Economist om Blair och Irak

Economist har en bra artikel om Blair och Irak:

Most of all, Mr Blair is damaged by what is seen as his complicity with an administration in Washington that many Britons—even some of those who have consistently supported the war—never much cared for and now roundly loathe. It is possible that the depravities in Abu Ghraib were not systematic, although the Red Cross report suggests otherwise. But, as has been widely observed, Donald Rumsfeld's casual disregard for the Geneva conventions may well have fostered the culture of extra-legality that undoubtedly existed. By placing himself in a position that prevents him from uttering so much as a word of criticism of the Bush administration, Mr Blair may actually be helping to feed the growing hostility towards it.

This is the price Mr Blair has paid for being guaranteed the friendly and respectful hearing from Mr Bush by which he sets such store. But what has been clear for some time is that although the “poodle” jibes were always over the top, Mr Blair's relationship with Mr Bush has never extended to any influence over Dick Cheney or Mr Rumsfeld, the hard-faced men who have mostly run the war and whose mistakes have contributed to its bitter aftermath. The truth is that Britain has accepted almost limitless liability for what happens in Iraq, in exchange for very little power over events.