Much portentous news narrative of the actor and war criminal who is now back on our news screens.
On his position regarding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein: 'If you were engaged in WMD, you have to stop'.
'If you were' - ever conditional. 'If I were to say to you' was one of his old rhetorical tricks to combat non-believers; subtly disavowing, cloaking the unpalatable positions he was adopting in abstraction, distancing himself. If I were here today talking to you, which I am not really... (today, he will not engage with the Chilcot questions on their own terms but uses them to broadcast his cherished 'legacy' through the media to the country)
The WMD issue was key, was it?
'Mis-spoken'?? (re. Fern Britton interview and his apparent endorsement of regime change then) That term could do with a bit of definition.
He believed 'beyond doubt' that Iraq had WMD.
He clearly believed a lot of things; how much evidence, though, to back up his decision? 'You have to make a judgement' - does it have to be made purely on speculative beliefs?
A willing public? I hear some critical voices aired but also this: 'our job is not to question, but to support our loved ones'. If you stop questioning you can justify anything: 'People criticise Hitler, but he was only giving orders', to quote Simon Munnery.
'Tony Blair gives evidence'? There's form in that...
No comments:
Post a Comment