Blair Would Have Invaded Iraq Even Without WMD Issue
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.
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
TRUTHDIG’S JOURNALISM REMAINS CLEARThe 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.”
The storytellers of chaos tried to manipulate the political and media narrative in 2025, but independent journalism exposed what they tried to hide. When you read Truthdig, you see through the illusion.
Support Independent Journalism.
Editorial Cartoons
Wounds of War
In the throes of the Cold War, a tiny Caribbean island dared to wage a revolutionary experiment. As the Revo imploded, the United States invaded.
It’s not just that the Gray Lady is soft on Donald Trump. The paper and its editors view conservative whites as the only true Americans.
From the archives: In 2006, the social activist warned that an increasingly mainstream anti-war movement can be prone to loss of focus.
Arguing that no alternative exists to open-ended war represents not hard-nosed realism, but the abdication of statecraft. The real problem is war itself and the conviction that only through war can America remain America.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.