Chris Ames on the Iraq Inquiry’s 1 MINUTE blackout: “TELL US WHAT THEY SAID”

• Original Home Page
• All Contents of Site – Index
• “Ban Blair-Baiting” petition - please sign

The Iraqi government’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, says he supports Blair on removing Saddam (video clip of Blair interview.)

Comment at end

16th December, 2009

IRAQ INQUIRY SUSPENDED FOR ONE MINUTE

And what does this ‘TROOF’ seeker say?

“If you were in the hearing and know what was said during the blackout, please let us know.”

Don’t you find this call to leak sensitive information disreputable? Questionable? Illegal? Even treacherous?

Now let me guess – if you think Tony Blair is a ‘war criminal’ and the Iraq Inquiry is a sham, you conclude that Ames is an OK kind of a guy and just doing a journalistic investigator’s job.

On the other hand, if you think that Tony Blair was a prime minister who took an extremely hard decision and did NOT lie to us to have his wicked way with ALL of us, you may not be quite as convinced that Ames is to be trusted as a disinterested observer.

The truth is that none of us knows ALL THE ‘TROOF’ yet. That’s what the Inquiry is supposed to help us discover.

BENEATH CONTEMPT

Personally I find this man’s behaviour beneath contempt. It would certainly be contempt of court if this were a TRIAL in a court of law and not just an Ames mock-up of one.

Chris Ames has a website set up solely to find Blair guilty of war crimes… to …  (oh go here and believe them if you will)

I really can’t be doing with this crowd of WE ALL KNOWERS and their pretext of disinterest and fairness.

My reaction to Ames’ nosy request -

WHAT?

WHO told this guy that HE is the arbiter of all truth? The sole judge of what should or should not be heard in public? Isn’t that for Sir John Chilcot to decide?

Ames is no more a man with a mission for the truth – the REAL truth – than I am a fan of Saddam Hussein.

The issues around when and why the live streaming is interrupted is NONE of his business.

End of.

Some might say, but I couldn’t possibly comment…

CHARGE AMES WITH TREASON

If there is a law to prevent such as him from going about leaking confidential excerpts, especially if they ARE sensitive to national security, there may the question of “treason”.  After all, this is “sensitive information” in the judgement of Sir John Chilcot. And they tell me that treason laws are still applicable these days. Though I imagine that like hanging, drawing and quartering, treason charges are reserved for one “guilty man” only.

---

The rest of Ames’s words of wisdom:

“The broadcast/netcast of the Inquiry was cut during this morning’s evidence session with Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was giving evidence for a second time. He described the invasion as “a catastrophic success”.

It appears that Greenstock said something sensitive, which caused Sir John Chilcot to pull the plug for about a minute. The broadcast/netcast is on a one minute delay. Reporters and bloggers are largely reliant on the audio visual feed as no electronic devices are permitted in the actual room.

If you were in the hearing and know what was said during the blackout, please let us know. Greenstock was talking about the tendency of Paul Bremer to give too positive a picture of post-war Iraq, compared to the military, diplomatic and intelligence sources to whom he would speak privately.

The Guardian reports that:

“A member of the audience in the inquiry chamber said that after the feed was cut Greenstock went on to say that Colin Powell, who was then secretary of state, used British intelligence reports about the situation in Iraq because they were more accurate than the more optimistic dispatches that Bremer was sending to Washington.

“People aware of the piece of intelligence now deleted from the record dismissed it as insignificant. They made it clear that in their view the information was not at all sensitive from the point of view of national security.”

I recommend that people read this piece.

Here is Andrew Sparrow’s live blog, which suggests that the blackout happened between 11.46 and 11.52.

Here is the BBC report of the session.

Channel 4 News report”

---

Ames’s site - Iraq Inquiry Digest

---

MY THOUGHTS ON INTERRUPTING THE LIVE COVERAGE

The streaming video coverage of the Iraq Inquiry is screened with a minute’s delay. This is meant to be sufficient time to block information which may be considered sensitive. I have no idea why one minute is considered enough time. It CANNOT always be sufficient time. And what is the position of those members of the press and the public still watching 0n the screen in the room/ante-room? Are they allowed to hear it all, anyway?

If so, what’s the point? They will immediately twitter it or text it to the press, even if they have to give up their right to watch the rest of the fun and games. After all this could be the SMOKING GUN!

If there is a “sensitive” comment, the whole procedure should be STOPPED by the chairman.

The hall should be emptied, or the witness and panel moved to another room to continue the line of inquiry in real seclusion.

Otherwise, Sir John, suspending proceeds momentarily, is a waste of time.

A bit like the Inquiry, as it happens, for the ‘TROOF SEEKERS’ and their ignorant and bloodthirsty sprog bloggers.

RELATED

With their usual logic I imagine it won’t be long before we hear TROOF seekers blaming British troops for ensuring that the Iraq WAR did NOT fail. (See BBC report on today’s Iraq Inquiry.)

What’s that you say? Oh, you thought it HAD failed. Where on earth did you get THAT idea? It was actually an astounding success, despite the deaths caused HUGELY by insurgents in Iraq, ongoing to this day.

---

---

Melanie Phillips on John Rentoul’s “excellent Iraq Inquiry Rebuttal” blog

• Original Home Page
• All Contents of Site – Index
• “Ban Blair-Baiting” petition - please sign

The Iraqi government’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, says he supports Blair on removing Saddam (video clip of Blair interview.)

Comment at end

14th December, 2009

Watch Tony Blair interview here

MELANIE PHILLIPS – ANOTHER HONEST JOURNALIST

See! I told you there were (a few) others!

Melanie Phillips has admitted that she “only just caught up with John Rentoul’s excellent ‘Iraq inquiry rebuttal’ blog.” So she probably has not yet caught up with the bloggers who share Mr Rentoul’s approach.  Although more or less taken for granted the sprog bloggers – aka good children who listen to what they are told -  are not ALL fully paid-up members of the ‘Hang Tony Blair’ brigade. (Links at the end of this post to more generous bloggers, whose time online is largely taken up with rebutting the mainstream media too.)

We are awaiting with bated breath Ms Phillips signature at the Ban Blair-Baiting petition. Just to reassure all of you, this is not MY petition, nor is it John Rentoul’s. Yes, there are more of us in support of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (so help us The Press).

Ms Phillips’ blog is one to which I subscribe. She often echoes my thoughts on the Islamisation of Britain and Europe – (for a start) – and on one or two other issues. But I have not noticed that she was a great fan of Mr Blair’s except when his agenda coincides with hers, often over Israel’s rights.

So it was with raised interest that I noticed her article today. I commented there thus – with a gentle challenge to Melanie. Let’s see if she REALLY sees the bigger picture.

