Mehdi,

You are absolutely correct in your comments about Blair, though I actually think you let him off too lightly.

What strikes one about this man is the collosal, overweening, all-consuming, pride he radiates. Pride laced with vanity, in inverse proportion to his actual abilities.

The way he casually dismisses the importance of weapons of mass destruction, and mentions that even without them as pretext, he would, like, you know, guys, have just had to figure out some other, form of argument to get the public and parliament to, like, you know, go along with the invasion, you know... It's incredible. He's talking about War here, not some run of the mill political scam. British soldiers went to war and died, got mamed, because, credulous as they are, believed that Saddam was a real threat to Britain, a threat that was only 45 minutes away, and now Blair just brushes that all aside almost contemptuously.

Blair has, because of his vanity, put his head in a noose with his own words. That is, if we still had laws in Britain that applied to men of power when they break the law, only we don't. Blair is admitting that he is a war criminal, only he seems to stupid to appreciate the true gravity of his admission. I wonder if he actually wants to bring martyrdom on himself, as a victim in the crusade against radical Islam.

One of the main reasons the Iraq crime scandal won't go away, like many would like it to, is not because of the incredible loss of life involved and mass destruction reigned down opon a defenceless Iraq, but because of the great sense of injustice so many in Britain still feel about being lied to, trodden on, and ignored by Tony Blair. Dragging a country that didn't want to go to war against its will, is bad enough, but when one finds out that the main reason given, was a pack of lies, well, it just pours salt in the wound. Britain will only move on from Iraq, once the guilty men are tried, and punished for their crimes. A cull of the entire ruling elite is probably too much to expect, but at the very least Blair should be sacrificed, not least for the deterent effect it might have on future "mad" prime ministers.

One also has to ask how was parliament duped so easily? Obviously something is structurally wrong with the system if, effectively one "looney" and handful of cynical henchmen, can take the country to war like this. This is important, because it could happen again with Iran, under a new PM, following in Blair's footsteps.

Blair knew he had the support of the Tories, no matter what. They were even more loyal to the United States than he was. So he was sure of Tory support. Then he had the support of the right wing of the PLP, giving him close to a majority. It was the left of the PLP he had to somehow convince that Iraq was direct threat to British interests, and Britain. Which is why he dreamed up the story about WMD's and the absurd 45 minute claim, otherwise he knew he'd be in trouble.

He, and the PLP knew that if he had to he would push the vote through with support from the Tories and the right of New Labour, but this would have caused a rupture in the Labour movement comparable to Ramsey McDonald in the 1920's. Blair was prepared to split the Labour party in order to get his way and his majority, so many Labour MPs simply gave up, beause if he was determined to go to war, not matter what, was it worth splitting the Labour Party over Iraq?
And what would British politics have looked like afterwards? Imagine Blair at the head of re-aligned parliament leading a new grouping consisting of the Tories and Labour's right wing, with a rump New Labour left with a few dozen MP's in "permanent" opposition.

Listen to the speech patterns and glottal stops of current Labour pretenders, and despair.

Mehdi,

A final thought. I think you are seriously wrong, and underestimate how dangerous Blair's view of the world really is. When he talks about the worldwide struggle against "radical Islam" and how it's got a long way to go, he's being honest, which is unusual for him! He isn't covering up his motivation. He's revealing it.

The attitudes he expresses are widespread in the neo-conservative right, and in the socalled liberal left; especially in the United States and unfortunately in Europe as well. Bush talked about a crusade, and Blair is outlining a crusade as well. Obama too believes this at heart, though his rhetoric is slightly different, the content is the same.

This deep-seated attitude to Islam and Muslims, has profound implications for the future,which I don't need to spell out, they are obvious. It's rubbish of course, but still dangerous in the extreme. The ruling elite in the west need an enemy badly, it doesn't really matter that it's a form of fiction, like the threat from "radical Islam". The point is having a usful enemy, that can be cynically used as a pretext, rather like WMDs, to justify and legitimize the ideology of the crusade and our neo-imperialist agression directed at the Muslim world. But why? Very simply; we can't justify our agression and wars with an appeal based on our desparate need for the oil and gas, this would be a hard sell. Then, in Blair's words, we, you know, like, need to figure out some other line of argument that might work, guys. So we "conjure" a non-existant "radical islamic threat" which fits our purposes nicely, which are to grab, and control, what's left of the world's raw materials for ourselves, which at present, are wrongly placed under Muslim soil, and they, the Muslims, it's nothing personal guys, are just in the way. And unfortunately for them, the wars have only just begun.

it's all coming back to me now. I remember Blair saying in parliament, just before the invasion, and the crucial vote, when he was confronted by a question about the questionable legality of forcing regime change in Iraq through by force, that if Saddam was prepared to give up his weapons of mass destruction, then he could, as far a Blair was concerned, staty in power. That we were only interested in WMDs, not regime change, or toppling him from power.

