Charlie Rose

astarrh  11/19/2010 10:34 PM Report

Wow, what a fantastic interview! Mr. Blair was finally given a chance to directly respond to the criticism of his decision in it's real-world tone: Demanding, unrelenting and almost belligerent. Mr. Rose understands not just the questions, but the nature and tone of the questions surrounding Mar Blair's decisions and poses them accordingly, to which Mr. Blair has a rare opportunity to respond almost directly to his critics. No one can say that Mr. Rose left Mr. Blair room to cower in ambiguity and no one can say that Mr. Blair is either currently regretting a flippant decision to go to war or is now or ever stubbornly refusing to see things from the other side.

He's right about the mistake that they made in not foreseeing Iran and Al Qaeda's involvement. This certainly was forseeable. I remember hearing Glenn Beck predict this back when he was still a thoughtful radio DJ, (he also predicted that Americans would not have the stomach for the decades of involvement that this effort would require). Tony Blair and George Bush might have emerged from their terms of office with their popularity intact if they had indeed understood this and were able to make it clear exactly what we were all getting into in terms of cost and commitment- and had sold us on the idea he is expressing here. That we are not going to war over the current possession of WMD, but rather we are going to war against his philosophy of destruction and murder as it poses an eventual threat to our own security.

Because of this failure, the sense of duty that led men to give their lives in conflicts like World War II was almost completely absent and the conflict felt over time more like a pointless political battle a la Vietnam.

danono  11/18/2010 10:10 AM Report

http://www.findsoso.com

The mission of findsoso.com is to provide you with the most hot goods at hot price from China. If you like to hunt for something

special at low price by fashionable online shopping.

We promise to:

Provide 24/7 customer support on weekdays. Offer our customers the low Chinese wholesale price. Streamline the buying and

paying process. Deliver goods to our customers all over the world with speed and precision. Ensure the excellent quality of

our products. Help you find products and manufacturers in China.

http://www.findsoso.com thank you!

tnevgolfer  10/06/2010 10:04 PM Report

Flipper4 and Robdverity's comments have inspired me to conduct a bit of research.

I've recently encouraged some friends (who historically favored the policy of containment for Saddam) to watch Charlie's interview with Blair. Much to my surprise, a few (not all) of these viewers have reconsidered their views. They still insist that it was a terrible direction to go in. (As if to distance themselves from that ostensibly large faction of lunatics who LIKE war.) But they are actually admitting that perhaps Blair was correct: the Iraq War was the least terrible option for dealing with an unacceptable threat.

Perhaps this is indicative of a larger shifting viewpoint about the Iraq war.

Perhaps Obama's continuation of Bush national defense policy and tactics (if not intensifying those tactics like the use of drones) has caused some to reexamine...?

NeilMacCallister  09/19/2010 03:55 AM Report

No, grice, ..Mr. Rose did not "pummel" Tony Blair, ..Mr. Rose pummeled himself.

Mr. Rose tonight begs Mr. Blair to please decide that he was wrong in confronting the regional aggressions of Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda, Iran, Hezbolah, Hamas, John Wayne Gacy, and all the rest of the world's mass murderers...

..but Mr. Blair wouldn't fall for that world-wide self- immolation. He stood strong once again!

Charlie here pounds only upon himself: He pleads for someone of consequence (..besides Harold Pinter) to cry "foul" at something Mr. Rose must himself must be envisioning regarding the state of this all-too-human world.

Yet can anyone state the date and time upon which Mr. Rose stood before a public audience and courageously and emphatically declared it our "moral misdoing" to have been instrumental in bringing the opportunity for a democratic vote to Iraq, ..and now maybe Afghanistan (.."praise God!"), ..and, who knows, maybe someday even the people of Iran???

When will Charlie ever stand and voice his OWN opinion on this matter, rather than just badger social leaders like Tony Blair to make yet another statement?? ..Can Mr. Rose do so with the same courage and conviction that the Iraqi and Afghani citizens are right now standing to voice their own opinions???

grice  09/16/2010 11:52 AM Report

Thanks Benezra for noting the salient elements in Mr. Blair's remarks. That opening sentence captured one of Blair's chief achievements.

Re "pummeling": I believe first comment congratulated Mr. Rose on "pummeling" Mr. Blair. I used the term ironically in re that comment. However, I've watched the interview a couple of times since, simply to bask in the clarity and language and thought and the cogency of argument, and I believe Mr. Rose was at points genuinely frustrated he could not get Mr. Blair to admit, if only in terms of "maybe," that the Iraq venture was morally wrong and political folly. I suspect that is such a truism in the circles with which he is most comfortable that his imagination failed him in this instance.

But Mr. Blair strikes me as being more than able to deal with that sort of dismay. And as you note, such tactics really are to his advantage, providing him the opportunity to address contemporary platitudes.

Good point.

In his "History of the English Speaking People," Winston Churchill confesses to an abiding respect for the Normans and their influence on the history of England. He is particularly eloquent about their contribution to the notion of freedom. It strikes me that perhaps the finest arguments on behalf of political freedom might not come from U.S., as generally assumed, but from the Brits---Milton's "Areopagitica," Burke, Churchill, Blair. And these have been written when freedom was most endangered.

flipper4  09/16/2010 12:10 AM Report

Come on. You know the U.S. initially backed Iraq against Iran (1980-1988), but we supplied both sides with weapons. You know we supplied Saddam with gas and coordinates against the Iranians and the Kurds who fought with the Iranians during that time.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

March, 1987. President Reagan admitted the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages.

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents from the United States against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. Mothers, fathers, infants, children.

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of more chemicals to Iraq used in manufacture of mustard gas.

The executives of Alcoliac International of Maryland, that transported mustard gas precursors to Saddam; the Tennessee manufacturers that provided sarin-based chemicals; the heads of Dow chemical who sold toxins that cause death by asphyxiation; the heads of Bechtel that produced chemicals for Saddam in their Iraqi plant; the CIA agents that made covert arms deals and transported heinous cluster bombs to a known war criminal, both Bush Whitehouses-all the participants in Iraq's machine of death should come before an international court.

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. The U.S. assisted with this by giving Iraq immediate intelligence.

By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire.

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin another massive chemical attacks, supplied by the U.S., against the Kurds. Again Saddam's military receives CIA assistance from the CIA.

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives."

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.

