Once again, Blair defends his war crimes.

It's been a long while since I had a chance to express my thoughts on this blog, been too busy with the daily grind but reading this article of how Tony Blair responded to questions of his decision to invade Iraq got me all riled up. Its hard to fathom what must be going through his head as he answers questions about his decision to invade Iraq that lead to the death of hundreds of thousands. Of course, the topic is reduced to whether Saddam was a good guy or not - and his response in justifying his decision is beyond pathetic but disgusting:

"I think he was a monster. I believe he threatened not just the region, but the world," Blair said. "If I'm asked if I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better, that our own security is better with Saddam and his two sons out of power . . . then I believe indeed we are."

Is the world a better place with a half to one million innocent Iraq's dead? Is the world a better place with a million displaced Iraqi's - many of whom are Christian Iraqi's - and Palestinians?


The issue for me is how do these people, Blair or Bush, are able to sleep at night much less show their face in public? I strongly feel there is a greater urgency to deal with those who would commit atrocities under the guise of benevolence than those who would commit naked aggression for obvious greed or conquest. There is nothing more sinister than waking up to find out your local preacher or local teacher have committed unconscionable crimes. You might ask what are the connection between a preacher and teacher and Blair and Bush. The leaders of so called democracies, we are told, don't wage wars of aggression. We were taught regimes with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao produced outcomes of unimaginable death and suffering to the innocents. Yet, you look at Bush and Blair, while in numbers they are not in the league as those mentioned above, there is no doubt they are in the same category of war criminals and mass murderers.