I really have to pay more attention to the British inquiry into the origins of the Iraq war if this is what it’s producing:
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he would have found a justification for invading Iraq even without the now-discredited evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to produce weapons of mass destruction.
“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,” Blair told the BBC in an interview to be broadcast this morning.
I suppose it’s past time to start a fund to create Tony Blair’s headstone, just to have this craven, blithe admission of pretext permanently affixed to his legacy. Yes, Prime Minister, “obviously” once the justification for a war that has killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people turns out to be disproven, one must pivot to a new rationale for its existence. What one must never do is recognize that the war is in error and work to correct it.
Because for Blair it’s not an error, “obviously.” Whatever he told us is whatever he needed to tell us at that moment, as the war was a fixed idea. I wonder why people occasionally say that Blair was the only one who could have prevented the war from happening. He was an active architect of the invasion. His gaudy and theatrical public pronouncements of doubt are just part of the fucking ruse.
Part of me looks at this horror and can’t wait for this decade to end. But the truth is it will never end, no matter what the calendar says. Only Americans think that the clocks reset and the scales balance because of years that end in a zero. Or elections.



38 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Yeah, the inquiry is definitely building up to Blair’s possible testimony next year, and with that, an opportunity to either sink or swim with his American accomplices.
Have you been following this? If so, whose coverage would you say is the best?
Given that Saddam had spent a long time trying to get nuclear weapons, and that having had poison gas, he actually used it (twice), there could easily have been another, different, war between Saddam and the western powers.
But if had happened later, the west could have had better leadership, intelligence, and strategy. Or perhaps it all would have been worse.
It’s worth noting that the same basic plan has been used by both Saddam and the Ayatollahs; Use nuclear weapons to obtain an oil monopoly, and use the oil monopoly to build as large an empire as possible. One is secular and the other Islamist, but both reactionary groups have used the same game plan, because the objective conditions are so similar.
Have you seen the speeches and interviews Blair gave in the lead up to the war? Very competent-seeming, very persuasive. If he had been our President instead of Bush, I might even have supported the war(not really, but you know what I mean).
I’d feel better if I believed in Hell.
Don’t worry, he’ll end up there anyway, along with Bush and Cheney and the others who thought this was such a good idea.
Francis Urquhart lives.
I love that! T-shirt!
Blair was George W. Bush’s BFF! They both should be facing war crimes charges.
Tony Blair served as Bush’s stooge. It was evident throughout the buildup to try and win the hearts and minds of both the British and the American people. They would say and do anything to accomplish the goal of going to war.
My hope is that there is a special room in hell reserved for these scoundrels.
I just can’t stand war no more.
At all.
It’s literally making us all sick.
9/11 is looking more and more like a false flag operation to identify the next big enemy and get the public to hate Islam as the big bad guys who were going to try to take our way of life from us. All of them had to be destroyed… and they lived atop our special interests too.
horseshit
AUTHOR: Colonel Kathryn Stone
TITLE: “ALL NECESSARY MEANS” – EMPLOYING CIA OPERATIVES IN A
WARFIGHTING ROLE ALONGSIDE SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES
FORMAT: Strategy Research Project
DATE: 07 April 2003 PAGES: 55 CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified
In response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001, the President –
as both Commander-in-Chief and as authorized by Congress in Joint Resolution 23 — ordered
our armed forces into combat in order to disrupt and defeat the global terror network. The
President concomitantly signed a Presidential Finding directing the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) to use all necessary means to destroy Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. As a
consequence of these orders, CIA paramilitary operatives have been performing a warfighting
role alongside Special Operations Forces (SOF) in the war against terrorism.
It has been a long time since I have commented here. Could someone explain why there is an edit w/pencil next to the Reply on my number 10 comment. I do not want to break proper etiquette in my comments. Thanks.
“The war against terrorism is a fight for the preservation of our national interests and values, our
way of life, and the very future of our country. We must employ every element of national power
– all necessary means — in its prosecution. While managing the CIA-SOF warfighting
relationship will present significant challenges, those challenges can be minimized in a manner
that both preserves the combatant commander’s flexibility and capitalizes on each agency’s
strengths and capabilities.”
That edit is visible only to you and allows you to change your comment for a short time.
You can go back and edit your comment once you have submitted the comment by hitting the EDIT button. This is operative for only a few minutes after posting.
Saddam was exactly to us as Noriega was… he was our guy and then he acted uptity as they often do and he had the oil and we needed him to destroy Iran cos we wanted their Oil and Israel hated Iran and Iraq…
macaquerman and SanderO,
Thank you, your help is much appreciated.
Blair was only believable if you didn’t know the facts. The Canadian & French Gov’t, Hans Blix, et al were screaming until they were red/blue in the face.
We could not believe Blair’s insistence that invading was justifiable because there was no credible evidence to support it.
Spencer, I’m trying to see if a British Magistrate or Lord can be persuaded to speak with you and Marcy about this. I should know in 2-3 weeks.
Saddam did not lie. They attacked him calling him a liar just the same.
“We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”, let’s drink to a new century, god bless and carry on!
OMG, Petro. You know Magistrates and Lords? And you still speak with us???
One can hope and should hope these war criminals Blair,Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld and Tenet will go down in history as being little better than Hitler or Tojo. What they did and the reasoning and lies employed to do it qualify them as no better.
