Sunday, 31 January 2010

David Davis: Hypocrite, anyone?

An interesting addition to the "Can someone please find a real reason to slaughter Tony Blair" brigade. David Davis MP, the valiant, sefless moral Crusader, lends his voice.

"Blair's concept of war seems pure Hollywood", our learned observer says. I hope the hypocrisy isn't only apparent to me. This from the man who used the equally important issue of civil liberties in a way some may see as rather "Hollywood" too. Thing is, I thought he was quite good to resign and make a point. However, let's be honest, there was no danger of him not being returned to office in the resulting by-election. He knew what he was doing and he used the issue for political gain. That is what politicians do.

I know the examples aren't 100% the same, but I just think it's a little rich. He's hardly Gandhi.

And more on the Blair issue. (I don't want to dwell on it, but it is pretty important. And riling.)

I think there is, ironically, a sense of anti-success from the people on the parts of the political spectrum that have been suggesting Labour's financial reforms have been anti-success. In Davis' article as well as many other examples, including this from Andrew Rawnsley, there is an extreme bitterness that some shock revelation didn't come out that Blair actually had his Cabinet tied up at gunpoint to make them accept that war was the answer.

Could it not be that he was just right? Could it not be that the intelligence was wrong but, hey, we got rid of Saddam and that's all good and rather than moan and bitch about the recovery going wrong, we put our efforts into, hmmm, putting it right?

"[Blair] seems to forget the vast number of innocent casualties", says Davis. Really? Does he? It's not clear whether he means the dead soldiers or the dead civilians. Either way, the extreme efforts made by Blair to fund the recovery show he clearly isn't unaware of the civilian deaths. And letters to soldiers' families along with countless TV and press gigs he did to express his sadness at the deaths of soldiers indicates to me that he is acutely aware of the sadness of those too.

Rawnsley, in his piece, seems devastated that Blair didn't get questioned as if he was on trial. And he seems resentful that Blair responded to questions with gusto and with his head high, instead of apologising in a quivering wreck.

This is, to me, all very strange. The purpose of the inquiry is to try and pin down the truth, see what happened that can be improved upon in future, and move on; is it not? If not, then please correct me. Blair answered the questions. That's all he's there to do.

I'm not going to mention this anymore as I don't even know what point I'm trying to make anymore amongst the endless column inches of drivel being produced in the mainstream media.

Again, viva internationalism!!


No comments:

Post a Comment