Just How Bad Is Tony Blair?

I was thinking the other day about how people would see Tony Blair in future times. It seemed to me he was akin to Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Hitler and Stalin in the way he thinks. But I quickly corrected myself that he was not that extreme. But isn't he? Or was he just not quite so successful as some, in his destructive mania? He gets on so well with so many tyrants around the world and actively seeks their company (and money).

Of course, what separates the above from Blair you may think is their attitude to killing and this is where I came up against a hard wall. Blair sent our forces to war on a whim of his own, lying to parliament and the country to gain a chance of international glory. He wanted the fame that could be bought with their lives.

His total indifference to the deaths caused by his games, was demonstrated quite clearly by his refusal to meet any of the returning bodies of soldiers who died doing his bidding. The pointlessness was shown by the complete lack of a strategy in Iraq, his personal carelessness by the constant promises of 'whatever the troops need' that were then reneged on.

But it wasn't just this gambit that showed how different he is. Many think that he is directly responsible for the murder of Dr David Kelly, the man who could have seriously embarrassed him over Iraq (though nothing more than embarrassment). When you ask 'who benefits' from his murder, then the list is quite small, probably just one or two names.

But there is no proof, no matter what circumstances might suggest. What we do know is the supreme efforts made to ensure that a whitewash of an enquiry ensued. Indeed a blatantly obvious whitewash, such was the arrogance of the regime at the time. Except for one moment. When the murder occurred (it has been established beyond doubt that it couldn't have been the suicide suggested by Hutton), Blair was flying back from Japan. I have never seen him looking so shocked and drawn as when he was leaving that aircraft on his return.

I am sure it took quite a bit of reassurance from those around him, that their loud protestations to distract attention, as they had done from the outset when the Gilligan accusations broke, would be successful. Why would a Prime Minister take such a risk with a cover up, unless it was of great importance? In his otherwise excellent book, 'The Strange Death of David Kelly', the Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, cops out at the end, veering away from his own evidence and suggests Iraqi's killed him. Had they done so, surely Blair would have pursued them relentlessly, supporting as it would, his war.

I think we are probably lucky that Blair didn't try to turn Britain totally into a totalitarian state, his personal fiefdom, though he set many of the structures in place to achieve it. Maybe he did lack the resolve, the absolute killer instinct to carry it through or maybe his wife's love of money demanded he move in other directions. Who can know. But he represents a truly low point for Britain, for which we are still, literally paying.