The much awaited appearance of Tony Blair at the Iraq Inquiry went surprisingly smoothly. Mohamed Al-Zahed followed the show Former British prime minister Tony Blair appeared to stick to his guns and was unwilling to express remorse or regret for what has happened in Iraq, indicative of the delusion which has engulfed Blair since the ill- fated war in Iraq. He told the inquiry quite confidently, "We didn't end up with a humanitarian disaster," a statement which is light years from the reality in Iraq, where civilian infrastructure was destroyed, medical services have collapsed, and thousands of innocent souls perished as a result of the "shock and awe" tactics of the US. Millions are refugees, who have had to abandon everything and flee to new lands, struggling to build a new life. Blair was adamant that he would attack Iraq all over again if he had the opportunity, and went on to argue the case for military action against Iran, presenting the same arguments he used to build a case for war against the Saddam regime. The inquiry panel, chaired by former civil servant Sir John Chilcot, was passive throughout his testimony, giving Blair an easy ride. The panel's long-winded, tame and largely unchallenging questions were deflected by Blair, reminiscent of his frequent slick performances in the House of Commons. No one expected the Inquiry to tighten the noose around Blair' neck, given its cowardly performance so far, but the least that was expected was for the Inquiry to put "Bliar" in the dock for his glaring contradictions and misinformation about Saddam Hussein possessing nuclear weapons and Iraq being a safe haven for terrorist operatives. Blair continued to hint at a possible link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, insisting that "suppressed and failing states" such as Iraq naturally create an environment for terrorists to gather and organise themselves. Neutral observers were crying out for someone to take Blair to task for his series of contradictions, but this did not, not surprisingly, happen, given the close proximity of the panellists to the Labour government. For example, Sir Lawrence Freedman, a professor from the War Department at King's College, London, is infamous for contributing significant portions of Blair's speech in Chicago in 1999, coinciding with the West's military intervention in Kosovo and singling out Saddam and Slobodan Milosevic as contributing to regional and global instability. He was and is an advocate of military intervention, with or without the United Nations mandate, and should have been excluded from the panel from the start. Blair's appearance and that of earlier witnesses further reinforces the view that he and his close aides manipulated information and intelligence to suit the political ambitions of the Bush administration to invade Iraq. This has led to growing calls for Blair to be summoned back to the Inquiry to be questioned on the contradictions and misinformation which have become apparent, with the former international development secretary Claire Short accusing Blair of personally "misleading" and "conning" her, and of being "deceitful" with the cabinet, parliament and public. It is expected, that Blair, as a result, will give further testimony in a private session in the next few weeks to allow him to clarify classified documents such as his private notes to Bush before the war. It is also understood that the Inquiry will meet soon to discuss which witnesses they wish to recall, as well as any new ones, in the next round of questioning. Will the new round of questioning lead to anything new? Tougher questioning from the panel? This is unlikely, raising fundamental questions over the purpose of the Inquiry. It is clear that it was called to whitewash the image of the Labour Party leading up to elections in the summer. It was never intended to bring those responsible for the disastrous foreign policy adventure to justice and to lay to rest the ghosts of the Iraq war. see p.
