Christian Louboutin Platform Pumps,Obsession”

Photograph of Blair leaving the Iraq Inquiry today: Reuters
Ben thinks this is “pathetically,Christian Louboutin Pumps sale, almost comically, weak” because Saddam was an enemy of al-Qa’ida (sort of, but that’s a longer story). He also seems to think that the phrase and the thought are new. I have posted a reply on his blog:
My good colleague Ben Chu is taken by the opening paragraph of Tony Blair’s written statement to the Chilcot inquiry,http://masterpiecedolls.com/membersp...e.php?pos=-466, published yesterday:
Tagged in: chilcot, iraq inquiry
Recent Posts on Eagle Eye John Redwood respondsAre the cuts really only wafer thin?Will your mobile turn you into a hunchback?Is David Cameron the most Europhile prime minister since Edward Heath?I admit I was wrong
*Actually,Christian Louboutin Pumps sale, having looked up Blair’s statement, I see that the words before those quoted here are: “As I indicated in my Statement to the House of Commons following …”
It is missing the point to label this comical. You may not agree that this was a sensible response to 9/11, or you may not agree that it is an accurate description of what happened to US thinking. You obviously disagree with both,Christian Louboutin Platform Pumps, and think that George Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to do what some of his political allies wanted to do anyway. But you still have to answer the question, why did they want to do it?
The threat of WMD proliferation was not and is not imaginary. I do urge you to read some of the evidence published this week by Chilcot, especially that of SIS4, the MI6 Iraq officer, which has been highlighted by Paul Waugh (no pro-war Blairite he).
Following the attack of September 11th 2001,christian louboutin, the calculus of risk on global security had radically and fundamentally changed.  In this context,http://ouqu.net/home/space.php?uid=2...blog&id=480486, the issue of Saddam Hussein and his long-standing defiance of the UN resolutions was bound to be a concern.
In any case, you have already answered your own question. Blair did not “choose” Iraq. The Americans did. So your rhetorical points about North Korea, Libya and Iran are superfluous. (Blair’s view was that they should all be dealt with forcefully, with the threat of military action, but you do what you can – and Libya has now disowned its WMD programme.)
You can disagree with the response to that threat, although you would have to say how Saddam was to be contained other than by military force,http://pimpinturtle.com/2007/07/24/t...ortoises.aspx/, but to dismiss Blair’s motivation as some obsession with past Labour defeats is just displacement activity.
Blair’s “calculus of risk” has been consistent since 2003.* It is not a new justification for the purposes of Chilcot. Saying that the risks changed after 9/11 is explicitly not asserting a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa’ida. It is saying that 9/11 brought home to the American leadership that they could not afford to be complacent or isolationist about jihadist terrorism, or the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, or the possibility of the two coming together.
Update: I meant also to take issue with the half-sentence, “Blair had exhibited no obsession with Iraq before”. On the contrary it was probably the most pressing foreign policy issue that faced him when he became prime minister. There were crises of Saddam Hussein’s defiance of the UN in November 1997,Cheap Christian Louboutin Sandals, February 1998 and October to December 1998,http://www.marszone.com/space.php?ui...blog&id=522448, which ended in the joint US-British bombing,http://lab.matteobrunati.net/elgg/pg/blog/hghfor2z, Operation Desert Fox. “Obsession” would in fact be an accurate description of Blair’s attitude to Iraq before 9/11, when he was certainly more in favour of military action than a reluctant US President.