Sad to see Barack Obama could not find the moral stature to denounce Bush/Cheney regime on war crimes,torture and wanton disregard of rule of law regarding spying on Americans communications very shortly after Jan.20,2009.
Barack Obama has now thrown in with these war criminals and in doing so brings the same contempt on himself and his reign in the WH.
The British evidently less willing to wilt and wither on war mongering take downs.
WashingtonDC really needs to take a big kick in the ass for still thinking it can still preach and do the pompous ass self preening about just wars,rule of law,torture condemnation or placing human rights and lives in high regard.
Five years from now the death tolls coming out of Afghanistan,Pakistan,Iraq and likely Iran may well be summed into the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Perhaps then this Hitlerian styled American imperial driven death spree as inflicted across Asia will finally bring about some long overdue justice for these war criminals.Obvious ones like Tony Blair,Juniors Poodle. Barack Obama ought to be ashamed for not nailing Bush and Cheney at least on the torture policies and practices they are responsible for. That Barack Obama did not taints his WH now.
Obvious warmongering based on fraud and war crimes,torture and wanton death dealing having been done simply not deniable.
Obviously.
Do you realize how much ignorance is revealed by your blog? Let’s count:
-Iraq was confirmed by AIEA to have no nuclear weapons or weapons program
-At the time Saddam use gas, that has gas was provided by Rumsfeld,and he was an asset in good standing with the US
-Winston Churchill was the first to use mustard gas against the Kurds
-the US used defoliant mustard gas against Viet Namese civilians
-out of the 14 largest oil producers, Iraq is 14th, so it is impossible for Iraq to form a monopoly for oil
-there are two and only two conditions in which a country canwage a war:
-self defence against imminent attack
-consent by UN security council for valid reason
-neither of these two were grounds for war
-Iran is allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear power as a signatory
-the us used nuclear tipped bombs aginst Iraq a violation of the war crimes act
-Iran does not figure among the worlds largest producers of oil and can therefore no create a monopoly
-no country on earth can create an oil monopoly
-at the time of the Iraq war the US and Britain had control of 2/3 of Iraqi air space for ten years
-Iraq had been under a US embargo for ten years at the time of the war, including arms embargo, it had virtuall no capcity to wage war
-no neighboring countries declared Iraq to be a threat
-at the time of the war virtually the entire world was opposed to the war citing that there was no justification
-it has been proven that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction after 1991
-figures cite that the US has killed about 1 million innocent civilians in Iraq as a result of the war, and many are now being born with radiation related diseases and malformations
These are only 17 instances in your short post about which you demonstrate complete ignorance.
Can you cite under what conceiveivable justification the US would have been justified to wage war against Iraq, now or when the war began? Do you have any notion of how many war crimes the US is guilty of in waging the war against Iraq.
I think that this is the most ignorant and offensive post I’ve seen to date. Congratulations you have outdone yourself.
LOL … I have a very close friend who knows them very well.
I don’t know if they want to divulge what they know, but they’ve been really steamed at Blair/Bush for years now.
Let me know if you have no luck. One of my schoolmates is a very senior UK judge.
Please contact him, it would be great to have Spencer and/or Marcy talk to him.
How to contact Spencer and/or Marcy? And can you give me a clear topic?
My email dh (at) synoia (dot) com
The Guardian’s coverage of the Chilcot Inquiry is pretty decent. I strongly recommend reading Simon Jenkins. He’s what fools like Brooks and Broder would be if they weren’t, well, fools. He isn’t focused on it, but when he talks about it, he’ll be interesting, for instance: this about John Scarlett.
The Common Law long ago abandoned the notion of awaiting punishment in the Afterlife, and got on with the business of trying people according to some roughly objective rules and sending those found guilty to prison. Bush, Cheney, and Blair all deserve investigation for possible crimes committed in office, but so far it seems only the Brits have moved ahead on the matter. The ultimate irony would be to see Blair in prison (his wife Cherie is a Queens Counsel), while our guys continue to give success seminars and berate Obama on Fox.
ka-ching! must be nice to get paid $7 dollars for each one of those. our tax dollars at work, whether directly or indirectly.
see the problem with his statement?
it’s not “now discredited”, it was dis credited evidence LONG before we attacked Iraq
Would greatly appreciate that. Please do let me/us know.
I’m reachable at sackerman (at) washingtonindependent -dot- com. I really need to write an “About” page, don’t I…
[[But if had happened later, the west could have had better leadership, intelligence, and strategy]]
Not to mention an actual legal justification for an otherwise unprovoked military attack upon a sovereign nation with which we were legally at peace — i.e., a war crime.
We need to put these people in prison or else our grandchildren’s history books are going to shit all over us. I’m gonna be grumpy enough when I’m an old man without my grandkids tugging on my sleeve and saying, “Pop, why are people calling you a ‘good German’?”
Wars are useful in so many ways: reducing the the unemployment numbers;
doling out money in salaries to people (and families) who must remain
compliant to the nation state;
redirecting state funds from public works for the general welfare of the
greater public; and,
training large numbers of individuals to think in primal life and death
terms, i.e. divert their creative energies from humane thought and
skew their perceptions into expectations of perpetual threat; and
nurturing the paralyzing effect of terror throughout the war and home fronts
alike.