Former Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared before the official British inquiry into the Iraq War with the kind of stonewalling performance characteristic of George W. Bush after it was learned that the claim of alleged weapons of mass destruction manufactured by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had no basis in fact.

It has been reported in the media that Blair reportedly thought about the death and destruction visited on so many in the war torn nation every day.  

His testimony at the Iraq inquiry revealed someone more interested in sticking with the official self-serving line than anyone who has done any soul searching.  In fact, the January 29 New York Times account reported by John F. Burns and Alan Cowell referred to Blair's testimony as "(a)t times spirited and at times prickly."

In describing his bond with George W. Bush, Blair's testimony can be synthesized in one statement that ended with a question that was meant to serve as an answer, a compelling reason for launching the Iraq War:

It is no surprise that the New York Post has taken a page from fellow Fox team player Bill O'Reilly in the non-artful realm of the non-apology apology.

Amid picketing and the angry response to the tasteless cartoon regarding the gunning down of a chimpanzee the Post has issued an "apology" on its own unique terms that smacks hard of a non-apology, to wit, an editorial on the Post's website was "meant to mock" the stimulus bill promoted by President Obama but "to those who were offended by the image, we apologize."

Actually, who were the critics, and were they included in the apology?  The editorial asserts that the image was, in the words of MSNBC, "exploited by its longtime antagonists."  

The editorial further asserts that those people who had longstanding differences with the Post saw the cartoon "as an opportunity for payback."  These purported mischief makers were labeled "opportunists" alongside the gritty pronouncement, "To them, no apology is due."

Mr. Hannity: "I'm no opponent of open and honest debate, even over questions of foreign policy...I would never claim that an earnest difference of opinion about foreign policy is unpatriotic....But when it comes to debate during wartime, I think one principle is clear: The only responsible argument is one that's made in good faith. The Democrats have violated that principle." (pp. 214-215)

Mr. Hannity: Saddam Hussein was an evil outlaw, a cruel tyrant who deserves death.

My response: News of the evil character of Saddam Hussein has been greatly exaggerated. Hussein did flaunt the UN by refusing weapons inspectors entry into some parts of Iraq between 1987 and 1991 and between 1998 and 2002. He invaded Kuwait in 1990, and a few dishonorable troops in his army butchered scores of innocent people during that invasion. He unquestionably ran a tight ship of the central Mideast country, denying the Iraqi people many freedoms we take for granted and executing thousands of political dissidents. And when some treasonous Kurds and revolutionary Shiites plotted to overthrow Saddam's government in the 1980s, he overreacted by killing 175,000 people, most of whom were innocent.

Disarming Iraq, Hans Blix, 304 pages, Pantheon Books, New York, 2004.

Convoluted. That's the word that came to my mind after finishing this enlightening yet strongly opinionated account written by the high-profile man who was in charge of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and then the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), the two United Nations commissions responsible for divesting Iraq of illegal nuclear, chemical, germ and radiological armaments. On the one hand, Blix presents many unknown details regarding the twelve-year-long international efforts to ensure that Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi government's varying degrees of cooperation with those efforts, especially in the months prior to the US-led invasion of that country. But on the other hand, Blix--both as an inspector and in the book--permits his own bias to cloud his judgment, handles the entire affair in a roundabout and disconnected manner, and uses circular reasoning that leads nowhere.

Time Magazine's March 13, 2006 issue presents the statistics: "85% -- Proportion who say the main mission in Iraq is to retaliate for Saddam's role in 9/11."

Who took the poll?  When?  Where?  Otherwise it is as meaningless as the drivel dished out by Time writers Joe Klein and Charles Krauthammer.  If the poll is accurate the American public is far more ignorant of reality than I thought they were.

In personal conversations I have had with individuals, which is not a scientific analysis, approximately 90% say the U.S. went into Iraq for a three letter word - "Oil"!  This is often followed by a few choice four-letter words!