Tony's unaswered questions

 

The questions Tony Blair did not answer today include: -

 Why was Britain a partner in Bush's war?

 and

 In what possible circumstances would Saddam have used WMD?

In late March 2003, I wrote to Tony about Iraq:

Our involvement in Bush’s war will increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Attacking a Muslim state without achieving a fair settlement of the Palestine–Israeli situation is an affront to Muslims, from our local mosques to the far-flung corners of the world. A pre-emptive attack of the kind we have made on Iraq will only deepen the sense of grievance among Muslims that the Western/Christian/Jewish world is out to oppress them. This will provide a propaganda victory to Osama Bin Laden and can only increase his support and the likelihood of more acts of terrorism.   In the Commons you repeated that it is an article of faith to you that Britain and the USA should have a common foreign policy. Fine when there is an American President such as Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Carter or Clinton: disastrous when it is a right wing fundamentalist Republican such as Bush.

Tony Blair did recall today that Bush suggested that the UK be let off the hook and not take part in the war. He confirmed that on the eve of war, the Americans had offered Britain a "way out" of military action, which he had turned down

The Americans were certain to destroy Iraq’s Army in days – even without us. The price paid for Blair’s insistence was 179 British lives and a bill of £8billion. Parliament was deceived. If the truth had been known on the false 45-minute claim, Britain would not have gone to war. We should have had our own independent foreign policy as we did in the Vietnam War. 60,000 Americans died in that hopeless war and no Britons. Iraq was an unnecessary war for Britain.

The second question has never been addressed.

The second great weakness is the failure, then and now, to assess the threat from Saddam. He was an aggressor only when he was certain in his own mind that he would be successful. He knew the Kurds could not hit back when he massacred the people of their towns. He thought Iran was in chaos when he invaded. He believed he had a promise of non-intervention by the USA when he invaded Kuwait.

 There was never any plausible scenario offered of any circumstances in which Saddam, post 2003, would attack any other country without guaranteeing his own suicide. The whole basis of the war rested on a falsehood.

World news

Today was a frantic one for press inquiries.

Fox News was a first for me. I was reluctant to do an interview because of their atrocious bias. However the questioner was well informed and serious. The journalist who is preparing an article for the British Medical Journal was also thorough. The BMJ did a great job on Tamiflu. There were also interviews with Russian, American, Swedish and Swiss television.  The BBC did a radio package, I believe,  last night which was recorded a few days ago. Channel Four News and Newsnight covered the Swine Flu non-Pandemic a few weeks ago.

There were invites to phone-in programmes on Radio Wales and Radio Ulster on handshakes. I had to turn them down. Priorities, of course.

The extra work on the false pandemic is not welcome but the subject is fascinating and important. I am sketching out the main heads of the inquiry:-

What determined the WHO decision to declare a  6 Pandemic in June 2009 that frightened the world witless? Was it based on independent, medical epidemiological evidence or was it influenced by the need of the Vaccine makers to profit from their €4 billion investment?

Has four phantom pandemics that never were undermined the public's trust in the WHO? After SARS, CJD, Avian Flu and Swine Flu have proved to be false alarms, what will happen next time the WHO cries Wolf? 

What are the precise interests in pharmaceutical companies of the scientists who voted to declare the Pandemic?

What are the side effects of the swine flu vaccines and is Tamiflex of little value? Is it true that the vaccine contain ingredients designed to make it easier to patent even though there have no medicinal value?

As the threat of swine flu's dangers falls to vanishing point, why continue pushing the vaccine to children as young as six months?

Some countries spent £billions to prepare for the pandemic. Some spent nothing. Why were the outcomes similar in all cases?

Comments

[DG]

Not an informed opinion, perhaps, but I'll bet the farm that the answer to question no 1 is three little words:

Tony. Blair's. Vanity.

[Tony]

I'm fairly sure that His Tonyship did answer the questions

1. He saw the US as our primary ally in the world (as did Churchill) and wanted to support them. Mates stick together ..
2. You answered that one Paul - if he thought he could get away with it - like he thought he could get away with invading Kuwait.. oops , bad call .. although there was evidence knocking around that the US may have led Saddam to believe we wouldn't say anything ..

Come on, admit it , it was a bravura performance from Blair which in the end boils down to one statement really (be nice if he'd said it..) - 'I was in charge , it was my call, and I made it. You may not like it and you can therefore vote me/my party out and you did not. Can we move on now? '

[Tony]

I'll take a little bet that Gordon Brown is not quite so good ..

[Paul Flynn]

Why, Tony, is an Independent British Foreign policy such a novel idea?. It worked for Harold Wilson. Yes is was a bravura performance. So was the speech that Tony Blair made to parliament in March 2003. It sent 179 British soldiers to their deaths. I knew it was wrong then. So did 138 other Labour MPs. We were right then and we're right now.

[Tony]

I don't disagree with you , even more so after hearing the legal advice that was given this week - it was wrong and a lot of the blogs of the newspapers would agree..

but.. he has not changed his mind or his opinion - that much is clear - so what do we do ? Going to go for a war crimes trial ? Never happen - the US would make sure of that

..so the best we could get would be a way of restraining leaders in the future. ' With one bound he was free' ..I think he is and he believes he was right - end of ..

[Tony]

We also had an independant foreign policy between the 1700's and 1914 - lets face it .. we've got previous ..

[GB]

I found your blog today as a result of the item on bone crushing handshakes, so the silly publicity has done some good !

