In response to an FT View on 9th June 2015, entitled 'Labour needs an honest debate about Tony Blair'
"His decision to take Britain into war in Iraq was a catastrophic blunder, even if he can reasonably claim to have acted in good faith"
What definition of 'reasonably' are we talking about here? What sort of 'good faith' are we talking about? Is that the good faith he asked the country to have in fabricated evidence? Or the good faith he claimed to have in the 'death in 45 minutes' claim? How about the good faith he demonstrated in his interview with Fern Britain when she pushed him into a corner and he shared his view that Saddam Hussein had to be taken out whatever the evidence beforehand?
How about the good faith demonstrated by accepting a job as a peacemaker for the middle east, and holding onto it way past the sell-by-date, when it is blatantly obvious that:
1. The reason he got the job was because President Bush 'owed him one' for providing the credibility to call the invasion of Iraq an act of 'the international community'?
2. He would never have been the choice of the EU or the Russians
3. The Palestinians haven't wanted him for a long time if ever
In my view there is only one way that Mr Blair can demonstrate 'good faith' - take the gag off the cabinet office and ask them to release the transcripts of those conversations with Mr Bush - the ones that are supposed to be a threat to national security. Does anyone seriously believe that those conversations cannot have national security threats redacted whilst maintaining the import of the conversation? I don't - not for one minute. The 'reason' we are not allowed to read those transcripts is because they would demonstrate without any doubt, what level of good faith Mr Blair possesses.
That's not 'reasonable' though is it? What's required here is something 'unreasonable' - the truth.