Blair's Speech and Lies on Iraq

The reaction of the traditional media to Tony Blair's conference speech has puzzled me. Ranging from boredom to gushing enthusiasm, the newspaper coverage has been almost completely lacking in negative comment. With the exception of the occasional critical columnist, Blair's speech was treated as a great success. Yet, re-read his words as I might I cannot understand why. Badly written, in places barely coherent, and studded with lies, this speech would be the nail in Blair's coffin, were it not for the remarkably compliant British press.

It's easy to snipe at the writing. Near the start, Blair weakly joked that "I've had plenty of advice over what I should say in this speech. Some of it I have even asked for. One suggestion was leading you all in chorus of Always look on the bright side of life." Hardly inspiring, is it? Blair's strength has always been the charisma to carry even weak material and weak arguments. A delivery that makes up for poor writing. Where the real problems come is with the substance of the speech.

I'm going to quote an entire section on Iraq here. The full text of the speech is available - for instance on the Guardian web site.

Iraq has divided the international community. It has divided the party, the country, families, friends. I know many people are disappointed, hurt, angry. I know many profoundly believe the action we took was wrong . I do not at all disrespect anyone who disagrees with me. I ask just one thing: attack my decision but at least understand why I took it and why I would take the same decision again.

Imagine you are PM. And you receive this intelligence. And not just about Iraq. But about the whole murky trade in WMD. And one thing we know. Not from intelligence. But from historical fact. That Saddam's regime has not just developed but used such weapons gassing thousands of his own people. And has lied about it consistently, concealing it for years even under the noses of the UN Inspectors.

And I see the terrorism and the trade in WMD growing. And I look at Saddam's country and I see its people in torment ground underfoot by his and his sons' brutality and wickedness. So what do I do? Say "I've got the intelligence but I've a hunch its wrong?" Leave Saddam in place but now with the world's democracies humiliated and him emboldened?

You see, I believe the security threat of the 21st century is not countries waging conventional war. I believe that in today's interdependent world the threat is chaos. It is fanaticism defeating reason.

Suppose the terrorists repeated September 11th or worse. Suppose they got hold of a chemical or biological or nuclear dirty bomb; and if they could, they would. What then?

There are a number of issues here. Read the text again. Note the complete lack of apology - "I would take the same decision again". Note the personal responsibility Blair accepts. The unnecessary war, the war that's killed and injured dozens of British soldiers, thousands of Iraqis, that war is Blair's fault. He said so. Remember that. Especially when some nutcase uses that war as a reason to crash a plane into London, blow up a nuclear power station in Scotland.

Not only has Blair again accepted sole responsibility for the war, but he has twisted his reasons again. The second paragraph is guff - Hussein is a bad man. He did bad things. We were actively supporting him at the time, providing technology for his weapons, funding his army. But never mind, he was a bad man.

Where it gets really evil is the third paragraph. "And I see the terrorism and the trade in WMD growing." There is no evidence at all of Iraq supplying WMD to anyone. The only trade they've ever been involved with was acquiring them. Mainly from us. There is also no evidence to link Iraq with terrorism. None. Oh, Iraqi covert operatives have attempted the odd assassination - most noticeably of George Bush Senior. But then, American and British forces aren't above such tactics, either. Are they "terrorists" too? This sentence is only there to link Iraq to Al Qaeda. There is no link - and Blair carefully doesn't say there is. But the positioning of this sentence is intended to make a link in the listeners mind. If Hussein had stayed in power, he'd have given WMD to Al Qaeda. That's a lie. Blair knows its a lie - if nothing else because of the problems a similar lie is currently causing for his buddy George Bush.

Worse, the link between terrorism and WMD is real. There is some (albeit not much) evidence that Al Qaeda may have the capacity to produce biological weapons. Perhaps nuclear as well. If the intelligence reports are correct, we also know where they acquired it from. Pakistan. Not Iraq. Pakistan. If you want to stop terrorists acquiring these terrible weapons, that's where to look. Instead of messing around in Iraq, we should have been pressuring the Pakistani government (which I stress has nothing to do with the terrorists either) into allowing us to help it control the regions and people where Al Qaeda are currently operating with relative immunity. But then that doesn't make such good copy for the friendly press, does it?

In his speech, Blair asks us to "understand why I took [the decision to attack Iraq]". The following comments are therefore intended to explain this. Hussein was a bad man. Terrorism. Human rights. But notice what's missing. Weapons of mass destruction. Not one mention that Iraq had them. Not one mention of active weapons programs. Oh, they get mentioned in passing - wouldn't it be terrible if terrorists got hold of them. But the much discussed intelligence about Iraq actually having such weapons is bypassed. Its a masterful piece of spin. Blair talks about Iraq, and about WMD, but never says that they had them. Never says that this had any influence on his decision to go to war. Yet, when the case for war was presented to Parliament, the British public, the UN Security Council, and the world, that was the only reason given. Either Blair's reasons for going to war, as stated in this speech, are a lie, or he lied before the war.

And then, tucked away in the third paragraph is the most amazing admission. "I've got the intelligence but I've a hunch its wrong?" We know the intelligence was wrong. Those fabled weapons don't exist. Never did. This isn't a case of exaggeration, but pure fabrication. Now Blair tells us that before the war he was in a position where he could have taken no action because he didn't believe the intelligence. Not "we had intelligence that with hindsight looks a bit less compelling than we thought at the time" but "I've a hunch its wrong". Everything indicates that Tony Blair knew how poor the intelligence was before the war. His comments before the war about how compelling the intelligence was are exposed as another lie.

One small section of one speech, and three lies are exposed - a link between terrorists and Hussein, the reasons for Blair deciding to commit us to war, and the quality of the intelligence on which that decision was based. Not only did Blair personally decide to commit us to an unnecessary war, but he lied (and continues to lie) about the justifications for that war. If we had a competent press, he would be crucified for those lies. Instead, it will be the ballot box where he will be made to suffer. Which ultimately means that we will suffer for his lies. If Blair leads Labour into the next election, he will damage the party, and that can only damage the country.

Graham Robinson. 3rd October 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.