But even if there was any gullible type still believing Tony Blair’s “sincerity” in his dislike for tyrants like Saddam Hussein “and his sons” (Blair was keen on mentioning Saddam’s sons in his interview for some reason) ,surely after his lucrative trip to Azerbaijan they will now finally open their eyes.

£90,000 he was paid, for a twenty-minute speech on behalf on one of the most despotic dynasties on earth, with Father and Son having been the only presidents ever to rule Azerbaijan – with an iron fist.

If I hear one more time that Blair was sincere about his motives I swear I’m going to cry and puke at the same time.

Excellent work, comrade.

Would it be wrong to call Mr Blair a cunt, or is it time to move onto a new word?

The hypocrisy is indeed staggering. I like your reference to the 2003 Labour party conference – I believe that most subsequent conferences, and Unison ones, called for troops to be removed from Iraq – calls that were roundly ignored. God knows why the media love affair with this political frisbee continues – guess re-nosing the endless press releases that issue from the various chez Blair is as good as way to wind down for Christmas as any.

Time for a bit of math: Anthony Seldon + Tony Blair = 2 cunts.

One has to wonder why? Why now? Why even say it at all. I thought the most egregious part of the telling quote was how he flipped from ‘have to use…. have to deploy alternative arguments’. He militarized his definition of debate – who the hell ‘deploys’ arguments? The man scares the fucking life out of me – meglamaniac or not, he’s clearly a blood thirsty psycho and i’m a bit of a Neo-con at heart. 1 man cannot decide to go to war – well, apparently not 3 men – Blair, Bush & Cheney – not sure how involved our lads were.

Britain has lost any moral authority it ever had so I guess having an integrated Europe may prevent this in future. My God – how has it come to this?

Yeah, Iraq with all those companies owned by US and UK corporate giants. All that outsourcing…..to the Western world! Yeah, you really helped them! And talking about evil, what about Mugabe? Whom you IGNORED completely during your tenure but no, it’s just a coincidence that every country YOU wanted to go invade happened to be in the middle east were there is…ahem…oil.

As if things aren’t bad enough without “latter day courtiers” like Seldon running around trying to convince us that the Emperor DOES actually have new clothes

I’ve got to say, I do see a moral distinction between Blair and Hitler, to be honest.

There is an argument that war is sometimes the least worst option (Churchill vs Chamberlain, anyone?) – that a war can save more people than it kills.

Now I don’t think those conditions were met in Iraq. But I can see how, in 2003, it might have looked like they would be.

That doesn’t mean Blair shouldn’t be held to account, for lying through his teeth, even tried as a war criminal if it’s deemed necessary. Go right ahead. But I think comparing him to actual, deliberate mass murdering fuckheads is a bit… glib. Iraq was cock up as much as conspiracy.

Now I don’t think those conditions were met in Iraq. But I can see how, in 2003, it might have looked like they would be.

Not if you knew Saddam didn’t have WMDs though…

@7 No, even without WMDs there are still scenarios in which another decade of Saddam is worse than a quick war to remove him.

Things didn’t work out that way, for a whole variety of reasons (the war wasn’t quick; it sets a nasty precedent; the government made everything 100 times worse by lying at every turn). But I can see how, back in 2002-3, Blair might have been naive enough to think they would.

“But I can see how, back in 2002-3, Blair might have been naive enough to think they would.”

Especially given that there is a reasonably strong case for saying that Blair got it right in Serbia/Kosovo in 1998/9, and did so then against a background of isolationist, “not our problem” blind-eye turners.

Problem was, he inferred from the fact he arguably got it right in Kosovo that he must always get it right, and that force would always be the correct instrument.

The rest, as they say, is history…

The Seldon piece is very poorly written, considering that he’s the official biographer of a former prime minister. It’s a shambling, vague and unconvincing whine, full of non sequiturs, that closes with a Christian parable, misquoted and misused in defence of militarism.

Could it be that Anthony Seldon is just a nom de plume of Sarah Palin?

, it’s just a coincidence that every country YOU wanted to go invade happened to be in the middle east were there is…ahem…oil.

huh? Blair invaded by my count 4 countries, only one of which had any remotely significant amount of oil.

Perhaps that’s why he failed to take into account the fact that while most countries have neighbours whose natural self interest is for them to be stable and prosperous, oil-producers have neighbours who want them to _burn_.

It’s supply and demand – eliminate a competitor and the price goes up.

No matter what your motives, you can’t blunder into a region with that kind of dynamic without risk of kicking off an _actual_ war for oil.

Especially given that there is a reasonably strong case for saying that Blair got it right in Serbia/Kosovo in 1998/9, and did so then against a background of isolationist, “not our problem” blind-eye turners.

