Blair the British neo-con

Putting Tony Blair on trial would be much too cruel. The man is ill, delusional, quite possibly to the point of madness. What he needs most of all is psychiatric help. Any doubts I might have had about that diagnosis were removed by his six-hour presentation to the Chilcot Inquiry of his reasons for joining the neo-conned “Dubya” Bush in the war on Iraq.

Without understanding why, I never thought Blair was Bush’s puppet. Now, thanks to the access Blair gave us to the workings of his mind for six hours, I do understand. He was ahead of Bush in the war on terrorism game because he is a neo-con, the real thing, whereas Bush had to be won over, conned, by America’s mad men. Blair didn’t. He was always with them in spirit. After 9/11, immediately after it, probably while the towers were still collapsing, their agenda was his agenda.

Though the Chilcot Inquiry is concerned only with Iraq – how Blair’s government made the decision to go to war and what lessons should be learned – Blair could not resist beating the drum for war on Iran. He did that four times. One might have been listening to John Bolton or any of America’s or Israel’s lunatics.

When he was going on about terrorism being a threat to all, he threw in: “It’s a constant problem for Israel. They get attacked.” That there is a cause-and-effect relationship between Israeli occupation and Israel’s frequent demonstrations of state terrorism and a degree of violence directed at the Zionist state from time to time is not something Blair the neo-con can, or ever will, get his deluded minded around.

At one point during his display of insufferable, Zionist-like self-righteousness, Blair denied he had said in an interview with the BBC’s Fern Britton that he favoured regime change in Iraq. “I didn’t use the words regime change in that interview,” he said to the Chilcot Inquiry. He was telling the truth in that he did not use those actual words. What then did he say on camera to Fern Britton on 13 December 2009? She asked him if knowing what we all know today (that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction) would he still have gone to war. Blair replied, “I would still have thought it right to remove him. If that is not regime change, what is?!

Blair still insists that the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein has “made the world a safer place”. The reality is that Blair and Bush together were the best recruiting sergeants for violent Islamic fundamentalism in many manifestations, not only the Al-Qaeda franchise.

Most amazing of all was that Blair declined an invitation to express any regret. He couldn’t even bring himself to say he regretted the loss of the lives of British soldiers and a great number of Iraqis (somewhere between 100,000 and 600,000), mainly civilians. To my way of thinking that makes him less than fully human.

Blair described Saddam Hussein as “a monster who threatened the world.” There’s an old English saying, “It takes one to know one.”

16 comments on this post.
  1. rosemary spiota:

    I agree with you. “régime change” is only a euphemism for overthrowing a government or leader, anyway. Alan, have you seen the film by israeli Yaev Shamir “Defamation”? I found it today on my http://www.Informationclearinghouse.info daily email. Well done,whimsical(!), thought provoking, including Israeli teenage educational trips to Auschwitz, and interviews with Norman Finkelstein and Uri Avnery, as well as ADL’s Foxman.

  2. mary:

    If delusional means that one can live in denial, then that’s Blair to a T. Like Bush and Cheney he insists that black is white, and wrong is right. Spending hours and hours not acknowledging that the war on Iraq was justified, and ignoring the Downing Street memo, and believing that regime change is a legal and legitimate reason to go to war, make Tony Blair not only delusional but extremely dangerous. He needs to be put out to pasture with all the other neocons who were the engine behind the Iraq travesty. If there is to be no prosecution for Iraq war criminals they should be removed from positions of power.

  3. Nicholas Downey:

    We didn’t get to hear too much from the great man(sic)about why the reports from IAEA weapons inspectors before the invasion, emphasizing the lack of any evidence of WMDs was not considered important, despite the fact that they were later proved to be accurate.

  4. Amir Fahmi:

    A war criminal who sends other people’s children to die in his war except his own children.

  5. syed mehdi hasan ashraf:

    Mr.Hart,we all know who is who & who is what.Problem is we will keep debating about persons or nations acts on society or country and we have been doing this for so long.When i call it a debate then offcourse there always be comments for & against.My point is by doing so is world any safer or better to live in today.Debate will continue so will the suffering of the people unless there is a mechanism across the board to be tried in court (local or international),persons envolved in the killing of innocent people directly or indirecly.Let court decide his or her fate.
    The other very important thing we want to learn is that imposing oneself as police man of the world will neither earn you respect nor peace around the world including the country wants to be policeman.

  6. Tom Mysiewicz:

    Agree wholeheartedly. Blair converted to Catholicism? Sounds more like he’s a Christian Zionist. Personally, he always reminded me of the comic character Mr. Bean.

    You have a remarkable background but you have probably found (as I have) that no matter how well intentioned and logical your point, stupidity and insanity will often prevail. A fatalist would say some things were just meant to be.

