Eine Kleine Nichtmusik

Witty and pertinent observations on matters of great significance OR Incoherent jottings on total irrelevancies OR Something else altogether OR All of the above

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Beam us up, Tony

In the light of Tony Blair's confession in his interview with Fern Britton last week that even had he known there were no WMDs in Iraq he would still have taken Britain to war, I wondered how the diehard (not to say desperate) Blair groupies would handle the acknowledgement from his own mouth of the war crimes they keep trying to tell us are the fanciful product of a hostile press.

And of course, following the example of their glorious exemplar, their response is to lie with the barest of faces. Apparently the statement “I would still have thought it right to remove him. Obviously, you would have had to have used and deployed different arguments about the nature of the threat.” is to be read with the unspoken corollary "....but under those circumstances I would have been restrained by the lack of any UN Security Council authorisation for war" (though no such restraint was evident when Blair entered on his equally unauthorised crusade to remove the imaginary WMDs).

These people are a textbook example of cognitive dissonance, which is what happens when someone holds a very strong belief which is then completely contradicted by facts which they are forced to confront. Usually the sufferer either denies the facts, or denies ever having held the belief in question. The classic (and immensely readable) study on the topic is When Prophecy Fails (1956) by Leon Festinger, in which he studied a cult who believed they were to be taken away by a UFO on a certain date. His description of their responses when the date came and went (but the UFO didn't) is both interesting and entertaining: rather like the anguished writhings of our own tinfoil-hat "Keep Tony Blair for PM" brigade.

Actually, watching those writhings over the past few days, the number of references to Blair's words has fallen off (to distract attention from them, perhaps?) while we are now being urged to think that if there had been no WMDs there would have been no UN authorisation for military action: Blair could never have got Parliament to vote for the war so wouldn't have entered upon it. But there were no WMDs, there was no UN authorisation for war: Blair simply made up the first and pretended he'd had the second so as to get his vote passed. Are we supposed to believe that his belief or otherwise in their reality would have spoiled their utility as a convenient fiction? That the vilest liar ever to disgrace the office of Prime Minister would break the habit of a lifetime and tell the truth? When there was no money in it for him? Perhaps we are: we are after all expected to believe that Melanie Phillips is an "honest journalist"!


At 18 December, 2009 04:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, but the "groupies" will get the last laugh. Tony Blair will never be charged with war crimes. He will not be charged because he is not a war criminal. It is all very simple. Can you hear me laughing?

At 18 December, 2009 19:11, Blogger Rob said...

Of course I can hear you laughing, BlairSupporter (oh, sorry, "Anonymous"). And on the B side I can hear it played backwards. Actually that song reminds me of you people, going crazy because your beloved Tony has abandoned you to go and make even more money. Boo-hoo!

Blair is a war criminal: not because I say so, but because he admits it. Whether he is ever charged with his confessed crimes is, I admit, far more of a question. Blair was happy to intervene to keep his Saudi paymasters from corruption charges. I'm sure a few of Blair's many millions will find their way to a place where they can aid his own slithering out of the dock. With David Miliband now calling for a change in the law to make Britain a safe haven for war criminals, perhaps they already have.

At 18 December, 2009 19:39, Anonymous BlairSupporter said...

Oh dear, dear, dear Rob.

Anonymous isn't me, sorry. There are one or two others in this world who DO appreciate and admire Mr Blair, y'know. "We few, we happy few"

I always leave my url and my alias - BlairSupporter - just to let it stcik in the craw of the ignorant.

Thanks for the mention by the way. I'll reciprocate. As it happens I'm putting together a post on the Brainwashed right now. Sorry, I meant the WE ALL KNOWers.

In the meantime, this is my most recent post:


Pleasant chappie, eh?

At 18 December, 2009 20:58, Anonymous BlairSupporter said...


Pardon, Rob?

"Blair is a war criminal: not because I say so, but because he admits it."


Ae you referring to his saying that he would still have supported the removal of Saddam? If so, and according to YOUR sharp thinking, that is an admission of a "war crime"?

That is an admission of an OPINION. The (imaginary) policy enacted or probably not enacted is another issue.

A pity people can't read, listen or understand as well as they can write.

Maybe this post below will help. Read it slowly. I typed it slowly to aid your comprehension:


At 19 December, 2009 01:05, Blogger Rob said...

Sorry for the mistaken identity, BS. I thought maybe you'd been in a hurry, and Anonymous's smug idiocy did remind me of you.

Of course sultan is a nasty piece of work: for all I know it's someone from Harry's Place moonlighting for a bit of fun at the expense of the wicked Mooslims. However, the massive leap from "a population of volunteers" to "the entire British population" - sorry, that should read "THE ENTIRE BRITISH POPULATION" suggests that people in glass houses shouldn't throw epithets about others' reading and comprehension.

And as for "Democracy is how we remove politicians who we consider have fallen from grace", tell that to Saddam Hussein. Of course, he didn't get a nice quick butcher's knfe, just a slow public strangulation. Sweet.

For that matter, tell it to Charles I. Blair didn't invent regime change, or anything else for that matter. Originality was never his strong point.

Incidentally, if sultan went to the USA he would find that its Constitution protected his right to publish remarks of that kind regardless of whether you or I like it or not. Is that where you had in mind for him to go? It certainly has a history of killing politicians, but it seems too nice a place for him otherwise.

And "you won't like us when we're riled"? Do you imagine anyone likes you now? Pointing and giggling does not equate to liking.

At 19 December, 2009 01:20, Blogger Rob said...

P.S. Pardon, BS?

"That is an expression of an OPINION".


Let's have a little more of your quote from the Great Leader: "I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat."

So that is an expression of an intention to lie to Parliament in order to achieve a vote for an unauthorised war. Not quite the same thing as "The (imaginary) policy enacted or probably not enacted is another issue".

However, if you feel that is insufficient to permit me to describe him as a confessed war criminal, I'm sure I can be content with "confessed corrupt politician and scourge of democracy".

At 19 December, 2009 01:25, Blogger Rob said...

PPS: "A pity people can't read, listen or understand as well as they can write."

Touched and flattered by the implied compliment on my writing, BTW. You're not too bad yourself.


Post a Comment

<< Home