On Friday, Tony Blair appeared before the "Chilcot Inquiry," the panel of hoary, lugubrious Establishment worthies set up to "examine" -- with extreme circumspection, exquisite politeness, and all due reverence to authority -- the "origins" of Britain's involvement in the mass-murder spree known as the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The event could be summed up entirely in a single headline:

Tony Blair to a million dead Iraqis, and the grieving survivors of British soldiers: Fuck you.

Blair's appearance before the panel has occasioned some entirely misplaced and uninformed kudos from some in the American progressiverse, who laud the Brits for holding such a bold inquiry. "It's the kind of thing you would never see in the United States," they say, forgetting, if they ever knew, such minor matters as the Watergate hearings -- which actually had the power to send people to jail for lying, unlike the completely powerless Chilcot panel -- or the Watergate grand jury, which named a sitting president as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a criminal case, or even the  impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton by the United States Senate, which I believe happened well within the adulthood of at least some of our leading progressives.

In any case, there was never any chance that the well-wadded Chilcot worthies were going to lay a glove on former PM turned corporate shill and Catholic saint-in-waiting. Blair was never going to do anything but repeat the bluster -- and outright lies -- he has regurgitated ad infinitum about his blood-soaked adventure with George W. Bush -- and the Chilcotniks were never going to call him on his bullshit. [Blair's knowing and deliberate lies are thoroughly detailed here.]

And so it proved. Blair strutted in -- through a back entrance, to avoid protestors -- and did the expected regurgitation. The war was legal, the war was righteous, the war was legal, and it was the right thing to do. After all, he claimed over and over, Iraq was clearly "in breach of UN sanctions ordering him to destroy all his weapons of mass destruction." Yet, as one observer noted in the Guardian, none of the Chilcot worthies deigned to point out to Blair that Iraq could not possibly been in breach of UN orders to disarm -- because it had no weapons of mass destruction. It was already disarmed -- a fact which the US and UK had known since 1995, and which could have been reconfirmed by the UN inspection teams in 2003 ... if Bush and Blair had not invaded before the inspections were over.

But Blair's illogical connections were never challenged by the panel, nor did he explain why he and Bush invaded before the inspections were completed. Instead, he simply evoke 9/11 over and over and over again -- and then blamed "the external elements of Iran and al Qaeda" for anything that went wrong after the invasion. Apparently, there was not a single Iraqi opposed to the destruction of their country; it was just a bunch of "outside agitators" causing trouble.

Blair's absolute erasure of the Iraqi people in these passages is a perfect encapsulation of the whole mindset that drove the Anglo-American attack: the Iraqis are non-people, they are worthless chits in a geopolitical game, they are rags and automatons at the mercy of big-time players like the Western powers, Iran and al Qaeda.

Indeed, this was his main theme of the day: it was Iran's fault. In fact, Blair seemed to regard his appearance before Iraq War panel chiefly as an opportunity to foment war fever for a new "humanitarian intervention" against Iran. As Jonathan Freedland notes:

Blair pushed further, apparently touting a new war in the Persian Gulf, this time against Iraq's neighbor, Iran. All day Blair used his platform to bring up Iran, even when it was only tangentially related to the topic in hand. The arguments that applied in 2002 – about WMD falling into terrorist hands – applied in spades to Iran in 2010, he said.

Blair took "responsibility" for the war -- but it was a responsibility he gladly shouldered, one he was proud of. As for all the people who have died because of this criminal folly, Blair had nothing nothing to say. As Jonathan Freedland notes:

I thought Blair would have prepared a closing statement that would express, if not regret or apology, at least sorrow for the young British men and women in uniform who had lost their lives. There was, surely, a way for a communicator as gifted as Blair to do that without giving ground on the justness, as he still sees it, of the war. And yet, even when Sir John Chilcot asked him one last time if he had anything to add, Blair did not pay tribute to the dead – British or Iraqi. He simply said "no".