Come on. You know the U.S. supplied Saddam with gas and coordinates against the Iranians and Kurds. You know who sold it to Iraq. You know what Rumsfeld was doing at that time. You know what Bechtal, DOW, etc.,. were doing. You know GHW Bush gave Saddam the fuzzy green light to enter Kuwait. You know he gave back Saddam his helicopter gunships after Desert storm to wipe out 200-thousand Iraqi Shiites. You Know GHW Bush did not lift a finger, nor a telephone to stop the slaughter. You know why Bin Laden worked for the CIA and set up camp in Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia. You know GRI. You're too smart not to know. It's not just GW Bush and Blair that in fact ultimately killed 1 million Iraqis after March 2003, GW's father saw to it that the U.S. supported, assisted, and gave coordinates and poisons to Saddam Before during and after gassing the Iranians and Kurds in 1987-88. GW Bush carried on by hiring all of his father's henchmen, including "Chemical Donald Rumsfeld". The US helped Saddam kill most of those other prior 1,000,000 mothers, fathers, infants and children from 1988 until 1991.

You know why President Obama gave Iraq back the Bases GW Bush wanted until Iraq's oil ran dry. You know GW Bush knew the deep hatred between Shiites and Sunnis that GHW had flamed before the 2003 invasion. You know Bush lied about our weapons of mass destruction still remaining on Saddam's sand in 2003. You know Bush and Blair used depleted uranium and caused birth defects. Just as there was no redeeming quality remaining with Saddam Hussein, there is no redeeming quality of Bush I and II, Blair Cheney, Rumsfeld. They are all greedy vicious killers.

The mass killing of Iraqis by Saddam and the U.S. could have been stopped in 2003, instead as many or more were killed after that. And for what purpose? You also know that.

But instead you state:

"My compliments to Tony Blair, who made clear to anyone with functioning gray matter, that the decision to topple Saddam Hussein was a sound and unambiguous decision."

You're wrong. The U.S. supported Saddam's genocide with gas from 1986-1990/91. Gave him back his Helicopter gunships after 1991 and let him commit genocide against Shiites. 200,000. Then we went back in and killed a million more in 2003-2008, pretending the weapons inspectors were kicked out by Saddam, when in fact they were asked to leave by the UN because Bush was going to carpet bomb the place in 48 hours.

For what? For a lie. For Oil. For Money. For Military contracts. For Control. For Hubris. For power. For "Nothing."

It was not a "pre-emptive action". It was an aggressive war....It was an illegal war.

BENEZRAA  09/14/2010 10:04 PM Report

AHMIDINIJAD COMPARES TO HITLER, WHEREAS SADDAM AND QADAFFI COMPARE TO STALIN.

My compliments to Tony Blair, who made clear to anyone with functioning gray matter, that the decision to topple Saddam Hussein was a sound and unambiguous decision.

Mr. Rose asked Tony Blair, if there was a distinction to be made between Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinijad.  I would like to suggest that a clue to that distinction may be found in the person of Moamar Qadaffi, who, as was noted by Tony Blair, "came around" after the invasion of Iraq.

Both Qadaffi and Saddam exemplify secular totalitarian dictators having mentalities

natural to high stakes gamblers.  Quite distinctly, Ahmadinijad is a megalomaniac with delusions of being the "Mahdi", who in both Shia and Sunni eschatology, is the prophesied redeemer of Islam and is the leader of the "Mahdi Army"; Ahmadinijad is a pillar to Al-Quaeda and Hamas (militant Sunni militia movements) as well as Hezbollah (a Shia militia movement).

Neither Qadaffi nor Saddam fit into Ahmadinijad's mental category, whose mentality and methodology is more like that of Adolph Hitler. Saddam and Qadaffi self-consciously belong to Stalin's mental category.  Qadaffi and Ahmadinijad cannot be

expected to respond to the same policies and pressures, as their profiles demand entirely different approaches.

Qadaffi is said to have been principal to a recent deal with Britain and British Petroleum to exchange commercial oil privileges to BP for the freedom of the Lockerbie Bomber.  Setting aside the separate issue of BP and Britain's culpability on ethical grounds for this deal, this should be a signal that Qadaffi may perceive increasing weakness in the resolve of Western nations to stand against totalitarianism.  Qadaffi may have "come around";  yet he may well be on his way to return full circle to his former rogue totalitarian independence, confident perhaps in the continued failure of the West to rein in Ahmadinijad, and confident perhaps as well in the weakness portrayed internationally by President Obama.

Ahmadinijad's profile and the steady success of his "Brown Shirt" style,  "goose-stepping" consolidation of Iran -- right on up into the legislative and university bodies and administrations -- should awaken us into immediate military intervention, before it is too late to avoid an ubiquitous World War Three.

The issue is not the blood that will be on our hands due to our intervention so much as the far greater blood on our hands for failure to intervene or for intervening in weak or ill-considered ways. For all the tens or even hundreds of thousands, who have died in Iraq and in Afghanistan and in Pakistan as a consequence of our recent interventions, ten times as many already died (prior to our recent interventions) due to either our failure to intervene or due to our questionable interventions.

Many opinions against our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Pakistan and against [imminent ?] intervention in Iran are based on a false sense of security created by an historical security that is less and less relevant, namely, our separation from Europe and Asia by the geographical fact of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. As well, many opinions overly blame the "US Military-Industrial Complex" (and of course the USMIC is innocent or blameless). Still, leaders such as Hussein, Qadaffi, and Ahmadinijad are hardly noted for their humanitarianism; the idea, that what these despots have done and will do is somehow irrelevant to us, not our business nor our responsibility, and is local at a distance several oceans away, is not merely naive, it is lacking in knowledge, lacking in forethought, and lacking in humanity.

In the comments on the Rose/Blair conversation there is a dispute regarding whether or not Saddam Hussein kicked out UN inspectors. It is a trivial dispute because there is no dispute that Saddam was playing off the UN against the USA, attempting to buy time, gambling that President Bush would kowtow to the UN. Saddam played a game of "chicken" with President Bush; Saddam lost; end of story; beginning of new book.

Speaking of books and conversations about books, several commentators on the Rose/Blair conversation have expressed that Mr. Rose "pummeled" Tony Blair. This was not my take on the conversation, which I think is interesting, as I number myself among those supporting Tony Blair's perspective, and obviously these fellow commentators were defending Tony Blair from what I would say was misperception of attack. I find that Mr. Rose asked many of the questions that needed to be asked of former PM and current Middle East Envoy, Mr. Tony Blair; I find that these questions needed to be asked in order that Mr. Blair obtain a fair hearing in the face of ubiquitous mischaracterizations in other media of his views, positions, and reasonings; I find that Mr. Rose's training as an attorney enabled him to be thorough and challenging; neither was Mr. Rose rude nor aggressive. I will always remember this conversation as a most important public conversation for both Mr. Rose and for Mr. Tony Blair, and I esteem them both.