Melanie Phillips on the Iraq Inquiry – article follows:

Verdict first, evidence nowhere

I have only just caught up with John Rentoul’s excellent ‘Iraq inquiry rebuttal’ blog, which I recommend as essential reading to help combat the hallucinatory distortions now taking place almost every day in the media reporting of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war. For me, it’s a case of déjà vu all over again. During the Hutton inquiry into the death of the WMD expert Dr David Kelly, I read, watched and listened in disbelief as the coverage of that inquiry systematically wrenched and distorted the evidence to fit the prior conclusion by the media that ‘Blair lied and people, including Dr Kelly, died as a result’.

The actual evidence didn’t lay a glove on Blair who was therefore always likely to be exonerated, as I observed in an article for the Spectator before its conclusions were published. People reacted to this article with astonishment. How ridiculous to say this, they scoffed, when the evidence had been conclusive that Blair was guilty as charged. Hutton was a wise, robust and independent- minded character who, on the basis of the media reports of the evidence, would undoubtedly find against Blair who would most likely be forced out of office as a result. When Hutton finally reported and all but totally exonerated Blair, this formerly wise, robust and independent-minded paragon was immediately denounced as an establishment stooge who had flown in the face of the evidence.

Now the same thing is happening again. Having forced the establishment of this inquiry, the anti-war mob are spitting tacks that it has not in fact been set up to find Blair guilty of ‘war crimes’ in Iraq or the crime of ‘talking us to war on a lie’. They have complained that it is not objective because two of its members had supported the war (and even, in one disgusting article, because they were Jews); it goes without saying, of course, that if these members had opposed the war they would be hailed as wise, robust and independent-minded. As far as the anti-war brigade from both left and right are concerned, it’s a case of verdict first, evidence nowhere.

And in the media coverage of the Chilcot inquiry, the evidence – much of it itself from bitterly hostile and anti-war diplomats  – is in turn accordingly being cherry-picked, distorted and misrepresented to an astounding degree to produce the running narrative libel that Blair led Britain into an illegal war on a lie. As I said, the Rentoul blog has a running commentary on a number of these distortions. But the ones I personally have been picking up on include these:

• The inquiry heard evidence that, because of the desire by the Bush administration to get rid of Saddam, Bush’s ‘poodle’ Blair committed himself to regime change in Iraq even though, in spring 2002, he knew it was illegal; he therefore led the UK into an illegal war.

Misleading and wrong. America had committed itself to regime change in Iraq in 1998 under President Clinton because Saddam was seen as such a threat to the west. Blair agreed with Clinton’s assessment and came to power therefore believing that Saddam was a threat who needed to be removed.

The legality of the eventual war in Iraq rested however on a series of UN resolutions, the last of which — Resolution 1441 which reactivated the earlier ones – was not passed until November 2002. So the fact that regime change may have been deemed ‘illegal’ in the spring of 2002 is totally irrelevant. Indeed, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s former ambassador to the UN, told the inquiry that the war was legal – evidence downplayed by the media in favour of his remark that it was nevertheless not ‘legitimate’ because it did not enjoy the support of the public (itself a deeply arguable ex post facto point). The war was legal when it was waged in 2003. No witness to Chilcot has said that war in 2003 was illegal. That impression has been given solely by the malevolent media coverage. And if people are so exercised that the Iraq war was ‘illegal’, why aren’t there calls for an inquiry into the ‘illegal’ war in Kosovo which was undertaken with no basis in any UN resolutions at all?

As for Blair apparently supporting war/regime change before Resolution 1441 was passed, the implied suggestion that it should have been the other way round is ludicrous. There would have been no need for Resolution 1441 unless war was being proposed; the reason it was proposed was because of the perceived threat from Saddam and the exhaustion of 12 years of fruitless attempts to defang Saddam through negotiation.

• The inquiry heard evidence that Blair and Bush cooked up war in Iraq at a meeting at Bush’s ranch in Crawford Texas in April 2002.

Wrong. The inquiry was told that the British government’s view that it could not support regime change in Iraq had reversed by March 2002 – a month before the Crawford meeting – because 9/11 had changed everything. The UK could no longer oppose regime change because 9/11 had changed the calibration of the risk posed by a rogue Islamic state possessing WMD. As Sir Christopher Meyer told the Chilcot inquiry, by March 2002 the British government had independently of the US decided

that containment and sharper sanctions had run its course. It simply wasn’t practical to pursue this at the UN… It was a fact that 9/11 had happened and it was a complete waste of time, therefore, in those circumstances, if we were going to be able to  work with the Americans, to come to them and say any longer — and bang away about regime change and say, “We  can’t support it”, and the way I think the attempt was  made to square the circle of supporting something to which the Foreign Office, and maybe other lawyers objected, was actually so to wrap it, so to contextualise it, that regime change, if and when it happened, would be with the benefit of the support of the international community in the framework of UN action, quite possibly through a Security Council  Resolution.

In other words, 9/11 had caused the British government to abandon its opposition to regime change in Iraq. It was now on side with the Americans. The only reason it wanted to gain the endorsement of the UN was to defuse the hostility from the ‘Foreign Office and other lawyers’ — ie, a tactical move to counter the voices of appeasement from within, whose interpretation of international law was always inseparable from a deeply questionable ideological stance and whose poisoned antagonism has been dripped into the ears of journalists throughout this entire period — and which has now been exposed for all with eyes to see at the Chilcot inquiry.

• The inquiry heard evidence that Blair knew before the war that Saddam didn’t have WMD any more/couldn’t use them and therefore there was no case for war.

Wrong. And wrong again. The evidence did not say Saddam was shown not to have had WMD any more or couldn’t use them. What was said was that on the eve of war, intelligence revealed that some of Saddam’s chemical weapons had been dismantled and therefore could not be used instantaneously. But as was also said, that was irrelevant to the case for war; the crucial fact was that he still had the stuff, a fact which he had denied and which was in breach of the UN resolutions – the case for war. Indeed, as the Butler report revealed in March 2002, British intelligence officials advised that the risk from Saddam was that he could activate his WMD material within a few days:

‘Iraq continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, although our intelligence is poor… Iraq continues with its [biological warfare] BW and [chemical warfare] CW programmes and, if it has not already done so, could produce significant quantities of BW agents within days and CW agent within weeks of a decision to do so. We believe it could deliver CBW by a variety of means, including in ballistic missile warheads. There are also some indications of a continuing nuclear programme. Saddam has used WMD in the past and could do so again if his regime were threatened.’

Sir John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee at the time of the war and now head of MI6, gave evidence to Chilcot that such ‘dismantling’ or ‘dispersal’ – of which there was intelligence evidence at the time ­– is recognised as a way of concealing such material.  Such dismantling therefore did not mean the WMD no longer existed. On the contrary, the dismantling meant it continued to exist and was being hidden. This is hardly rocket science; it falls into the category of the bleedin’ obvious, but is nevertheless ruthlessly ignored or denied by the anti-war, anti-truth and anti-reason mob — who have simply and shockingly reversed the meaning of the evidence given to Chilcot.

