Tony Blair: Jesus Christ or Richard Nixon?

LONDON -- Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared before a government-appointed panel in London Friday to answer questions about his role in the war in Iraq. It was, in many ways, the moment this country has been waiting for ever since Blair's government joined the United States in invading Iraq in 2003. And in a telling sign of just how torn up the U.K. is over this man -- and this conflict -- he was alternately compared to both Jesus Christ and Richard Nixon as he took the stand.

The questioning took place under the auspices of the Chilcot Inquiry, named after its Chair, Sir John Chilcot. The Inquiry has the specific mandate of "...considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned." In other words, the Inquiry is not going to determine whether or not the war was illegal. Nor is it going to put Tony Blair -- or anyone else -- on trial. But from all the press attention his appearance garnered, it sure felt that way.

This is not the first time the British government has launched an inquiry into this deeply divisive conflict. The 2004 Hutton Inquiry looked into circumstances surrounding the death of David Kelly, a British defense official, who died mysteriously shortly after the government was accused of having "sexed up" its intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in the run up to the war. (The government was exonerated on this count.) The Butler Inquiry, also in 2004, looked into the actual pre-war intelligence itself and found that there were "serious flaws."

What's different about the Chilcot Inquiry is that it's public. Nearly every day for the past two months, a cast of distinguished characters from the Blair administration have been paraded before the panel and grilled on various topics surrounding the war. At Tony Blair's appearance, families of British military personnel who died in the conflict were in the same room with the former prime minister as he spoke. While the very public nature of these hearings is no big deal for an American audience -- would we stand for less? -- it is entirely unprecedented for the Brits.

What's also interesting about the hearings is that, factwise, most pundits agree that we aren't learning all that much that's terribly new. True, there have been some interesting revelations along the way. Jack Straw, the former foreign minister, revealed that he agonized over the morality of the war, even offering the prime minister a last-minute way out by drafting a secret contingency plan that would have allowed Britain to support the US-led invasion, but not send troops. The senior legal adviser to the Foreign Office, Sir Michael Wood, told the Inquiry earlier this week that he felt that the invasion "had no basis in international law."

Still, there's no question that the person the entire country was waiting to hear from was Tony Blair himself. It would be an understatement to say that Blair is not a well-liked man over here. Stylistically, he was always a challenge for the Brits to swallow: too media-savvy, too well-spoken, too religious. In short -- as a politician, at least -- he was simply too American. For many on the left, his Third Way politics were also seen as a betrayal of the working class ideals of the Labour Party's traditional base.

But it was the war in Iraq, and its deep unpopularity on all sides of the political spectrum, that came to define Blair's legacy. (It's a sad irony that on the very day that Blair was called forward to defend what many see as the Achilles heel of his time in office, the Iraq war, his singular accomplishment, the Northern Ireland Peace Accord, was simultaneously in danger of unraveling.)

So, with all that baggage to contend with, how did Blair do today? By all accounts, Blair provided a robust defense of his decision to back the war. He called Saddam Hussein a "monster" who threatened "not just the region, but the world." Throughout his six hours of testimony (some of which was interrupted by heckling and cries of "You're a liar"), his main theme seemed to be "Can you imagine if I'd done nothing?" As Blair put it, sometimes it is important not to ask the "March 2003 question" but the "2010 question." By which he meant that had the UK and its allies not invaded Iraq, we would today be faced with a situation where "Iraq was competing with Iran" in terms of nuclear capability and "in respect of support of terrorist groups".

With respect to the three main points on which Blair was challenged, he fought off each and every one. He denied that he cut a covert deal with George Bush in April 2002 over the invasion, although he admitted that they did discuss a variety of options. He also stood by his contention that, based on what he knew at the time, it was "beyond doubt" that Iraq was continuing to develop its weapons capability. (He did acknowledge that the government could have done a better job at dispelling certain misleading ideas coming out of its intelligence, such as the notion that the Iraqis could launch missiles within 45 minutes). Finally, Blair reaffirmed that the goal behind the invasion had always been preventing Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction, not, as he has suggested before, regime change.

In short, if people were expecting a bombshell -- or some dramatic display of remorse -- they didn't get it. Blair accepted responsibility, but not regret. But maybe that's enough.

Because while the whole purpose of this endeavor was ostensibly to "get to the bottom of things" and "learn some lessons" for the future, I never really bought any of that. As noted earlier, the British public already knew most of the facts on the ground.

No. This inquiry always seemed to serve more of a cathartic function. Catharsis, at least in one of its definitions, refers to a "release of emotional tension, as after an overwhelming experience, that restores or refreshes the spirit." For a country that's so culturally averse to psychotherapy, that's not necessarily something that comes naturally. But that's what it feels like over here.

It's about -- dare I say it?-- closure. "So we can put it all behind us for once and for all," as a journalist friend of mine put it.

Which brings us back to Jesus Christ and Richard Nixon. One died a martyr who "was sacrificed for our sins." The other died a pariah, a lasting symbol of secrecy and mendacity in the government.

The jury's still out on which of these two fates awaits Tony Blair. Only time will tell.


Follow Delia on Twitter.