Member of British "Iraq War Panel" Accidentally Admits Legitimacy of Iraq War

While those of us in America have largely shifted our focus away from Iraq and onto Afghanistan in the wake of the recent surge there, the liberal establishment in Britain (often referred to as "the British") are holding hearings to review the "facts" and "circumstances" surrounding the lead up to the Iraq War. This, one would venture a guess, is to find some sort of reason to for liberals to say, "AHA! We knew this entire thing was a sham," and as Al Gore said, "You liiiiieeed to the American people! You liiiiied to us!"

Well, it turns out that in the wake of a free Iraq a lot of information becomes available that isn't so convenient to liberals who are adament that "Bush lied, kids died!" No, instead the truth is coming to light through the work of the Iraq Survey Group, the group sent into Iraq by the U.S. Congress to gather as much data about the fallen regime as possible. What they have found is absolutely breath taking. You can read the report here, but I want to focus on a major slip (or ever so subtle admission) by one of the British panel members while interrogating former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

ABC News, as well as others, are calling it his judgement day, as if the fate of his soul is on the....oh, who am I kidding, liberals don't believe in souls. That's just silly. Needless to say, Tony handled himself brilliantly, even while being called a liar and a murderer. For instance, when discussing the opposition by many nations in Europe to the war, Blair responds:

In fact, I don't think they were really disputing that Iraq was in breach of (U.N. Resolution) 1441; then we were going to be faced with a choice I never wanted to be faced with; did you go then without a second resolution? My view very strongly was if he is in breach of 1441 then we should mean what we've said. It was a final opportunity to comply and he wasn't complying.

What a novel concept. We should mean what we've said. Unfortunately, the only thing liberals are interested in doing is talking. A point made accidentally by panel member, Sir Lawrence Freedman:

Blair: It is absolutely clear from the Iraq Study Group, and indeed the Butler Report deals with this, that he was concealing material he should have delivered up to the U.N. and retained intent, not merely in theory, but he was taking acation on, for example, "dual use" facilities that were specifically in violation of United Nations Resolutions.

Sir Lawrence: I'm not actually disagreeing that there were significant elements of material breach in Saddam's behavior. This is really as much about the diplomacy...

Bingo! And the fact is that no one has ever made a serious argument that Saddam Hussein was not in material breach of U.N. Resolutions, including Resolution 1441, which gave him his final chance to comply with the will of the world. It has always been, as Sir Lawrence admits, about "diplomacy" which used in this context is just a liberal word for endless talking, back pedaling and concessions to murderous dictators.

Tony Blair, liberal though his domestic politics may be, is a first rate statesman who, along with President Bush, made tough decisions when they were needed. It would seem now that history has finally vindicated their decision.