War logic

You don't expect logical argument from politicians, but you expect at least a crude, kindergarten level of logical analysis from the "respectable" media (eg BBC). But apparently that's too much to ask. Tony Blair was widely reported (eg August 2004) making the following "argument":

The war removed Saddam Hussein. Removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing. Therefore the war was justified.

Logically, this is equivalent to saying: "Robbing old ladies helps to pay the rent. Paying the rent is a good thing. Therefore robbing old ladies is justified".

Maybe Blair could attempt to construct a less flawed argument if pressed (eg add premises/qualifications, insert logical steps on the way to his conclusion, etc). But he isn't pressed. BBC reporters and commentators seem incapable of even the most elementary logical criticism (which is an entirely different matter than issues of so-called "political neutrality", etc.)

When bad logic gets mixed with semantic propaganda it becomes more difficult to unravel. But the BBC employs over 2,000 journalists – you'd think they could manage a few analytical critiques of government PR, thus helping to prevent consequences such as illegal wars. More often they act as a mouthpiece for that PR.