Tony Says

When you're tring to work out how you got to where you are today it's often a good idea to take a look behind you. Most people know this and do it instinctively. Some people find it more difficult. This is really for those who struggle.

On the 25 February, 2003, Tony said:

I detest his [Saddam's] regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully. Today the path to peace is clear. Saddam can co-operate fully with the inspectors. He can voluntarily disarm. He can even leave the country peacefully. But he cannot avoid disarmament.

Explicitly not regime change. Disarmament. WMD. Threat to the world. Must act now!

On the 18th March 2003 Tony said:

I have never put our justification for action as regime change.

Ditto. He also said:

The real problem is that, underneath, people dispute that Iraq is a threat; dispute the link between terrorism and WMD; dispute the whole basis of our assertion that the two together constitute a fundamental assault on our way of life. [my emphasis]

The real problem is that, underneath, Tony now knows that he was wrong and "people" were right.

On 31st May 2003 Tony said:

What we have said about weapons of mass destruction is that there is no doubt at all that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction... Now, once Saddam goes, our priority at the moment in Iraq is the reconstruction of Iraq. We have got teams of people however who are being tasked with interviewing the scientists and experts who worked on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programme. [my emphasis]

The priority, you'll notice, was not an immediate full scale search for the fabled weapons of mass destruction. These were weapons which were so dangerous that they absolutely could not be allowed to fall into the hands of terrorists. These were weapons so dangerous that their very existence justified the war in the first place. By May of 2003, Tony was apparently not in any great rush to secure these terrifying weapons.

In that same interview he was asked whether it would matter if no WMD were found. Tony said:

Of course it would matter, and that's why it's important that we carry out this task, but we don't need to do it with the same urgency that we would when Saddam was actually in power and these weapons of mass destruction could be used. The fact is now our focus has got to be on the immediate reconstruction of Iraq but I keep saying to people, be patient about this. Those people who are sitting there saying oh it is all going to be proved to be a great big fib got out by the security services. There will be no weapons of mass destruction. Just wait and have a little patience.

Still waiting. Saddam didn't even have the decency to leave any useless junk from his old WMD programmes lying around for the coalition to liberate. If only he'd done that, Blair could have"sexed up" that worthless haul and proclaimed himself vindicated. Not a thing though. Well, I say not a thing but that's not quite fair. It appears that Saddam did possess a dangerous intention. Not on its own a hugely frightening weapon though.

You'll have noticed that Tony repeats that there is "no urgency" to track down these extremely dangerous weapons. At least he does explain the rationale behind his lack of urgency and concern this time. Removing Saddam has somehow rendered the unspeakably deadly weapons unusable in some unspecified manner. Saddam in power: doomsday weapons, extreme urgency, great danger. Saddam not in power: relax guy, those weapons are useless, I'm sure we'll find them eventually.

Can anyone explain how that works exactly? It don't make no sense to me.

Tags: Blair, Iraq, News, Current Affairs