A recent White House leak suggested that Blair gushingly and instantly promised to support Bush, regardless of any evidence of weapons being found in Iraq.
What was going on for Blair? He is a seasoned and sharp politician, compared to poor old Bush, who seems to have taken to heart the American sentiment that you should not appear too smart for your audience. "We don't like wise asses.". You got the right guy!
It has been said that Blair is obsessed with legacy and thought solving the Middle East problem would have been his. Others, Richard the Lion Heart, for example, have also attempted likewise with rather more chance of success. That was some nick name, eh? What a spin doctor he had. Not "Richard the Murderous Bastard."
I belong to the school of thought that considers that even if Saddam had had a missile with "This one is for you, Tony" on it, I still would have cautioned against war and I am no pacifist. I would have fought in WW2. However Saddam was being contained by the UN. Yes, he was a nightmare, but he was in harness. Unlike, say Mugabe, or anyone else lucky enough not be have oil for the west to seize.
Blair bristles when anyone says he lied over the weapons issue, but he did. When I was a kid, I learned that not telling the truth was no different than lying. It was lying by omission and treated no differently by the authorities (the priest), than proper, honest-to-goodness lying. The intelligence came in to Blair's office saying that it seemed possible that the UN inspectors could have missed something. It came out saying that Saddam was plotting to strike at our brave lads in Cyprus. The papers were aghast. Within 45 minutes our poor lads would have to wash off the suntan lotion, shake off the sand and cancel the suvlaki. Question this and you would be accused of not supporting our brave lads and braver lasses. "So you love Saddam do you?"
Blair joined the posse.