Just like the Hutton inquiry into the strange death of WMD whistleblower Daniel Kelly -- the results of which have recently been sealed up for the next 70 years in a "highly unusual move" by UK authorities -- the Chilcot panel was never going to bring any powerful miscreant to accountability. It was set up -- like the American 9/11 Commission -- to siphon off festering anger and suspicion with a show of official concern. By stirring up just enough murk to cover the small nuggets of truth that inevitably surface in such probes, the Chilcot inquiry, like Hutton, the 9/11 Commission, will be able to claim that while there may have been some regrettable "system" failures here and there on this and that, no actual powerful person should be held accountable for any inadvertent "mistakes" that were made.

And the scam is already working. One of the panel of Guardian commentators, writing alongside Freedland, the "moderate," Broder-like Martin Kettle, was already chewing up some conventional wisdom cud by the end of the day:

On the other side of the argument there were fewer interruptions than there might have been, fewer silly stunts, and actually fewer demonstrators than one might have expected. Though passions are still strong, it may be that a lot of the poison and pain is ebbing. In that sense, today was probably cathartic.

Yes, as good old Kevin Drum always used to say back in the old days, when splitting the difference between some atrocious Bush policy and the president's "far left" critics, "that sounds about right." That hits the comfortable middle spot: yes, it was all a bit unpleasant, but now the "pain is ebbing," and we can look forward to seeing fewer of those "silly stunts" that shrill extremists have used to draw attention to the mass murder of human beings in a war based on ostensible reasons which even the war's architects now happily admit were unfounded -- and, according to Blair, unimportant. So Saddam didn't have WMDs? So what? It was a good thing to kill all those people anyway.

Another of Kettle's fellow commentators has a different view, however, and we'll give the final word here to Seamus Milne:

The spectacle of official indulgence of a man many here and abroad regard as responsible for a devastating war crime has been sickening. John Chilcot said at one point that the lessons of occupation had been "expensive, but very necessary". Millions of Iraqis who have actually paid that price take a very different view.

| More...

Comments (12)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Bill Jones said:

	Te purpose of Chilcot was a preemptive strike against a real enquiry by providing the ripost of "we already did that"
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 29, 2010
Votes: +4

Grandma Jefferson said:

Kabuki Inquiries for Grinning Mass Murderers... ....while "American Justice" is stonewalled by the same fearmongering lies in which he played so incomparable a part legitimising, as Lapdog Number Two. In a related story, the trial of the 9/11 suspects won't be happening in Manhattan after all, because of the mass vapourings of the local population: "New York Gov. David Paterson said he was 'elated that our concerns are being considered by the president and the federal government.' He had said earlier this week that if the cases went forward in the city, 'Every time there is a loud noise during the two years of those trials it’s going to frighten people, and I think New Yorkers have been through enough.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35132816/ns/us_news-security/ So, the due process of law can take a back seat to the whining of local villagers, whose fear has been whipped into a frenzy by cynical propagandists and political opportunists. The Emperor is thinking hard about what to do next. Perhaps we'll get a brave speech about the shining beacon of American Justice inspiring the world, while a Court of Law is whisked away to an undisclosed location, in order to proceed. And Tony is whitewashed, to perhaps start a tour "touching" for the Kings Evil, as a sign of his saintly nature. What we are seeing here, in Blair's 'inquiry" on the one hand, and this prostration of due process on the other, is the anarchy resultant from the overthrow of all core principles of Law itself, from the original coup d'etat of 2000, to the WarCrime of Lies, the implantation of torture as official policy, warrantless spying, the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, suspension of Habeas Corpus, extra-judicial murder exalted, deregulation of investment banking and the subsequent economic collapse, drone bombing of allied countries, an ocean of innocent blood of numberless victims, foully murdered, right through to today, and these two morally nauseating farces. But anarchy cuts two ways, it is a fluid, undiscriminating, impersonal force, a brainless tsunami blasting everything in its path, and those who unleash it do so at their peril. Destroy the Law, and who can you command? We will see this play out too, I fear.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010
Votes: +3

Expat said:

Chilcot Enquiry cut from same cloth ... as the Hutton Enquery into the assassination of David Kelly, the pre-emptive silencing that dissident voice. And, should any bother to conjure up the LORD WIDGERY Enquery into Northern Ireland's BLOODY SUNDAY state massacre of peaceful civil rights protesters; you will find again the same assault upon fact by sycophantic minions. In fact, the British judicial system is marked by unsafe conviction, imprisonment, (and one-time execution) of dissident voices. Remarkably, on occasion, the system does find the ability to correct itself, usually after massive time has passed for the wrongfully accused victims, many IRA bombing accused have fallen into this category.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010
Votes: +1

