Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has returned to the media forefront. He is now the best example of the old philosophical debate about lying and the truth. The committee tasked with investigating him will focus on his violation of laws, falsification of the facts, failure to listen to intelligence advisers, and reliance on a silly university thesis to prove the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The committee has many documents and testimonies accusing Blair of lying to justify the war on Iraq. One of these items is a written warning from his legal adviser, attorney general Lord Peter Goldsmith, alerting him that toppling the Saddam Hussein Regime was a clear violation of international law. However, Blair ignored the warning and exerted strong pressure on the attorney general to change his mind. At the time (2002), Blair was unwilling to hear any opinion that contradicted his policies. The shouting from President George Bush, appearing like an Old Testament prophet, was louder than anything else, and more important than any legal pretext. This shouting, and Bush's decision to return Iraq to the Stone Age and his threat to anyone who disobeyed his orders, were the law. Bush found no better partner than the British Prime Minister, who outdid Bush and took it upon himself to gather pretexts and excuses to justify the war. He was smarter than Bush, but was also under his spell. No one else was taken by the charisma of the US president; the British press labeled Blair “Bush's spoiled puppy.” His decision to take part in the war provoked the public. More than a million demonstrators walked the streets of London to protest his decision. Blair's foreign minister, Robin Cook, resigned. However, none of this dissuaded him from helping “our grandchildren across the ocean,” as Margaret Thatcher used to say. The committee that was formed to investigate the veracity of Blair's justifications for the war is not empowered to try or convict anyone. Its decisions might be used to obstruct any international suit against him, especially since the committee's chairman, John Chalcott, and its members were appointed by a government with some members involved in falsifying evidence or remaining quiet about the violations. In some cases, the actions of international courts become nullified, if national authorities investigate the matter and try those involved. Whatever the results of the British investigative committee, Tony Blair will be convicted in the eyes of the public, which opposed the war and sympathized with the Iraqis. This view is not limited to the British, as it extends across Europe, where voices of opposition have arisen to Blair's nomination for the EU presidency. Today, Blair has only Bush's ranch in Texas or his center at the failed international Quartet, whose failure he increased, and which became more sluggish after he took over. Blair will stand before the committee to give his testimony about the falsification of evidence that said Saddam Hussein's Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He will repeat what he said during the preparation for war; in other words, he will twist the facts. However, can anyone try him? Can anyone investigate his partner Bush? Or, is it the case that what is permitted in Europe does not apply in the more conservative US, which is more strongly attached to national vigor, even if this is at the expense of killing and making homeless millions? Leaving aside the philosophical debate over lying and telling the truth, which holds that a liar always tells the truth, we will not find anyone to say this, whether before the investigative committee, or the courts. Public opinion will be the only judge, and Blair has said his piece ever since the beginning of preparations for the war.
