So, what's going to happen now that a secret government memo has been released, indicating Blair's intention to go to war with Iraq as early as July, 2002 -- a memo that pays lip service to the idea of actually disarming Iraq, and is arguably just as damning for the Bush Administration as it is for Blair.
It's bad. Really bad. And it confirms every bad thing we've ever thought about both of these governments.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Which, when it comes down to it, is exactly what I (and numerous informed analysts, both conservative and liberal) have been saying all along. To see the Blair administration admit it, however, as early as July 2002 is damning. There is no wiggle room here for anyone of conscience.
And it gets worse still:
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
Damning, damning, damning. And lastly, there is this frightening note.
"There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change."
In other words, as early as July, 2002, the Bush / Blair administration (they're the same one, aren't they?!) have been illegally planning to remove the governments of several sovereign nations from power.
So, who here wants a one-way ticket to Tehran? Any takers?
Iraq needs peace and self-rule. Bush and Blair need to be surrendered to the International Criminal Court for war crimes violations. The two policies are not inconsistant. What isn't needed, however, is apathy.