Sir John said this:

Now, there was a paper, an assessment, on 9 September 2002, which reaffirmed and that was on Saddam’s options for using chemical and biological weapons. But it was in fact a separate judgment on capabilities which existed. I know that it has been described as a possibly a worst case scenario paper, but it wasn’t intended to be that. That paper reaffirmed existing judgments on the ability, if so decided to produce agent the availability of a range of delivery systems and the development of missiles beyond the permitted limits. The change was in the judgment on current possession, which now became firm: “Iraq has currently available a number of CW and BW agents and weapons from pre-war stocks or recent production.”

And the paper referred to recent intelligence on the production of weapons now taking place, the development of a mobile systems and then, importantly, on the regime and Saddam’s intent: The great importance that he attached to the possession of chemical and biological weapons and his readiness to use them if necessary, including to defend the regime from attack: “He saw possession as a central feature of his regional power position and continuing ability to project influence.” That intelligence on intent was significant — taken to be significant. It was also noted that we did not know specific plans for CBW use in the event of conflict, the location of production facilities, the size of stocks.

… “It was also noted that further intelligence might be forthcoming in the near future.” And, indeed, further intelligence did come in in September, which reported on the acceleration on the production of chemical and biological agent. And that too was regarded as significant.

As for the very late intelligence which came in on the eve of war, Sir John said this:

Now, an update, an assessment staff update on 10 March noted the report, which in fact was issued on 7 March yes, intelligence, which was issued on 7 March actually it was, I think, two reports that it was essentially saying there were two versions of the same report, that Iraq had no missiles which could reach Israel and none which could carry germ or biological weapons. The leadership had ordered the dismantlement of the missiles known Al Hussein, 600kilometre range missiles, to avoid discovery and they thought that they could be quickly reassembled. The JIC had over many months throughout this period reported the assessed existence of these missiles, up to 20 was the expectation. But all along, it had been reported that they had been disassembled and concealed.

… Defence Intelligence Staff advised, and this was noted in the update, that depending on the method of disassembly used, it might be possible to reassemble in one or two days. But if it was very complex disassembly, then it would be longer. SIS advised that the reference to “germ and biological” might also refer to chemical, just from the context, although that was speculative. So that was what the 10 March reference was about. On 17 March, intelligence was received that chemical weapons had been disassembled and dispersed and would be difficult to reassemble. Saddam had not yet ordered reassembly nor, indeed, asked about chemical weapons. The reports were assessed in the context of the policy of dispersal and concealment. They were not understood to be an indication that chemical and biological weapons did not exist. Indeed, they didn’t say that but, of course, it was clear from the reports that they might be difficult to find (my emphasis).

In any event – and this is absolutely crucial to the general madness now gripping Britain about the war in Iraq — the idea that the case for war rested on the belief that Saddam possessed stocks of WMD is a rewriting of history. WMD was only part of the story; if people like the current Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth thought that was the key element, that merely shows just how dumb some MPs are. The case for war was set out by the speeches made at the time by both Bush and Blair. Their overwhelming emphasis was on Saddam’s refusal to obey the binding UN resolutions showing he had dismantled his WMD programmes and the need to enforce the authority of the UN; Saddam’s concomitant failure to prove that he had destroyed his stocks of WMD and renounced his intention to continue developing such weapons; and the unconscionable danger posed by the ‘triple lock’ of his attachment to such weapons and past record in using them, his regional ambitions and hostility towards the west, and his connections to terrorism.

• From the advance reports of Blair’s TV interview over the weekend, the claim that he would have invaded Iraq even if he had known that Saddam did not possess WMD explodes the whole case for war and comes close to an admission that he ‘went to war on a lie’.

Wrong. Blair said specifically in that interview he would have invaded anyway because of the 12 years in which Saddam defied the UN resolutions to disarm — the core of the legal case for war. And he indicated there were other reasons for thinking Saddam was dangerous — which he didn’t amplify on this occasion, but did in spades in the run-up to the war.

The terrifying thing about such media misrepresentation is that people have not only come to believe the lies but because this is a uniform media line they have no idea that this is the very opposite of much of what is actually being said to the Chilcot inquiry.  So the belief that Blair lied in order to wage an illegal war is now fixed in the public mind. Hence the tirade this morning by the former Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald, who before he was a Law Officer was a barrister in the ultra radical Matrix chambers and who has previously expressed boiler-plate anti-Iraq war views. In the Times this morning, he raged:

The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer.

On the contrary: the deceit is being promulgated by the media. We were not taken to war on a lie. We are instead being lied to about that war – and about the evidence being given about that war — as history is steadily and shamefully rewritten, even as it is being made.

---

I commented thus at Melanie’s site:

Excellent article, Melanie. I have noticed over the years that your are NOT habitually with Blair, but at least this time you recognise the REAL agenda behind the ‘Blair Baiters’.

That is: twist the truth in order to hang Blair out to dry, in order to push for the Islamists’ cause, in order to annul that of Israel, in order to aid Iran, in order to push America’s Obama to choose  … in order to?

These ignorant innocents may not have joined up the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle yet, but others have.

It’s all linked, international politics. It isn’t just about getting our former PM in court. It never was.

Readers who believe in fair treatment for ALL,including Blair should sign the “Ban Blair-Baiting petition”. (Google it.)

You too should sign, Melanie, like Rentoul, Stephen Pollard and Oliver Kamm.

The ongoing nonsense and blatant misrepresentation of the Iraq Inquiry is REALLY a challenge to truth and freedom. Not necessarily in that order.

RELATED

1. Julie at Against Mainstream Opinion – ‘A little thank you note to Mr Rentoul’

After watching Simon Cowell on Newsnight – YES, NEWSNIGHT -  trying to suggest that HE, via the people, is the answer to politics as well as superstardom for the average singist he usually helps out – can I suggest he reads this exclusive interview? These people do know why we are in Afghanistan, Mr Cowell:

2. (From Julie again): An EXCLUSIVE interview with an Afghan family – ‘Please don’t leave us to the hands of the Taleban’

3. Blair Foundation blogspot

And from this blog:

4. Proud to be Tony Blair supporters and why -

5. Click here and follow the link for a Labour Progress writer, Stan Rosenthal on the Ban Blair-Baiting petition (OK, you want a  shortcut? It’s here.)

6. From normblog here: “All he has said is that he would have sought another way to justify it. The Times report isn’t much better. And the Telegraph also has that Blair ‘would have invaded Iraq‘. Unless he said something more that has not yet been reported, these newspapers are misleading their readers.”

7. From Harry’s Place:  “What Blair said was: “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.”, not “I would have invaded Iraq even if the cabinet and parliament had opposed the war without the WMD argument”. Watching the full interview from about 22 minutes puts the quote in the correct context.”

REMINDER

“Blair’s head on a spear”! Charge Frears with incitement to murder

This idiotic film director, evidently ruminating on his next script, is typical of the ‘peace ‘n’ love’ reasons some of us work, (for nothing in case you wondered), at times  seemingly 25 hours a day. The picture is my depiction of what Frears’ ambitions would look like.  It makes Mr Berlusconi’s serious injuries at the hands of another mentally unbalanced man of passing consequence.

