Who controls the past...

Here's a link to a sensible article in the Daily Mail. Really.

[T]he moment may be fast approaching when the Premier is forced to explain the curious sequence of events that ended with Britain committing a huge part of its Armed Forces to a war whose justification weakens by the day, and which does not seem to have been in the interests of this country.

Indeed. But what's new?

A book by human rights lawyer Philippe Sands is said to claim that Mr Blair had committed this country to war in private discussions with President George W. Bush well before the final attempt was made to obtain a UN Security Council Resolution specifically authorising it - and well before Parliament was allowed to vote on the matter.

This happened on January 31st 2003 apparently. Here's the BBC report of the press conference after that meeting.

Some of the greyness outside seemed to carry over in the sombre and even tense mood of the joint press conference, which was first delayed, and then abruptly ended by President Bush after only 15 minutes.

I wonder what was causing the tension? Could it be that Blair, after failing to persuade the President of the absolute necessity of a second resolution, had just fully committed himself and the country to an illegal war of choice with regime change as it's objective? As I recall, it was around that time that Blair suddenly started to emphasise his desperation to help the long suffering people of Iraq.

When Chirac refused to agree to a second UN resolution under any circumstances, any chance of agreement in the Security Council was dashed of course. Blair was off the hook and the French were nothing but ungrateful cheese eating surrender monkeys. Except Chirac didn't say that at all. He said "There is no need for a second resolution today, which France would have no choice but to oppose". He did not rule out a second resolution in any circumstances as Blair claimed at the time. Just one more lie to add to the mix then.

How have Downing Street reacted to the allegation made by Sands? Bet you can't guess. Well, maybe you can.

Downing Street yesterday dismissed the new claims as Prof Sands "simply trying to get more publicity" for his book.

Because nothing written in a book is ever true, you see.* It's simply impossible.

* This is something it'd be good to mention to Blair when he's desperately trying to flog his fictional revisionist attempt to rescue his all but destroyed reputation memoirs to pay for that massive mortgage. "You don't seriously expect us to believe that, do you Tony? You're just trying to get more publicity for your book..."

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Tony Blair