For a man with no immune system, I’m doing alright.
- Bucket list Ben
Blair: Why I was right
Friday 29th January 2010, 3:45PM GMT.
Defiant Tony Blair declared today he was right to take action to stop Saddam Hussein even though his supposed weapons of mass destruction turned out not to exist.
In his long-awaited appearance before the Iraq Inquiry, the former prime minister made clear it was always his intention to join the Americans if it came to war.
He said that in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, he firmly believed he could not run the risk Saddam would reconstitute his banned weapons programmes.
“The decision I took – and frankly would take again – was if there was any possibility that he could develop weapons of mass destruction we should stop him,” he said.
“That was my view then and that is my view now.”
Mr Blair insisted there had been no “covert” deal with George Bush to go to war when they met at the US president’s Texas ranch in April 2002 – 11 months before the invasion. He said he had always been open that Saddam had to be confronted over his WMD programme.
“The one thing I was not doing was dissembling in that position. How we proceed in this is a matter that was open. The position was not a covert position, it was an open position,” he said.
But pressed on what he thought Mr Bush took from the meeting, he went further, saying: “I think what he took from that was exactly what he should have taken, which was if it came to military action because there was no way of dealing with this diplomatically, we would be with him.”
Mr Blair defended his assertion in the Government’s controversial Iraq dossier, published in September 2002, that the intelligence had established “beyond doubt” that Saddam had WMD.
“What I said in the foreword was that I believed it was beyond doubt. I did believe it and I did believe it was beyond doubt,” he said.
He said he had been convinced by reports he was receiving from the Joint Intelligence Committee that Saddam retained WMD.
“It was hard to come to any other conclusion than that this person is continuing WMD programmes,” he said.
He accepted it had been a mistake not to make clear that the now-notorious claim that some WMD could be launched within 45 minutes referred to battlefield weapons and not long-range missiles.
“I would have been better to have corrected it in the light of the significance it later took on,” he said.
Mr Blair insisted he had not deceived the nation over the grounds for going to war.
He told the inquiry he had made the judgment that Britain should not “run the risk” of allowing Saddam to remain in power.
He said: “This isn’t about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception.
“It’s a decision. And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam’s history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given 10 years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?”
He went on: “I had to take the decision. I believed, and in the end the Cabinet believed – so did Parliament incidentally – that we were right not to run that risk.”
He admitted he believed Saddam was a “monster” even before the September 11 attacks in the United States.
However, he said that after the devastating attacks in 2001 American mindset “changed dramatically”, adding: “Frankly, mine had as well.”
Mr Blair said he did not publicly discuss military planning of a possible Iraq invasion earlier because he did not want to be led down an “irreversible path”. He wanted a second UN Security Council resolution before going to war. But the US had already decided Saddam would always be “difficult”.
“The American view, throughout, has been ‘This leopard isn’t going to change his spots’,” Mr Blair said.
Despite continuing discussion over the threat, Mr Bush decided UN backing was not needed.
“His view was that it wasn’t necessary but he was prepared to work with one,” said Mr Blair.
Mr Blair said it was “correct” to say that he shared that view – if Saddam was seen to be continually breaching UN regulations and there was political backing for the move.
But he stressed he worked on getting the backing “right up until the last moment”. Mr Blair said he was aware of the “downside arguments” before going to war.
But he added: “My decision was that you cannot afford to have this situation go on.”
Mr Blair insisted it was important to consider what the consequences would have been if Saddam had not been overthrown by Britain and the US in 2003.
In opening exchanges, inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot told Mr Blair he would be required to confirm he had told the truth.
Sir John said today’s session would focus on three key questions – “Why really did we invade Iraq, why Saddam, and why in March 2003?”
Sir John said: “The Iraq invasion remains a divisive subject. It’s one that provokes strong emotions, especially for those who lost loved ones.”