Serbia/Kosovo wasn’t about ‘regime change’. The Serbs had to do their own overthrowing, whereas the Iraqis were so helpless (or hopeless at organising their own insurrection) that ‘we’ had to do it for them, while swearing blind it was about WMDs. And shouting ‘Remember Hallabja!’ (sp?) when the WMD didn’t show up didn’t make the case any more convincing (not least because no-one can recall Blair having a position on the massacre at the time).

It’s obvious that Blair thought that little niceties like international law didn’t apply to the likes of him, or could be set aside based on what he thought was right, much like the entire Labour party was simply an mechanism for expressing his ego and prejudices.

@8 Jonn, any scenario where another decade of Saddam killed more people than the invasion, occupation and insurrection (all of which can be laid at the door of Blair and Bush and their coterie) wouldn’t be one where we sold him more weapons, would it?

@13 I’m not saying it wasn’t a stupid opinion. I’m saying it’s an opinion that could have been sincerely held. War, theoretically, can mean fewer deaths than peace.

I doubt anyone could seriously make that case about Hitler or Stalin.

Having to sleep with Cherie is bound to result in the occasional rick.

Kate, I think that epthet for Blair still stands. At home he and his entryist cronies eviscerated a once-noble party and condemned the UK to a neo–liberal future, lining their pockets all the time, while foreign policy was ludicrously neo-conservative and repellent in too many fields.

“So if Saddam is an “evil dictator”, does that make TB an “evil democrat”?”

I’ve never read so much drivel in my life. There’s no way could you ever describe Blair as a “democrat”.

@17, why is that? Because you didn’t like him, he wasn’t a democrat?

He was elected by and led a parliamentary democracy, did he not? As opposed to being a military dictator.

What’s up, Doc?

Tony Blair decided that Saddam was a criminal despot – which he was – and took the (tough) personal decision that he should be toppled:

– regardless of the legality of any war
– regardless of the loss of human life in Iraq
– regardless of what might be inflicted on the people of Iraq in consequence
– regardless of any planning for the post-invasion situation
– regardless of sending out British troops significantly under-equipped, not least for protection against use of WMD, the supposed justification for the invasion

In case you miss it, try this article in The Times today by Sir Kenneth Macdonald QC, previously Director of Public Prosecutions 2003-2008 and currently visiting prof at the LSE:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article6955241.ece

“The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage. It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible.”

Or perhaps the issue is not one of bodycount – perhaps it is a moral distinction.

We tend to ignore it when it’s exhibited by people on our own side – such as Trotsky and the hostages he took, or Eisenhower and the order to firebomb Dresden and Cologne, or Truman and the decision to use the Atom bomb.

You mention the fire-bombing of Dresden and the nuking of Japan presumably because you find these morally-suspect acts of war. Their inclusion certainly can’t be justified in terms of pure body count. And if it’s only body count you find morally-significant, frankly Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t even worth a mention compared to the first half of the 20th century. You have, therefore, answered your own question. So what, exactly, is the point of this article?

Personally, I think Ted Honderich had it about right:

“Honderich is also a consequentialist, which partly explains his hatred towards Tony Blair. ‘He is always asking to be judged by the morality of his intentions,’ he spits. ‘He doesn’t understand that no one cares about his fucking morality. We judge him by the consequences of his actions. In any case, his morality is so muddy and ill-considered. I’m increasingly coming to the opinion that Blair’s main problem is that he’s not very bright.'”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/22/academicexperts.highereducationprofile

Previously, Ted Honderich was Grote professor of philosophy at UCL.

Not if you knew Saddam didn’t have WMDs though…

Who knew? I know the argument is that Blair knew, but that would be silly because any subsequent, victorious war predicated on Saddam’s possession of WMD (that Blair knew to be a lie, apparently) would reveal, um, Blair to be a liar when the country was invaded and inspectors got to look where they wanted when they wanted and found the nothing that Blair knew (apparently) had existed all along.

So the logic of the “Bliar” crowd is that not only did Blair lie, but he lied knowing his lie would be revealed.

I say “logic”…

@22 Hans Blix?

So the logic of the “Bliar” crowd is that not only did Blair lie, but he lied knowing his lie would be revealed.

Can’t speak for anyone else here, but I always expected that the US & UK would find a small amount of Sarin, VX gas or some other horrible chemical that would be lethal if it was pitched into your bathroom, but are somewhat lower down on the international terror scale than a box of AK-47s would be. Just enough to save a few shreds of dignity, though.

Further, I’m certain that both Tony and George expected the same, but saw those awful weapons as a convenient excuse for a war that suited everyone who mattered. Blair just didn’t say so, because He’s Got ‘Em/Let’s Get ‘Im is easier to sell than, to pick one random example, Okay chaps, these Yankee academics have a spiffing plan for democratising the entire middle east in a rainbow revolution of magical sparkling ponies by bombing and strafing very large tracts of Iraq with deadly munitions.

