News: "Tony Blair defied critics of the war against Iraq last night by declaring, in effect, that he will be vindicated by history even if weapons of mass destruction are not found. "
I am really curious about that. What is it about history that will make it accept that an illegal war was waged based on support that was manufactured through false claims?
What is it about hindsight that will make it ok to abuse people the way Tony Blair used a civil servant/consultant, so that he loses his life a few days later--probably by suicide caused by severe depression?
The Iraq war is not a simple matter. Hussein was an appalling dictator. But the US and UK have not defeated him. They have created the worst of both worlds.

They invaded and caused all the instability of going against the rest of the world. But they have not achieved any of the aims they claimed to seek.

They have occupied the country, and failed to create stability, security or peace.

They have beaten the regular army in Iraq, but it has gone underground. It is still fighting, and killing our soldiers.

They have gone after weapons of mass destruction, but not found any.

They cancelled elections, and now hold only the promise of democracy up to the Iraqi's.

They trumpeted themselves as liberators. But they immediately censored the press--the first sign of freedom and something we in the US should be championing.

So this war has been a complete disaster so far. And now they are further corrupting the political institutions in the west as they seek to maintain the false impression that what they did was somehow justified. Will history vindicate them? Well I don't know. But to think that such a claim justifies the failure to account for actions that are now being questioned is a grandiose delusion.
- posted by geoff @ #