Blair's 2010 lie

Former British PM Tony Blair took the stand before the Iraq Inquiry today. In a classic Blair fashion (as well as a classic logical fallacy), he answered doubts about his 2002-2003 course of action with his own purely rhetorical 'what-if' hypothetical about the then-future world of 2010:

"My view is that if we'd left Saddam there... I have little doubt myself... that today we would be facing a situation where Iraq was [a nuclear and terrorist threat]."

Tony, you also were 'absolutely convinced' that Saddam could launch WMDs within 25 minutes, and in fact he couldn't launch them in 25 days or even 25 months because they didn't exist.

You firmly believed the British, unlike the Americans, could do peacekeeping.

You were confident that the competing groups would become participative democrats, rather than descending into sectarian violence.

You stated then and now that you believed Iran, as Iraq's former enemy, would adopt a policy of non-interference, instead of supporting their brothers in the faith against their former oppressors as well as the invading armies of the Great Satan.

You fully expected that you would find the resources and infrastructure there for rebuilding, rather than a voracious blood-and-treasure pit.

On the subject of Iraq, sir, your firm belief and conviction are the best reason NOT to believe something is true.

Prorogued! Harper v. Chretien

Michael Ignatieff has unveiled a set of rules he hopes will one day govern the proroguing of Parliament. Good for him. In the meantime, as always, Conservative supporters are shouting "Hypocrisy!" and argue that Jean Chretien prorogued 4 times and Harper only 2, so Liberals should all just shut up.

Like their leader, they have not yet realized that the job of opposition is different from the job of government.So let's compare apples to apples.

Comparing absolute number of prorogues ignores TIME GOVERNED: JC at more than 10 years and Harper at less than 4 means Harper prorogues more frequently.

It also ignores the TIME PROROGUED: Harper's two already total more days prorogued than JC's 4, and in way less than half the time. Let's be clear: this prorogation marks more total days prorogued for Harper's Conservatives in less than four years than for JC's Liberals in more than ten - including JC's final prorogation that was called to permit the leadership race in which Paul Martin became leader.

Finally, and most importantly, it ignores the REASON for the prorogation: in Chretien's four cases, to allow the suspension of government for an election or leadership race; in Harper's two cases, for no legitimate government purpose, but rather for the illegitimate, selfish, and anti-democratic purpose of avoiding a non-confidence vote (2008) then avoiding scrutiny of parliamentary committees (2010).

And this time Harper had to abandon more than 20 bills on his own government's agenda just to suspend the work of one committee. He obviously doesn't think his agenda is worth working on, and neither do most Canadians. In the meantime, rabid Tories are out shouting "FOUR IS MORE THAN TWO," which is admittedly true but which also is a far-too-simple analysis pronounced by far-too-simple people.

How do you like them apples?