Italian PM Berlusconi's injuries after being attacked by a deranged man. (Pic AP). See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/6812321/Silvio-Berlusconi-to-spend-second-night-in-hospital.html

ETCETERA

From the Muslim Public Affairs Committee:

1. Blair wanted Muslim Blood regardless of WMDs

And … 2, Will Jewish Zionists airbrush Iraq Inquiry?

Meanwhile the re-writing of REAL history and the REAL facts goes on at our beloved papers:

3.  Guardian – Hans Blix AGAIN!

4. Ken Macdonald, embittered as ever, LIES about Blair and the reasons for Blair and the Iraq war. But do you reckon that even the TImes ‘s readers will question this account. Not on your life. They have already booked their seats at the foot of the scaffold and anyay, you can’t get truth refunds these days for love nor money … hatred.

Mr Blair gets on with the climate business in (or not quite in) hand, even if the current political leaders’ hands are not quite up to the task. And even if the facts are iffy – as they often are in life and politics.

John Rentoul’s post  – “The Uses of Uncertainty” will cut no ice with the WE ALL KNOWERS, of course.

See also Tony Blair’s Office website for a video on the present Copenhagen climate issues.

EXTRA! EXTRA!  READ ALL ABOUT IT!

A New York Times account of the Iraq Inquiry

You may notice that the NYT report is far more sober and less of the opining variety than virtually anywhere in the British press. The Great British Press Opiners don’t have time for reporting these days. Too many firshes to fry.

---

---

Let’s hear it for Tom Harris MP, Ban Blair-Baiting petition signatory… & thanks too to Quentin Letts

• Original Home Page
• Current Latest Page
• “Ban Blair-Baiting” petition-please sign.

A recent comment: “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”

The Iraqi government’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, says he supports Blair on removing Saddam (video clip of Blair interview.)

Comment at end

14th December, 2009

BAN BLAIR-BAITING PETITION

Tony Blair with Tom Harris MP, the only MP thus far to sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition (re Iraq Inquiry.) Worked out who your friends are yet, Tony?

POINT OF CLARIFICATION -

TOM HARRIS MP IS A SIGNATURE AT THE PETITION FOR A FAIR TRIAL … IRAQ INQUIRY HEARING FOR TONY BLAIR.   MR LETTS ISN’T.

Got that? Good. Wouldn’t want you to confuse Mr Letts with anyone who supports the concept of justice for all, including Labour politicians, now would we? Perish the thought.

Still, Quentin Letts has done the Ban Blair-Baiting petition a little favour and for that we should thank him. He gave it a mention at the Daily MAUL.

But it really left Mr Harris feeling a touch miffed. Letts was driven to mention the petition only, perhaps, so he could get his little joke in about Lord Foulkes who has recently signed it too. See below for the little joke.) Ha-ha. Yes.  Quite.

But why oh why didn’t he notice Tom Harris’s signature in his search for notables?

ONLY ONE MP THINKS AN INQUIRY IS NOT A COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION (aka ‘SHOW TRIAL’) – and that ONE MP is Tom Harris.

FAQs on the Iraq Inquiry

THE “WE ALL KNOW” BRIGADE NEUTERED THIS INQUIRY FROM (LONG BEFORE) THE START

Sir John Chilcot: “The Inquiry is not a court of law and nobody is on trial.”

Well, you could have fooled ME, Sir John, AND the British press. Can’t work out why you’re bothering. “WE ALL KNOW” all about the legality or otherwise of the Iraq decision, “DON’T WE”?

Clap ‘im in irons and get on with it!

Mr Harris is the ONLY member of parliament to sign this petition SO FAR – (There is still time.) Tom signed  some time ago. He was clearly miffed that his name hadn’t been noticed by Letts when Lord Foulkes’ name had! He even complained about this omission to John Rentoul the other day.

Tom Harris MP: “You would have thought he could at least have mentioned that I signed up before Foulkes did…”

OK, Tom. Here you are.  I promised I’d mention you here, and like all Blair Supporters I’m true to my word.

Tom Harris blog by the lovely name – “And another thing…“

---

Quntin Letts, at the Daily MAUL.

It’s a lonely life if you back Blair

Business is not exactly brisk at a pro-Tony Blair internet petition.

Called ‘Justice For Tony Blair’, it claims that Mr Blair is being ‘baited by the dogs of anti-war’ and argues that his opponents should desist from criticising him until he has appeared in front of the Iraq Inquiry.

Lord Foulkes, the WC Fields lookalike and sometime Labour minister, added his name to the petition this week, but yesterday there were just 195 signatures, even though it has been open for business since the summer.

The only other notable names on the list: John Burton (Mr Blair’s former constituency agent) and journalists John Rentoul (Independent on Sunday) and Oliver Kamm (a leader writer on The Times).

Read more

---

RELATED

Anti – Blair/anti-Iraq war blog, (watching David Aaronovitch) also noticed the Ban Blair-Baiting petition. Awww… sweetie pumpkins.

A more sensible account of Blair on “freeing Iraq” here.

---

---

Tony Blair – quotes on Iraq/Saddam/WMDs – February 2003

• Original Home Page
• All Contents of Site – Index
• “Ban Blair-Baiting” petition - please sign

The Iraqi government’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, says he supports Blair on removing Saddam (video clip of Blair interview.)

Comment at end

13th December, 2009

Tony Blair on Iraq & Saddam, February 2003, Glasgow Spring Conference

Blair:

“Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane.

Where in the past 15 years over 150,000 Shia Muslims in southern Iraq and Muslim Kurds in northern Iraq have been butchered; with up to four million Iraqis in exile round the world, including 350,000 now in Britain.

This isn’t a regime with weapons of mass destruction that is otherwise benign. This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in.

There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being.”

Saturday, 15 February, 2003, 12:38 GMT Blair speech – key quotes

Mr Blair expressed his determination to tackle the crisis

Here are the key quotes from Tony Blair’s speech to the Labour Party’s spring conference in Glasgow, in which he said the Iraq crisis must be solved through the United Nations and that weapons inspectors would be given more time in Iraq.

Dr [Hans] Blix [UN chief weapons inspector] reported to the UN yesterday and there will be more time given to inspections. He will report again on 28 February.

---

To anyone familiar with Saddam’s tactics of deception and evasion, there is a weary sense of deja vu.

As ever, at the last minute, concessions are made. And as ever, it is the long finger that is directing them.

The concessions are suspect. Unfortunately the weapons are real.

---

The time needed is not the time it takes the inspectors to discover the weapons.

They are not a detective agency.

The time is the time necessary to make a judgement – is Saddam prepared to co-operate fully or not?

If he is, the inspectors can take as much time as they want.

---

I hope, even now, Iraq can be disarmed peacefully, with or without Saddam.

But if we show weakness now, if we allow the plea for more time to become just an excuse for prevarication until the moment for action passes, then it will not only be Saddam who is repeating history.

The menace, and not just from Saddam, will grow; the authority of the UN will be lost; and the conflict when it comes will be more bloody.

---

I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process.

But I ask the marchers to understand this: I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership and the cost of conviction.

