot voted him in not once but three times. He's a product of the left. He was in the Labour Party all his life.

Charlie said...

'You lot' voted him in three times? Do you have some psychic insight into the voting patterns of all commenters here.

bernard said...

Of course, "The Patriot" is a superior being whose expertise should be deferred to by mere scum like us. Not quite sure how but it must be true.

thepatriot said...

Hey,
DHG, Charlie, bernard,
cut the smart alec bits.
Tony Blair was Labour all his life. He werent Tory. He werent UKIP. He was Labour. So what u moaning about?

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

I sense that from the title of the divot and the link to Aston Villa, we are wasting our time with 'the patriot' but, a few points that he'll ignore.

'Everybody believed Saddam had WMD at the time.'

Not true, at all and no evidence for this, at all, the war was sold on this concept, not regime change, which no one in their right mind would buy into, as it is not our job to use up American and British lives to change another countries leader.

Please see Zimbabwe for reference.

And with regards to Blair being 'one of you lot' first off, you have no idea who we are or what we believe in and I can speak for myself better than you can that he most certainly does not represent my interests OR beliefs.

As for him being a product of the left (A vague and general term), so what? Lots of shits have been products of the right, does that dis-credit all right end of the spectrum thought? No not at all, do try to think in bigger terms and use more complex reasoning.

Again, your 'logic' seems to be...

1. You guys seem left-wing
2. Blair was left-wing
3. You guys like Tony Blair
4. You cannot complain about him as you like him

Now I've put your simplistic, crass and idiotic thoughts in black and white, do you know see how wrong they are, or are you just going to keep banging the same daft drum?