Enjoyable , informative, refreshing thanks. I live in North Scotland but the internet removes the miles between here and South Wales .

Ref Afghanistan , initially I thought the poppies could be grown and sold in to legal drug company use which has been suggested last year. Then it becomes a legal cash crop. However you write of so much corruption that may well derail this idea? As a former RAF serviceman I want the troops out as soon as possible, we followed orders but preferred to fight for a just cause not in support of a corrupt regime.

Ok, off into the snow for shopping ,

[PD]

have just read the report on the BBC web site and can honestly say that I am in complete agreement with you. I would much rather we offered each other a far more hygenic salute in the form of a small wave of an empty right hand.

Yes, I also dislike the bone-crusher, but there is nothing I hate more than being obliged to grasp another mans clammy limp hand. I then spend the whole conversation wondering how long it will be before I can get to the alcogel or the soap to rid myself of his germs.

Good luck with this campaign.

If I am ever fortunate enough to meet you I will probably give you a polite nod from the hips or a wave or somthing similar to acknowledge you as a fellow gentleman.

I am still voting Conservative in the next election but it is mainly down to the two war-mongering, over taxing dictators that your fine party has endured as leaders.

[Lk]

Hi
The anti-hand crushing comments may have been made with humour.
Personally I completely agree with them.
I am a doctor have given up shaking patients hands - I need my own to do my job!
 
Out of interest I am 6' 2" and well built and this seems to spur some men on to prove their masculinity through powerful grips. I've had my metacarpals ground together too many times now - it hurts!
 
Fortunately I now have the perfect excuse to decline handshakes at work - control of hospital acquired infections.

[Ad]

For all Blair’s pretence that he acted in the interests of national security, the fact is that the modern history of western involvement in the Arabian peninsula is disgusting.

To join forces with an American regime like that, well Blair thinks it was the right thing to do. Of course he had to tell lies about WMDs (45 minutes and all that rubbish) and ignore the protests from the labour party and the public.

It does seem that the million or so dead Iraqis are not a big deal to the likes of Blair. Of course you cannot directly attribute theses deaths to Blair. The American political leadership (and not the military leadership) are responsible for the disastrous series of decisions which led to the civil war. I.e. de-baathification

I think that Blair was on a power trip. A self-aggrandising opportunist who couldn’t resist becoming the best friend of George W Bush and the powerful American neo-cons. I think he is crazy, he wants to be powerful and godlike.

Yet here he is on trial. Will they let him off? His legacy is one of foolishness, deceit and a million dead.

[DL]

I seen you're comments in regard to the bone-crushing handshake and thought you may find the link below interesting.

When I worked in security I used to come across quite a few oafs that tried to intimidate/prove how strong they were with bone crushing handshakes.

I hope that you find this video useful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taBdtxx7fKE

[HuwOS]

"Going to go for a war crimes trial ? Never happen - the US would make sure of that

..so the best we could get would be a way of restraining leaders in the future. ' With one bound he was free' ..I think he is and he believes he was right - end of .."

To be fair, the only way to restrain the leaders of the future is to be able to point them to what happened to the leaders of the past who engaged in aggressive war.
Nothing else would do it, so if the world wants to restrain its leaders it will need to act at the very least within the lifetimes of Bush and Blair.
The world and the people of their respective countries seem unlikely to do so as things stand.

[valleylad]

I'm probably in a minority of one here, but if Blair had said to Parliament then he wanted to help the US secure oil from Iraq regardless of the consequence - I'd have been happy - illegal war or not. The big but was he lied to parliament for that I need vengeance. Having him convicted as a war criminal would just about cut it. I also want to know the name of the plagiarist on the dodgy dossier so he can be reminded of the death & suffering he or she caused until their dying day. Obviously he or she is totally unfit for public service.

R.E. phantom "pandemics" - statistical epidemiological modeling led to the calls - they may have been alarmist - but do you plan for the best, worst or some case in between. Similarly the discussion on climate change - what max temp. rise do you aim for? Whilst corruption in the Pharma industry wouldn't surprise me, and the idiocy of the press & politicians never does, I'm not sure the original predications were poor at the time. Hindsight is wonderful.

[Patrick]

valleylad
"I'm probably in a minority of one here, but if Blair had said to Parliament then he wanted to help the US secure oil from Iraq regardless of the consequence - I'd have been happy - illegal war or not."

Over a Million dead people is fine for valleylad as long as that meant that Blair had not lied to him.

You write "I need vengeance " for Blair deceiving parliament.

Your upset because Blair didn't tell the truth, had he done so the Million plus death's would be ok in your book.

Disgrace!

[Chris]

For anybody who suffers from arthritis, a bone-crushing handshake could leave them in immense pain. This should be a good enough reason to drop the habit.

[mark]

on the WHO investigation...
Our own head of immunisations Dr David Salisbury heads the SAGE (Strategic Advisory Group of Experts) for the WHO.
http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/SAGE_MEMBERS_2009_Current_2_Dec_09.pdf
so the decision to call this a pandemic squarely sits on his shoulders. The same Salisbury was instrumental is intruding the Dangerous first MMR pluserix in the UK (withdrawn in 1992 due to world wide advesre reactions) and the introduction of boosters and more boosters for vaccines that when introduce were sold as one shot for life.
I would love to know what interests he or his immediate family have in GSK.
This is going to make the MP’s expenses scandal look like stealing sweets from woollys.