Online Journal
Front Page 
 Special Reports
 News Media
 Elections & Voting
 Social Security
 Editors' Blog
 Reclaiming America
 The Splendid Failure of Occupation
 The Lighter Side
 The Mailbag
 Online Journal Stores
 Official Merchandise
 Join Mailing List

Commentary Last Updated: Feb 3rd, 2010 - 01:17:46

Blair has slithered off the hook again
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Feb 3, 2010, 00:20

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

Say what you will about Britain�s former prime minister, Tony Blair, the man�s a masterful manipulator. Who else could have endured a day�s questioning over his role in the Iraq blunder without changing his script once or displaying the slightest contrition?

Last Friday, this consummate thespian sat before the five-member Iraq Inquiry panel with a grave expression and, at times, trembling hands. Cloaked in his usual sincere hand-on-heart guise he insisted that toppling Saddam Hussain was the right thing to do and, what�s more, he would do it again. When he was asked outright whether he had any regrets, he answered, �Responsibility, but not regret for removing Saddam Hussain. I think he was a monster.�

Many would agree with him; many others believe there�s a monster lurking behind Blair�s �Mr Nice Guy� fa�ade. He maintains Saddam murdered a million people, but didn�t his actions and those of his Texan buddy produce a similar tragic result?

In fact, you could say that Blair was responsible for even more Iraqi deaths. He partnered with the US in the 1998 bombing of Iraq and championed 10 years of crippling UN sanctions, believed to have caused the deaths of over half-a-million Iraqi children.

Blair refused to admit that the coalition was responsible for post-invasion deaths, for which he blamed insurgents and terrorists. Incredibly, no one pulled him up on that. There was no insurgency prior to the invasion, which became a lightning rod for extremists and terrorists. He was also unrepentant about the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq because Saddam would still have retained the know-how to make a nuclear bomb.

If Saddam was �a monster,� until he invaded Kuwait in 1990, he was the West�s monster, a bulwark against the ambitions of Iran. Blair insisted that Iraqis were better off without their former dictator but a Sky News correspondent, reporting from Baghdad during the inquiry�s lunch break, disagreed. She maintained that a majority of Iraqis believe that their lives were better and more secure under Saddam. In fairness, that assessment wouldn�t be shared by most Kurds and Shiites.

During his interview -- which was less of an interrogation and more like a cozy chat in an establishment gentlemen�s club -- Blair used the opportunity to rail against Iran, giving the impression that were he still prime minister that�s where he would be heading next. Iran, he said, was a country linked up with terrorist groups. He also blamed Iranian interference for the coalition�s post-invasion failures.

It must be said that all of the above is cosmetic to the nitty-gritty of the inquiry�s raison d�etre: to discover whether or not Britain was dragged into a war of aggression, which the prime minister knew was illegal under international law.

Another pretext

Blair looked distinctly uncomfortable during this line of questioning but skillfully wriggled out of a statement made during an earlier BBC interview to the effect that even if he knew Iraq had no WMD he would have had to find another pretext. He admitted assuring George W. Bush a year before the invasion that Britain would help bring down Saddam and confessed that his decision had divided both the cabinet and his country.

He argued that the 9/11 attack on the US was also an attack on Britain, saying it changed everything, but was forced to admit that Iraq had no part in that tragedy. Instead he took the line that threats from countries harbouring illicit WMD could no longer be tolerated, which didn�t explain why Iraq was singled out while North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel, which are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, were treated with kid gloves. He said he believed absolutely in the intelligence on Saddam�s WMD and, when pressed on its nature, cited mobile laboratories; quite laughable when one recalls there were no mobile labs, only caravan-like facilities for weather balloons.

The oh-so-polite panel omitted to take him to task for his insistence that Iraq was in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which he referred to as �Saddam�s last chance to comply.� In reality, Saddam had destroyed his chemical stockpile and abandoned his nuclear weapons programme in 1991. He had also re-opened the door to weapons inspectors, so he was in compliance with 1441. The problem was the US and Britain refused to believe it or to give top UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammad Al Baradei more time.

Blair�s most cowardly act of the day was heaping blame on his former attorney-general, Lord Goldsmith, who along with a slew of Foreign Office lawyers had been adamant that a follow-up UN Security Council resolution under Chapter 7 was needed to authorise the legality of war. With British troops gearing up for action, Lord Goldsmith was bludgeoned by Number 10 and White House lawyers into altering his initial opinion. When pressed for a �yes� or �no� response, he said 1441 was cover enough but may not convince a court of law. If Goldsmith had said a firm �no,� Blair said Britain could not have joined the invasion. So it was all Goldsmith�s fault! �This isn�t about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It�s a decision,� he said.

Tell it to the Marines, Mr Blair, or better still, to the families of the dead, maimed, orphaned or displaced. See if they believe you! I certainly don�t.

Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Top of Page

Latest Headlines
Obama seeks $200 million fund for Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial security
Gulf anti-missile shield
The defense industry is pleased with Obama
Capitalist tool
Decency and strength
What do Iraqis want?
Blair has slithered off the hook again
So now what?
Supreme Court-porate opinion blesses corruporate campaign financing
Hijinks or undercover ops?
What�s quaking, what�s shaking?
Last rites for America�s near-death democracy
Obama�s 2011 budget
American anomalies: Just how insane is our foreign policy?
A life well lived: Remembering Howard Zinn, people�s historian
Will Obama guarantee a new reactor war?
Is it failing schools or failing communities?
What is the purpose of the London Conference on Afghanistan?
What Is it you said, Mr. President?
It�s not a new Turkey; it�s the right time