What a different world it was in October, 2001, when BB was seeking Arab support for the pending attack on Afghanistan. Journalist Michael White ("Blair goes public to quell Arab fears of wider war", The Guardian, Thursday October 11, 2001) reports the PM in Oman attempting "to soothe simmering anxiety in the Islamic world that the United States is preparing to extend the bombing campaign against the al-Qaida network and its Taliban allies to Iraq."
Blair is quoted as stressing that no steps will be taken against Iraq unless there is "absolute evidence" of complicity between the two, which there was not, he confirmed. A senior defence official in London is also quoted saying there was "no evidence of Iraqi involvement" in the terrorist attacks on America. The official added that there was no evidence that members of Bin Laden's al-Qaida network were operating in Iraq, nor evidence that Saddam Hussein had given Bin Laden help or advice on chemical weapons.
How times have changed! "Absolute evidence" is no longer an issue, probably because there is still no evidence of any links between Saddam and al-Qaida and BB wants war.
The reason for this li(n)e was clear at the time. White notes that there was "concern in the Arab and wider Islamic world that a move against Iraq would weaken the anti-terrorism coalition" and so "behind the move lay a declared attempt to stop over-interpretation of signs that some Bush administration officials are itching to reopen hostilities against . . . Saddam Hussein." Obviously these concerns were valid and have, unlike Blair's comments, been vindicated. It is a shame the media could not ask Blair to comment on all this (and so much more!).
Lastly, one of the four "immediate objectives" of the government's "strategy document" on the "war on terror" is quoted as being "To bring Bin Laden and al-Qaida leaders to justice." They obviously forgot to add "as soon as we sort out Iraq and any other country which pisses the US off or has some resource it wants."