I will quibble with one statement that Tony Blair made this evening (09/14) to Margaret Warner of the PBS Newshour. She asked Mr. Blair about the idea that peace in Israel was a necessary precursor to peace throughout the world of Islam, and whether or not perhaps peace throughout the world of Islam might be achieved independently or prior to peace in Israel. Mr. Blair replied that indeed Israel was not the underlying cause of troubles in the world of Islam, but, that peace in Israel would ripple out positively into the world of Islam and make peace in the world of Islam easier to happen. I would like to suggest that it is the inverse that is true, that true peace in Israel would be symbolic of the achievement of peace in the world of Islam, that peace in the world of Islam is a necessary precedent to peace in Israel, as it is Islam that denies Israel it's existential right, and Israel does not deny Muslim nations their existential rights. Either way, may that peace come soon for all.

flipper4  09/13/2010 03:58 PM Report

GRI: (Note: I already read Hamlet and the Iliad)

I am not going to take the time to fly through all the unsupported and partisan comments you made in this thread. Nor will I take the time to mention all the blind nods you give to leaders simply because they are leaders in a "democratic country."

I made a real effort to lay out governmental hypocrisy in this thread. I made a real effort to briefly lay out the sickening genocidal history in Iraq by the United States and some of its corporations, from the 1980's to now, and ultimately Tony Blair's involvement.

Instead, you equate oil with ("reciprocal to") freedom.

You distract by claiming I am partisan and not seriously self-critical based only on the fact that I did not discuss Clinton (or Obama with any specificity), when, if you new my position regarding Clinton's sanctions that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq, and his action of removing peacekeepers from Rwanda, leading to the death of one million human beings, you would know that I am not partisan.

You take me to school on critical thinking skills, when you constantly ignore them in your own arguments, and instead behave as an uninformed cheerleader for Bush and Blair.

Example: GRI Wrote: "I do not believe any president, prime minister, or other leader of a democratic government goes to war without a well-founded reason."

---

If someone wants to know what this discussion was about, I suggest they read the entire thread.

gri  09/11/2010 09:08 AM Report

Re: "No, we are not different in this regard. I fully comprehend that one must walk among the fields of gray/grey... I simply disagree with you that The Bushes and Mr. Blair did the best they can in an imperfect world. They did not. They did just the opposite."

Were I less experienced, I'd marvel at the assumptions necessary to make those last two sentences – e.g., that the "shock and awe" strategy was merely "to pad our defense contractors" and that the U.S. and allies "[went]back in [to Iraq] to kill more [Iraqi women and children] . . .to remain in control of Iraq oil" are typical of the unsupported statements that mark your commentary. They simply do not admit conversation or discussion.

You seem not to understand that you must prove generalizations before you assert them as truths--- if you wish to be taken seriously. It was such statements to which I referred when I wrote, "What a smug, self-righteous, and hubristic conclusion. From what false heights you speak." You assume you know motives, you have the information available only to heads of state, and----well, you just assume things that one cannot reasonably assume. Your assumptions are "loaded" and often are also your conclusions. Circular reasoning is the name for that logical error---assuming what you seek to prove.

You may not recognize that you and I proceed from different views of the world, but we do, and I suspect that disinterested observers would see that.

You seem not to understand how revealing it is that you impute no lack of wisdom, virtue, or high motives to President Clinton or to President Obama, or any wisdom, virtue, or high motives to Presidents Bush and advisors. Were you seriously self-critical, that would be a giveaway. It would suggest your partisanship.

But enough. I am going to assume you are a person who genuinely desires to be fair in your judgments, who seeks to reason clearly so that he reaches supportable conclusions, who does not arrogate wisdom and virtues to himself that he does not accord to others.

Given that, please permit me to make a couple of suggestions. Purchase a good composition and logic book or two. Begin by learning to distinguish between the specific, the concrete, and the general. That will prepare you to distinguish between opinion and fact. Do the exercises offered to practice making that distinction. Avoid politics, where you can too easily slip into old, bad habits. Then practice writing simple paragraphs in which you formulate a topic sentence with a narrowed subject and a narrowed point of view on that subject and then support that topic sentence with specific evidence that relates to the subject and point of view. Start very, very simple. Cut yourself no slack; be a critic of what is general and what is specific. Forget your private assumptions for a while.

When you have that art down pat (and it won't be in one day or two), then move to study of the two basic forms of reasoning, inductive and deductive. Start with the syllogism, which has very specific rules and tests that can be stated in simple grammar so you can see your errors when they occur. Practice syllogistic reasoning about simple things. You will find that your work in paragraph development pays off in inductive reasoning.

At that point, find a chapter on logical fallacies and absolutely master every one of them. Collect examples from print and private life (Believe me, none of us has any problem gathering these!). All this would be a good semester's work for mastery.

It would give you the ability to question yourself, specific ways to recognize good and faulty reasoning, names for logical fallacies (and once we can name something, we can deal with it). THEN, take an assumption to which you do not subscribe and develop a paragraph supporting it: in other words, practice proving propositions that in real life you tend not to support. That will give you a broader view of the world, will incline you to understand that people of different worldviews can honestly and in good faith reach reasoned conclusions that differ. Possessing rhetorical and logical knowledge, then you will be able to discuss those, learn from them, perhaps even be open to learning from people whose conclusions differ from yours.

But it all starts with acquiring the ability to distinguish between an empirical fact and a generalization.

I know this might sound arch or condescending. I do not intend condescension. I followed this course myself, and I have spent a career guiding others through it and trying to remain true to what I learned through it. That study---largely self-taught---has made a wide-sweeping change in my life. I know how freeing it can be. That and the courage to question what all our friends assert can lead to intellectual independence. It can give us the courage to criticize ourselves, the humility to seek truth in the work of those with whom we disagree.

I recommended Warren's "All the King's Men" because it is about a world in which action and principle are falsely separated, where a "good man" will not sully himself with political office and where a "good politician" almost by definition separates himself from moral principles. Our world, in other words.

Its protagonist, Jack Burden, starts out as self-righteous and as cynical as one can be. Life alters him, opens him to a more charitable view of the world and its inhabitants, teaches him the terrible price anyone who acts must confront as well as the joys he stands to experience thereby. I knew Jack Burden intimately. In many respects I was Jack Burden. Maybe we all are Jack Burden. So I recommend him to you. "All the King's Men" is one of the six or seven great American novels. It is a little complex in one part, but overall is pure narrative. Maybe then you can move to "Hamlet," to which you seem disinclined. And don't be deterred by the age or reputation of "The Iliad." It too is about the problem of action in a flawed world. It's lasted for a reason.

My comments in this little back-and-forth started out on the subject of the day---Tony Blair. And Tony Blair is more than Iraq. Far more. I'm going to read his memoir because I'm interested in how one experience changes one, what shapes a person as he lives in the world of choices to which there is no simple guide book. I have a feeling that Mr. Blair had a lot of Jack Burden in him too. His movement into the Catholic Church suggests a lot about his learning humility. Mr. Blair is one of the most articulate public figures alive today. I'm going to take advantage of that. He and Lady Thatcher came from opposite benches, but each of them was able to articulate the value of freedom and the often terrible costs of maintaining it---far better than any one since Winston Churchill. For some reason, Americans have occupied themselves with self-flaggelation and guilt even as they enjoy the fruits, both intellectual and material, of freedom. Acknowledging our virtues as a nation seems unaccountably difficult. So reading the Brits can be salutary.

