Tony Blair’s ‘No Apology’ Tour
While President Obama has been at pains in recent days to declare the Iraq War over and done with, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been loudly defending the enterprise, and addressing the broader threat posed by radical Islam, in language that must be causing the most penitent, deferential, and morally ambiguous leader in America’s history to wince.
Blair’s memoir, A Journey, was published this month, thrusting him back into the media spotlight and rekindling hostility towards him from opponents of the war. In Dublin, anti-war campaigners, their ranks swollen by pro-IRA thugs, laid siege to a store where Blair was signing copies of his book, hurling eggs and, in the latest tiresome homage to the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George Bush, assorted pieces of footwear (they missed). The sight of self-proclaimed peace protestors standing shoulder-to-shoulder with supporters of terrorists would have seemed odd to anyone not familiar with the left’s high degree of moral flexibility when it comes to choosing their allies.
Following the protests, Blair cancelled a book signing in London and a private event at an art gallery, saying he didn’t want the public to be “inconvenienced” by protestors. Predictably, anti-war groups claimed victory. “It shows he is running scared,” gloated Lindsey German of the Stop the War Coalition. “The people who say we should not protest are denying us the right to persist in asking questions about the war and denying the rights of Iraqis who are still suffering because of Blair’s policies.”
The irony is that while the anti-war crowd prefers to shout down its opponents rather than engage in debate, Blair is more than happy to answer what are necessarily difficult questions about the war. He’s faced plenty in recent days — albeit from more civilized inquistors than the Stop the War Coalition — and he’s been eloquent and impassioned in defense of his decision to support the invasion.
In Britain, much of the interest in Blair’s book has focused on domestic politics. For observers outside the UK, and particularly in the U.S., interest is centered on Iraq, and by extension on Blair’s relationship with President Bush. Blair has always been able to defend the decision to go to war, and fit that war into the bigger global picture, with an eloquence that Bush could seldom muster. In both the book itself, and interviews given to coincide with its release (including this one with the Guardian), Blair is unwavering on the need to counter the threats that were posed by Saddam and are still posed by radical Islam. He’s equally resolute in his defense of President Bush. In A Journey he writes: “One of the most ludicrous caricatures of George is that he was a dumb idiot who stumbled into the presidency.” He also says Bush had “genuine integrity, and as much political courage as any leader I ever met.”
His arguments will be familiar to many: If al-Qaeda could have killed 300,000 instead of 3,000 on 9/11, they would have done so; after 9/11 the calculus for dealing with rogue states changed; Saddam had made and used WMDs in the past and wanted to produce them again; the war was legal because Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions; al-Qaeda and Iran were responsible for much of the bloodshed that followed the invasion, and could not be allowed to fill the power vacuum in Iraq. Blair also raised the spectre of Saddam, left in power and enriched by rising oil prices, competing with Iran for nuclear supremacy, a scenario envisioned recently by David Frum and Daniel Henninger among others.
Blair’s most impressive performance came in an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr. If you’re outside the UK you won’t be able to watch it at the BBC’s website, but at the time of writing at least one recording was available on YouTube. The parts dealing with Iraq and the War on Terror are here and here.
“The war was legal because Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions.”
What the far-left tends to forget about the Iraq war is that Saddam Hussein broke about 14 UN resolutions against him. So, according to the far left and liberals, how many resolutions is a dictator allowed to break before the UN actually has to DO something about it?
Also, protest of the war seemed strange coming from Obama and Hillary Clinton. After all, they ADORE the UN and Clinton even said recently that “The UN is the most important organization in the world.” Well, if that is the case, then shouldn’t people listen to the UN and do what the UN says they should do? It seems that the UN is a great institution as long as it doesn’t have to DO anything of substance, like enforce its own resolutions.
And we can all see right now how effective the UN is at dealing with the threat coming from Iran. Some experts say that Iran will have nuclear weapons in one year. I guess the UN will wait until then before issuing another one of its “stern” resolutions condemning Iran. That will really make the Iranians shake with fear. What a pathetic bunch of bureaucrats they are.
I am presently reading Tony Blair’s book. In the introduction to his book, at least in the American version, he discusses American exceptionalism, the greatness of our people and that the world in fact needs us to lead, no matter how much they basically complain and resent it. Blair is a unique leader that is needed at this time. We were lucky that he was there when the world needed forthright and honest leadership and strength. Too bad that no leader like that exists today, except perhaps Benjamin Netanyahu who is basically caught between an anti-Semitic American President and the need to keep the millions in Israel, Jew and Arab alive. I personally am glad that Tony Blair has a bit of a hand in the Middle East today. He seems to be the only one with any intelligence of forethought and comprehension of the geopolitical realities.
