* is an interesting article by Philip Webster in The Times today about John Humphrys radio interview with Tony Blair yesterday (as also covered by Melanie Phillips in her diary). Here’s an excerpt of the relevant bits:
IT WAS the interview he had been seeking for three years. But when John Humphrys finally got the Prime Minister in front of him for a Today programme grilling yesterday, the country got slightly more Humphrys than Blair.
The former seemed so determined to pose the questions on Iraq that he has been dying to throw at Mr Blair all this time, that sometimes it appeared he did not really want to wait for the answers.
At least twice he told Mr Blair that he wanted to “move forward” as Mr Blair was spluttering to get his response out. Virtually all the 20-minute encounter was about Iraq.
It was civil, mutually respectful, completely lacking in any personal animosity. But it was mainly about the past as the BBC man took Mr Blair through questions about the faulty intelligence on which the war was based and the legality of the conflict. Mr Blair gave mantra-like responses to several questions, saying: “The war was justified legally because Saddam remained in breach of the UN resolutions.
* registration required – see www.bugmenot.com for login info.
The Times online services really are a pain for those of us overseas
Not quite sure what the lovely Melanie is spluttering about, but given precious interview time with Tony any decent journalist would surely ask him what he’s planning to do about the current situation in Iraq or (gasp) something pertinent about the domestic agenda.
Surely enough public money has already been thrown into investigating whether the war was justifiable or not. Everyone now has their own opinion and will presumably vote accordingly at the next election.
I find it curious that the likes of The Independent so fiercely criticise the Iraq war, yet are grotesquely gung-ho about bombing the Sudanese.
What is our exit strategy for Sudan?
How can we possibly defeat the Janjaweed? (they melt away into civilian communities)
Is it imperialist to intervene?
These are important questions which the Indy has chosen to conveniently ignore, much as it accuses the Bush Admin of doing so.
“Yours pot, love kettle.”
I agree completely with Zevilyn. Those who moan about US action in Iraq and US inaction in Sudan are pitiful, and the fannying about in the UN on this issue is an embarrassment to those of us who consider that international bodies are the only way to ‘police’ the world.