House of Eratosthenes

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he would have found a justification for invading Iraq even without the now-discredited evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to produce weapons of mass destruction.

“I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean, obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat,” Blair told the BBC in an interview to be broadcast this morning.

It was a startling admission from the onetime British leader, who was President Bush’s staunchest ally in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Blair’s comments were immediately denounced by critics who accused him of using false pretenses to drag Britain into an unpopular war that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of allied troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

What you’re seeing — on the other side of this little dust-up — is nothing less than the most successful propaganda drive since Roman times. “An unpopular war that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of allied troops and thousands of blah blah blah blah blah.” The logic is absurd. You’d never in a million years say “Oh dear if only Saddam was still in charge things would be so much better and so many dead people would now still be alive.” Why is it so absurd, when “we all” have bought it and gobbled it up so fast? Because it was sold to us. Taking Saddam down, equals war and death. Leaving Saddam standing, equals peace, love and life. This is stupid. Lunatic and mind-blisteringly stupid.

Saul Alinsky tactics all the way. To merely acknowledge the brutality of Saddam and his two psychotic sons, has been frozen-and-personalized. It is extremist and partisan…even though it is nothing more than a simple observation.

I’ve actually spoken to leftists — not extreme leftists, at least they didn’t think of themselves that way, although they were certainly dedicated — who acknowledge Saddam was trying to build a nuclear weapon but the right thing to do would’ve been to leave him alone.

We let these people vote why? I’m quite serious. If you can’t see what’s dangerous about this, maybe you shouldn’t be voting either.

Call it a pre-crime if you want. That asshole needed to go.

And what’s up with this word “discredit”? Why is it being so selectively applied. I seem to recall Ted Danson said in 1988 that if we didn’t all go hardcore environmentalist right then & there, the oceans would disappear in ten years. So is all the global-warming alarmist rhetoric “discredited” as of 1998? What about To Big To Fail, is that discredited too? How about stimulus spending? Shouldn’t that be discredited?

Whatever, Los Angeles Times. You call it “discredited,” I call it a success. Mission Accomplished. Saddam Hussein was there, and now he isn’t. This is where all members of the human race with a working brain say “thank you.”

But I guess people who write for newspapers aren’t part of that.

I keep telling people, we didn’t go to war with Iraq in 2003. We’d been at war with Iraq since 1991 when the UN and everybody’s dog sent us there.

Then we half-ass pulled out to the edges, and after watching him slaughter hundreds of thousands … at least, of his “own” people, we hung around with this “no fly zone” thing, getting shot at frequently while “not at war” and suffering casualties — even when they were friendly fire casualties — because we were there.

Our troops in Saudi Arabia was a top justification Bin Laden gave for 9/11. Why were we in Saudi Arabia?

That’s right, to keep Saddam from slaughtering more of his people. At the behest of the UN. And the Saudis. And probably implicitly the Iranians.

If anything, 9/11 underscored the necessity of sh*tting or getting off the pot. Getting off the pot would’ve been equivalent to capitulation to a massive act of terrorism. Only one choice.

Finish the job.

Right-o, Blair old chap. Cheerio!
- philmon | 12/13/2009 @ 20:12
This is kind of amazing, really. I remember during the early 90s (I think) when Blair first came to power, he was portrayed as the British counterpart to Bill Clinton. I saw a clip on TV of the two of them palling around together. Labour, we were told, was the UK’s equivalent to the Democrats here in the US, while the Tories supposedly had more in common with us Republicans.

Tony Blair seems to have been as reliable an American ally as any British PM before or since. Hearing him defend the Iraq War at this late date is both impressive and audacious.
- cylarz | 12/15/2009 @ 02:10

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Tony Blair States the Obvious, Critics Cannot Handle ItSunday, December 13th, 2009

Tony Blair States the Obvious, Critics Cannot Handle It
Sunday, December 13th, 2009