Great article. Thanks.
Someone smack that idiot with another egg: not only didn’t Hussein have any connections to al-Qaeda, but he also considered radical Islamists to be a threat to his own regime. Fuzzying them all up together may have worked back during the scary, anxiety-filled months immediately following 9/11, but as all the evidence slowly, too slowly collects, it’s become pretty damn clear beyond any doubt to non-idiots that Bush and his people lied big time and that Blair was either a complete dupe or another equally big liar.
Congress supported the war, initially. All of your favorites (Pelosi, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, etc., etc.,)came out with statements indicating that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and needed to be taken out. And Bush did not lie. The intelligence networks of both Britain and the US provided that information, and Bush and Congress took them at their word. And who is to say they were not right? The weapons maybe were removed prior to the invasion or during the war. Maybe they were just not found. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Who is to say what he may have done if he acquired nuclear weapons, as he would have so as not to be outdone by Iran. The Russians would have gladly helped him.
Yeah right. Just like Hitler would have never allied with Stalin.
Strictly speaking, overt connections between al Aeida and Saddam were not made. Represenative did meet, and Saddam had sought to hire terrorists to allow him to act without direct involvment; al Qeida members and operative were in Iraq unmolested by or used as mercenaries by the Baathist government. Saddam saw religeous zealots as tools for asymetric warfare, much as the Iranians had used “maryrs” brigades in their war. Secondly, it is well know that Saddam had sought WMD’s, had used them when he had them, and both the US and British intelligence service were pretty sure he was trying to get them at the time we invaded. Evidence found after the invasion suggests that some material was moved to Syria and some old buried caches were found. Sources are available in MSM for these statements, including videos and reports, but they weren’t trumpeted because they defied the chosed narrative.
My opnion of Mr. Blair has just gone up considerably. He seems to be showing character and adherence to principle. . . . oh that the idiot in the White House would take some lessons. . . . .
The London libs who so callously spit on Tony Blair will be in for a rude awakening when Islam swallows their country whole in the next 20 years.
Before passing judgement on the British people could you at least refer to the Chilcot inquiry and the information coming out of it.
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/
The U.S can do what it wants,but Blair lied and spun us into war
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wrote the letter to Mr Blair in July 2002 , warning Blair that deposing Saddam Hussein was a blatant breach of international law.
Ministers were secretly told that the US and UK were set on ‘regime change’ in Iraq.
It was intended to make Mr Blair call off the invasion, but he ignored it. Instead, a panicking Mr Blair issued instructions to gag Lord Goldsmith, banned him from attending Cabinet meetings and ordered a cover-up to stop the public finding out.
He even concealed the bombshell information from his own Cabinet, fearing it would spark an anti-war revolt. The only people he told were a handful of cronies who were sworn to secrecy.
Instead, evidence that Saddam was a national threat was presented as “beyond doubt”. Blair had a duty to be dispassionate when citing the evidence to the House; yet he was already convinced.
So emotionally-charged was his speech that he asserted weapons could be deployed in “45 minutes”. The media leaped on this claim, greatly exaggerating the extent of Saddam’s threat to Britain. Blair had a duty to correct these exaggerations, but, convinced of the case for war, had no incentive to calm the media storm.
What 9/11 showed was not that Saddam was a greater imminent threat – but a greater hypothetical threat. The difference between these two is critical. It reveals that Blair wasn’t motivated by evidence, but by an increased fear. He wanted to invade Iraq not due to solid evidence – this came later in his decision – but due to emotion.
. War is emotionally-charged; while it would be nice to have unquestionable evidence, this is unrealistic; in such an uncertain world, we cannot afford to wait for 100 per cent knowledge. This may be true, but it is imperative that if we are to wage a war, we must have adequate justification to do so. The motivation cannot be fear or distrust, but greatly substantiated evidence.
He put U.S interests before ours. He didn’t protect us to the woeful post war
U.S planning and has admitted he was unaware of the policy of de-bathification.
He was irrelevent.
Americans shouldn’t really refer to ‘pro I.R.A thugs ‘ when it was the U.S who funded and poliitically supported them .
This fact being one of the reason’s some British people do not want to help the U.S with the war on terror.
Next time America will remember how “some British people do no want to help the US with the war on terror.” When, as #6 TJL rightfully states: “Islam will swallow their country whole in the next 20 yrs”, don’t coming whining you need help with the regurgitation.
One minor correction. It was Bill Clinton who first solemnly announced (in 1999, I believe, though it may have been earlier) that the U.S. policy in Iraq would henceforth be regime change.