Obviously he had calculated that he would have an almost impossible task ahead of him if he backed regime change, as this would have been blatantly illegal. Yet now he openly contradicts himself, and by his own words shows that he clearly lied, or misled, parliament. In a court, up on war crimes charges, he really wouldn't have leg to stand on.

Also his fall back position, that Saddam was threat to his neighbours doesn't stand up to a minutes scrutiny. The corrupt arab states around Iraq, regarded Saddam as the crucial bulwark against Iran, and potentially the threat from Israel. None of them wanted Saddam removed and they said so publically on numeous occasions, yet Blair chooses to "forget" this as well. The prick has such a selective memory when it suits his purposes. But I think his incredible vanity and enormous ego will eventually do for him.

history will always judge the imperialist wrong and thats why the will die like fulls musquarading under the guys of spreading democracy

ARE YOU REALY SURPRISED ?! OR WERE YOU ALL SO DESPERATE FOR A LIEBOUR GOVERNMENT ??!!
ONESELF WAS NEVER FOOLED BY BLIAR... ONESELF NEVER VOTED FOR BLIAR OR LIEBOUR.
HE TOOK SO MANY FOR MUGS... AND PROVED HIS POINT PERFECTLY !

Tony Blair was right on about radical Islam being the real threat, but too bad he didn't have a good knowledge of the rise, spread and core doctrines of 7th cent. Islam like he could get now free online from the Historyscoper.

Funny, when loss of life is discussed regarding this illegal act in Iraq the 'British toll' is mentioned first and foremost and little about Iraq's count of loss. It is estimated to date that as much as 1.3 million Iraqi's perished, I too would like to see Blair up in court and finally punished......but somehow I can't see that happening, can you? Afterall, the agenda from these neo-cons towards truth and justice is not on the table, sadly these henchmen will stop at nothing. This much is very transparent and we all need to wake up and say no to the 'new world order'.

We must keep our fingers crossed that Blair's convoluted excuses will mean eventually that he will disappear up his own ass hole.

p.s. Vote New Labour anyway!

The reason one had to keep hammering away at this ghastly story of why we attacked Iraq, and not forget it, and Blair's crimes; is because it could easily happen again and probably will.

Our political institutions, in the leading imperialist states, the UK and the US, have not been thoroughly reformed, they are not under increased democratic control, and centralized control in the guise of the PM or the President, has not been seriously challenged.

Neither has the media been cleaned out. No structural changes have been implimented to challenge its primary function as a channel for the corporate state's propaganda. In time of war the media is still blinded by "patriotism" and bordeline hysteria about the "evil" threat from without.

Iran is the next country in line for regime change, peacefully if we can, but by force if necessary. Then it'll be the turn of Venzuela I imagine, and further down the line Russia and China, though one can hardly imagine them passively waiting for their turn to come around.

re: Cherie Irvings post.

Sadly I don't think there is much we can do about it. I don't believe the government is 'pussy footing' around, afterall is this enquiery going to expose and highlight the REAL reason for attacking Iraq? Wanting to control the region and it's oil is not something they will admit to. This has been going on for too many years now, look at the early 1950's (Iran and Mossadegh) the British had problems persuading the Americans initially to help with overthrowing a legitimate liberal leader in order to keep the oil, but they did manage to change their minds in the end and the well known orchestrated coup was achieved. Nothing has really changed as such, now look at Iraq and Afghanistan today. It's poppycock all this about the war against terror, America as well as Britian need the bogey man to instill the fear into our lives and they have been largely succesful with this ploy...it suits them to the ground. Tony Blair should face a war crimes tribunal and George Bush should be dragged along also...again, it's a pipe dream I feel.
Perhaps there is one thing we can all try and do: Educate people and expose the government/s for the evil and lies of todays neo cons.

Iraq was invaded and occupied in order to rid the world of an evil tyrant. That's a cartoon. Iraq was invaded to destroy it as a state, and a potentially very powerful one, at least in the region; but primarily to gain access to, and control of, it's vast oil reserves, putting both the country and this fabulous prize within the western sphere of influence.

This is why the men and women were sacrificed on the altar of greed, power and lies. And this might be worse than dying for nothing, or even a fairytale.

By all accounts, Saddam Hussein was a highly sadistic and violent man, a torturer and murderer, and a dictator responsible for the deaths of somewhere between 500,000 to 1.5 million Iraqis at the hands of his police state, not counting the casualties of the wars he started.

I'm glad he was removed from power, and I don't feel all that bad that the Iraqi people chose to execute him.

Perhaps his increasing psychopathy and its implications for US and international access to oil, and the fact that he'd provided aid, including training camps and money, to terrorist, including jihadist terrorist, had a bearing on the decision by the US and UK to oust him. I didn't expect there to be perfect altruistic motives, or even open honesty - I'm just glad the they got rid of him, and that they stayed to fight the insurgents who would stop Iraq from having a self-determined democracy - Saddam didn't torture and murder 1 million Iraqis all by himself. I'm not saying they were definitely the exact same group of people, but they both showed an enthusiastic willingness to kill their fellow countrymen rather than let them have freedom.