Blair’s who gives a shit about the WMDs isn’t really news, since Paul Wolfowitz said that the weapons issue was merely a sales job for the invasion and occupation some years ago. The idea that the United States absolutely had to attack Iraq in self-defence was always hilarious anyway.

OTOH, Blair’s words are a huge single-fingered salute waved in the faces of both Dirty Fucking Hippies like me who thought the whole thing was an obvious bloodbath-in-waiting sold with bullshit from the start – screw you hippies, I did it anyway! …and surely to those like yourself, who spent all that time explaining why the war was totally justified by those weapons. Turns out they didn’t matter at all.

Flying Rodent,

Written in your customary, entertaining style, but basically four paragraphs conceding that the “Blair lied” mantra is unsupportable. Even if you think the charge true, you know it can’t be demonstrated to be such.

Blair just didn’t say so, because He’s Got ‘Em/Let’s Get ‘Im is easier to sell than

We’re talking about the same war, right? Blair’s mistake was to try to build a case for war on a forensic assessment of available intelligence rather than simply saying: “This gus is bad, he’s a threat, support me in this endeavour”, which is how previous Prime Minister’s have gone about the business of convincing the country to support military action. Blair’s delusion, if you like, was that he assumed everybody would, having had the evidence laid before them, come to the same inevitable conclusion that Saddam must be removed. Far from taking the easy route, Blair made things immeasurably more difficult for himself.

and surely to those like yourself, who spent all that time explaining why the war was totally justified by those weapons. Turns out they didn’t matter at all.

You can’t have been paying attention to any arguments I was making at the time, nor the arguments of a great many supporters. I readily concede that finding WMD was important to the Blair given the way the government built its case (although this simultaneously renders accusations that Blair lied about WMD transparently absurd), but most of us supported the war because Saddam reamained in non-compliance and the farce of 13 years of not knowing the truth about his WMD capability had to end. My favourite phrase at the time was that it didn’t matter whether we found 1,000 tonnes of depleted uranium under one of Saddam’s palaces or 1,000 tonnes of camel shit. The legitimacy of the war for those of us not working in Westminster did not hinge on such matters.

four paragraphs conceding that the “Blair lied” mantra is unsupportable

You think? I’m just summarising my opinion since before the war even started – that the weapons were merely the excuse for an invasion motivated by the White House’s and neoconservatives’ ludicrous magical thinking, and that Tony Blair conciously and deliberately overplayed the threat that a castrated Saddam posed to his neighbours and everyone else so that the UK could join the invasion.

If you want to debate whether that constitutes “lying” or not, we’ll be in Clintonian word-parsing territory in seconds. It’s indisputable that this was an intentional and successful campaign of propaganda aimed at instilling a majority of parliamentarians and the public with an erroneous consensus on Iraq’s military capabilities. Whether you consider that “lying” is up to yourself, but it should be clear to you what it wasn’t – a disinterested and even-handed presentation of reliable data honestly presented to help inform the decisions of the uninformed.

Tony’s latest attempt to get his ducks in a row before his Chilcot appearance surely supports my contention, I’d have thought.

Far from taking the easy route, Blair made things immeasurably more difficult for himself.

Well, this rather ignores the fact that aggressive warmaking is extremely illegal, doesn’t it? The precedent that it’s the most grievous crime has been set, and many men have been executed for it.

Whether you buy international law or not, it’s clear that Britain’s military and political classes take it very seriously indeed, and simply declaring He’s tha new Hitler, bombs away! would, I think, have created far more difficulty for Tone than the actual misinformation campaign he chose instead. It’s not like Blair was some wide-eyed political novice – he knew exactly how best to get parliamentary and public support onside on contentious issues, and obviously chose the WMD line because he thought it was the best route.

most of us supported the war because Saddam reamained in non-compliance and the farce of 13 years of not knowing the truth about his WMD capability had to end.

Well, indoodle. Trouble is, when the various countries of the UN voted in favour of Gulf War One, none of them would’ve done so if they thought they were handing the Americans carte blanche to do whatever it liked with Iraq for the next few decades. You can tell they didn’t think this, because so many of them said so in 2003 and some even actively obstructed the Americans’ attempts to claim this authority. Which brings us back to aggressive warmaking and the gallows.

The legitimacy of the war for those of us not working in Westminster did not hinge on such matters.

Oh, I’ve known that for a long, long time. As a political philosophy, it was one part Paul Berman to two parts Garcia Marquez. “Let us invade because we are good, and we say it is moral and just” is the road that led to the Americans putting the head-chopping, car-bombing extremists that Harry’s Place spent years denouncing on the US payroll to keep the peace.

It’s just unfortunate that the practicalities of the war did hinge on people who shared your opinion, rather than on those of the people who said this is an insanely risky proposition, being led by belligerent right-wing lunatics with a history stuffed with bald deceit and slapstick catastrophe.