Sponsored Links
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
Back in 2003 I was glued to my TV like many others to hear someone anyone in Parliament question the ’45 minute threat’. Nothing. Then 2 million of us marched through London only to delay the already done deal by a few months. I don’t expect this man to dare tell us the honest truth, the Americans won’t allow it.
Report abuse
“I am right, because I am right.”
Report abuse
He was hardly going to be contrite was he? And probably not really honest either.
Very few people would believe a word this man said now; it beggars belief that Peter Mandelson envisages Blair playing a role for Labour in the General Election.
I’ve no idea how history will judge Blair but there’s no doubting that he has made – and will continue to make – a fortune while bodies keep coming home from all these ‘justifiable conflicts’. Sickening.
Report abuse
As a soldier and a strict conservative, it amazes me that so many people continue to question Iraq. The point of a democratic system is that those at the top make the decisions. If you don’t like the decision you shouldn’t have voted him in! He was acting on the best intelligence he could have received from various sources, including American intelligence sources, and made the decision to uphaul a dictator who had, without a doubt, killed thousands of his own citizens. What sort of a country would we be not to intervene?!
Jeepers, history will view Blair in the same way as Thatcher. Love her or hate her, it’s undeniable that she made huge differences, many for the better, in this country. Similarly with Blair, decisions he has made have led to coalition deaths, but that is not under any circumstances “blood on his hands”, and is beyond a shadow of a doubt a justifiable cost to the conflict in Iraq.
As for marching for what you believe in, congratulations on making a stand. But compared to intelligence sources from SS, SIS, SRR etc did you really think you even managed to delay the decision?
The most amazing thing in my mind is that nobody asks those who are going out to Iraq [read: any conflict area] and putting their lives on the line. It’s not WWII, there is no involuntary conscription. Many of the soldiers out there believe wholeheartedly in why they are there, and wish that the public at home would stop criticising and complaining about decisions that are made, and just look forward to supporting our own forces in the future.
Oh, and grow up.
The starkest quote: [Blair] “the decision I took – and frankly would take again…”.
From this, read: “a price worth paying”.
Report abuse
There was never any link with Saddam Hussain and 9/11. Iraq posed no threat to Britain and the West.
Good, brave British troops (along with thousands of poor innocent Iraqi civillians) have died because of Blair’s lies.
Our lads should not be dying in foreign wars – BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!
Report abuse
Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion Phil and I respect it, just as you should respect everyone else’s. The fact that you’re a ‘soldier’ and a ‘conservative’ has nothing to do with it – that shapes your view and that’s fine.
Incidentally, as far as I recall, Blair was elected as party leader in 1994, and then became Prime Minister – voted in, as you say – in 1997. As the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq didn’t happen until 2001 and 2003 respectively, it might have been a bit early in the day for people not to vote for him.
And finally, this is NOTHING whatsoever to do with public support for soldiers – I am sure that the vast majority of the public, whether they agree with the war or not (and whether they like Blair or not) fully support our military. I know I do. Perhaps you’d like to stop using that as some sort of crutch for your views, which – I repeat – you are fully entitled to hold.
As are other people their own!
Report abuse
Totally agree with Phil
Report abuse
I must comment – a lot of the media commentary has been very much anti-way and anti-Blair, especially the BBC. Clearly, this has an effect on public opinions, especially with an election coming up. I fear this will give the Conservatives an unfair advantage in the upcoming poll. Tony Blair took a massive decision and yes, he got the decision on WMDs wrong – but who else reading this board would have made a different decision? We live in a democracy and like it or not, somebody at the top has the make the final decision, having been elected by the population.
Report abuse
No one ever disputed Saddam was a despot that needed to be removed – my problem is I believe we went because we were told to and not on our own belief that murderers such as him have to be stopped – regardless of that our soldiers are there now and whilst they are they have my full support
Report abuse
Fact 1. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or any other international terrorist atrocity.
Fact 2. Iraq was developing WMD, biological, chemical and nuclear. He got rid of them before the war started.
Fact 3. Saddam Hussein was continually threatening the State of Israel and Israel had previously bombed and obliterated Iraq’s nuclear installations.
Fact 4. Israel is in possession of WMD Nuclear weapons and considered using them when she was about to be overrun by Egypt in their last war. She is at present threatening Iran with war to curtail her nuclear capability.
Britain and America went to war with Iraq because if they hadn’t, Israel would have gone to war with her herself. Had Israel gone to war with Iraq, the whole of the Middle East and every Arab/Muslim country in the world would have declared war on Israel. With her (Israel’s) history and preparedness to use nuclear weapons, the world would have been faced with a nuclear war in the Middle East.
The all powerful Jewish lobby in America and Israel itself said in effect to George Bush, sort out Iraq or we will.
That is what this war in Iraq was about, it was to save Israel from annihilation and the whole of the Middle East from nuclear conflagration. Blair said yesterday that he has extremely strong views on Iran, they are also threatening Israel, they are suspected of having WMD and Israel is already making threatening retaliatory moves.
If we look at the Chilcott inquiry and the papers and reports which have been with-held from the team for security purposes, one can make a safe bet that these refer to the “Israeli problem” and the way that country figures in the crisis. It is this that we are not supposed to know about, oil, terrorism etc had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
We must also ask ourselves why the inquiry team is comprised of only 5 members yet two of them are jewish. WHY. We are going to learn nothing from it, it’s findings will be a bit of give and take of good and bad for Blair and his government. The powerful neo-cons in America and their counterparts in this country will not be mentioned and the next set -to will involve Iran. Let’s hope the next government in this country will say to America, sorry, if you wish to go to war for Israel, count us out.
Report abuse
iraq was america’s war. bush jnr was itching to finish bush seniors war.blair should have had the guts to say no, as wilson said no over vietnam.
john major was right to help rescue kuwait, but a second bite of the cherry of iraq without evidece or un permission was a crass error of judgement, and the lack of forethought on the after war magnifyed the problems.
only the lib dems and people like the late foreign secretary robin cook, claire short and the millions who marched against the war have any political nouse, and the lib dems may improve their ratings for their unwavering opposition to a most ill thought out expedition bordering on a war crime
Report abuse
No British soldier should have ever been maimed or killed in this illegal and immoral war.
The invasion of Iraq was clearly illegal and certainly not in the interests of Great Britain.
British blood has been spilt to prop up American interests in the Middle East and this is inexcusable.
Our brave Armed Forces have my support wherever in the world they are sent but anger should rightly be directed to the traitors in Westminster who sent them to fight in foreign lands with sub-standard equipment.
Blair and Brown have the blood of British soldiers on their hands, all troops should be brought home from Afghanistan and Iraq now.
Report abuse
Setting aside most of the simplistic comments recorded here (I’d echo Phil’s comment of ‘grow up’), I think I will concentrate on two – those provided by Phil and Stuart, both of which seem to be based upon some depth of thinking.
I was against the decision to go to war, and remain so. That being said, I can understand the pressure upon the British goverment to join in with the US in this rash adventure.
Successive governments of whatever political flavour have been in the pocket of the US for too long, and as Stuart rightly points out, much of the US’s foreign policy seems aimed at protected the interests of the Zionist contingent within Israel.
However, I’m sure Blair and his cabinet will have had to consider the possible consequences had we said a firm ‘No’ to the US. What for example would this have meant for the US’s continued support for the NATO alliance?
Politics is a complex business, and such decisions are always difficult ones. It’s easy for representatives of parties who will never see government to criticise from the sidelines, but ultimately it is prime ministers who have to make these decisions.
Like Stuart, I see no link to 9/11, but at the same time I can see that both Iraq and Iran (as well as hardliners in Israel) were (and in the case of Iran and Zionists in Israel remain) a threat to a long-term solution in the region. I doubt if any UK government would have been able to resist the pressure to go to war, given the opportunity to depose Saddam.
