Good man raises a good point

It is Tuesday morning and I am heading towards the tube station, picking up the Metro before going through the gates, walking down the escalators and am in luck – a train is coming to the platform. The train isn’t jam-packed which means that I can read the paper.

I couldn’t care less about the stories on the front page, photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger with a fat lips and the other story had the headline “Pubs in £200m coffee bar war”.

I turn the page and read the article about Gen. Sir Michael Rose and his opinion that Tony Blair should be impeached over the Iraq war. He said “The politicians should be held to account, and in my own view is that Blair should be impeached. That would prevent politicians treating quite so careless the subject of taking a country into war”

I break a cardinal rule of tube travel; I say out load “Good man”.

The General raises good and valid points.

Firstly, I, Mr Blair or you who read this - we do not a clue what a war is like. We are watching the war comfortable at home. I don’t see any of us signing up to join this fight. This is to be compared to if our own country was being attacked, then I think a lot of us would sign up. Tony Blair was too trigger happy and should have consider the consequences much more seriously.

Secondly, UK went to war over WMDs and not that Saddam Hussein is a dictator. The intel reports were rushed and attached with the very clever spin of Mr Alistair Campbell. By the way, BBC was 100% correct in that these documents had been sexed up but this was very clumsy expressed by Andrew Gilligan. The Hutton report was such a whitewash that it actually helped the BBC with its credibility. The whole Dr David Kelly issue and death is such a disgrace but that is another blog post.

The UN weapon inspectors should have been given more time to do their job. But no, the UK and the US had to smear Hans Blix reputation and primarily wanted to keep to their time table.

The result = no WMDs have been found.

Gen. Sir Michael Rose has a valid point, in a democracy there are (peacefully) procedures of holding the leader of a country accountable for the decision he has taken. The decision that Tony Blair took was a seriously wrong on questionable information. He is the leader of the UK and is responsible for the whole public service organisation.

In hindsight, I can’t help to think the Tony Blair had made a promise to George Bush that the UK would join them no matter what.

I think that George Bush was more honest then Tony Blair when it came to declaring the objective of the invasion. George Bush wanted to end the leadership of Saddam Hussein. I question the link between Saddam Hussein and Al-qaeda but that is for the American people to deal with. In fact, I believe the US is now fighting the enemy linked to the attack of 11^th September.