Tony Blair admits: I would have invaded Iraq anyway

[Newsjock]

Source: The Guardian

Tony Blair has said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public.

The former prime minister made the confession during an interview with Fern Britton, to be broadcast on Sunday on BBC1, in which he said he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

"If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?" Blair was asked. He replied: "I would still have thought it right to remove him (Saddam Hussein)".

Significantly, Blair added: "I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat." He continued: "I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons in charge, but it's incredibly difficult. That's why I sympathise with the people who were against it (the war) for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, in the end I had to take the decision."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/12/tony-blair-iraq-chilcot-inquiry

[Mike Nelson]

1. He's covering for himself

UK would not have done it w/o Bush. Blair is trying to cover his error.

[Goldstein1984]

4. Vital National Interest = Perpetual War

Remember when the invasion of Iraq was all about WMD.

But then there were no WMD found.

And of course, everybody knew that Hussein and bin Laden were not allies.

So, suddenly is was about "support for terrorism."

And then everyone learned about Saudi Arabia funding construction of madrasas in Pakistan.

Then it couldn't be about support for terrorism anymore, so

It became all about spreading the gospel of democracy.

Today, with Afghanistan, it's all about the more flexible "vital national interest"

Now there's a one-size-fits-all excuse for endless war.

When are we not going to have "vital national interest"?

[Amonester]

15. When the Empire will have fallen into complete bankrupcy,

we are not going to have any vital national interest anymore.

The Third-Worldization of the US will be complete.

[Canuckistanian]

2. Of course he would have.

He's a fundamentalist, just like Bush was. He wanted to reclaim the sacred land of the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

After all, it was the land of Adam and Eve.

[nicky187]

3. Yeah, right.

How far up Bush's ass are this guys lips?

[Arctic Dave]

5. So he would commit an even bigger war crime no matter what the circumstances?

Why is this motherfucker still breathing air. He just said he committed a crime and would commit the crime again no matter what the reason.

[Doctor_J]

6. Can we give a psychopath a few points for admitting his illness?

:thumbsup:, Tony

[AusDem]

11. yep, hes now on - 99999998, while bush and cheney

are on -1000000000000000 (a couple more zeros for good measure)

[timeforpeace]

7. "in the end I had to take the decision." Sounds familiar, doesn't it. And I don't mean Bush.

[AusDem]

12. if you're suggesting that tony blair is anything like obama

that would be drawing a LONG bow. other than both being charming left leaning leaders who turned out to be more centrist than thought. Unless Obama launches a full scale illegal war, he'll still be out in front.

[Turborama]

8. Tony Blair 2002: "Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose..."

Basically, Blair is trying to rewrite his own history and in turn admitting that he lied to the British Parliament, British citizens and the rest of the world when he said...

---- --- ----


In September 2002, Tony Blair stated, in an answer to a parliamentary question, that “Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…”<60> In November of that year, Blair further stated that “So far as our objective, it is disarmament, not régime change - that is our objective. Now I happen to believe the regime of Saddam is a very brutal and repressive regime, I think it does enormous damage to the Iraqi people... so I have got no doubt Saddam is very bad for Iraq, but on the other hand I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge from the United Nations is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Casus_belli_and_rationale

---- --- ----

The question and answer in full...

Mr. Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham): Ignoring the mini-me performance by the leader of the Tory party, may I ask the Prime Minister a simple question to which yes or no will suffice? Does he support regime change without UN authorisation—yes or no?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020924/debtext/20924-04.htm


The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that the purpose of any action should be the disarmament of Iraq. Whether that involves regime change is in a sense a question for Saddam as to whether he is prepared to comply with the UN resolution. I consider it odd that people can find the notion of regime change in Iraq somehow distasteful. Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he studies the Iraqi regime carefully, he will find that it is not very redolent of anything to do with the Liberal Democrats.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020924/debtext/20924-05.htm

---- --- ----

[Amonester]

16. I hope that, at the very least, there is a law against LYING to the...

British Parliament

I wanna see that psychopath bLiar get what he deserves for the million innocents he co-murdered.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Not a law; if he were still in it, he'd be censured in some way in parliament

and he might be expected to resign a government post for lying. But he waited until he'd got out of parliament before admitting this.

Just as well he wasn't selected president of the European Council, then.

His own legal counsel, the Attorney General, told him directly that war for regime change is illegal in international law:

...
Increasingly concerned that Blair was ignoring his earlier advice that regime change was "not a legal basis for military action", on 29 July 2002 Goldsmith wrote to Blair on what the Mail on Sunday described as "a single side of A4 headed notepaper".

The typed letter was addressed by hand, "Dear Tony", and signed by hand, "Yours, Peter". In the letter, whose existence was confirmed by other sources, Goldsmith warned that the UN charter permitted "military intervention on the basis of self-defence", but it did not apply here because Britain was not under threat from Iraq; that the UN allowed "humanitarian intervention" in some circumstances, but such was not the case in Iraq; and that it would be very difficult to rely on earlier UN resolutions approving the use of force against Saddam.

Goldsmith is reported to have ended his letter saying "the situation might change".

Blair not only ignored Goldsmith's letter, he banned the attorney from attending cabinet meetings. Goldsmith was so angry that he threatened to resign – and lost three stone in weight as Blair and his closest advisers gagged him, according to the Mail on Sunday. A spokesman for Goldsmith told the paper: "His focus is on the legality of the war, its morality is for others."
...
On 7 March 2003, Goldsmith warned the government that although Saddam could be said to be in breach of his international obligations, British forces could still face legal action if they participated in an invasion. Ten days later, he issued a brief statement saying invasion would be lawful. The Butler inquiry into the use of intelligence to justify war revealed that Goldsmith changed his advice after a meeting with two of Blair's close advisers, Lady (Sally) Morgan and Lord Falconer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/29/iraq-war-lord-goldsmith-letter

[RedSock]

9. "even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction" ????

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

x( :argh: :banghead: x( :argh: :banghead: x( :argh: :banghead: x( :argh: :banghead:

[LiberalFighter]

10. Just with British troops? I seriously doubt it.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RedCloud]

14. rest of headline... Had I not been a chicken hawk.

[ima_sinnic]

17. stay classy Tony.

wishing you and the rest of the war criminal scum long lives of pain and unbearable suffering in some dungeon somewhere.

[tomg]

19. So if we are to translate

"I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat" it comes out as "we would have found some other utter bullshit to feed the proles to do what we damn well please." Likewise, "That's why I sympathise with the people who were against it (the war) for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, in the end I had to take the decision" comes out as "when it comes to morality and human decencey vs. money and power, its no fucking contest"

[CJCRANE]

20. Blair's telling the truth but digging himself deeper.

He has basically admitted to war by any means necessary.

[47of74]

21. When does he move into the British version of ADX Florence?

[kenny blankenship]

22. A tidbit for his sentencing hearing.

Callous disregard for international laws governing the legal and illegal use of military force.

[LynnTheDem]

23. AG Lord Goldsmith, bLiar...remember his note to you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231949/The-smoking-gun-Tony-Blair-accused-betrayal-law-chiefs-memo-saying-war-illegal.html

[treestar]

24. So what of the other evil dictators in the world?

If that is enough to justify war for him.