Tony Blair is being forced to answer questions before the British Inquiry into the Iraq War and you can watch his testimony live on CSPAN. What’s amusing is that Blair is trying to argue that in the cabinet meeting where they decided to help invade Iraq, the question of its legality was just one part of the consideration about whether it was “the right thing to do.” In other words, it was possible to be the right thing to do even though it was patently illegal. I think that’s a ripe area for debate. For example, our intervention in Kosovo wasn’t authorized by the United Nations Security Council because the Russians sided with the Serbs. So, how do you distinguish between Kosovo and Iraq in a legal sense? Or should you?
Perhaps a better question is why the Brits feel comfortable holding Blair and his government accountable for their actions while it’s unthinkable that any such thing would happen to Bush, Cheney, and their decision makers. Why is that?
Here is a paraphrase of something Blair just said.
“Al-Qaeda’s whole strategy was to argue that the West is oppressing Muslims, but it is hard to do that when we replace a tyrannical regime with a functional democracy.”
Now, let’s set aside the question of how functional Iraq’s democracy is. Perhaps it will be functional in time. Does anyone think that al-Qaeda is having more difficulty arguing that the West is oppressing Muslims than they did before the invasion of Iraq? Anyone?
uhhhhh – no?
Did I get that right? Do I win? Am I smarter than a former British Prime Minister?
Probably. You’re definitely more honest.
Faint praise!
Now Tony Blair is citing Brookings Institute right track/wrong track polling data to argue that the invasion of Iraq was a net positive for the Iraqis.
any of the Iraqis who died as the result of US/UK action?
On your original question, the real-world difference is that in Bosnia, there was clear evidence that a program of ethnic cleansing was taking place. It was also clear that Russia’s veto was for ethnocentric and/or geopolitical reasons, and not based on evidence. In Iraq, there was no (recent) evidence of any atrocities taking place, no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was threatening any of its neighbors, no reliable evidence that a WMD program was operating, and no reliable evidence that Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda.
How the two case fit into to international law I have no idea, but the moral cases seem quite different.
Make sure you distinguish between the intervention in Bosnia and the one in Kosovo, because there are different legal implications.
Sorry, I meant Kosovo.
On the Brookings Poll, obviously they did not poll the dead. But it’s worse than that, because the poll only asks if things are getting better or not, not whether the think they’re better off because of the invasion and the removal of Saddam.
So it’s kind of like asking Haitians whether things are getting better or not, then using the results to cheer for earthquakes.
Superb analogy. May I use it?
Of course. Thank you.
Precisely.
The only regret Tony Blair has is that his decision to invade Iraq was divisive. He’s sorry about that.
Hearing is now over.
It’s an interesting question (re: Kosovo). Does that bring up the question of whether or not the UN serves the purpose for which it was intended? Should Russia have had veto power?
Not making an argument either way (don’t really have strong feelings on it in principle), but it’d be an interesting discussion to have.
The answer to your last question is because parliamentary democracy works better than the jerry-rigged system we have. It’s why, of the scores of democracies birthed since 1789, none have wanted to replicate our system, and most have gone the parliamentary route. Not that parliamentary systems don’t have flaws (ask a Canadian), but they pale next to ours.
And we’re at a particularly dysfunctional moment, even for our often-dysfunctional system, where in a time of multiple urgent crises, 41 people representing a third of the country are (with a big assist from a corrupted ruling party) preventing the government from addressing any of them.
Contrary to national mythology, we don’t have the best democracy in the world, for the same reason that MS-DOS is not the best operating system, or we don’t have platypuses and their descendants on six continents. Other governmental types (OS’s, creatures) came along that were better designed and more able to evolve with the times.
Clarification: when I wrote “most have gone the parliamentary route,” I wasn’t thinking “leader of the party becomes PM” so much as the parliamentary system’s strict adherence to representation based on population, not (as in the Senate and Electoral College) geography.
confronting House Republicans?
He’s doing one helluva good job.
I watched. I was struck by how calm, civil, intelligent and respectful the president was in the face of all the sophomoric whining, accusatory rants from Republican house members.
.
only matched by George Bush.
Senior intelligence officials have told the MP that the cabbie falsely claimed Saddam Hussein had acquired long-range missiles after listening to Iraqi commanders chatting in his taxi two years before the invasion.
The driver, who worked near Iraq’s border with Jordan, was allegedly the ‘sub-source’ of a senior Iraqi military officer who told MI6 that Saddam had battlefield chemical weapons ready to deploy at 45 minutes’ notice.
The revelations come in a report on the Iraq War by Tory MP Adam Holloway, due to be published by the think-tank First Defence.
11.32am: Freedman asks about the September dossier.
He starts with the 45-minute claim. Is it fair to say the intelligence referred to munitions for short-scale battlefied use and that this was not made clear in the dossier.
Blair says he has said on many occasions it would have been better to correct the impression given by the 45-claim (ie, the Brits “45 mins from doom” headline suggesting Iraqi missiles could hit British troops in Cyprus). But he cites figures showing that it was not an important issue in the run up to the war.
Timeline: The 45-minute claim
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."We have a very high tolerance for income inequality, unequal enforcement of the law, etc.
It is interesting to compare the education at an elite NY independent school like Dalton, Chapin, or Collegiate with the education you get in a typical public school in a lower middle class suburb anywhere in the country.
In the former, students are strongly encouraged to think for themselves, to speak up, to develop into good public speakers. In the latter, you do what the teacher says because she’s the teacher. Period.
In the former, they train leaders. In the latter, followers.
I think Tony Blair is and always has been a self-serving asshole, but in form at least it’s not paradoxical to argue that something illegal might be the right thing to do. That is because legality and morality are not quite the same thing. However, such an argument implies a number of things: [1] either the law that one transgressed was fundamentally unjust, or [2] there were mitigating circumstances, perhaps an emergency, which a spirit of equity would see as justifying the act, albeit illegal, like stealing a loaf of bread for one’s starving children, or [3] some combination of deep trust and ignorance (as in, we trusted that the USA, with whom we share a deeply, special relationship, but for security reasons they could not reveal all their information. That information later proved erroneous, but we had no choice but to believe it at the time).
All of this is bullshit on steroids, but I reckon Blair would probably go for [2] as being the most persuasive option. How persuasive it really is, we shall see.
I haven’t followed this much. I take it Blair hasn’t explained that he did it because that’s how Bush’s hemorrhoids function?
Bush took Preparation H and kissed his bleeding hemorrhoids goodbye.
They did it because they could. Not much more. At most, they did it to appease a god or to flatter one.
actually, your question is not all that “serious”, because it appears you don’t as yet know what is really going on.
Hellooooooo? is there not a rather large transnational called British Petroleum? did England not invade Iraq around 100 years ago (for the OIL), only to be run out of the country when hundreds of their military were hacked to death by the locals?
The English people of course know this history better than us; that’s why the protests in England over the bush/bliar oilgarchic invasion/occupation of Iraq were some of the largest protests on record.
I hope you don’t actually think Bliar is going to be “punished” for the usual western imperialistic, murderous approach to the mideast region. in fact, Bliar will likely become the new head of the EU.
Bliar is not being “held accountable” by the British government. this “investigation” (years late) is nothing but a sham, nothing but a slap on the wrist for Bliar before he goes on to head the EU.
LINK:
http://libcom.org/history/1904-2003-history-of-iraq
.
“In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Prime Minister Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope that Labor MPs and the British people will too.”
Bill Clinton was the 42nd president of the United States [dd. 18 March 2003]
Tony Bliar head of EU? Not quite …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Yup.
That train left 10 weeks ago and Tony was not on board…