Thursday, April 28, 2005
Lies, damnable lies and...
...pretty well anything Tony Blair says. Really.
Isn't it a little odd that prior to giving his final edited summary to the Cabinet as they prepared to vote for (illegal) war, the Attorney General asked for confirmation that Iraq was in material breach of UN resolutions. And that the person he asked was...the Prime Minister. I bet you're wondering what TB answered? He said 'yes'. Surprise! So that's all right then.
Doesn't this seem a little circular? PM wants to start war. Asks AG for legal opinion. AG says, maybe, perhaps, if Iraq in breach. AG asks PM if Iraq is in breach. PM says yes. AG says it's OK then. PM gets the war he wanted.
Meanwhile I'm increasingly disturbed by the number of Labour politicians justifying invading Iraq on the basis that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, that is to say that the ends justify the means. One of Blair's apologists (Ann Clwyd) actually stated it in just those terms on Channel 4 News the other night. Blair has also spoken in these terms repeatedly.
Now, I may be a little old-fashioned, but I was always brought up to believe that 'the end justifies the means' was a Bad Thing. In Blair's World, though, it's only a bad thing if other people do it.
I'm further perturbed by comments on the BBC News site from the public, many of whom seem very keen on TB because he is a 'strong and decisive leader'. Let's think about that for a moment. Can you bring to mind any other 'strong, decisive leaders' who thought and acted as if the ends justified the means. Here's a few to play with: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and , errrm, Saddam Hussein. Do I think Blair belongs with them - no, but he displays distressing tendencies in the direction of authoritarianism. What's worrying is the number of people who by their comments about Blair show that they would vote for such a leader. Now that's scary.
Isn't it a little odd that prior to giving his final edited summary to the Cabinet as they prepared to vote for (illegal) war, the Attorney General asked for confirmation that Iraq was in material breach of UN resolutions. And that the person he asked was...the Prime Minister. I bet you're wondering what TB answered? He said 'yes'. Surprise! So that's all right then.
Doesn't this seem a little circular? PM wants to start war. Asks AG for legal opinion. AG says, maybe, perhaps, if Iraq in breach. AG asks PM if Iraq is in breach. PM says yes. AG says it's OK then. PM gets the war he wanted.
Meanwhile I'm increasingly disturbed by the number of Labour politicians justifying invading Iraq on the basis that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, that is to say that the ends justify the means. One of Blair's apologists (Ann Clwyd) actually stated it in just those terms on Channel 4 News the other night. Blair has also spoken in these terms repeatedly.
Now, I may be a little old-fashioned, but I was always brought up to believe that 'the end justifies the means' was a Bad Thing. In Blair's World, though, it's only a bad thing if other people do it.
I'm further perturbed by comments on the BBC News site from the public, many of whom seem very keen on TB because he is a 'strong and decisive leader'. Let's think about that for a moment. Can you bring to mind any other 'strong, decisive leaders' who thought and acted as if the ends justified the means. Here's a few to play with: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and , errrm, Saddam Hussein. Do I think Blair belongs with them - no, but he displays distressing tendencies in the direction of authoritarianism. What's worrying is the number of people who by their comments about Blair show that they would vote for such a leader. Now that's scary.