---

As you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this: if there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for.

If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.

---

If the result of peace is Saddam staying in power, not disarmed, then I tell you there are consequences paid in blood for that decision too.

But these victims will never be seen.

They will never feature on our TV screens or inspire millions to take to the streets. But they will exist nonetheless.

---

Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane.

---

The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam. It is not the reason we act. That must be according to the UN mandate on weapons of mass destruction.

But it is the reason, frankly, why if we do have to act, we should do so with a clear conscience.

Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of our actions, even the unintended ones.

But there are also consequences of ‘stop the war’.

If I took that advice, and did not insist on disarmament, yes, there would be no war.

But there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is that he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people.

A country that in 1978, the year before he seized power, was richer than Malaysia or Portugal.

A country where today, 135 out of every 1,000 Iraqi children die before the age of five – 70% of these deaths are from diarrhoea and respiratory infections that are easily preventable.

Almost a third of children born in the centre and south of Iraq have chronic malnutrition.

Where 60% of the people depend on food aid. Where half the population of rural areas have no safe water. Where every year and now, as we speak, tens of thousands of political prisoners languish in appalling conditions in Saddam’s jails and are routinely executed.

Where in the past 15 years over 150,000 Shia Muslims in southern Iraq and Muslim Kurds in northern Iraq have been butchered; with up to four million Iraqis in exile round the world, including 350,000 now in Britain.

This isn’t a regime with weapons of mass destruction that is otherwise benign. This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in.

There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being.

---

At every stage, we should seek to avoid war. But if the threat cannot be removed peacefully, please let us not fall for the delusion that it can be safely ignored.

If we do not confront these twin menaces of rogue states with weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, they will not disappear.

They will just feed and grow on our weakness.

---

When people say if you act, you will provoke these people; when they say take a lower profile and these people will leave us alone, remember al-Qaeda attacked the US, not the other way round.

Were the people of Bali in the forefront of the anti-terror campaign? Did Indonesia make itself a target?

The terrorists won’t be nice to us if we’re nice to them.

When Saddam drew us into the Gulf War, he wasn’t provoked. He invaded Kuwait.

No-one seriously believes he is yet co-operating fully. In all honesty, most people don’t really believe he ever will.

---

RECENT POSTS

The CONservatives on Blair – Iraq – Saddam – WMDs

Iraqi Foreign Minister: “As Iraqis … we support Tony Blair’s statement”

Fern Britton: Blair on invading Iraq if it had NO WMDs – yes but, no but …

Oliver Kamm on “war criminal” Tony Blair (YouTube)

“Hang Blair”, say Angry Bastards in the ‘Court of Public Opinion’

---

RELATED

Removing Saddam was right even without WMD, says Blair on Fern Britton show

---

---

The CONservatives on Blair – Iraq – Saddam – WMDs

Original Home Page

All Contents of Site – Index

“Ban Blair-Baiting” petition - please sign

The Iraqi government’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, says he supports Blair on removing Saddam (video clip of Blair interview.)

Comment at end

12th December, 2009

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

… THE CONSERVATIVES ….

But first,

Zebari:

‘Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari says the people of Iraq support Mr Blair because they were forced to live through years of repression.

“I believe it was worth it. I believe Saddam Hussein’s regime was an affront to the international community, to the international consciousness, because of the atrocities and crimes he has committed.”‘

Try telling that to today’s British Conservatives, Mr Zebari …

The Conservatives have other, far more important things on their minds than the fate of the Iraqi people under Saddam. They accuse Tony Blair of “trying to influence public opinion” by implying that WMDs was perhaps not the only reason for ridding Iraq of their dictator.

Hysterical, isn’t it? While most of the press AND THEIR SPROG BLOGGERS have read their own meaning into his words, and have choosen to conclude that we would have been with the Iraq invasion anyway, WMDs or not, so Blair is CLEARLY a WAR CRIMINAL WITHOUT EQUAL, what bothers the Tories?

That Blair might be trying to ‘INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION’!!!!

While the Daily Maul and others report every snip of news from the Iraq Inquiry as if it were the smoking gun with which to shoot Blair, the Tories accuse HIM of trying to influence public opinion!?

So he WANTS to hand people a smoking gun, does he? FGS.

SORRY … but …  I’M STILL LAUGHING  -

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

The CONservatives!?

The party which SUPPORTED Blair in parliament over the Iraq invasion!

The party without which he would likely never have got the decision through parliament.

See Commons division Votes Feb/March 2003.

You may recall that some in Blair’s own party and all of the internationally ignorant peace-loving Liberal Democrats were agin.

This CONservative party is the very party who are happy to see the (Tory supporting) Daily Maul and others haul Blair across the coals DAILY over a decision with which they AGREED!!!!!

Blair WON the Commons vote, largely thanks to the Conservatives, by 412 votes to 149.

Influencing public opinion INDEED!?

In deed and fact, the Conservatives are the big liars in all of this.

Don’t you forget it. Especially if, like me, you are undecided as to which party deserves your vote in the next general election.

---

Ottaway’s “dismay” over “cynical ploy”. Yes, I know …

Conservative MP Richard Ottoway, a member of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, said today that Mr Blair’s comments were a “cynical ploy to soften up public opinion” before his appearance at the Iraq Inquiry.

Mr Ottoway added that Mr Blair had misled parliament on “more than one occasion” and that people would be “dismayed” that what was the “most significant foreign affairs initiative since World War II had been debated on a false premise”.

“But the one place he would have undoubtedly failed would have been in the House of Commons. “I think MPs were invited to make their own judgement on the merits for the case for war and they were entitled to do so on the truth and it looks very much as though the truth was withheld from parliament and many mps may well have made a different decision if they had the full unvarnished truth.”

Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell agreed, saying he would have failed to obtain the support of the House of Commons.

Er … quite, chaps.

Just what I was saying earlier at this blog. Mr Blair did NOT say he would have “gone to war” since he wanted, not needed (Royal Prerogative, remember?) parliament’s agreement to do that. This seeking of parliament’s permission was, by the way, the first time EVER that a British PM had asked for a vote in Parliament to go to war.

What a dictatorial/presidential (delete as necessary) prime minister that man was, eh?

NOT.

What Blair was saying in tomorrow’s interview (released today so that the press can get their attacks in first) was that he would have argued the case on different premises from WMDs, if he had known that they did not exist. (Personally, I would not be at all surprised if WMDs turn up one day in Syria or even Iran. The enemy of my enemy …)

---

Remember this?

IAN DUNCAN SMITH, Leader, Conservative Party: “Does the prime minister agree with me that any country that supported Resolution 1441 should support the second resolution that naturally flows from it?”

TONY BLAIR: “Mr. Speaker, yes, I certainly do agree with that.”

And this? (Just so you know) …

Tory former leader – Iain Duncan Smith, September 2007 – Don’t leave Iraq: Quit Afghanistan instead

‘Afghanistan v Iraq: it’s a “no brainer”. Or is it?