This day---9/11---reminds me of those costs. It also reminds me of the need for humility. Days later, in St. Patrick's Cathedral President Bush said, "We learn in tragedy that God's purposes are not always our own." Wouldn't it be good if we were better students!

flipper4  09/10/2010 08:33 PM Report

Hello GRI.

Those "mistakes" were not "mistakes." They were a cold calculated means to an end. Assisting in gassing the Kurds and Iranians is not an unforced error, it is premeditated murder. Going back in to kill more and set up bases to remain in control of Iraq oil is not freedom, it is tyranny. Using shock and awe to pad our defense contractors is not "wisdom", it is cynicism. Using depleted uranium is not acting on our highest principals, it is inhumane....

GRI stated:

"You and I differ about the very nature of the world. I feel reasonably confident we live in an imperfect and complex world where we can never know enough to guarantee the outcome of our actions. Perfection is an idea, not an empirical condition. We must do the best we can, act on the highest principles we know, in an imperfect world of time and shadow."

No, we are not different in this regard. I fully comprehend that one must walk among the fields of gray/grey, (depending on which country you are from.) I simply disagree with you that The Bushes and Mr. Blair did the best they can in an imperfect world. They did not. They did just the opposite.

Thanks for the book suggestions. I have not read "All the King's Men". The rest were....thought provoking, but do not persuade me otherwise.

Might I suggest to you a few ....songs. James Taylor's "Carry me on my way" and "Belfast to Boston", . Bruce Hornsby's "Among the Field's of Gray." Bernie Taupin's "Indian Sunset", "Levon", "Madman across the Water," Mark Knoffler's, "Brother's in Arms" and Finally: James Taylor's, "New Hymn"

"Source of all we hope or dread

Sheepdog, jackal, rattler, swan

We hunt your face and long to trust

That your hid mouth will say again

Let there be light

A clear new day

But when we thirst in this dry night

We drink from hot wells poisoned with the blood of children

And when we strain to hear a steady homing beam

Our ears are balked by stifled moans

And howls of desolation from the throats of sisters, brothers, wild men

Clawing at the gates for bread

Even our own feeble hands

Ache to seize the crown you wear

And work our private havoc through

The known and unknown lands of space

Absolute in flame beyond us

Seed and source of Dark and Day

Maker whom we beg to be

Our mother father comrade mate

'Til our few atoms blow to dust

Or form again in wiser lives

Or find your face and hear our name

In your calm voice the end of night

If dark may end

Wellspring goal of Dark and Day

Be here

Be now

Peace.

gri  09/10/2010 07:29 PM Report

And Mr. Blair noted all these mistakes, plus that little one over in Afghanistan a few decades back. He identified a pattern in them.

But having erred, is one to cease acting? To become paralyzed because we've made mistakes? To pull inside our borders and wait for planes to fly into the WTC, the Pentagon, and Capitol Hill?

Unfortunately, oil is one reciprocal of freedom right now. Back when Mr. Carter and Iran were giving Ted Koppel a new job, the U.S. should have launched a campaign to free itself from its thrall to Mid-East oil. But we didn't.

And one must act in the wake of mistakes, must use them as best he can to act more wisely in the present.

He will still err. He can never know everything he needs to know to achieve a perfect outcome.

That is the world in which we live generally: we see through a glass, darkly. That is man's individual moral situation: he cannot know the outcome of his actions. His purest action can bring about the very thing he sought to avoid. It's enough to paralyze a person or a nation sometimes. Yet even inaction is also action.

As I said at the outset, that is one of the reasons I've come to admire Mr. Blair: knowing all those things, he had the courage to act---and act in a way he, Labor's shrewdest politician, had to know might compromise his career. He acquired the gift of self-criticism without being paralyzed by it. He continued to learn and to act.

Forget the "eloquence": that is a left-handed compliment. It is just another way of detracting from the quality of my reasoning, of saying, "What you say sounds good, but it's only fine words dressing up bad ideas."

You and I differ about the very nature of the world. I feel reasonably confident we live in an imperfect and complex world where we can never know enough to guarantee the outcome of our actions. Perfection is an idea, not an empirical condition. We must do the best we can, act on the highest principles we know, in an imperfect world of time and shadow.

That is the lesson to be learned from the greatest reflections on man's condition---the holy books, the epics, the plays. That is what Hamlet learned, for instance. Acting on the highest principles, he had brought about the death of two innocent people. That recognition of our limitations generally brings humility, not hubris; charity, not cynicism and hatred.

I do NOT "know" what you attribute to me. I do not share your facile and logically insupportable conclusion: "Just as there was no redeeming quality remaining with Saddam Hussein, there is no redeeming quality of Bush I and II, Blair Cheney, Rumsfeld. They are all greedy vicious killers." Using any principle you choose, that comparison is false. Logically false. And it is empirically false as well. What you have is a false comparison (on about 3 points) and the use of overstatement to distract. Not convincing.

Judging from your omission of President Clinton from the list of "greedy vicious killers" and from your admiration of President Obama for undercutting whatever we might have achieved in Iraq, I assume you find "redeeming qualities" in them, though you do not choose to articulate them.

What a smug, self-righteous, and hubristic conclusion. From what false heights you speak.

Watching my own children and others, I have always said I prayed I would never be in a situation where I would have to be tried by a jury of six-year-olds. They see life in black and white. They are completely intolerant of anything that violates the least of their principles. They envision perfection.

Most of them eventually grow up and recognize the limitations of their childhood views.

May I suggest a novel and an epic that are both relevant – Robert Penn Warren's "All the King's Men" and Homer's Iliad? Especially Warren's character Jack Burden? The book is a good read. And then there's "Hamlet."

flipper4  09/10/2010 04:51 PM Report

Come on GRI. You know the U.S. initially backed Iraq against Iran (1980-1988), but we supplied both sides with weapons. You know we supplied Saddam with gas and coordinates against the Iranians and the Kurds who fought with the Iranians during that time.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

March, 1987. President Reagan admitted the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages.

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents from the United States against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. Mothers, fathers, infants, children.

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of more chemicals to Iraq used in manufacture of mustard gas.

The executives of Alcoliac International of Maryland, that transported mustard gas precursors to Saddam; the Tennessee manufacturers that provided sarin-based chemicals; the heads of Dow chemical who sold toxins that cause death by asphyxiation; the heads of Bechtel that produced chemicals for Saddam in their Iraqi plant; the CIA agents that made covert arms deals and transported heinous cluster bombs to a known war criminal, both Bush Whitehouses-all the participants in Iraq's machine of death should come before an international court.

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. The U.S. assisted with this by giving Iraq immediate intelligence.

