Blair: Liar or Moron?

Tony Blair, on Iraq:

Mr Blair said British policy towards Saddam was transformed by the terror attacks on America in September 2001.

He said: "I would fairly describe our policy up to September 11 as doing our best, hoping for the best but with a different calculus of risk assessment."

He added: "The point about those acts in New York is that, had they been able to kill more people than the 3,000, they would have.

"My view was you can't take risks with this issue."

Which, when you think about it, is abject nonsense. Literally. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Why would the policy towards Saddam change after 9/11? He had nothing to do with that attack. In fact, Osama bin Laden (who probably did have a lot to do with 9/11) famously had very little time for Saddam, and even offered to use his resources to fight Saddam in the first Gulf War. So Saddam had fuck all to do with the terrorist attacks in America in 2001. To state that British policy changed towards Iraq changed because of 9/11 is just stupid; it's like saying British policy towards Northern Ireland changed because of 9/11.

And, bearing in mind there is no link whatsoever between Saddam and 9/11, the fact that the 9/11 attackers would have killed more people if they could is utterly irrelevant. Likewise, to talk of being unable to take risks with this "issue" is freeform nonsense, since there is not just one issue. Iraq is a separate issue to 9/11, in exactly the same way that the government's (cack-handed) response to the foot and mouth crisis was a separate issue to 9/11.

One wonders whether Blair actually believes the bullshit he spouts. If he does, then he is a deluded moron. If he doesn't, then he is a malignant little turd still happy to carry out self-serving deception on a massive scale. Neither alternative provides a particularly edifying picture of the man who used to run this country.

Sir John stressed that Mr Blair was not "on trial".

Shame.