“Of course, supporting the fledgeling democratic Government in Kabul is important; but Iraq is much more strategically vital. It is galling that after all the hard work our forces have put in to stabilising Iraq, their withdrawal should be seen by the world as a retreat. But by failing to get the balance of priorities right between Iraq and Afghanistan we have only ourselves to blame.

The UK is America’s most capable ally in Iraq. Other Western nations such as Germany and France steadfastly refuse to be involved militarily, citing their opposition to the war – although the recent foiled bomb plots in Germany show that that cuts no ice with al-Qaeda. However, France and Germany supported the Afghan war and, given our commitment in Iraq, their forces should now be deployed in Helmand province, not ours. Yet they won’t do their bit.’”

---

CNN report, July 8th 2003 including Duncan Smith’s “get out of jail card” at the end.

“I refute any suggestion we misled parliament or the country totally,” Blair told a committee of senior members of parliament Tuesday.

“I think we did the right thing in relation to Iraq. I stand 100 percent by it and I think our intelligence services gave us the correct intelligence and information at the time.

“I am quite sure we did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein because not merely was he a threat … to the wider world but it was an appalling regime that the world is well rid of.”

Fighting for his political reputation, Blair said he was confident that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq.

He also insisted he had told parliament about a mistake in a February dossier that included an unattributed section of a student’s thesis that had been posted on the Internet.

Blair’s appearance before the Liason Committee — made up of the 36 chairmen of other select committees of the lower House of Commons — comes a day after another parliamentary panel criticized the prime minister over the February dossier.

On Monday, the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded the dossier “was almost wholly counterproductive” and that Blair, in comments to parliament, “misrepresented its status and thus inadvertently made a bad situation worse.” (Full story)

Blair had referred to the dossier as “further intelligence,” although he acknowledged later it contained material from a graduate thesis.

The Foreign Affairs Committee concluded the government did not mislead the public ahead of the war and cleared Blair’s communications director Alastair Campbell of any wrongdoing in preparing an earlier dossier used to justify the UK joining the U.S.-led war against Iraq.

But the committee said the “jury is still out” on the accuracy of information in the earlier document, published in September 2002, which claimed that Iraq could deploy biological or chemical weapons within 45 minutes.

“The jury is not out at all,” Blair told Tuesday’s hearing.

“You would almost think that this question about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction was somehow invented by the CIA and British intelligence. There is no doubt that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

Asked whether he accepted that he misrepresented the status of the February dossier, Blair said: “No. I accept that what we should have done was we should have said that this middle part of the document was actually taken from a reference document.

“I didn’t know at the time that I put it before parliament that it should have been sourced in that way.

Pressed on the issue, Blair insisted: “We have apologized already and said it was a mistake, we should have sourced the second part of it. …

“But the information in it was correct (and) the briefing paper was indeed largely based on intelligence.”

Blair’s appearance Tuesday comes amid calls by political rivals for a judicial inquiry into the case for war, and as a new poll shows that support among British voters for the war has fallen from almost two-thirds at the time of the war to less than half now.

About 47 percent of voters now say it was right to go to war, compared with 64 percent in April and 58 percent in June, according to the poll published in The Times of London on Tuesday. (Full story)

Conservative opposition leader Iain Duncan Smith and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy have demanded a judicial inquiry into the case for war, saying the Foreign Affairs Committee was denied access to the witnesses and documents it needed to come to a conclusion.

Duncan Smith also has called on Blair to apologize for misleading parliament by claiming the second dossier, published in February, was produced by the security services, when much of it was in fact taken from a doctoral student’s thesis downloaded from the Internet.

“We have never heard the prime minister actually accept and admit that the February dossier was represented as something it was not,” Duncan Smith said.

---

Saturday, 12th December, 2009 – BBC Radio 4 news, 5:00pm.

Irwin Stelzer reminded listeners that there was NO UN support (a ‘silly, silly’ argument given that the SC can be vetoed by anti-democratic countries, which they probably were) for Kosovo either.  “We had no permission to intervene in Kosovo, and yet we did it.”  He said Blair is and was right.

“If there was a threat to western values, such as there was on 9/11 & 7/7, it was/is a mere matter of self-defense. The difference between the values of people who want to kill us and our values, where we hold to a belief in tolerance.”

Hans Blix the UN’s former weapons inspector is blixing it himself this time instead of allowing the peace-loving anti-Iraq war – [No? - what do you mean "NO"] – Conservatives do it for them.

No, Mr Blix, Saddam’s removal was NOT “a game”. It was deadly serious.  And, you know what?  I get the impression from your words of a lack of sincerity.

Your intervention IS a game, Mr Blix. And YOUR ‘sincerity’ is that of a man whose opinion and advice were NOT the deciding factors in the west’s intervention over Saddam’s murder of his people and over WMD factories which it was KNOWN he had used before on more than one occasion.

We can be grateful that Tony Blair was a decision-maker at that time, and not YOU.  If YOU, we’d still be working out how to enforce UN resolutions, 18 years on,  and how to contain Iraq and Iran.

Thanks, Mr Blix. For nothing.

As for the BBC newsreader’s report – “The main justification was flawed … Blair says military action was the right thing to do … he would have ordered the action even if he knew there were no WMDs.”

Er, Nope, BBC. He didn’t say that.

He actually said that he would have to put the case on a different premise. He did not say, could not know, whether Parliament would have approved that premise.

On this the BBC was right – “He may be shifting his position as to why the war was justified but don’t expect him to change his mind.”

Of course, in the Beeb’s usual hand-wringing way there was this little nugget – “Nearly all Gulf Arab leaders quietly provided support. But Gulf Arabs at street level admired Saddam as standing against the west. Blair’s admission will do nothing to assuage those that see him and Bush as western warmongers.”

Awww … pity.

And what exactly WOULD assuage ‘THOSE’?

---

RELATED

See: Day 2: ‘Trial’ of Tony Blair – Press & Internet Freedom

---

---

Iraqi Foreign Minister: “As Iraqis … we support Tony Blair’s statement”

Original Home Page

All Contents of Site – Index

“Ban Blair-Baiting” petition - please sign

The Iraqi government’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, says he supports Blair on removing Saddam (video clip of Blair interview.)

Comment at end

12th December, 2009

Blair: ‘Iraq War Was Right Even Without WMD’

Radio New Zealand:

“Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari says the people of Iraq support Mr Blair because they were forced to live through years of repression.

“I believe it was worth it. I believe Saddam Hussein’s regime was an affront to the international community, to the international consciousness, because of the atrocities and crimes he has committed.”

Try telling that to today’s British Conservatives, Mr Zebari …

The Conservatives have accused Tony Blair of “trying to influence public opinion.”

Excuse me for a second -

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

The CONservatives!?

That is the party which SUPPORTED Blair in parliament over the Iraq invasion!

… to be continued

When I’ve stopped laughing.