By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire.

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin another massive chemical attacks, supplied by the U.S., against the Kurds. Again Saddam's military receives CIA assistance from the CIA.

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives."

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.

Come on GRI. You know the U.S. supplied Saddam with gas and coordinates against the Iranians and Kurds. You know who sold it to Iraq. You know what Rumsfeld was doing at that time. You know what Bechtal, DOW, etc.,. were doing. You know GHW Bush gave Saddam the fuzzy green light to enter Kuwait. You know he gave back Saddam his helicopter gunships after Desert storm to wipe out 200-thousand Iraqi Shiites. You Know GHW Bush did not lift a finger, nor a telephone to stop the slaughter. You know why Bin Laden worked for the CIA and set up camp in Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia. You know GRI. You're too smart not to know. It's not just GW Bush and Blair that in fact ultimately killed 1 million Iraqis after March 2003, GW's father saw to it that the U.S. supported, assisted, and gave coordinates and poisons to Saddam Before during and after gassing the Iranians and Kurds in 1987-88. GW Bush carried on by hiring all of his father's henchmen, including "Chemical Donald Rumsfeld". The US helped Saddam kill most of those other prior 1,000,000 mothers, fathers, infants and children from 1988 until 1991.

You know why President Obama gave Iraq back the Bases GW Bush wanted until Iraq's oil ran dry. You know GW Bush knew the deep hatred between Shiites and Sunnis that GHW had flamed before the 2003 invasion. You know Bush lied about our weapons of mass destruction still remaining on Saddam's sand in 2003. You know Bush and Blair used depleted uranium and caused birth defects. Just as there was no redeeming quality remaining with Saddam Hussein, there is no redeeming quality of Bush I and II, Blair Cheney, Rumsfeld. They are all greedy vicious killers.

The mass killing of Iraqis by Saddam and the U.S. could have been stopped in 2003, instead as many or more were killed after that. And for what purpose? You also know that Gri.

But instead you state:

"Well, doing nothing hadn't spared women and children from horrible deaths. Nor had it spared their husbands and fathers---extended families."

You're wrong. We did not do "nothing" before 2003. Instead, the U.S. supported Saddam's genocide with gas from 1986-1990/91. Gave him back his Helicopter gunships after 1991 and let him commit genocide against Shiites. 200,000. Then we went back in and killed a million more in 2003-2008.

For what? For a lie. For Oil. For Money. For Military contracts. For Control. For Hubris. For power. For "Nothing."

You are eloquent and well read GRI. You are also wrong on this. It was not a "pre-emptive action". It was an aggressive war....It was an illegal war.

gri  09/10/2010 12:23 PM Report

I like that idea about taking one member of the press captive weekly. Would you consider moving it up a notch to one news agency? Not for bonding "with the common man," whoever he might be. But in the service of truth.

In my view, the moral high ground IS the belief that freedom is fundamental to a humane life. Thus, it is worth defending not merely in word, but in deed. This nation, with all its warts, is still a haven of freedom and is worth defending with all our might.

I believe pre-emptive action is a realistic possibility that deserves to be among options considered in dire times because in some cases, pre-emption might be the only opportunity to act.

Of the things that have impressed me with both Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush (II) have been their commitment to defending freedom, their realistic vision of what that means, and their ability to act on that vision.

While I recognize that in the choir of Liberal orthodoxy it marks me as beneath contempt, I believe the first President Bush lacked that ability to act decisively and to follow through on his gains, which left a moral monster at loose---just not at loose in Kuwait. At that moment. Ironically, his equivocation left his son with the situation created by that monster.

Anyone who acts takes a chance on miscalculation. And in retrospect, it is clear that going into Iraq without more force was a decided miscalculation. Precedents were few, intelligence was less than perfect, as it always is. Finally, one has to decide whether he has sufficient evidence to act. That requires courage, whether the jaded and inactive wish to admit that or not.

But recognizing that Saddam was not going "to change his heart" was not among the miscalculations the allies made.

How many times had Saddam recanted his "reformations"? His commitment to WMD had been reinforced enough times to create an unmistakable pattern. More than enough for a practical, reasonable person to predict his future actions. And if that is not enough for those who depend on the undependable Mr. Blix and who cite the most recent Saddam "reformation," then read Saddam's own affirmation of his long-term policy in his post-cave statements and the affirmations of his subordinates. Look at the intelligence reports of Bathists gone to ground.

T.S. Eliot's iconic "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" is the picture of a man---and a type of person---who cannot act because he is so self-interested and self-conscious and so lacking in any transcendant belief that every contemplation of action results in endless contemplation of its private risks, and that ends in inaction. Prufrock is paralyzed and precluded from acting on any principle by the recognition that it MIGHT end badly. The title is ironic, for he cannot declare or experience love, which is a commitment to something besides self. He dare not risk error. All action is lost in a series of "What if's."

Prufrock would have used Blix's conclusions and Saddam's latest in a long line of promised reformations as objections to taking forceful action to remove a beast whose actions afforded not a single reason to believe he was capable of reform. Prufrock would have had greater faith in the integrity of such a Saddam and a Blix than in that of a Blair, who would act to defend freedom and protect the innocent against the bestial actions of a Saddam. Because such faith would preclude action.

Action requires belief in some positive good, something that transcends the private quiet. (In "Paradise Lost" one of Milton's fallen angels distinguished between quiet and peace, and it is a timely distinction).

And yes, I maintain that using emotional, private words like "moms" (as opposed to "mothers") and in pointing out only the innocent casualties of war is a red herring. It deliberately calls attention away from the more complex question at hand.

It is also a faulty dilemma, for it implies the word had but two options---doing nothing and assuring the loss of innocent lives. It assumes that by doing nothing, the European allies could spare those women and children.

Well, doing nothing hadn't spared women and children from horrible deaths. Nor had it spared their husbands and fathers---extended families. I hate to keep referring to records, but why not read some of what those women and children had to say about that?

I also believe we are in a war that should have become clear to most people by the late hours of 9/11. As Mr. Blair observed, President Bush described it bluntly and predicted the costs of winning it and surviving it would be steep (Blair said he had wanted Bush to "explain" more: in retrospect, he thought Bush's plain description better than explanations)

Yes, I do believe that any U.S. President or British Prime Minister who commits troops to battle struggles mightily with that decision. Such a decision changes a person, haunts him. Both Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush were also religious men, members of a faith that makes the serious believer think long and hard about war. Such people are particularly conscious what war will mean for those under their command. To believe otherwise, I would have to deny everything I know about human psychology and history. I would have to assume myself better and more honorable than any such leader could be. That's hubris and unsupportable elitism.

