Tony Blair says something that’s true!

January 30, 2010 at 7:19 pm (Champagne Charlie, Guardian, iraq war, Tony Blair, truth, war)

Well what did his critics expect? An admission that he’d got Iraq terribly wrong? Blair breaking down in tears and begging forgiveness from Rose Gentle? A confession that he’d personally sexed up the dodgy dossier and/or grabbed Lord Goldsmith by the testicles the better to concentrate the attorney general’s mind on the legality of the invasion ?

Dream on. As the Graun editorial  rightly states today, “There is a planet, some way removed from the real one, on which Tony Blair lives. He invited the Chilcot inquiry to join him on it yesterday. On this alternative earth, certainties dissolve and falsehoods become truths. Facts are transformed into opinions and judgements turn into evidence. Success and failure are both the same…

“Tony Blair is not exactly mad because of this, though his critics like to claim it, and nor is he plain old dishonest Bliar, as the familiar banners outside the Queen Elizabeth II conference hall put it yesterday. The key is not that he knows one truth and tells another, but that he sees things differently to others, in rthe broadest and most contrasting of ways. This allows no room for subtlety, or detail, or even facts.”

I’d say that’s a pretty fair assessment of Blair’s extraordinary performance yesterday, and a pretty fair assessment of a man who is the ultimate relativist: for him, the concepts of truth and lies are not absolutes, governed by objective reality, but entirely subjective matters, governed by whatever Anthony Charles Lynton Blair Esq happens to believe at any given moment.

Unfortunately, the Graun‘s coverage seems to be largely made up of comments from the tyrants’ friend G. Galloway MP, and other sworn enemies of democracy and human rights. Funny how the anti-war “left” in Britain and the US today, increasingly resembles the isolationist, pro-appeasement right of yesteryear.

Mind you, many of those individuals (Clare Short , John Cruddas, Peter Wilby) and publications (the New Statesman and the Graun itself) who now denounce Blair as a madman/liar/warmonger/poodle/megalomaniac, etc, etc, would not hear a word against him when he seized the leadership of the Labour Party in 1994 and wagged their “realist” fingers at those of us who expressed doubts, telling us that we were infantile ultra-leftists, who needed to come to terms with the modern world of Blairite compromise and consensus.

Blair, it is clear, is incapable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood, fact and opinion, disarmament and regime change.  But he said one – just one – true thing yesterday: Saddam Hussein was, indeed,  a “monster” and the world and (especially) the peoples of Iraq are well rid of him. Sadly, that’s not something that the likes of George ‘Haw Haw’ Galloway, Lindsey German and the isolationists of the ‘Stop The War Coalition’ can accept. Which is why their morality and veracity is at least as flawed as Bliar’s.


  1. Mike Simpson said,

    The main point is that Blair lied and on the basis of his lies a war was launched in which many British servicemen and women (and probably over 100,000 Iraqis) died – there can be few, if any, worse sins for a Prime Minister of a democratic state to commit.

    Blair gave a performance at the inquiry – probably partially for the benefit of his own conscience, which must from time to time rear up and accuse him in the depths of night. I hope so anyhow.

  2. Matt said,

    “Blair gave a performance at the inquiry – probably partially for the benefit of his own conscience, which must from time to time rear up and accuse him in the depths of night. I hope so anyhow”

    I reckon that’s a pretty forlorn hope born more of wishful thinking than reality: Blair has the gleaming eye of the religious type who sleeps soundly and with a clear conscience because in his own mind he has done nothing wrong with which he might accuse himself.

  3. Voltaire's Priest said,

    Quite – Blair has exactly the same religious intensity about him that a George Bush does, it seems to me. I don’t for a second think that he’s torn apart by what happened in the war, because he really believes that he is right and the vast majority of the world is wrong. Frankly I think he’s still believe that if he were hauled before a war crimes tribunal, found guilty and jailed.

  4. Kerbside International Lawyer « Max Dunbar said,

    […] on from Comrade Denham’s post, I’ve been pondering one of the most confused of the antiwar arguments: the legality or […]

  5. johng said,

    So why did you oppose the war then Jim? And what exactly are your differences with Blair over Iraq?
    Its something thats always puzzled me. DID you in fact oppose the war? And those like Clare Short are certainly not ‘realists’, to use the jargon your borrowing from your new right wing chums. She was a liberal internationalist who thought international law mattered. The main feature of her liberalism was that she resigned too late to make a difference, and the only thing realist about her position was her view that once the invasion had happened it had to be supported. As far as i can remember your position Jim.

  6. Kerbside International Lawyer « Shiraz Socialist said,

    […] on from Comrade Denham’s post, I’ve been pondering one of the more confused of the antiwar arguments: the legality or […]

  7. Ed said,

    It seems to me the reason to oppose the war was that it was being conducted by an agency – American and British military force – which was unlikely to the point of near-impossibility to replace Saddam Hussein with bourgeois democracy (and of course nothing better than that), but was likely to cause a whole new raft of intractable problems from a working class point of view. This was aside from the likely cost of war in terms of immediate deaths and human suffering.

    Instead of supporting this agency in this war, socialists and working class activists needed, and still need, of course, to build an international movement of solidarity with the peoples of the world, in this case Iraq, to overthrow their oppressors.

    So of course Saddam Hussein was a monster who needed to be overthrown. The question was always by whom and with what result.

  8. resistor said,

    Of course Denham supported the war, however he’s too much of a coward and a liar to admit it.

    The phony-left AWL line is to support imperialist wars by pretending to oppose them, but to use all their energy to attack the real opposition. It’s so transparent that it’s laughable to believe anything else.

  9. Jim Denham said,

    John: ‘Ed’ (above – and I don’t know who he is) has answered your question. I (and the AWL) opposed the war because we *never* support the ruling class -even when they’re apparently doing the right thing. We don’t trust ’em and we counsel the working class not to trust ’em.

    That even applies to the Second World War… although we advocated joining up and not sabotaging the war effort…also actively supporting “resistance” movements in Europe, even when not lead by Communists.

    What would be your attitude to WW2, John?

    I choose not to reply to the nutty anti-semite scum “resistor”, but *this* is truly hilarious conspiracy-theory/Elders of Zion stuff:

    “The phony-left AWL line is to support imperialist wars by pretending to oppose them.”

  10. resistor said,

    ‘I (and the AWL) opposed the war because we *never* support the ruling class -even when they’re apparently doing the right thing.’

    So were they doing the right thing Jim? Do tell.

    ‘…the Second World War… although we advocated joining up…’

    Stop press – Denham and Matgamna much older than they claim – at least 90 to have done the above in 1939!

  11. Jim Denham said,

    “We” is how proud Trotskyists talk about the history of our movement. We want to emphasise the continuity of our movement and identify with the courageous, principled working-class, internationalist and anti-racist traditions of the comrades who went before us – even when (with the easy benefit of hindsight) we think they got some things wrong. Anti-semitic Stalinist tossers wouldn’t understand that, would they?

  12. Matt said,

    It’s worth pointing out that ‘joining up’ has nothing to do with whether you support or oppose a particular war: the Bolsheviks in WWI, the Shachmanites and British RSL in WWII and the SWP USA in the Vietnam War all went with their fellow workers into the armed forces rather than resist the draft, despite opposing them. (The so-called ‘Proletarian Military Policy’ adopted by the SWP USA/British WIL in WWII on the other hand amounted to conditional support, i.e. support for the war but not the way it was being fought.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: