In a recent interview to a religious programme on the BBC1 TV channel, Tony Blair asserted that he would have ordered an invasion of Iraq even if he had known that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The former British Prime Minister added that he would have used different arguments to “justify” the invasion but he “would still have thought it right to remove” Saddam Hussein. He also tried to locate the invasion in the context of what he calls a “major struggle going on all over the world” about what is happening within Islam. Quite apart from Mr. Blair’s self-arrogated authority on Islam, the contradictions are breathtaking. From 2001 onwards, western intelligence services repeatedly informed Mr. Blair and George W. Bush that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations weapons inspectors publicly acknowledged that Iraq had been substantially disarmed by 1998. A decade of brutal sanctions had wrecked Iraq’s economy, and even Iraq’s neighbouring states no longer regarded Saddam Hussein as a threat. Moreover, Mr. Blair’s senior civil servants advised him that an invasion without explicit U.N. approval would be illegal. Yet the big lie that Iraq had WMDs and could mount an attack on the U.K. within 45 minutes was fed to the western media. Without such manufacture of consent, Mr. Blair would have found it much harder to win the parliamentary vote on the invasion.
It now turns out, via the Iraq Inquiry (the Chilcot inquiry), that the 45-minute claim was probably obtained by western intelligence from an Iraqi taxi-driver who had overheard two Iraqi military officers talking in the back of his car, and that the British government ignored written warnings about the claim. Furthermore, Mr. Blair told Parliament in February 2003 that Saddam Hussein could save his own regime by complying with U.N. resolutions, despite the fact that no material breach had been proved. Nevertheless the British Prime Minister ordered Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith to alter significantly an interpretation of international law so as to protect invading British troops against criminal charges. Mr. Blair is clearly indifferent to the invasion’s illegality and its consequences, among which are more than 100,000 Iraqi deaths and enormously intensified global instability. That Mr. Blair will be allowed to give part of his evidence to the Iraq Inquiry in secret only compounds his evasions. His contempt for the very idea of accountability is shown by the fact that he offered his explanation to a TV interviewer and not to those whom he should answer — the British Parliament, the electorate who put him in office, and the International Criminal Court.
Keywords: former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, Iraq invasion, WMD, BBC1 TV, Saddam Hussein, International Criminal Court, United Nations, Islam
Thank God for not having made a person like Tony Blair the EU President. The European Union is safe now. If Slobodon Milosevic could be tried in the International Court of Justice, so should the invaders of Iraq be tried for accusing Iraq of possessing WMD.
It is quite incorrect to spell out such statements in front of media. He is responsible to the British Parliament.
Iraq invasion was not only unjust and un-ethical in terms of killing of innocents but it also showed height of stupidity from Bush and Blair. Bush's publicly declared axis of evil included Iran, N. Korea and Iraq. Out of these N. Korea had WMD, Iraq didn't have any! And Bush chose to attack Iraq thereby indirectly giving message to Iran that if you have WMD you could be safe but not if you are innocent! Iraq invasion was continuation of the 2-3 century long Euro-American colonisation of poor people of the world (mostly in Asia, Africa and Latin America) to rob them of their resources. By the way, the poor people getting robbed also includes middle-class or poor American taxpayer who is robbed to pay for these huge war expenses. The loot from American and British taxpayers and Iraqi people is distributed to War mercenaries (private security contractors), defence companies, oil companies.
It won't be right to just look at one side of the story, when Mr.Blair says that he ordered the invasion to fight 'major struggle going on all over the world about what is happening within Islam'. He might mean that he wants to wipe out the extremists which one day might result in something like Taliban or may be North Korea. Moreover the war over Iraq even look justified if we look from the prospective of people of Iraq who were living under the cruel rule of Saddam Hussain, they always wanted freedom this dictatorship, US and UK just helped them to achieve it.
Tony Blair and George W Bush conspiracy to kill a man heading a country shows the bumptious behavior of the Western leaders.
This is loathesome. The developed nations do not seem to show any kind of interest in helping the world grow as a better place to live. Whenever a nation became capable enough these so-called global policemen (or peacekeepers or whatever) go and thrash the new player. Same was the case with Iraq. One of the reasons I firmly believe in US and British going to war against Iraq was their interest in rich oil reserves that Iraq possesses. Crude oil demand is rising high and the developed nations not compromising on their consumption levels had propelled them to get into this massacre.
Tony Blair has already been indicted before his TV interview by former Washington ambassador Sir Christopher who claimed that Blair and George W. Bush had signed a secret deal 'in blood' to topple Saddam Hussein almost a year before Iraq was invaded, and that officials found themselves scrabbling to find 'a smoking gun' to justify going to war.
If a country is oil rich and lacks a nuclear deterrent, it suddenly becomes a threat to UK's 'security'. A 100,000 Iraqis get killed and it's okay, and if 50 British citizens (although equally deplorable, but I hope you get the context) are killed in a terrorist attack, oh my gosh!,Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war....
Please Email the Editor