I've always been fascinated by the real interactions between Blair and Bush leading up to the Iraq War. By that I mean did the interactions go along the lines of 'ok, the neocons, oil industry, military-industrial-complex and Israelis told us to get rid of Saddam and destroy Iraq. Now how can we conjure up a justification'? Or were they closer to those dished out for public consumption? As in 'will this benefit world peace and the Iraqi people?'
Confounding my cynicism the hitherto classified documents published by Chilcot suggest that they, Blair anyway, believed they were doing the right thing, that Saddam was a real threat and that 'the world would be a better place with him gone'. Which raises the question as to whether those documents were actually formulated with an occasion such as this in mind. A preemptive cover your ass initiative. Certainly many of them are couched in stilted and formal terms, not in the way two so-called close friends would interact.
I don't know..... I'm as wise as ever.
One interesting side-note relates to the globalist NWO project. "Our ambition is big: to construct a global agenda around which we can unite the world; rather than dividing it into rival centres of power. Your insight, which no-one has articulated better or more clearly is that post 9/11 our security is best guaranteed not just through traditional military and intelligence means, but by our values. More freedom in the world means more security. Countries that are free and democratic are countries unlikely to threaten us."
Highly self-serving undoubtedly. But also enlightening.