Of course he probably was just kidding, you know what a kidder Bill was, but still, he DID announce it. And he WAS the President and Commander-in-Chief. And he was surrounded by the toadies who now insist they never did say Iraq had WMDs, no no no! (Too bad for all that video evidence that they were screaming loudly that Saddam, with his WMDs, was a danger to the world!)
carolannie,
We kinda believe that America’s believe terrorism is only important when Americans are being killed.
With Libya ,Americans were the biggest donors to the I.R.A during the ‘troubles’
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2071467
You gave visa’s to known terrorists to fund raise against our wishes without condition’s.
Gave wanted and even escaped convicted I.R.A prisoners political status and refused to extradite.
You didn’t recognise our judiciary like we were a third world country.
Even naming streets after these thugs.
Peter King called the I.R.A ‘the legitimate army ‘ Gerry Adams was given awards and keys to cities.
Carter wouldn’t sell weapons to the R.U.C-the police force of Northern Ireland at Thatchers request,not recognising our law and order.
He also wouldn’t condemn the murder of Lord Mountbatten. Legends says she nearly hit him with her bag.
The I.R.A nearly killed Thatcher with the Brighton Bombing of her convention,but did kill other M.P’S
It was the I.R.A who said to her,’you have to be lucky all the time ,we only have to be lucky once’.
They also mortar attacked Downing Street,but still the money for ‘the cause’
kept coming.
Following 9/11,one of the first questions Blair was asked was about this.
Did he think now America will see this as terrorism now and withdraw support?
He went and begged .
It was part of the deal,but it wasn’t until 2005 that the biggest cheerleaders
started to change their view.
Stopped them fundraising ,refused to meet them and more importantly recognised the terrorism we had been under for years.
This brought Sinn Fein back to implementing the Good Friday agreement.
Where you with us or with the terrorist’s?
Peter King who now is an expert on terrorism?? He was and is still a huge fan.
http://kingwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/king-gets-hypocritical-on-illegal-irish.html
We have good reason for not believing in the ‘special relationship’
I can see you are an objective, disinterested poster. So that is where your anti-Americanism comes from? That “America” supported the IRA? Bush did not go into Iraq to fight terrorism but to separate Saddam from his weapons of mass destruction, imaginary or not. I initially was against the Bush administration going into Iraq, thinking it was only to finish the job his father did not complete. But after the invasion I fully supported our “imperialistic” troops. After all, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, some using poison gas, far less than the deaths caused by the British government and its policies of millions of Irish Catholics, over the centuries. And second, just think of Saddam with nuclear weapons provided with the help of the Russians. How much more likely would a nuclear war in the Middle East have been or a dirty bomb attack on London or New York. You think the financial crises was bad? Think again.
Jarmo,
‘America’ did fund and support the I.R.A who killed Irish and British
civilian’s.
You seem to be justifying terrorism against us.Saddam deserved to be
finished off because his actions that you claim was far less then the British did to the Irish CENTURIES ago.
It was yanks like you that gave money to ‘the cause’ that caused terror on our streets.The I.R.A bombed churches on remembrance sunday killing old soldiers with their medals on,Harrods on christmas eve,a shopping centre a day before mothers day kiliing children buying their cards.
Would drag a father from his family at gun point into a van of explosives strap him in and use him as a’human bomb’ to whatever target.
The British supported you on 9/11 NOBODY deserves terrorism.We supported you in Iraq and we are in Afghanistan,you do not deserve our support.
‘Bush did not go into Iraq to fight terrorism but to separate Saddam from his weapons of mass destruction, imaginary or not.’
Bush was not our president.Again you can do what you want.Blair had decided to take us on a pre emptive war for regime change but lied because he knew that was illegal under OUR and international law so spun the WMD evidence.
Don’t lecture us on terrorism.Our security forces have us on high alert not from muslim extremists but dissident irish republicans.
There has been 27 bombs in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months it is not if but when they will attack the mainland.
The Tory convention in Birmingham had been foiled to redo the Brighton bomb that nearly wiped out our whole government including Thatcher.
But we deserve it because of events that happened centuries ago?
He should apologise for turning the UK into the second most PC totalitarian country in Europe. Sweden is first, of course.
Topling the regime in Irak, was the goal, and it was and still is a rightous one. Nevertheless, leaders in democratic countries do need reasons to send somebody’s child in harm’s way. Of course in my country they don’t. Hopefully when everything will unfold every leadre in the middle east will have to justify anything that he does to his people, if we don’t get to this point , then violence will continue, and eventually, out of this creative mess something will come out…
Thanks for the brave men and women, who sacraficed, thanks to the leaders who had the gutts to get into this hornet’s nest.
I chortle to think about what tony blair thinks of you lot.