I am genuinely mystified by the fuss surrounding Blair's Parky interview. Even sober, sensible people such as Paul Linford (whose blog is rather good) are at it.

Here's what the PM said:

In the end, there is a judgement that, I think if you have faith about these things, you realise that judgement is made by other people... and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well.

How on earth can that be construed as saying that God told him to invade Iraq or that he believes that God gave approval for the action, to paraphrase most of the criticisms?

All Blair said was that, as a Christian - the same would apply to any religiously observant person - he is answerable to God in the end for his actions. That is about as bland a statement of the obvious as it is possible to get, beyond the 'admission' that Blair believes in God, which we all knew anyway.

It doesn't mean God told him what to do. It doesn't even mean God appoved of what he did. It means, come the day he meets his maker, he will have to answer for his actions.

In fact he even prefaces the mention of God by talking about how his actions are and will be judged by 'other people' - in the here and now, in other words.

It's one thing - and perfectly legitimate - to criticise Blair for his actions. It's quite another - and totally illegitimate - to put upon his words a construction which they simply cannot bear, and then lay into him for that.