Which is what I think led to Mr. Rose's "pummeling" of Mr. Blair. I watch this program regularly. I love the science features, particularly, and I recall a number of interviews with pleasure. But I cannot imagine Mr. Rose acting much more decisively than in "pummeling" a guest who risked error by taking action. He associates much more happily with those who, like Prufrock, sit around and talk a decision to death. They sem to dismiss the possibility that any who differ with them are intelligent and well-intentioned. "Pummeling" is the resort of those who demand obsequious deference to their self-appointed superiors and are shocked when they encounter a man like Blair, who has grown beyond some of their orthodoxies.

Back to hubris.

doodah  09/10/2010 09:09 AM Report

And if elected President, I promise to give no less than at least one press conference per week, and I will be completely blunt and honest, and at the conclusion of every press conference, I will pick one member of the press to be imprisoned or executed. Just to keep things interesting, and to bond with the common man.

doodah  09/10/2010 07:00 AM Report

Stop trying to flatter yourselves with 'the moral high-ground', folks. This is about survival. Vote for ME, and I will pull ALL our American sons, daughters, brothers and sisters out of the hostile territories. And then I'll NUKE the smithereens out of their ingrate asses. .Then after the dust settles, we'll go back and harvest what natural resources worth harvesting. And then perhaps, we can use the territory for a good penal colony.

flipper4  09/09/2010 05:50 PM Report

grice wrote:

"I do not believe any president, prime minister, or other leader of a democratic government goes to war without a well-founded reason."

Let me know how that works out for you.

Saddam had allowed the inspectors in. Blair is lying. The UN denied Bush's resolution to use force to go to war, and instead gave the inspectors more time. Bush and Blair wanted to go to war. Now you are questioning the UN weapons inspectors whom even Bush and Blair later admitted were accurate, and relying on post-invasion quotes from Saddam?

Of Course Bush 1 should have intervened when the Kurds were gassed, of course Bush one should have intervened when Saddam was given back his gun ships by the United States to exterminate the Shiites in the South during desert storm.

Instead, the CIA and Bush 1 gave Kurd coordinates and gas to Saddam. Instead Bush one gave Saddam back his helicopter gunships and did not raise one finger to save 200,000 Shiites after desert storm.

Good luck with your faith in "democratic" elected presidents.

1,000,000 more dead moms, babies and children are hardly just "red herrings.". We had Saddam in check, and instead of being responsible, Bush and Blair decided to kill as many or more than Saddam.

robdverity  09/09/2010 05:44 PM Report

Go jingos! Boeing and Xe are behind you all the way. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilian (shock and awe) deaths attest to the Stockholm-syndrome of WWII and the Vietnam Destroy-that-village-to-save-it parallel.

Nevermind that their atavistic penchant for tribalism and sectarian violence is outlasting both Saddam and the US. John Burns predicted it. A new (Saddam?) despot will ultimately prevail to validate that they deserved Saddam - making our intervention imperialistically arrogant, stupid and so-not-worth-it.

Boeing is laying off. Their lobbyist are doubtless working the Republicans hard for a sooner-than-later preemptive incursion into Iran. Say right after the fall elections? Not on a war-for-profit basis you understand. Solely to bring down unemployment. Totally patriotic.

And a big HUZZAH for Pastor Terry Jones (a MI oligarchy mole?) Keeps our species at the cave-man level where it persists in wanting to remain.

grice  09/09/2010 03:43 PM Report

Has anyone bothered to read Saddam's own comments after he was dragged out of his small cave? Or the intelligence reports about his plans to let U.N. come in, then go right back to old business, which the post-cave statements supported? His administration's statements? Have you compared the number of his own citizens Saddam had already killed (don't count Kuwait citizens)? How many moms, dads, babies, children are in that tally? Or what he knew of Blix' skill? And what is to know about Blix's biases and reliability.

Blair distinguished between a Saddam statement that he had "changed [his] mind" and "a change of heart." To illustrate that "change of heart" he cited Libya. It meant statements borne out with variety of actions, a pattern of actions. Saddam's long history established a pattern of actions: review it, please.

Rose didn't ask what Blair thought of Blix's report, what Blix's history had been, what evidence existed that no change of heart had or would likely occur---or a variety of other good questions. He was in a pummeling mood.

Perhaps the world should have intervened when Saddam gassed the first village of women and children. Or is that something civilized nations ignore when they occur with the sovereign borders of a nation?

The questions about inspectors, whose accuracy was always problematic; the red herring of million" moms, children, babies" killed in war----these and others are old appeals to pure emotions, exactly what you blame Blair and Bush for. They do not consider realities many simply refuse to consider.

I do not believe any president, prime minister, or other leader of a democratic government goes to war without a well-founded reason. You watch them age before the nation's eyes in times of war. I've not grown that cynical yet. If one believes democratic leaders, whom we've charged with taking decisions, take such decisions seriously, even personally, he is likely to look for explanations of such behaviors in serious, complex matters of reality.

But if he demonizes the leader, thinks he or she could not possibly so pure and wise as Joe Smith who reads The Times, he is spared such effort.

We've lost the ability to ask the hard questions. The vocabulary that really justifies anything departs when the words "evil" and "good" lose meaning. We don't even know how to recognize fallacious arguments, much less sound arguments. Techniques like faulty dilemma, red herrings, circular reasoning, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to or at the man, emotionally loaded words---the whole range of propagandistic, fallacious reasoning techniques are no longer clear. As a people we too often recur to the tired old self-serving lines.

As a mother of a son and a teacher of young men who went into that war, I detest war---any war. But I know there are times when war is the lesser of evils. I am always loath to admit the presence of those times.

I admire Tony Blair because he has grown and changed with experience in office. His ability to articulate both problems and the decisions he took with regard to them never falls into the slovenly propaganda. He was able to articulate the situation in which democracies find themselves today more clearly than anyone else. His articulation of his position reflected long experience in dealing with a variety of dictators and mad men. I wonder how many times Mr. Rose or Blair's vehement detractors have had to take a decision that involved the lives of others? Such decisions have a way of concentrating the attention.

Why don't folks read the book with minds that give the man credit for good intentions, the way one should read any book. The author might prove us wrong, but personally, I make sure the author does that before I start mouthing the cant of the day.

How refreshing it would be if his detractors

flipper4  09/09/2010 02:48 PM Report

Tony Blair and the entire world seem to have amnesia.

Good God man! The inspectors were in. Nice job killing one million mom's, dads, babies, children; maiming, amputating, and all other brain injuries (and also nuclear radiation poisoning from depleted uranium).

TONY BLAIR: "....then let the inspectors in, gave up his nuclear and chemical weapons ambitions, and that was that. That was the end of it." (Blair stating he would not have

gone to war if Saddam acted more like Libya.)

CHARLIE ROSE: So the only thing that would have stopped you was Saddam Hussein saying "Look, I understand what’s coming down here, I’ve changed my mind." (See March 7, 2003 UN report below)

TONY BLAIR: Change of heart and change of mind, yes, absolutely.

