Blog powered by Typepad

« So farewell, 'Nige', and thanks for everything | Main | Now I know what "American exceptionalism" means »

Tuesday, 05 July 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It will be interesting to see the wording. How strong was Blair's "belief" in Saddam's WMD? It would need to be very strong indeed for him to risk a war. Either he lied, or those feeding him the information did. Or both. But as you say, spreading the blame thinly means that it becomes a sort of natural catastrophe; one of those bad things that just sort of happens, like flooding or a tornado. Lamentable, of course, but with hindsight unavoidable, and there's no reason to destroy a lucrative career on the lecure circuit by creating too much of a fuss...

Apparently, 'W', it is five times longer than "War and Peace" so I'm glad I don't have to read it!

I guess I'm the only one around here to say this, but I've always had great respect for Blair. He stood far ahead of all his contemporaries. I found this article interesting (h/t Mick Hartley's blog). The article does a good job describing the type of monster that Sadam Hussein was:

Dom, I, too, admired Blair for the skill and technique he deployed into getting the country and Parliament to agree to go to war but that was mainly because I believed the intelligence reports on Saddam's weaponry, or at least, I believed that the heads of the intel services would not lie. Also, I assumed that we and the Americans had a plan for afterwards. Sucker that I am!

Hi Dom - I read your link, but I found it unconvincing.

Nobody can seriously doubt that Blair twisted the facts to suit his pre-determined policy of accompanying America to war. The reasons I think fundamentally the same narcissism tht prompted him to believe it was a good idea to intervene in the brexit campaign. It is arguable whether it was his, Obama's or Merkel's threats which won the day for the outers but there can be little doubt that had all three shut the fuck up remin wold probably have won.

All politicians love a good war and Blair was a prime example.

I agree Hussein was a loathsome bastard - the world is full of them unfortunately, but we don't go around making a point of toppling them and when we do the results are always disastrous.

I believed the government's case in 2003, and supported the war; and am bitter at having been taken for a fool.

Blair's achievement was to strip the government of all credibility and that is a massively damaging thing. It is a baleful legacy which will endure for decades.

By the way the same cheerleaders from 2003 were to the forefront in the Brexit referendum. Perhaps if Blair hadn't destroyed official credibility then they'd have won this time.

It used to be said that there is no more honourable profession than that in the service of the Crown. I was fed this on enlistment in the early 60's and believed it right through my service as I saw senior officers and politicians acting honourably towards me and my colleagues (the politicians less so, but that was only to be expected). Today, though, with squaddies, blue jobs and matelots being used as pawns in the great game of political enhancement, I would be reluctant to recommend a career in the Armed Forces. Blair sacrifices the young and brave to keep in with his bum buddy George, while Cameron holds them so much in contempt he notifies them of redundancy while they are still on active service and then makes the date of redundancy a few days short of eligibility for a full pension. The fact that these gallant men and women risk, and sometimes lose, their lives means nothing. His gradual reduction of numbers and equipment makes me glad that we have an Army Cadet Force, the rowing boats on my local park are still floating and the RAF museum still has the odd SE5a and Sopwith Camel, as we will no doubt need them. The Chilcott Report will be as honest as the Hutton Report was and no doubt Blair will be taking tea with Hilary with them both laughing that, once again, they are above the law.

The "profession of arms" in the preservation of your Nation and democracy is an honorable one. Thirty four years in uniform never changed my mind on that point.

It is just the lying, treacherous, grubby politicos that send the young, and not so young, people to war that are scum of mankind. As I climbed the rank structure I became more and more convinced that at the first sign of conflict somewhere we should send politicians in in the first wave.

Such a move would probably reduce war considerably.

My grandfather [Gallipoli (1915), France and Belgium (1916 - 1918)] called them "Would to Goders" as in "Would to God I could go with you fine lads". Which of course they never did.

Rant over.

Looks like your favourite pollie Theresa is going to be your new PM Duffers. I rest my case.

An important comment from Karwan Jamal Tahir, Kurdish Regional Government High Representative to the UK:

“It is a sign of the resilience and confidence of the British people that its government commissioned such a major investigation into its decision to join the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It’s not for me to comment in detail on domestic decision-making but I can say that the Kurds are eternally grateful for the British helping to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who committed genocide against us. I also send the most sincere condolences of the Kurdish people to the relatives and loved ones of the British soldiers who died and to those who were injured. Whatever conclusions are drawn from the Chilcot report, we remain allies of the UK in our joint efforts to defeat the common threat posed to us all by the so-called Islamic State.”

AussieD. The British Armed Forces are no different from any others. They protect the economic and political interest of the nation. Blair was right to help overthrow Saddam as the man had proven himself to be a continuous threat. We will never know what the intelligence services really know.
Blair is no mug and I support him. We should be more concerned about the British friends of fascist Islam.....

Well, there it is.

"British Exceptionalism"?


+1 for jimmy glesga.

The comments to this entry are closed.