'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.' Tony Blair 2002
It was with much amusement that during the Iraq War build-up, anti-war protesters had the good fortune to have someone to rage against whose name changed from Blair to Bliar with such little effort.
The main charge against Blair was that he lied to take us to war. Some of his justifications came unravelled almost immediately such as the yellow cake and links with Al-Queada and others were being rubbished as time went on such as Saddam's WMD's and the 45 minute claim.
Speaking on BBC One's Fern Britton Meets programme, Tony Blair was asked whether he would still have gone on with plans to join the US-led invasion had he known at the time that there were no WMD.
He said: 'I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat.'
At least we now know from his own mouth that even if he had been aware there were no weapons of mass destruction he would still have felt justified in launching the Iraq war and used other reasons to justify it.
Firstly it makes a mockery of when Blair stood up and told Saddam that he could stay in power if he handed over those elusive WMD's, that was never going to happen because he and George Dubya had already planned in advance Saddam was being removed however they had to justify it.
Secondly, regime change is illegal under International law and this proves that it was what the whole debacle was about. Bush and Blair arrogantly declared themselves World Policemen, flouting world opinion and the United Nations to become Saddam's judge, jury and executioner.
The self righteous, sanctimonious arrogance is sickening but listening to the ongoing Chilcott enquiry, i have very faith that Blair will be sufficiently grilled by the committee that seems increasingly unwilling to ask the pointed questions.
Blair has admitted that he blatantly lied as a cover for regime change in Iraq. How much more evidence do the people in the Hague who draw up the list of leaders to be charged with War Crimes need?
It must only be a matter of time before Blair gets the tap on the shoulder and a policeman tells him 'Mr Blair, You do not have to say anything, however it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you may later rely on in court...'.
4 comments:
Great post.
'Honest Tony' still doesn't get it, does he? It's got nothing to do with his personal opinion as to whether he has helped to make the country he bombed and then occupied a nicer place... or a worse one. Because opinion about this will naturallyvary. Many will think so. Lots of Shias, certainly. Whereas many others - particularly the friends and family of some of the hundreds of thousands who have died - will beg to differ. C'est la vie.
It's do with whether or not Tony lied/dissembled/over-egged/sexed-up/misrepresented the case for war at the time. To his ministers, to the House of Commons, to the British public.
I thought it blindingly obvious at the time that he was doing this, and nothing that's happened since has changed my mind in the slightest. And the Chilcott Inquiry is simply making this more and more clear by the day.
I've no confidence any of this will result in a prosecution though. Life doesn't get that good.
Amusing though, the choice of interviewer, now that when Blair finally submits himself for a rigorous questioning on the Iraq debacle.
"Who's it to be, Tony? Paxman? Frost? Dimbleby?"
"Er, is Fern Britton free?".
You forgot to mention that Australia was part of the Coalition of the Killing, Lucy, albeit a small part.
Despite the opposition of most Australians, Howard dragged us into the imperial machinations of the American War Machine.
Blair, Bush and Howard should be charged with war crimes!
Honest Tony's going to give his evidence in secret, I hear.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/13-3
Apparently Whitehall civil servants, defence advisors, various mandarins, and the head of M16 couldn't possibly have said anything that could compromise national security - so they've all had to answer their questions in public - but Tony, on the other hand, does know all this potentially 'dangerous' information that clearly shouldn't be kicked around in public.
'Dangerous' to himself morelike. What a crock.
I did laugh when i saw it was Fern Britton interviewing him, would love to see a Paxman or Snow get hold of him but he probably wouldn't have said it to them because they would have ripped him apart over it. I have heard that he probably said it to her knowing she would just move on and not register it and it won't come out at the Chilcott inquiry when he is going to get enough headlines. Old news by then.
I did read about some parts will be in private 'for reasons of national security' but we do seem to have an impressive record of leaks recently and long may that continue.
Australia's role, same as Spain's, usually gets forgotten David. I'm not even certain what role Howard played. For some reason our media seems to have painted them out and just go for Bush & Blair so i agree, Howard and Aznar should be prosecuted also.
Post a Comment