Harpfool said:

... The British have always been particularly kind to their war criminals - Earl Haig (WWI), Churchill (that's not just my opinion), Maggie Thatcher (they never investigated the sinking of the General Belgrano) to name just a few. They generally wind up in the House of Lords or otherwise on the public purse. That nation perfected bowing to the mailed fist centuries ago, and more recently also worshipping at the alter of narcissistic celebrity saints (I give you Lady Diana). So Blair's kid glove handling doesn't surprise me a bit, and his future reclamation by and for the Church won't either. On another note - have you noticed the coincidence of leaders of like mind bracketing the Atlantic whenever another opportunity arises for the military and/or financial powers to tighten their hold on the lives of the rest of us? Roosevelt and Churchill, Reagan and Thatcher, Blair first with Clinton and then Bush? The old empire with its lips firmly afixed between the buttocks of the new.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010
Votes: +3

Harpfool said:

Clinton's impeachment '"It's the kind of thing you would never see in the United States," they say, forgetting, if they ever knew, such minor matters as...the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton by the United States Senate, which I believe happened well within the adulthood of at least some of our leading progressives.' Let's not forget though that Clinton's impeachment was for something really important in American society - sexual misconduct. If he'd just stuck to killing residents of the Middle East and Eastern Europe all would have been well. So while I take your point, I'd say his impeachment was a reflection on our society and its "values", which also explains the disconnect of the people you quote. They are talking about an inquiry into a leader's potential war crimes, something which you would not see in America. Now, if Obama is ever caught with his johnson elsewhere than Michelle, THEN you'll see an inquiry!

report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010
Votes: +2

Jimmy Montague said:

	I'm with Grandma J. on this one. The rule of law protected the whole of society. Those who have torn up the rule of law so they could run roughshod over the rest of us will rue the day. The New American Century that PNAC conspirators sought to create will not shape in accordance with their hopes and dreams -- nor should it do so.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010
Votes: +1

Sean O'Neil said:

	... "Clinton's impeachment" ...that's some nice theater. Impeachment without removal from office is like being interrogated on whether oral sex is "sex." Impeachment requires removal from office, otherwise it is just a verbal rebuke to someone not responding to such rebukes.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010
Votes: +1

Harpfool said:

	Right, "impeachment hearings" Thanks Mr O'Neil - there is indeed a big difference between impeachment hearings and impeachment.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010
Votes: +1

Bill Jones said:

	It's a two part process guys. Impeachment is the equivalent of filing charges. The Senate farce was the trial.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010
Votes: +1

Bill Jones said:

	http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_...488572.stm "Iraq inquiry: reaction to Blair evidence" So the unsupported words of a known liar is now "evidence" One would think that the BBC was a government Propaganda organ, Oh, Wait...
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 01, 2010
Votes: +1

Sean O'Neil said:

... Bill Jones - It's a two part process guys. Impeachment is the equivalent of filing charges. The Senate farce was the trial. Let's not fall into the trap of process over substance. That's the sort of thing that idiots and malcontents love. It's the sort of thing Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Stewart, Maddow, Olbermann, Rhodes, Franken do. Mr Floyd and most of his regular commenters, we do know better. 1) The purpose of impeachment is removal from office. Nothing else. That is the whole point. 2) The fact that it proceeds in two steps is irrelevant to the purpose of removal from office. Making a point of it taking two steps is like saying murder requires two steps. A killing, and a prosecution with guilty verdict. The murder happened regardless of the process result. 3) Back to (1). The whole point of seeking impeachment is to remove from office. The "sham trial" in the Senate, you say? That's rich. The whole thing was a sham. It was never seeking Clinton's removal from office. It was to distract us from the killing sprees Clinton authorized during that time. Let's try to remember that, rather than "it's a 2-step process" or "sham trial in the Senate," eh?

report abuse vote down vote up

February 02, 2010
Votes: -2

Elizabeth Rainwater said:

	Waiting for Justice... http://www.guardian.co.uk/poli...avid-kelly
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 02, 2010
Votes: +0