---

---

Fern Britton: Blair on invading Iraq if it had NO WMDs – yes but, no but …

Original Home Page

Current Latest Page

All Contents of Site – Index

“Ban Blair-Baiting” petition - please sign

BREAKING: The Iraqi government’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, says he supports Blair on removing Saddam (video clip of Blair interview.) Meanwhile anti-Iraq war campaigners are “shocked” over Blair’s words. Well, fancy that! I’m shocked.

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.”

Comment at end

Ban Blair-Baiting

12th December, 2009

Blair ‘would have gone to war without Iraqi WMD’

We won’t see Fern Britton’s interview with Tony Blair until Sunday, but …

Asked by Britton if he would still have gone on had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction, he said: “I would still have thought it right to remove him.”

So, already the commenters at The Times – the WE ALL KNOWERS – are coming up with this tripe:

jayil london wrote:

“Blair ‘would have gone to war without Iraqi WMD’”

This is big! there is no reason why he shouldn’t be jailed now. Justice for the dead Iraqi people and U.K soldiers.

Er, no, jayil london.

This is NOT big. Expressing his WISH or DESIRE to see a dictator overthrown, and actually being mandated to DO it, are two different things altogether. We will have to await the full interview to see what else Mr Blair said on defeating Saddam.

But from THIS excerpt, Mr Blair said – (just to remind the hard of understanding):

“I would still have thought it right to remove him.”

Mr Blair might have “gone on”, as the phrase indicates he was asked, but it’s all in the meaning of “gone on”. With a reason other than WMDs, would he have got parliament’s permission to go on?

[Btw, he never used the words "gone on", surprise, surprise! Britton did.]

So, the answer you are searching for is (probably) “No”, he wouldn’t have “gone on”. America would just have had to manage without us. I suppose they’d have struggled by.

But if in this alter-universe his answer were actually “Yes”, (under parliament’s say-so) he’d have been in the same position as he is now: detested by those who are anti-war and anti-Blair. But still right. Nothing new there then.

So, tough luck, jayil london. No prison bars for Tony Blair.

---

The Guardian too twists and squeezes the former PM’s words with good ol’ journalistic licence

Tony Blair told Fern Britton, in an interview to be broadcast on BBC1, that he would have found a way to justify the Iraq invasion. Photograph: BBC

‘Tony Blair admits: I would have invaded Iraq anyway’

DID HE? Yes but, no but … all over again.

He is not QUOTED AS SAYING THOSE WORDS, as far as this (and the Times) article shows. But of course what he says and what he meant are two different things.

Except they’re not.

Excerpt, Guardian (my bolding):

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.”

WMD were not vital for war says ex-PM ahead of appearance at Chilcot inquiry

---

The BBC, which will broadcast the interview on Sunday at 10:00am, has a far more accurate account of Blair’ s words. They simply quote him. Now THAT’S more like it! How novel.

BBC: Removal of Saddam Hussein ‘right’, says Tony Blair

It would have been “right to remove” Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein even without evidence that he had weapons of mass destruction, Tony Blair has said.

The former prime minister said it was the “notion of him as a threat to the region” which had tilted him in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Without WMD claims it would have been necessary to “use and deploy different arguments,” he told the BBC.

Speaking on BBC One’s Fern Britton Meets programme, Mr Blair was asked whether he would still have gone on with invasion plans had he known at the time that there were no WMDs.

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.”

He added: “I can’t really think we’d be better with him and his two sons still in charge, but it’s incredibly difficult and I totally understand…

“That’s why I sympathise with the people who were against [the war] for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, you know, in the end I had to take the decision.”

Asked whether it was the idea of Saddam having WMDs which had tilted him in favour of war, Mr Blair said it was “the notion of him as a threat to the region of which the development of WMDs was obviously one” aspect.

---

SADDAM WAS ALWAYS IN BLAIR’S SIGHTS

There is nothing Mr Blair is likely to say in this interview that he hasn’t said over the last 10 or 11 years.

The ‘star’ (for some) of the present Iraq Inquiry, Christopher Meyer, also held Mr Blair’s views on Saddam – in his own words. Is it now to be “war criminal” Meyer as well as Blair?

See Blair’s Doctrine of International Community 24th April, 1999

Quote:

“Have the difficulties of the past decade simply been the aftershocks of the end of the Cold War? Will things soon settle down, or does it represent a pattern that will extend into the future?

Many of our problems have been caused by two dangerous and ruthless men – Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic. Both have been prepared to wage vicious campaigns against sections of their own community. As a result of these destructive policies both have brought calamity on their own peoples. Instead of enjoying its oil wealth Iraq has been reduced to poverty, with political life stultified through fear.”

And in February 2003:

TONY Blair yesterday condemned calls to give Saddam Hussein more time to disarm as “folly and weakness”.

He also warned that delaying action now would lead to a “more bloody” conflict in the future.

The Prime Minister described the demand by France, Germany and Russia to give UN inspectors more time as “absurd”.

He told MPs: “This is not the road to peace but folly and weakness that will only mean the conflict, when it comes, is more bloody, less certain and greater in its devastation.”

---

Times article follows:

Blair ‘would have gone to war without Iraqi WMD’

Times – Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent, and David Brown

Tony Blair would still have led the country to war in Iraq even if he had known that it had no weapons of mass destruction.

The former Prime Minister has confessed that he would have had to use different arguments to justify toppling Saddam Hussein. But he says in an interview to be broadcast tomorrow morning that he would still have taken steps to remove the Iraqi dictator from power.

He also put the decision to go to war in Iraq in the context of a wider battle over Islam. He said: “I happen to think that there is a major struggle going on all over the world, really, which is about Islam and what is happening within Islam.” He said that this struggle had a “long way to go”.

At the time of the conflict Mr Blair, who is to be questioned by the Iraq inquiry early next year, based his decision to go to war on evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

He gives an indication of his motives in an interview with the former daytime host Fern Britton, to be screened on BBC One. Mr Blair, who converted to Roman Catholicism when he left office two and a half years ago, denied that his religious faith played a direct part in his decision to go to war. But his faith gave him the strength to hold to the decision and supported him during “the loneliness of decision-maker”.

He said it was the “threat” that Saddam presented to the region that was uppermost in his mind. The development of weapons of mass destruction was one aspect of that threat.

Mr Blair said that there had been 12 years of the United Nations going “to and fro” on the subject, and he noted that Saddam had used chemical weapons on his own people.

Asked by Britton if he would still have gone on had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction, he said: “I would still have thought it right to remove him.”

Parents of some of the servicemen who have died have refused to shake his hand and accused him of being a war criminal with blood on his hands.

Mr Blair said that he was prepared to carry that responsibility. “There’s no point in going into a situation of conflict and not understanding there is going to be a price paid.”

The former Prime Minister, who now spends much of his time in the Middle East, working as an envoy for the Quartet of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU, said that it was difficult to judge yet whether the decision to go to war had been helpful or not.

This week the head of MI6 said that Saddam’s Iraq was one of a number of countries where Britain would have liked regime change. Sir John Sawers, who was at the time Mr Blair’s private secretary for foreign affairs, told the Iraq inquiry that discussions had taken place in 2001 — two years before the invasion — on “political” actions that could help to undermine the Baathist regime.

