The US attacked Iraq on March 19th, 2003 (US time), a day ahead of schedule. Not content with declaring unprovoked "pre-emptive" war, because of imaginary weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Bush ordered a "pre-pre-emptive" strike on a civilian target in a sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut attempt to assassinate Saddam. Oh well, at least he had a good reason for killing many innocent people who didn't even know their country was at war yet. I wonder how Fox News would have reacted to an Iraqi airstrike in downtown Washington, in an attempt to take out Dubya before any declaration of hostilities?
There were many reasons I chose to portray Bush, Blair and their buddies as medieval crusaders blundering into the Middle East like rabid dogs, but one factor was more compelling than any other. It was the sheer spirit of the enterprise; the arrogant, self-righteous, pre-meditated, bigoted, violent, xenophobic, cynically self-serving, unjustified, hypocritical, mind-numbing chutzpah!
Clearly America is in charge of this war. So why, in the cartoon, does Blair "Lyingheart" lead the attack? Partly because I'm British and satire begins at home, but also because for me his is the greater crime. "Holy Petroleum Emperor" Bush is not the cunning mastermind of US hegemony, just its figurehead - a Texan hick trotting out cowboy platitudes. He has facilitated the current neoconservative jingoism with his preferential favours, but he is just one of many pushing in the same direction. But Blair's enthusiasm for this war seems unmatched by any of his compatriots or colleagues. Their cries of support sound like the hollow bleating of driven sheep, following their one-track-mind shepherd for fear of getting lost in the electoral wilderness. But Blair is guilty of not only aiding and abetting. Far worse than this, in the face of widespread opposition, he turned our reluctant nation into America's most influential ally. It is quite conceivable that without this support lesser nations may have held back and left the US isolated. It is doubtful that even Uncle Sam would have prosecuted this war with total global opposition.
Yet Blair presents himself as an intelligent, religious and moral man. So did Richard Lionheart, King of England, when he set off on the Third Crusade. Lyingheart has blood on his hands (literally). At his feet a pregnant woman's brains spill over her dead child. It's a dark picture; but it's a dark subject. At least Richard - however psychotic or misguided - led his men into battle and risked his life. There was plenty of papal bull and cries of "God wills it!", but no euphemisms and no hiding what they did. If our leaders won't admit the consequences of their actions, we should point them out.
