«

»

Sep 03

Robert Fisk: Blair should take responsibility for Iraq. But he won’t. He can’t

Tony Blair was in Washington this week for the Middle East talks in his role as peace envoy

This is not a debate, it’s a bloody, blood-soaked disaster for which the former PM should take responsibility

GETTY IMAGES

Tony Blair was in Washington this week for the Middle East talks in his role as peace envoy

‘);
} else {
document.write(‘
‘);
}
// ]]>

Has this wretched man learned nothing? On and on, it went during his BBC interview: “I would absolutely…”,”I definitely…”, “I believed absolutely clearly…”, “It was very, very clear that this changed everything” – “this” being 11 September 2001 – “Let me state clearly and unequivocally”, “The Intelligence picture was clear…”, “legal justification was quite clear”, “We said completely accurately… “Because I believed strongly, then and now…”, “My definitive view in the end is…” You would have thought we won the war in Iraq, that we were winning the war in Afghanistan, that we were going to win the next war in Iran. And why not, if Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara says so.

And I hereby abandon all further reference to Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara, with its unhappy reference to Britain’s humiliating military defeat in 1915 Mesopotamia. He must be re-created Lord Blair of Isfahan. Having conquered Saddam, he wants to conquer Ahmadinejad. “I am saying that it is wholly unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons capability,” he told poor old Andrew Marr. It was necessary for the Iranians,” quoth he, “to get that message, loud and clear.” Thus did our Middle East peace envoy prepare us for war with Persia. But I rather fear the Iranians got his “message” a long time ago: if you want to avoid threats from the likes of Lord Blair, you’d better buy a bomb pdq. After all, what he didn’t announce was: “I am saying it is wholly unacceptable for North Korea to have nuclear capability.” And we all know why.

Sometimes, Blair sounded like the Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. He and his Israeli boss believe Ahmadinejad is worse than Hitler – which takes some doing – and Lord Blair, as we know, is no appeaser. Oddly, however – since he’s supposed to be our peacemaker between the two sides – “Israel” and “Palestine” were two words that went totally unmentioned, even though Blair blurted out to the Chilcot inquiry that there had been “phone calls” with Israelis during his decision-making conference with Bush over Iraq. Marr missed out there. What on earth were Blair and Bush talking to the Israelis about as they prepared to take us into this catastrophe?

[more...]

Related posts:

  1. What was Halliburton’s role in US oil spill?
  2. Up in smoke: ‘Cannabis gave me my life back’
  3. Netanyahu fuels fears of flotilla inquiry whitewash
  4. Guilty after six-year trial, Portugal’s high-society paedophile ring
  5. Tony Blair summoned back to Iraq inquiry to be quizzed over new evidence
  6. Tony Blair summoned back to Chilcot inquiry into Iraq war