I heard Tony Blair today in a long enough interview clip that I am sure I understood his context.
I remember him seeking to persuade the nation that it was right to commit British troops and resources to invading Iraq because Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Frankly, Blair was probably the only person in Britain who claimed to believe Saddam had WMD even then.
Today, Blair said openly that “if he had known” that Saddam had no WMDs, then he would still have invaded - but (I quote) “The arguments (I) used and deployed would have been different.”
An honest man gives his best and honest reasons for his actions. Blair emphasised at the time that WMD was the Big Issue.
Years, and thousands of lives later, he admits that he would have chosen another reason to suit his purpose, because he was going to do it anyway.
And the guy apparently can’t even see the irony in what he is saying.
This is the lawyer in the man: trained to “deploy the arguments” to achieve the desired objective, rather than trained to consider the argument and decide on the the desirable objective then.
This was the most disgusting comment by a British politician of any party that I can remember.
This is a different discussion from whether the invasion was right or wrong. I’m saying that Blair has admitted he was dishonest in taking us to war - whether or not the war was “justified”.
There was a similar or possibly the same interview today, Blair discussing his religion with Ferne Britten. He made a statement very similar to the one you mention.
It was impossible not to read into it his intention to go to war regardless of the presence of WMD.
On a frivolous note, he had worry lines on his forehead that frequently formed into a large clearly visible “W”. I pointed this out to one friend who said it was probably a “W for warmonger” brand, etched into his head. Another friend in the room suggested something else it might stand for.
At least he is becoming more honest about his dishonesty in the past. At the time I was pretty disgusted by the comments of New Zealand politicians. Helen Clarke said that it was a security measure to send troops to Iraq and not check with the people of NZ if we wanted to step in and bash Iraq. George Bush and President Obama aren’t exactly admitting to their deployed arguements being lies even though there is enough evidence to put them all away for war crimes.
Lets hope Copenhagen can make us a new world government that isn’t as corrupt as the 1st world countries governing bodies. Notice how terrified many people in rich countries are of losing their “freedom”, while poor people surely don’t have much freedom to lose. If the rumours are true about the fake global warming causing new taxes then it will just be another lie deployed as an argument that can’t be argued.
It’s an open question as to whether “WMD” was a lie or whether Blair believed it to be true. Personally, I suspect he didn’t believe it for one minute (let alone 45 minutes!) but I can do no more than suspect.
However, the arrogant cycnicism of thinking in terms of “using or deploying the arguments” to achieve the predetermined result of invading a foreign country, at the likely cost of hundreds of British lives and thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, is breathtaking.
And now he isn’t “coming clean about his dishonesty”, but admitting it in a casual “doesn’t everyone?” sort of way.
On election night 1997, I sat up until I was certain the tories were out, and I wept with relief when I knew they were. After 18 years of increasingly desperate conservatism, the country needed something better. But within 6 months I was bitterly disappointed with Blair.
It took Thatcher two terms of office to start to believe her own propaganda, and it took Blair about 2 days.
And yes, Diogenes ought to be in favour of cynicism, but not in this case. Now get out of my light and pass me an onion.