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!!

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Impartial polling...

PoliticsHome provides an interesting insight into what should now be called the Tony Blair Inquiry.

The link is here

In their latest poll to their politically in-tune audience, they asked the following...

Regardless of whether you supported or opposed military action in Iraq, which of the following statements most closely describes your view on who you see as being responsible for Britain's participation in the conflict?

The answers were as follows...

Tony Blair is personally responsible - 30%

The Cabinet and the intelligence services, along with Tony Blair and his advisors, are responsible - 33%

I don't think it's possible to apportion responsibility in this way. Elements of the government, parliament, the media and the public are all responsible - 23%

The MPs of all parties who voted for the war are responsible - 11%

Interesting.

Of course, I'm all for scrutiny. And we should always hold our leaders to account.

However, you have to wonder...

Was it Blair's fault? Of course, he had a deep desire to go in. And has admitted, pretty much, that he would have found a way whatever happened. But that's the kind of decisiveness you'd expect from a man who is Prime Minister. You'd also expect people to want such decisiveness from their PM.

The intelligence? Ok, it was flawed. But, as has previously been noted in this blog, hindsight is 20:20.

The MPs who voted for it were just voting based on the aforementioned, erroneous intelligence. So blame can't be apportioned to them really.

So who, or what, was responsible?

Call me crazy, but could it be the man also responsible for this....

I didn't see his name on the list of options for the poll though.

Why don't these disgustingly ignorant, selfish people in this country take into consideration that these helpless people were massacred by the leader of their own country?

Like Tony said, by now, Hussein would have accumulated more capabilities to commit more atrocities like this.

So the anti-war brigade need to get their white-dreadlocked heads out of their root-eating, rag-wearing, bike-riding backsides, look at the real world and consider that there are more important things going on that need to be dealt with than their liberal crusade against anything and everything that might offend one iota of one person's fragile personality.

If we don't help to eliminate people like Saddam, these poor bastards certainly won't. What's more, their innocent voices will be lost in the History of evil men and their evil deeds, without even their children to tell the tale of horror. And this, while the voices of the middle-class hippies get broadcast in major cities and on major networks.

• 1986-1989 - 200,000 Kurdish lives massacred.
• 1991 - 60,000 Shi'ites killed.
• Human Rights Offcials estimate nearly 1,000,000 Iraqi politicians killed.

Viva internationalism!

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Liberal Hysteria over Iraq is so sad

It really, really is, and that is before you ask them what they would have done instead of supporting the removal of a murderous tyrannical dictator.

What wasn't sad; what was, in fact, very funny, was seeing Sarah Teather demonstrate how ignorant she was on Question Time the other week; interrupting and talking over everybody else.

Anyway, the fuss over Iraq has only intensified with Tony Blair testifying at Chilcott. It is clear that there is only one scenario which will satisfy liberals and Liberal Democrats. It goes something like this.

1. Blair admits that he, Tony Bliar invented, along with Alistair Campbell, the entire intelligence dossier on Iraq and WMD.
2. Blair admits that George W. Bush told him to do this.
3. Blair admits that he withheld funding from our Armed Forces to give the Iraqis a chance.
4. Blair admits that he and George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq the first time they ever met.
5. Blair admits that the reason they did this was for the oodles of oil below Iraq.
6. Blair then begs the British judicial system to punish him, and/or the government send him to the Hague.
7. Blair prostrates himself before a IWCT and begs them to hang him.

Unless that happens then there will be calls for another enquiry, and another, and another and another, until that does actually happen! There is no 'new and compelling evidence' and I doubt there will be, so double jeopardy must apply!

Keir thinks liberals and Liberal Democrats need to get over themselves. Whilst they sing about reform of government, it seems the future PM they want is one that is afraid of making decisions to protect the country in case 5 years down the line a group of the muesli eating unshaven and unwashed decide to bowdlerize his name, and then get every decision made, action taken, examined by a enquiry completely out of context and out of the atmosphere of the time. Hindsight is indeed 20:20.

That is the precedent set by Chilcott; and the commentariat have the gall to call Gordon Brown indecisive! If they're not careful (the entire liberal media who seem intent on painting Blair as satan) then they will create a PM neccessarily indecisive out of a worry for his future freedom of movement!

Sickeningly, Melanie Phillips gets it.