Hans Blix briefs Security Council

7 March 2003 – Top United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix told the Security Council today that over the past month Iraq has displayed "active" or even "proactive" cooperation, which has allowed the inspection process to make significant progress, although a number of key disarmament tasks remained to be resolved.

Addressing a ministerial-level meeting of the Council, Mr. Blix cited in particular Baghdad's move to begin UN-supervised destruction of the Al Samoud 2 missiles, which had been declared by Iraq last year, but were later found to be outside the permissible range by UN experts.

"The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament - indeed the first since the middle of the 1990's," Mr. Blix said. "We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed."

But at the same time Mr. Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said that the recent acceleration of initiatives from Iraq, while welcome, should be judged by how many questions marks they had actually succeeded in straightening out. He also noted that Baghdad should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes, and expressed hope that the appointment of a government commission would help to produce results.

Turning to biological and chemical weapons, Mr. Blix said there was a significant Iraqi effort under way to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of those arms, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. As part of that effort, a disposal site was being now re-excavated, unearthing bombs and fragments, which could allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site.

Mr. Blix emphasized that no evidence had so far been found of weapons of mass destruction being moved around by truck, of mobile production units for biological weapons or of underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage, as claimed by intelligence authorities. He added that for further monitoring such claims, UNMOVIC would need increased staff. "I am not talking about a doubling of staff," he said. "I would rather have twice the amount of high quality information about sites to inspect than twice the number of expert inspectors to send."

Mr. Blix said more papers on anthrax, VX nerve gas and missiles had recently been provided but many were found to restate what Iraq had already declared, and some would require further study. He said Iraq had proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site.

"However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation," he added. "Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced…

"Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated 'immediately, unconditionally and actively' with UNMOVIC, as is required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002)," Mr. Blix said.

"It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as 'active,' or even 'proactive,' these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute 'immediate' cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance."

"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues," he stressed, adding that with a proactive Iraqi stance it would take "not years, nor weeks, but months" to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks, which he said he would present to the Council before the end of this month.

He also said that UNMOVIC would soon request interviews outside Iraq with Iraqi scientists and others who may have knowledge of banned weapons programmes since "conditions ensuring the absence of undue influences are difficult to attain inside Iraq.

grice  09/09/2010 12:09 PM Report

I found Mr. Rose's "pummeling" interesting too. Glad AFR identified the term so clearly.

Pummeling is hardly the action of an intelligent, liberal-minded person who is interested in drawing out and understanding his guest's reasoning. It is the action of an opponent.

He certainly did not "pummel" Harold Pinter, who ignorantly compared Mr. Blair's position on Iraq with the Khmer Rouge's bloodbaths! Such a baseless and ignorant position was not attacked. Nor was its holder.

I was shocked that Mr Rose would sink to such levels of ideological blindness with Mr. Blair, when he has remained calm and courteous and even respectful of threadbare notions restated by more left-wing radicals and plain "progressives" than I can recount, people like Pinter.

No tough questions to which he does not know---and generally accept---the answers with those folks.

I'd never seen Mr. Rose bully ("pummel") a guest the way he bullied Mr. Blair. Could it be because his guests are usually part of the same old ideological pool? Could it be Mr. Rose is not so open to new or complex ideas as he would like to believe? His behavior in that interview certainly suggests as much. I was ashamed for him, not for Mr. Blair.

Cliches and cant should be questioned. Mr. Blair's ideas, which have been influenced by his practical experience in government, were carefully reasoned and worthy of genuine discussion, not bullying rebuttal.

I'm always interested when those who look back on Germany and the Third Reich and ask rhetorically, "Why did the civilized world do nothing to stop this barbarism?" apply an altogether different principal when considering the behavior of a contemporary barbarian whose brutality exceeded all bounds, who was systematically using WMD to suppress any dissent, and who had no intention of change, as his own statements after his capture reveal. Saddam killed more of his own people than any killed in recent warfare. And should one really count the casualties created by Al Queada and Iranian-funded terrorists as casualties inflicted by allied troops.

Tony Blair's experience has made him increasingly aware of the terrible dangers of nuclear and WMD proliferation. His experience has led him to fear a nuclear holocaust and to consider ways that might be averted. And his experience has led him to believe that Evil exists and that left to its own devices will devour relativists and isolationists. His views, both domestic and foreign, have altered and evolved with experience and new knowledge.

Would that one could say that of Mr. Rose the "pummeler"? Not based on that interview.

Mr. Blair did not submit to the bullying. That he rejected the hackneyed objections raised in an often strident voice by Mr. Rose was not "defensive." To explicate one's position is not "defensive." As a sometime teacher, I submit it is the position of one who sees his listener does not grasp his line of thought and who shows enough respect for him to make the effort to restate his ideas in ways that might be more easily understood.

What a shameful performance by Mr. Blair's pugnacious host.

AntonioFR  09/09/2010 10:05 AM Report

Interesting round between Blair and Rose. Particularily the way Mr. Rose pummeled Blair always on the defensive.

It's amazing to see how an intelligent man like Blair has sunk to such levels of blindness and religious zealotry.

doodah  09/09/2010 08:59 AM Report

I'm just a humble (ignorant) shepherd, and even I can can figure out the Rumsfeld/Cheney strategy for taking Iraq. By over throwing Hussein and forcing Democracy and placing American presence in the region, firstly, takes out a big unknown and direct belligerent threat (in the heartland of Islam). Secondly, it drew many combatants out of the mountains and into a more easily accessible place to kill them (yes, they killed many too, with their cowardly suicide and roadside bombs.). So the biggest Rumsfeld/Cheney mistake was, taking TOO LONG to ADJUST the strategy to the situation. And thirdly, long term (and the most risky and difficult part of the strategy) is, in order to really put an end to terrorism, is to change their backwards culture. It's not going to happen over night, but it will have to happen INCREMENTALLY. It pisses me off, but the only alternative is to nuke them completely and exterminate their miserable existence off the face of the Earth. Or live with terrorism to the point where we all become terrorists to get our selfish points across and drop back down into the dark ages. Maybe it's just a natural process. .. Is that what you want for your kids?.

flipper4  09/08/2010 08:19 PM Report

Sorry, the last comment was best question you ever asked in an interview. Don't know what happened when I pushed send.

flipper4  09/08/2010 08:17 PM Report

Charlie, The best question y9unever asked in an interview.

(Please See my comments below this portion of transcript from your show and a March 18, 2003 AP article quote.)

Sept 7, 2010

CHARLIE ROSE: What information, what argument would have kept you from supporting an invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein?

TONY BLAIR: Well, that’s really simple to answer -- a genuine change of heart.

CHARLIE ROSE: By him?