I think Blair made a difficult and ultimately incorrect decision, but I don’t believe he lied.
Report abuse
If the invasion had not taken place and Sadaam had continued to kill tens of thousands of his own countrymen, produced a nuclear facility (something he was perfently capable of doing)and continued to ignore anything the UN could do, how many would now be slaggind Blair and Bush off for standing by and doing nothing? People with a personal hatred of Tony Blair are never going to change their minds but thank God some people who have posted here are still capable of a considered and rational thought process.
Report abuse
Let’s clear up a few misconceptions about Saddam and Iraq. First of all, he did not kill “tens of thousands of his own countrymen”. The official UN figure of those killed by the “gas attack” on Faluja was 5,000, in addition he was responsible for the ongoing massacres of Shia’s in southern Iraq and the occasional brutality and killings of Kurds in the north of the country. Yes, he was a brutal tyrant and nothing can be said in his favour, except, he presided over one of the most socially developed Muslim states in the middle east. Women had equal status which, in itself is a rarity in the Muslim world. There can be no justification, on facts which were known or could be ascertained with ease of going to war for “regime change”.
Where Blair went wrong was by not learning from our recent history, in 1956 a Conservative Government in the form of Anthony Eden took us to war with Egypt on totally spurious grounds and a later, fully admitted and acknowledged, lie. This lie centred on this country and Israel in cahoots with France attacking Egypt in order, as they said to maintain unhindered passage to all nations along the Suez Canal. The whole fiasco was finally aborted when America demanded total withdrawal of invading troops which we complied with. This, up until Iraq was our greatest blunder into war since the weekly wars with France, Spain, Holland and everyone else in the 17 – 1800s.
This should have sounded warning bells to Blair but it didn’t and once again, the international standing of our country has been traduced as it was when Suez occurred.
It is not about whether Blair lied or whether he didn’t, it is not about whether Iraq had WMD or whether she didn’t, it is not about whether we support America or if we don’t, what it is about is why and how a democratic country goes to war in keeping with it’s democratic values and it’s own and International Law.
We went to war in Egypt in 1956 with utter disregard for all that we should have held as sacrosanct and we should, as a country learned a lesson from that. What I hold against Blair is that he learned no lessons, he disregarded our history with Suez and, if the evidence to the Chilcott inquiry is to be believed, he adopted a somewhat personal rather than a collegiate/corporate/cabinet approach to the whole lead up to it.
With Anthony Eden he will go down in history as the PM who took us into the most calamitous wars in our long war-like record. It is nothing to be proud of and he and ourselves as a country should feel ashamed.
Report abuse
Blair went to the US immediately after 9/11 to ensure that there was not a ‘knee- jerk reaction to the terrorist atrocity.
America has a reputation for being a bit’quick on the draw’ but in this case they were too much in shock and there was time to get Bush to see the situation more rationally.
When you look at the sudden recruiting of medics to the territorials we had not long after in this town, it is not difficult to see that it was all being instigated for a purpose.
Why do you think the decision was ultimately incorrect Peter?
I too believe that just because we didn’t find WMDs it does not mean they did not exist. After all it took quite a while to find Saddam and we know he existed! As did his even more despicable son.
I’m not sure what the time ratio was for the chemical weapons used on their own people to take effect.I wouldn’t imagine it being 5 mins or 45 mins made any difference to those poor folk.
Report abuse
Eva,
In the end I don’t think the decision was correct because it was based upon simplistic US foreign policy, it was always unlikely to achieve very much, would inevitably result in the death of many people – both our own troops and Iraqi civilians, and was likely to inflame an already volatile situation in the Middle East, and act as a recruiting sergeant for extremists.
That being said, I accept that it was a very difficult political decision, like Phil, I don’t believe Blair has ‘blood on his hands’, and I believe we must see things through and continue to offer support to Iraq’s new (nearly) democratic regime.
Report abuse