December 14, 2009

WRITING HISTORY:

Blair’s critics are asking the wrong questions (David Aaronovitch, 12/15/09, Times of London)

The question that preceded the supposed confession was this: “Was it the weapons of mass destruction that tilted you on to, ‘Yes, we’ve got to do this?’” To which he replied: “It was the notion of him as a threat to the region, of which the development of WMD was obviously one . . . So this was the thing that was uppermost in my mind: the threat to the region.”

Britton then asked whether, if Blair had known there were no WMD: “Would you still have gone on?” Blair: “I would still have thought it right to remove him. Obviously, you would have had to have used and deployed different arguments about the nature of the threat.”

There is a hypothetical nonsense to this. Mr Blair couldn’t have “invaded Iraq anyway”. If, according to the hypothesis, he had “known” that Saddam was WMD-free, then the UN and Parliament would also have known. So there would have been no Resolution 1441 and no vote for war.


Parliament may well not have voited for war but for Mr. Blair's WMD claims, but Resolution 1441 had rather little to do with the supposed presence of WMD in Iraq and was an attempt by the West's enemies to avoid war, not a green light for it.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 14, 2009 6:04 PM
blog comments powered by Disqus
« THE NEXT GREAT BOOM WILL FOLLOW THE END OF THE WoT, THE HIKE IN GAS TAXES AND AMNESTY: | Main | MUSLIMS ARE THE NEW JEWS: »