In his latest piece for the
new
statesman, john Pilger writes a cover article under the
straightforward title, "Blair is unfit to be prime minister". Once again, it's
exemplary stuff from Pilger but, cutting through the fine prose, his argument
is seriously flawed.
Of the terrorist attacks in London, he
writes: "The bombs of 7 July were Blair's bombs", continuing, "To paraphrase
perhaps the only challenging question put to Blair on the eve of the invasion
[of Iraq], it is now surely beyond all doubt that the man is unfit to be prime
minister.
"How much more evidence is needed?
Before the invasion, Blair was warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that
'by far the greatest terrorist threat' to this country would be 'heightened by
military action against Iraq'. He was warned by 79% of Londoners who, according
to a YouGov survey in February 2003, believed that a British attack on Iraq
would make a terrorist attack on London more likely'".
Like many on the left, Pilger blames the
disaster of Iraq on a political elite hiding or twisting the truth with the aid
of corporate media. But his own evidence shows the lie of this claim. Despite
the connivances of government and media, 79% of Londoners understood that war
on Iraq would lead to terrorism at home. And yet, two years later,
83% of Londoners refused to vote against the war in
a general election.
These were not Blair's bombs. These were
the bombs of a British electorate which overwhelmingly and subsequently
endorsed the invasion and occupation of Iraq at the ballot box. The simple
conclusion: the people knowingly voted for terrorism.
It is clearly still too difficult a
conclusion for Pilger to reach while the hate figure Blair continues to attract
his attention and while
Chomsky and Herman dominate his thinking.
Personalised attacks of the kind he indulges in here are a real waste of energy
and in fact lead to the propagation of a lie. It is partly a consequence of the
rhetorical position he adopts, one which sides with the best practice of
ordinary people. As he says, "occasionally a member of the public breaks the
silence" and it is this kind of example which he repeatedly sets against elite
behaviour. Far more frequently than not, however, ordinary people will
understand the truth and justice of a situation but act against it and for
their wallets, keeping mum, whistling cheerfully and contemplating more
personal lifestyle enhancement. Or just plain more.
Alternatively, pilger could understand
all this but be hoping that by attacking Blair some kind of domino effect will
eventually take place whereby the prime minister's exit will transform the
Labour party. But is that really credible when the problem is so much root up
rather than branch down? Whose deaf ears have his and everyone else's attacks
been falling on all this time? Those of the British public, the Labour party
and its supporters, the ordinary people in the street.
---
related graphics
here and
here