Blair's opposition appeared immediately, quite apart from any "discovery" of being mislead. I watched and listened to Blair on BBC in the House of Commons almost weekly during that time. He was persuasive (in the face of immediate intramural attacks) that "if we do not remove Saddam now the UN will forfeit any future credibility," among other arguments. I'd like to see evidence there or here that positions have changed since "discoveries," or lack of them as I assume you would argue. I have not heard Blair complain that he was mislead by intelligence reports, or that he was wrong in a substantive way. What has remained the same, as evidenced by the quotes, is that politicians have published statements allowing them to have it both ways. And the loyal opposition is mounting the best arguments at their disposal, but with little effect on public opinion. It's got to be maddening, but it's a bit like the recall. The people have heard the case, and decided against those who know so much, in favor of what is apparent on the face of it.
because key countries like Russia, Germany, France, China and many, many others did not believe an invasion was necessary or wise Now this will be interesting to debate in the future. Why did these countries oppose removal of Saddam? Were we really interested in oil and revenge? Will be fun. |
