Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 20, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

First Solar Bread Oven Takes a Bow
Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Risk, Ambiguity and Decision

Risk, Ambiguity and Decision

By Daniel Ellsberg
$101.79

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Blair Would Have Invaded Iraq Even Without WMD Issue

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 12, 2009
Tony Blair
Flickr / World Economic Forum

Tony Blair, shown in a file photo, talked about his decisions on Iraq in a BBC interview to be aired Sunday.

No longer in public office, Tony Blair has acknowledged in a BBC interview that he would have invaded Iraq and disposed of Saddam Hussein with or without evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. —JCL

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

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By writerman, December 13, 2009 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A short time before the invasion of Iraq, Blair was asked in parliament if the coming attack wasn’t of questionable legality, toppling Saddam Hussein without a United Nations mandate. Knowing that he needed to secure parliamentary support for his policy of war, replied that it wasn’t about regime change, which would have been blatantly illegal under international law, no, the invasion had one perpose only, to rid the world of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, which were a direct threat to Britain. As far as Blair was concerned, if Saddam willingly destroyed his stock of WMD, why, then he could stay in power.

That Blair now reverses this position, dropping the justification of WMD which he’s highlighted for years, and suddenly points to regime change as the real reason for invading Iraq, is an indication of the contempt he has for the difference between truth and lies. Any story was good enough at the time, as long as he got his way. The way to war.

Report this

By montanawildhack, December 13, 2009 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

I have only one request for Christmas from Jesus/Santa Claus…..

Please allow me to live long enough to see America and England crushed by another more better country and leaders like Blair and Bush etc stand trial and suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussien….

thank you Jesus/Santa….

Report this

By writeon, December 13, 2009 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Blair is, in my opinion, a soci-path. He doesn’t think that lying matters, as long as it gets the required results. He feels he is above the normal moral constraints that most people live by and understand. The only judge of his actions that he responds to is his God. That is, a higher and not of this world power, that he refers to constantly. This is convenient for the socio-path for obvious reasons. By looking to God for guidance and reassurance, one is essentially holding dialogue with oneself. So when Blair talks about facing the judgement of his maker in relation to the invasion of Iraq, this functions as a super, get-out-jail card, absolving him of, once again, the normal standards most people have to live by.

Once again, he is above the law, morality, ethics, and can do whatever he likes, because the voices inside his head, his “God” are all that really matter to him in the final analysis. Hitler would have talked about his destiny guiding him forward towards greatness.

And, of course, this is the problem with socio-paths. They are frikin’ dangerous to be around. They often display great charm, are creative, entertaining, different from the rest, they have collosal self-belief, and powers of persuasion, they are personable, often highly articulate, intelligent; but ruthless and literally without, and know no boundaries in their pathelogical desire to get what they want, by any means necessary. They love the power their lack of morality gives them. They have a superiority complex and super-egos. They often make great conmen, or mass murderers. Which just about sums Blair up nicely, in grotesque sort of way.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 13, 2009 at 6:45 am Link to this comment

So…would he have done it anyway without the US Army, USMC, USAF and USN participating?

It’s easy to say “Yes, ‘We’ should have done it anyway” when “We” is another nation’s far vaster military force!  It’s always SO easy to send someone else to kill and die, isn’t it? Just ask the chicken hawks in the Bush regime.

Report this

By empyrius, December 13, 2009 at 6:39 am Link to this comment

And the war criminal sayeth, “that oil is ours boys”!

Report this

By edinburgher, December 13, 2009 at 4:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Britain is in the grip of a group of politicians of all parties who treat the electorate with contempt.  Our first past the post system leaves us with an elected dictatorship.  Even if the Conservatives hadn’t gone along with Blair’s lies his party’s majority in the House of Commons would have allowed him to proceed with the ‘Iraq crime’which was instigated by the Bush regime.
Blair displayed a cynical disregard for the truth to meet ends which had already been agreed.  He is now parading in public as a committed christian.  If he’s a christian then I’m a martian!  Greasy snake oil salesman is a more apt description.

Report this

By kindGSL, December 13, 2009 at 3:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yes but, WHY did he do it?

Report this

By glider, December 13, 2009 at 2:55 am Link to this comment

Obviously the whole crew responsible was only using WMD to rationalize and sell war already decided upon.  Tony Blair is another lying murdering self righteous Christian hypocrite.  A high IQ Bush.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, December 13, 2009 at 12:09 am Link to this comment

So would W.

Report this

By Timmay, December 12, 2009 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Sure, lacking stable evidence of WMDs aside, I’d say everyone loves a jolly old state-sanctioned slaugher.” Come on Brits, show us that someone out there is willing to bring war crime charges against these tools.

Funny, he’s getting this off his chest on the same day they started auctioning off Iraq’s oil fields. They’re only getting bids for two of several sites, because of the continuing violence. Serves them right. They invaded because Saddam wanted to trade in something other then the degrading petro-dollars. So, Blair gave his blessings to the Shock and Awe campaign to expel and kill a dictator? This world is warped beyond belief. Sad…

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, December 12, 2009 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment

well what a schmuck and puppet he is

Report this

By Steven A Wells, December 12, 2009 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“...he would have invaded Iraq…with or without evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction…”

Would have? That’s exactly what was done. As recent history has shown, it WAS done without evidence (unless you call ginned up intel and stuff you heard from a cab driver “evidence”).

Report this

By P. T., December 12, 2009 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

The liar Tony Blair finally comes clean.

Report this

By montanawildhack, December 12, 2009 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

Blair is a evil little zionist pig fornicator….

And the last decent thing the Limies did was burn down the White House….

Report this
bogglesthemind's avatar

By bogglesthemind, December 12, 2009 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

Hey, Tony -can I call you tony?- you’re a lier in hindsight. Good show.

Report this

By Thong-girl, December 12, 2009 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

So Blair too wanted to hide the war crimes of the first Bush war?  The mass burial graves bulldozed into the desert and subsequently appearing and incriminated the Bush/Thatcher war crimes?  That makes sense, as he and our own weasel W were only doing what they were told by the real Fuhrers.

Report this

By jj, December 12, 2009 at 11:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Love it.

If you had known that the justification you gave the world for invading another
country. killing its leaders and millions of its citizens was false would you still
have done all of the above? Yes. But obviously we would have had to use different
arguments.

Look at that ear to ear smile on his face.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.