Tony destroys his own defence

Well, there we have it, straight from the horses mouth; Tony Blair has admitted that "even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction" he would have invaded Iraq anyway. Well, that is almost a rhetorical tautology considering there were no weapons of mass destruction and he invaded Iraq anyway. No, of course, he didn't but British soldiers did and many of them paid with their lives for it.

That is why when Blair says, that he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam Hussein even if he had known that there were no WMDs, it is time to drag him in front of the ICC. No matter here that he never knew of the existence of WMDs, the fact remains that he would have dragged the United Kingdom into a war anyway, even if that war could not have been given the extremely tenous "legality" conferred upon it by the "WMDs poppycock".

Indeed, as early as 2004, Mr Blair was already preparing for this moment when he defended the decision to go to war by saying that he could apologise for the information that turned out to be wrong but not for removing Saddam. He then added that the world's is a better place without Saddam. Tony, you just don't get it, do you? Whatever you think or thought about Saddam Hussein is neither here nor there and you have effectively removed the one tenous defence, that of a defensive war, that you might have produced in the Hague. Of course, getting you there might just be a trifle more difficult than getting you convicted once you are there and the only certainty is that we are in for a lot of grin and spin when Tony appears in front of the Chilcot Inquiry.