11May
On Thursday afternoon, prochain ancien British prime minister Mister Tony YFWP Blair said,
I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong. That's your call. But believe one thing if nothing else - I did what I thought was right for our country.
Later that evening, Karen 2205 said,
Is it overly harsh for me to think; yes, I believe you when you say you thought you were doing the right thing, but that's not good enough. You are the Prime Minister; you have a duty to do the job properly, it's not a role where you can legitimately excuse your poor perfomance by saying 'I did my best' where your best falls far short of the objective standards of what was needed. And that's not a purely political point - I think there was an arguable political case for involvement in Iraq, the same way there was a good case for not getting involved. But you dodged the issue. You didn't engage with the unpalatable argument, instead you now appeal to the heart; 'I did my best' and fail to engage with the issues.
We propose to examine both statements thought by thought, starting with Mister Blair's.
I ask you to accept one thing. Mister Blair wants to get his point across to those who disagree with him. He still believes that he is a honest, trustworthy, gentlemanly politician, someone whose word is their bond.
Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. Regardless of the facts, if Mister Blair thought he was right, he did it. Such is the hallmark of a psycopathic mind, as Matthew Parris has been arguing for some years now.
I may have been wrong. That's your call. False humility, the pretence that he is prepared to give ground when he intends to do the exact opposite, is a classic Blair strategy.
But believe one thing if nothing else - I did what I thought was right for our country. Again, Mister Blair shows his utter contempt for facts. He has faith, and his personal faith - no matter how misguided it is to the rational world - trumps all.
On to Karen's points.
I believe you when you say you thought you were doing the right thing A statement of personal principle, and - in the absence of clear and compelling evidence to the contrary - it would be unreasonable to disagree.
but that's not good enough. You are the Prime Minister; you have a duty to do the job properly The speaker clearly expects high standards from the PM. Though perfection cannot be attained by humans, she wants those who would presume to rule us to strive for the mountains, even if they fall short on occasion.
it's not a role where you can legitimately excuse your poor perfomance by saying 'I did my best' where your best falls far short of the objective standards of what was needed. It is always difficult to use words such as "poor performance" and "objective standards" without careful definition. Some clarity is coming shortly...
And that's not a purely political point Readers may wish to insert the word "party".
I think there was an arguable political case for involvement in Iraq, the same way there was a good case for not getting involved. Are we to assume that the political case is distinct from the military case, which has been proven to be the complete crock of shit some of us believed it to be at the time?
It is true that an invasion designed to remove President Sadaam could have been consistent with the ethical foreign policy of the 1997 Labour manifesto. It is also true that the UK could have implemented an ethical foreign policy by seeking the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. It is certain that a war with the primary aim of regime change would have been illegal. It is equally certain that a war without reasonable proof [1] of Iraqi malfeasance would have been, and ultimately was, illegal.
[1] Reasonable proof: a slightly lower standard than proof beyond reasonable doubt, but significantly higher than the balance of probabilities.
But you dodged the issue. Mister Blair presented the truth as he believed he saw it. He asserted in the Commons that President Sadaam was linked with al-Qaeda in 2001, at a time when it was known that this was untrue. In the same debate, Mister Blair presented the humanitarian reasons to remove President Sadaam, but just as quickly swept them aside. We recall (but cannot source) a statement from Mister Blair to the effect that, if he were to give up his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, then President Sadaam could remain in power.
You didn't engage with the unpalatable argument, instead you now appeal to the heart; 'I did my best' and fail to engage with the issues. We suggest that Mister Blair did what he thought to be correct, which may sometimes be different from what he might consider to be best.
We also suggest that - on the matter of Iraq - he did engage with the various views, but that he did so in a very cynical manner. Crucially, and as he did on so many other policies, Mister Blair failed to enter into the argument with an open mind. He had set his heart on a certain course of action, and would not be swayed by anything so inconvenient as facts; again, this is the hallmark of a psycopath. There were very strong arguments at the time suggesting that the intelligence was or may be incorrect, and to allow oneself to be bulldozed into a particular decision from a limited view of the facts suggests that he did not exercise due diligence in determining what was the right course of action.
By making an appeal to the emotions, Mister Blair rather suggests that he has lost the intellectual argument.
We were going to comment on Being JDC's contribution, but remember the old adage: do not feed the trolls.
