Change Your Image
pstoney-58812
Reviews
The Killing$ of Tony Blair (2016)
An absurd reduced form of history
This is a terrible documentary. The West's relationship with Iraq has evolved over decades and decades, and Iraq's status within the international community has been tainted by chemical warfare against it's own population (specifically against the Kurds in Halabja, 1988). Indeed, not only is the legacy of Saddam's regime COMPLETELY ignored, the documentary attempts to defend a number of falsehoods, 3 in particular:
(1) The invasion of Iraq, 2003, was opportunistic with no moral or legal basis. It was an illegal war.
If you watch Galloway's documentary, you will be none the wiser about UN resolutions 661 and 687. These were resolutions passed in the early 1990s designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and extended-range ballistic missiles from Iraq (previously used by the Saddam regime), and the resolutions also explicitly prohibit any support for terrorism, as well as forcing Iraq to pay war reparations and all foreign debt. Please read these UN resolutions as they are the legal and political basis upon which the international community viewed Iraq under Saddam.
(2) Bush and Blair engineered the war and, in doing so, Blair was Bush's poodle.
This myth is still being perpetuated and the documentary skirts over two very important facts: (a) Blair was pro regime change BEFORE Bush was even elected - see his speech in Chicago, 1999; (b) The US itself had already officially adopted regime change in Iraq as official policy (see Iraq Liberation Act 1998) and was signed into law by Bill Clinton. Neither (a) and (b) are even hinted at in the documentary.
(3) The allies used chemical weapons and intentionally targeted civilians.
These are grotesque lies perpetuated by the documentary. It is a claim that Galloway has ripped from a film entitled: "Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre". The claims being made in Galloway's movie is that (a) the white phosphorus weapons used by allied forces in 2004 represents a breach of the UN's Chemical Weapons Convention, and that (b) they were used with the intention to harm civilian populations. The use of white phosphorus is, legally speaking, an incendiary device and not prohibited under international law. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that in Fallujah they were intentionally used to target civilians. No evidence whatsoever.
So, what can be gained from Galloway's documentary? The positive point I would make is that the documentary raises severe questions about the public ethics of former Prime Ministers. Tony Blair's activities after he stepped down are troublesome to say the least. His relationship with JP Morgan and the utilisation of contacts made when he was Prime Minister for personal financial gain are deeply unethical and bring the office of Prime Minister into disrepute. Galloway and others in the documentary are spot on in their criticisms of Blair for this.
Overall, this is another documentary which does a disservice to illuminating political phenomena. It is ridiculously reductionist, absurdly so in fact, and watching it one would think that all was well up until 9/11 and then suddenly Bush and Blair decided to have a go at Saddam and basically try and take control of the middle-east. It is an overly simplified narrative which completely ignores long standing legal and political issues the international community has had with Saddam's Iraq. As such, it does not seek to illuminate or explain how we got to an invasion in 2003, far from it. Note the number of times Galloway refers to his own personal efforts, his own struggle, his own woes, his own leadership role in the anti-war campaign. The irony is that while the documentary adequately portrays Blair as someone self-serving when it comes to personal finances, it also demonstrate how self-serving Galloway is in trying to engineer himself as a cult figure.
Sorry George, but having watched this, I cannot "salute your courage, your strength, and your indefatigability."