    I haven’t met any of these famous people–I was a good reporter for years–but my record as an upstart calling the situation in the Mid East has been reasonably good. Better than most of the experts. See my web pages:

    http://members.tripod.com/writer_on_call/index-9.html

    and (my general noncontroversial website and C.V.)

    http://members.tripod.com/writer_on_call

    Regards,
    Tom

  7. syed mehdi hasan ashraf:

    Mr,Hart your reading of mr.Blair & likes of him is true in its substance.I just hope the world will have a mehanism where by a court will decide weather they are guilty or not of any wrong doigns rather than us.

  8. Joyce Carmichael:

    Like Rosemary Spiota, I saw Yaev Shamir’s ‘Defamation.’ The Anti-defamation League hung themselveas so thoroughly. Great diocumentary.

    Blair is mad – if psychiatrists gave him tests to measure his ability to feel remorse they would show that Blair is incapable of understanding the concept. One can see the look of puzzlement on his face sometimes when he is asked a question which relates to remorse. He is not quite sure of the concept. Sad, dangerous man.

  9. syed mehdi hasan ashraf:

    Mr.Hart,for some reason/s my comments are not appearing.I need your kind feed back on this please.

  10. Steve Meikle:

    A good piece, but for two minor points:

    That Blair is delusional does not make him medically ill. Their is a growing body of evidence that insanity is not a medical condition and therefore is not in the purview of doctors. Madness is a moral state for which the sufferer is fully accountable: thus i reject the insanity defense outright. Moreover there is no help that psychiatrists can offer anyone. All they can do is bully and drug to coerce conformity, or at best tell soothing lies.

    I know these things as i was once diagnosed by psychiatrists after my devastation by a religious cult some 25 years ago. the ONLY way out for me was to reject their pseudo scientific babble and take responsbility for the moral choices whereby i became a gull for cults in the first place. Those who refuse this become lifelong invalids.

    I suggest all interested parties read the antipsychiatric literature

    Secondly I do not take it that Blair is less than human because of his evil. Au contraire. Such evil is humanity par excellence, it is what is to be expected from the human race

  11. Steve Meikle:

    Note the rigid literalism these people hide behind. He never said regime change, ok I get it.

    But is he incapable of speaking English? the language, as is every other language, is full of SYNONYMS.

    But as the law is the last refuge of a scoundrel so is this brand of pedantry. Does he take us for idiots??

    His presentation before the committee, such as I saw on local tv, had him absolutely exude moral guilt from every pore

  12. Tom Mysiewicz:

    The word for Blair is MATTOID. it’s becoming a prerequisite for holding political office.

  13. mary:

    I think the word is euphemisms, not synonyms. An interesting one is “enhanced interrogations,” which is a euphemism for “torture.” And of course, Blair’s “removal” of Saddam Hussein is a euphemism for “regime change.”

  14. Steve Meikle:

    Well, yes, euphemisms too.

    Certainly a debasement of thought, or is it a debasement of language?

  15. Dr Gideon Polya:

    Tony Blair’s war crimes go beyond what scholars now describe as the Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide to the continuing UK-backed atrocities in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Thus it is estimated from UN Population Division and medical literature data that in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories post-invasion non-violent deaths from Occupier-imposed deprivation total 0.2 million, 1.1 million and 3.5 million, respectively; post-invasion violent deaths total 12,000, 1.4 million and about 1 million, respectively; post-invasion violent plus non-violent avoidable deaths total 0.3 million, 2.5 million and 4.5 million, respectively (4.4 million for Iraq, 1990-2010); post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 0.2 million, 0.8 million and 2.4 million, respectively (2.0 million for Iraq, 1990-2010); and refugees total 7 million, 5-6 million and 3-4 million, respectively , with a further 2.5 million refugees generated in NW Pakistan – Holocausts (huge numbers of deaths) and also Genocides as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention (see “Muslim Holocaust, Muslim Genocide”). A further 0.8 million people have died worldwide from opiate drug-related causes due to US Alliance restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry from 6% of world market share in 2001 to over 90% now (see UN ODC).

    In his 2005 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, Jewish British Literature Nobel laureate Harold Pinter stated: “We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it ‘bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East’.
    How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice.”

    Ten million? More than enough, I would have thought.

  16. ‘The Killing of Tony Blair’! | Arab Nyheter:

    […] “Putting Tony Blair on trial would be much too cruel. The man is ill, delusional, quite possibly to the point of madness. What he needs most of all is psychiatric help. Any doubts I might have had about that diagnosis were removed by his six hour presentation to the Chilcot Inquiry of his reasons for joining the neoconned “Dubya” Bush in the war on Iraq,” wrote Alan Hart, a veteran British journalist and author of book, ‘Zionism: The Real Enemy of Jews’, on January 30, 2010. Read the post here. […]

Leave a comment