Boo BBC: Blair says Tutu has "Nothing New to Say"

In a bizarre article, from the BBC, Archbishop Desmond Tutu gets the headline but Tony Blair and Former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer get the bulk of the article for rebuttal. I guess this is the BBC’s idea of Fox News’ "fair and balanced" approach?

Tutu states that Bush and Blair should be tried at the Hague for starting an illegal war of aggression in Iraq. In a nearly hysterical rebuttal Blair states that "this is the same argument we have had many times with nothing new to say".

O . . .K . . .

So, since the accusation is not "new," it’s not valid? Try THIS on Tony. There is "nothing new to say" because you and Mr. Bush are guilty of war crimes - why say it any other way? Why bring something "new" to the table?

In the interest of being fair and balanced, myself, I will take this opportunity to chastise Archbishop Tutu for comparing Bush and Blair to "playground bullies." Playground bullies, Fr. Tutu, do not have depleted uranium weapons or tactical nuclear "bunker busters."

No sir, these are fascist war criminals.

In the article Mr. Blair goes on to erratically squirm in any direction that might give him an out.

Blair stated, "To repeat the old canard that we lied about the intelligence [on weapons of mass destruction] is completely wrong as every single independent analysis of the evidence has shown."

Well? Where are they? Mr. Bush looked under the table at his annual "let’s bash the president" humorous gala. They weren’t THERE either.

Blair again, "In addition, his slaughter of his political opponents, the treatment of the Marsh Arabs and the systematic torture of his people make the case for removing him morally strong. But the basis of action was as stated at the time."

What? You’re changing from the "weapons of mass destruction" argument to "torture of his people make the case for removing him morally strong" ???

Well . . . as long as we’re talking about torture . . . let’s look in the mirror Mr. Blair. The US and the UK conspired to torture prisoners of war - who are, incidentally, protected under the Geneva Conventions.

Then Mr. Blair unleashes the most desperate quote of the article: "In short this is the same argument we have had many times with nothing new to say. But surely in a healthy democracy people can agree to disagree."

Oh, I see. We can agree to disagree because we are in the morally superior (and therefore cannot be faulted I suppose) "democracies" of the West?

But wait, there’s more. Continuing to squirm Blair says, "I would also point out that despite the problems, Iraq today has an economy three times or more in size, with child mortality rate cut by a third of what it was. And with investment hugely increased in places like Basra."

This is rich. The most important thing, apparently, is that Iraq’s economy has tripled. Never mind that it is because the West is stealing Iraq’s oil. And never mind that they are exposed to depleted uranium and never mind that children are born without faces and never mind that a million Iraqi’s died . . . and . . . on and on. At least Iraq seems to be able attract "hugely increased" investment.

It’s good to have priorities Mr. Blair. Ours is to get you and Mr. Bush tried at the Hague.