However, Sir John insisted that there had been no talk at that stage in Whitehall of military action in Iraq. He said that the approach adopted was based on the methods that had led to the ousting of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia. Among the proposals considered was support for opposition groups and indicting Saddam for war crimes that he had committed during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

“I think there are a lot of countries around the world where we would like to see a change of regime. That doesn’t mean one pursues active policies in that direction,” he said.

It was claimed last night that Mr Blair misled MPs by insisting that Britain was at risk from Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction before ordering the invasion. A senior Conservative MP said that evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war this week proved that the former Prime Minister was aware that new intelligence had established Saddam had no workable WMD missiles.

Sir John Scarlett, the head of the committee that oversaw intelligence in the build-up to the invasion in March 2003, told the inquiry that reports that Saddam did not have warheads capable of dispersing chemical weapons started at the end of 2002.

An intelligence update on March 10 — eight days before the crucial vote by MPs in favour of the war — reported that Iraq had “no missiles which could reach Israel and none which could carry germ or biological weapons”. All the intelligence reports went directly to the Prime Minister, Sir John said.

Richard Ottaway, a member of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, said that the evidence revealed that Mr Blair had repeatedly misled MPs. Mr Blair had described in detail the scale of Iraq’s armoury and said that Britain could not afford to back down in the face of the “clear and present danger” to national security posed by development of weapons of mass destruction. Inspections after the war revealed no evidence of workable chemical or biological weapons.

Sir John is due to be questioned again by the inquiry in private to avoid damaging national security.

Mr Blair is expected to give evidence next month or in early February.

---

RELATED

1. See John Rentoul on the press’s angle: “Important word, not”

2. The Daily MAUL asks this significantly presumptious and wrong-headed question of Blair:

Will he ever own up to misleading us about Iraq?

Presbyterian U.S. Defence Secretary Robert McNamara, then 87, did about the Vietnam War.

Tearfully he said in The Fog of War, a gripping, redemptive 2003 film: ‘What makes us omniscient? . . . If we can’t persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we’d better re-examine our reasoning.’

Right on – the Daily Maul. Since 21/22 of 24 European countries joined us in our alliance against Saddam, and as the Conservative party TOO supported it, hadn’t WE better examine our motives?

3. MI6 Boss at Iraq Inquiry: Blair talked of undermining Saddam in 2001 – but no regime change policy.

4. Telegraph report:

At a memorial service in St Paul’s Cathedral in October to honour British military and civilian personnel who served in Iraq, Mr Blair offered his hand to Peter Brierley, whose son, Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley, was killed in 2003. Mr Brierley told him: “I’m not shaking your hand, you’ve got blood on it.”

Asked if the anger of parents like Mr Brierley was “the cross you will always have to bear”, Mr Blair said: “Let’s be clear, it’s worse for them. They have lost their child and it’s very sad. If you have lost your loved one but you think you have lost them in a cause that’s not worth it, that makes it worse.”

Being held responsible for soldiers’ deaths is “the responsibility you carry” as Prime Minister. “But you have got to carry it, I’m afraid, because there is no point in going into a situation of conflict and not understanding there is going to be a price paid.

“Now, it’s also important to understand that many of those who are in the Armed Forces, including those who have lost their loved ones in Afghanistan or in Iraq, also are very often proud of what their child has done and proud of the cause they fought in…. You know, there are parents who feel very, very deeply angry and resentful and believe that the war was not worth it, but there are also those others who don’t want to feel that their view is ignored.”

ETCETERA

IRAQ Inquiry Reports at Julie’s Think Tank – Day 9, Chaplin, Cross, Bowen, and  Day 10, Chakrabarti, Chilcott, Scarlett, Burridge and Brims, and Day 12, Sawers

---

---

Blair: ‘WHY’ asks The Mail has the ‘Albanian gangster gunman’ ONLY been charged with possessing a firearm

Original Home Page

All Contents of Site – Index

“Ban Blair-Baiting” petition - please sign

IRAQ Inquiry Reports at Julie’s Think Tank – Day 9, Chaplin, Cross, Bowen, and  Day 10, Chakrabarti, Chilcott, Scarlett, Burridge and Brims, and Day 12, Sawers

Comment at end

10th December, 2009

Blair’s home: The Mail asks WHY the “Albanian gangster gunman” has ONLY been charged with possessing a firearm. Why not “with intent”?

ONLY JOKING!

The Mail, for once as regards Mr Blair, asks NOTHING OF THE SORT.

As WE ALL KNOW, to quote the KNOW-ALLS, the Daily Mail … Maul is a sharp-toothed terrier feral beast when it comes to getting to the “troof” on anything to do with our previous prime minister. It relentlessly pursues whoever is its target of the day, usually a certain Mr T Blair.  So it must have come as a slight irritation, as the Voice of the Conscience of the Nation, that it felt duty bound to report on the Albanian with a loaded pistol outside Blair’s home late on Monday night.

Armed police at the home of former Prime minister Tony Blair in Connaught Square in London. Gunman believed to have thrown the gun away AFTER being stopped by the Police and charged with minor traffic offence.

Of course if the Police had found this weapon instead of a passerby we’d likely never have known about it. “DRAT” … thinks the Maul editor and his worthy scribblers, “I suppose we’ll have to mention this” [would-be assassination attempt(?)]

Oddly enough the Maul hasn’t – in its usual way – raised a list of its multitudinous questions on the subsequent developments today OR on the initial facts as we know them.

For instance, WHY did a member of the public find this gun and not the Police who had just arrested the Albanian for suspicious behaviour and charged him with traffic offences?  Did the Police do a complete search of the street and surrounding streets? Were the Police NOT earning their “taxpayers” millions, as The Maul  pointedly yet subtly reminded us in their report?

‘The Blairs’ police protection team, which is bigger than the Prime Minister’s, costs the taxpayer at least £2million a year.’

And WHY did The Maul not wonder why this ‘Albanian gangster gunman’ was in Mr Blair’s street at all with a loaded pistol and a silencer?

And WHY – if the gun was only in his car because we ALL carry guns in Britain, DON’T we? (No is the answer you’re searching for) -  WHY did this man feel compelled to throw it out of his car?

And WHY was it still in his car after he had been stopped, given that the Police had already charged him with a traffic offence, or two?

WHY?

Why did the Police not find the weapon? Did they do a thorough search of his car, or just glance at the tax disc?

WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION?

Does the Maul ask?

No. Of course not. So I will …

WHY are we paying the Police and HOW SAFE IS MR BLAIR?

How safe is Blair? Does the press care?

I’d have thought the Maul might be interested in asking this question, if only the first part, seeing as they do like to have a go at the Police on occasion too, as well as any Blairs who irk or add to their narrative – (Sir Ian, Cherie, her son Nicky, her son Euan and the rest of their children & Tony – but of course.)

But no. Not this time.

No further questions. No uncomfortable answers.

WHY?

---

---