I NOTE that Tony Blair's position in relation to taking the UK into war against Iraq is now that Saddam was a "brutal dictator" and that "'he needed to be removed" ("Tony Blair 'offered to discuss' Iraq", The Herald, January 22).
Unfortunately for his reported rationalisation, his reasons for going to war at the time were based on slim and unsubstantiated opinions concerning the state of Saddam's weaponry, not on the need to remove a tyrant. As a result he allowed a dossier, subsequently discredited, to go forward in 2002 stating that Saddam had multiple weapons of mass destruction, which could be ready in 45 minutes.
This is a man whose position in relation to Iraq flip-flopped throughout the time he was Prime Minister. President Clinton, while in the White House, was against any invasion of Iraq. Accordingly, Tony Blair was vociferously in the same camp. George W Bush succeeded Bill Clinton and he was all for taking Saddam out. Tony Blair then had something of a change of mind.
This is the man who told the British people that he needed to get and would get UN cover for an attack on Iraq. When that did not become available, it was no longer apparently necessary.
Mr Blair, a former Labour Prime Minister, is now a multi-millionaire with an impressive property portfolio. One wonders whether or not, at moments of reflection, religious or otherwise, he pauses to think about how his reputation, at least in this country, has been fatally damaged. He took a massive risk by hitching his personal and political standing to the Iraq policies of the George W Bush administration .
Does he ever consider how Harold Wilson, who was Prime Minister of a country in a difficult economic situation and therefore not in prime position to upset the United States, resisted the pressure to send even a modest contribution of British troops to the vale of tears of Vietnam?
Ian W Thomson,
38 Kirkintilloch Road,
Lenzie.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article