So Iraq was all about Poodle BLAIR's & Shrub's bromance. It's rough being Shrub's little brother
Ask Jeb Crow Shrub.
********QUOTE******* [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"] [/FONT]
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/george-w-bush-tony-blair-iraq-war
[font size=5]Why the George W. Bush–Tony Blair Political Bromance Is Still a Mystery[/font]
The Chilcot commission was convened to investigate Britain’s role in the Iraq war. Seven years and more than 2 million words later, it is still trying to fathom the relationship between the prime minister and president.
by Michael Kinsley
.... The important questions for the British, therefore, involve Blair’s role in enabling Bush to go to war—or, even more pathetic, Blair’s letting Bush talk him into it. Blair’s reputation is in the toilet, and many in Britain feel his shame. “Little brother” is only the kindest description of Blair’s relationship with Bush—and, by extension, Britain’s relationship with America. This is the “special relationship” they always prattle on about? Who needs it?
The British government—and, presumably, the American government as well—has detailed notes of no fewer than 130 conversations between Blair and Bush when both held the highest office in their respective countries. The government also has more than 20 notes from Tony Blair to George W. Bush. No doubt these documents could settle, or at least shed light on, the Bush-Blair relationship, and [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]exactly when the two of them hatched their plan. (Correct answer: “A lot earlier than they ever told us.”)[/FONT] As of late 2013, the British government, now in the hands of the Conservatives, had not released the material to Chilcot. But by May 2014, it finally had. ....
Leave aside whether Britain or the United States should be going around the world looking for regimes to change in the first place. (Whenever we try it on for size—Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iraq, Libya—the results are disastrous.) If “regime change” in Iraq had been such a good idea, why weren’t Bush and Blair using it at the time as the justification for invading? They didn’t—they used the threat of W.M.D.
Even taken at face value, Blair’s argument is a gnarly mess. His position boils down to this: (1) He is against war. (2) Nevertheless, because he believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, he favored the Iraq war. (3) If he’d known that Saddam actually did not have W.M.D., he would have looked for another rationale, because Saddam was a nasty piece of work. (4) Except that it hadn’t occurred to him that Iraq would be hopelessly chaotic and ripe for ISIS if the U.S. and Great Britain just invaded, knocked off the dictator, and left. (5) Which, when it did occur to him, made him slightly apologetic. (6) But he’s not sorry about removing Saddam Hussein, even though that’s the reason for everything he is sorry for. With each passing year, Blair’s argument becomes more baroque. No wonder Chilcot had to keep on going. ....
********UNQUOTE********
= new reply since forum marked as read
