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.

MP Tom Watson And Parliamentary Rigour

Bravo for Tom Watson, a Labour member of the committee that grilled the Murdoch's recently (and who's party also supplied the person who attacked Rupert Murdoch), who has become aware of a possible mendacious statement by James. It seems the younger of the clan claimed not to know something that apparently others say he did. If he has misled the committee, Watson wants the police to investigate.

Now let us be clear, this is a nasty affair and whoever has been up to no good should be discovered and dealt with under the laws of the land. But the thing is, this is still really a minor matter and yet Mr Watson wants to pursue the miscreants at all costs. The same rigour seemed absent though when his ex-leader, Mr Blair, lied to Parliament in order to attack another country, Iraq. This cost the country a not inconsiderable sum and, much, much worse the lives of a lot of completely innocent and uninvolved people, not least our forces who did not need to be there. But why did we invade? Was it just for Blair's vanity? His fame and the impact it could have on his 'saleability' later? There were no WMD's and we knew that, so just what was he up to?

Then of course, we have the related death of a civil servant who was involved in stating that there were no WMD's before the lies that took us to war, Dr David Kelly. There is not only an absence of rigour over investigating his death, there is official interference to ensure there is no proper investigation. These are real issues of national importance that should be investigated at all costs, with no stone left unturned. Then we might see more than mock outrage from a Director of Communications who really was a danger in No 10. But Mr Watson doesn't seem to see any need for rigour here. The Murdoch's may not be the most pleasant people, but the Left represent the extreme in that respect.

Dr. David Kelly

I have referred to this a couple of times in other posts as quite clearly unsatisfactory and unfinished business, as it really does bug me, so I thought I would explain my concerns (or some of them).

David Kelly had made plans, not least regarding his daughters wedding, but suddenly decided to kill himself. Why? The police operation to find him 'started' before he had even left for his walk, let alone had been reported missing. The house was searched by officers who insisted his wife stayed outside. The time of death was inaccurate because the pathologist left it many hours before taking a temperature reading. Very odd. Why were the police not pushing for an 'estimated time of death'? Why the insistence that only two police officers were the first to turn up, when the civilians present reported three? Why no inquest, which is highly unusual? Why did Hutton ignore glaring inconsistencies? Why has the evidence and opinion been ignored of the two paramedics attending that there was too little blood for a death by suicide, caused by slashing the wrist? Why are eminent doctors, including those with relevant expertise, being ignored when they say that it cannot have been suicide? If David Kelly was murdered, as the evidence seems to suggest, who stood to gain from his silence?

Who is being protected? (And it certainly isn't the Iraqi's as Norman Baker bizarrely speculates in his otherwise excellent book).