TONY BLAIR: Yes, to do what Qaddafi did, actually. Qaddafi at the time of Iraq -- I’m not saying as a consequence, but it certainly had its force -- he then let the inspectors in, gave up his nuclear and chemical weapons ambitions, and that was that. That was the end of it.

CHARLIE ROSE: So the only thing that would have stopped you was Saddam Hussein saying "Look, I understand what’s coming down here, I’ve

changed my mind."

TONY BLAIR: Change of heart and change of mind, yes, absolutely.

CHARLIE ROSE: That’s the only thing?

Tony's answer was perhaps the most chilling answer to what could have saved one million lives, and terrible amputations of children, mothers and soldiers, untold agony and brain damage, birth defects.... Tony's answer was a lie within a lie. Tony basically said, if Saddam would have let the inspectors in and renounced his wmd program, everything would be ok. "That would be That."

In fact, Saddam had let the inspectors in and remain in. He renounced (and denied) (and destroyed) his weapons of mass destruction policy. On the Newshour, almost every night before our invasion, Jim Lehrer counted the medium range missiles destroyed by the UN weapons inspectors as agreed to by Saddam Hussein.

We could have increased the number of inspectors to 3,000 or even 30,000 and left them there indefinitely.

One of the three, but perhaps the boldest lie George Bush (and Tony) told about the war was that Saddam kicked the inspectors out just before we launched our attack. This was a lie of the highest magnitude. We had something like 300 inspectors that the UN pulled out of Iraq, because the US told the UN it was going to launch a war against Iraq, even though the UN had just voted the US resolution down! And, even though the UN inspectors were making progress and asked for more time!

It is almost as if the media, and the citizens, were hypnotized. WHY WHY WHY are we so stupid Charlie?

Bush and Blair lied again and again. We let them lie, and 1,000,000 people died. You know it. I know it. Tony knows it. Bush knows it. The inspectors were in Iraq, could have stayed in Iraq, and Saddam had renounced his wmd program.

Below from Assoc. Press. March 18, 2003

"U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war."

"U.N. spokesman Hiro Ueki said 56 inspectors as well as support staff were on board Tuesday. Reporters at the airport saw about 80 people boarding buses for the plane, and officials earlier estimated the total number of U.N. evacuees at about 150.

"After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night."

robdverity  09/08/2010 04:40 PM Report

Tony wistfully cited the Rwandan massacre as the only one that was not preempted by western intervention. Coincidentally(?), it's the only one resolved on its own within its framework. No lingering hatred of America.

For every civilian (and armed) Iraqi killed at least 3-5 relatives and loved ones felt some level of grief, and with it a concomitant disaffection or outright hatred for Americans. The same in Af-Pak. [100,000 x 4 = 400,000 +/-]? Well thanks Tony, George!

A lesson for Imperialist America in there somewhere. But, alas, no profit.

REM - nice post, but I still wish I knew what a Whig was.

REMant  09/08/2010 02:04 PM Report

This seems a far different Blair than the one seen on this program not long ago. The Post reviewer called this 700 page "memoir" self-justification, whether intended or not. If you ask me, Clinton, Blair and Bush all share this self-righteousness, the product of a half-century of the growth of political correctness made possible by spendthrift policies. It empowered the East by default, and made us a laughing stock to ppl there on both sides of the question of globalization. Of course, a lot of money does submerge conflict, the problem is that for several millennia now there has never been enough to keep it down for very long, and any such peace is won only at the price of debilitation, what our ancestors called, simply, corruption, or bread and circuses.

But a reaction has begun in the West, even in Australia, where the Laborites hang on by an eyelash. Yet it could very well issue in a real clash of civilizations, because it is starting to be projected outward again against Muslims in much the way it used to be against Jews, and I have no doubt that politicians will come along again to make use of it as these crusaders have done. Just the other day the president went on prime-time to declare the Iraq war over, a stretch no doubt, and a war to resurrect not Jesus, but the American middle-class begun, but no paper I'm aware bothered to report the latter, and the neo-cons have ventured out in public in recent weeks. Thankfully, the English are not having any of it.

It is characteristic, however, of these defenders of civilization to ignore the clear virtues of family and community in "3d world" nations, such as were exhibited recently by CBS News (of all ppl), and replace it by a world of contract and Council flats. It is colonialism redux. All of it can be traced to evangelical Whiggery, including the psychology. Just like Bush and, I suspect, Clinton, he wanted to invade Iraq, WMD or no, and was just looking for an excuse. It was allowed, unconstitutionally in this country, because ppl have shirked their political responsibilities, allowing self-government to be replaced by henpecking Caesars, and a mercenary establishment to be built in the name of free market principles, supported by poor, patriotic, rural Americans, as Kerry pointed out several years ago, to resounding derision from these ppl. This "civilization" is no kind of democracy at all. It is no kind of free market, either.

The majority of Muslims are no more terrorists, than the majority of Russians were Stalinists, or, I hope Americans are fascists, and not at all interested in self-immolation. I would have to say Blair is projecting. It is what he would do. Why, after all, would someone seeking peace want to use war to obtain it? Least of all someone espousing the virtues of free enterprise. Churchill, of course, was thrown out before the ink was hardly dry on the WWII surrender by Blair's own predecessors.

The sectarian conflict did not come from another planet, and it is not lunacy. It is between Sunnis and Shiites and altho it may have something to do with globalization, etc, it is truly none of our business, and, as has been said many times by the ppl there, only made worse by our presence. We cannot be the world's policemen. It is instructive that the establishment of police only saw light of day with the accession of the Hanoverian Whigs and was mightily resisted, not only in the UK, but here as well. To a large extent that is what the American revolution was about.

Many think the time is long past for the kind of deal-making proffered the Israelis and Palestinians, having twice been rejected, and that the only thing in view is an attempt to once again to paint the latter as the bad guys responsible for its rejection, plus, I suppose, make the president look more presidential. However, the thought occurred to me the other day that supposing the Israelis actually withdrew from all those new settlements, would they really be so generous as to turn them over to the ppl, who built them on the ruins of their fields and homes, or would they bulldoze them as they did in Gaza?

doodah  09/08/2010 01:31 PM Report

He was correct in following America's lead to the fight against terrorism. The American system was born out of Britain (the individual spirit) that the terrorists are so adamantly opposed to and would like to, and WILL destroy if left unchallenged by the ignorant pacifists. The Britains have essentially handed the torch over to their brethren (America) since WWII. We are one of the same (even though, at one point in time they (the Britains) burned the White House down (quite literally) (they may have also been responsible for the deaths of our American ancestors too). But we must let bygones be bygones. The Britains quite frankly can't AFFORD anymore their CONTROL on the world; and need (our) (American) help to spread the 'GENTLEMAN' way of life. If not, with technology as it is today, the world will sink into barbarianism. And I propose, that THAT will not be good for anybody and everybody (including, ESPECIALLY the terrorists) and women, and liberals, and managers, etc..