Unsurprisingly, Bush's poodle has followed suit in this subtle rewriting of history. Thus we find Blair stating on the 8th of July that "I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes." Yet in November it had been different. "Not only do we know that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction," he asserted, "we also know he is capable of using them. It is solely because of the threat he poses - and for this reason alone - that the international community has decided that Saddam must disarm or face the consequences."
Along with this switch from "weapons" to "programmes," the rationale for the invasion has also been change. Now it is a case that "we did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein . . . because not merely was it a threat to the region and the wider world, but it was an appalling regime which the world is well rid of." Yet before the war, it was different. Then "the purpose of our challenge from the UN is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change." (November)
Then to add insult to injury, Blair opines that Saddam "in December 1998" had "driven" weapons inspectors "out of the country because they couldn't do their work any more." As Paxman pointed out to Blair on live TV, Saddam had not "driven" the weapons inspectors out. They had been ordered out of the country just before the US/UK bombed it. Blair knows this, yet he still repeats his exposed lies.
Finally Blair argues that it is "inherently implausible" that Saddam "voluntarily decided to destroy all his programmes but not tell anyone about it." So why did the regime not use these weapons when invaded? Why can they not be found now? How did the US/UK not notice their concealment? What of the facilities Blair had previously insisted existed? Why is Blair now talking about a "programme" rather than "weapons"?
He is really trying to have his cake and eat it to. And Blair smugly says that "I refute any suggestion that we misled Parliament and the people totally." Incredible.