Blair does it again
Hi,
It is a long time since I did any blogging, somehow life seems to short to put my feeble thoughts down on paper.
Still the Chilcott Inquiry and Blair's performance made me think. One is what a waste of time lawyers are and that Blair goes on deceiving himself. Let me address the first issue.
Many lawyers and like-minded individuals have complained that the interviewing needs tough forensic attacks of the sort barristers enjoy. But lawyers aren't interested in the truth, trying either to prosecute or defend. The idea of trying to establish a nuanced version of what actually happened is not part of their brief. So we see with the Chilcott Inquiry gentle prodding and the truth emerges, no aggressive trying to point the finger or lay blame, just what they did. Maybe those inside the Westminster bubble knew but most of us didn't. A good lesson if you want the truth don't use judicial inquiries, they cost a fortune, go on forever and nobody is any wieser at the end of them.
Now we come to Blair's evidence. One thing we learned was that he wanted to go to war as Bush's sidekick whatever happened. One way or the other he wanted to send the troops in and see himself as the great saviour of the world. My instant thought is "What a prat!" but more worrying was that almost evertung he thought was true wasn't and the events that followed he had no idea about.
He seems to believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction despite the fact that they didn't have any and that as soon as the west went away they would suddenly appear. At no point did he understand that the Coalition forces were seen to be an occupying army or that in the chaos that followed Iran would seize the opportunity to cause trouble. Given that a majority of the population were Shia and that many of their leaders had taken refuge in Iran this seems to be a lamentable failure of Blair's understanding of the situation. What comes across most forcibly is that of a man with almost no ability to see anything that he didn't want to see. This might be his religious fervour or his training as a barrister. After all his ability to see only the arguments that supported his view is precisly waht lawyers do when presenting a case, recall they are professional liars, as unfortunately are a significant number of politicians.
The other point he keeps making is that 9/11 changed the world, it didn't, but it changed peoples' perception. Many seem to have forgotten that their was an earlier attempt to blow up the twin towers. Perhaps if that thraet and the causes of it were taken seriously the successful attempt might have failed. So the threat of a terrorist attack on the US in the US was clearly a possibility, yet they seemed so shocked when it happened.
Another worrying feature of the Blair analysis is the belief that he can decide who is a rogue state and decide to invade them. One of the arguments that those supporting the war seem to make is about democracy and supporting the rule of law. But Blair & Bush behaved like vigilantes with no respect for the law, I could imagine them as members of the Klu Klax Kan stringing up a negro because he got uppity. And as in the south usuing tame lawyers to give a veneer of respectability to their behaviour. It is clear that Goldsmith really changed his mind because he know Blair was going to go to war and, to give him credit, he wanted to protect the armed forces from prosecution as war criminals.
It is a long time since I did any blogging, somehow life seems to short to put my feeble thoughts down on paper.
Still the Chilcott Inquiry and Blair's performance made me think. One is what a waste of time lawyers are and that Blair goes on deceiving himself. Let me address the first issue.
Many lawyers and like-minded individuals have complained that the interviewing needs tough forensic attacks of the sort barristers enjoy. But lawyers aren't interested in the truth, trying either to prosecute or defend. The idea of trying to establish a nuanced version of what actually happened is not part of their brief. So we see with the Chilcott Inquiry gentle prodding and the truth emerges, no aggressive trying to point the finger or lay blame, just what they did. Maybe those inside the Westminster bubble knew but most of us didn't. A good lesson if you want the truth don't use judicial inquiries, they cost a fortune, go on forever and nobody is any wieser at the end of them.
Now we come to Blair's evidence. One thing we learned was that he wanted to go to war as Bush's sidekick whatever happened. One way or the other he wanted to send the troops in and see himself as the great saviour of the world. My instant thought is "What a prat!" but more worrying was that almost evertung he thought was true wasn't and the events that followed he had no idea about.
He seems to believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction despite the fact that they didn't have any and that as soon as the west went away they would suddenly appear. At no point did he understand that the Coalition forces were seen to be an occupying army or that in the chaos that followed Iran would seize the opportunity to cause trouble. Given that a majority of the population were Shia and that many of their leaders had taken refuge in Iran this seems to be a lamentable failure of Blair's understanding of the situation. What comes across most forcibly is that of a man with almost no ability to see anything that he didn't want to see. This might be his religious fervour or his training as a barrister. After all his ability to see only the arguments that supported his view is precisly waht lawyers do when presenting a case, recall they are professional liars, as unfortunately are a significant number of politicians.
The other point he keeps making is that 9/11 changed the world, it didn't, but it changed peoples' perception. Many seem to have forgotten that their was an earlier attempt to blow up the twin towers. Perhaps if that thraet and the causes of it were taken seriously the successful attempt might have failed. So the threat of a terrorist attack on the US in the US was clearly a possibility, yet they seemed so shocked when it happened.
Another worrying feature of the Blair analysis is the belief that he can decide who is a rogue state and decide to invade them. One of the arguments that those supporting the war seem to make is about democracy and supporting the rule of law. But Blair & Bush behaved like vigilantes with no respect for the law, I could imagine them as members of the Klu Klax Kan stringing up a negro because he got uppity. And as in the south usuing tame lawyers to give a veneer of respectability to their behaviour. It is clear that Goldsmith really changed his mind because he know Blair was going to go to war and, to give him credit, he wanted to protect the armed forces from prosecution as war criminals.
posted by Unknown at
3:51 PM
|
0 comments
