Afternoon:
9°c
Tony Blair: I admit my mistakes over Iraq war
Paul Waugh and Joe Murphy29 Jan 2010
- ES Comment: No regrets, no remorse — Tony Blair’s last stand
- Comment: A political genius who lost us our moral authority
- In pictures: Protests as Tony Blair gives evidence
- Read Paul Waugh's blog
- Mother of Iraq victim: You were bloody well wrong
- Twitter: Follow Paul Waugh at the Iraq Inquiry
- Sketch: Tony Blair is slippery as a jellyfish
- Commentary: Explaining away the reasons for conflict
The infamous Downing Street dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons was a mistake, Tony Blair admitted today.
On his long-awaited “judgment day” at the Iraq inquiry, he said that with hindsight the Government should have published Joint Intelligence Committee reports unedited.
“Now, I would take government out of it,” he said.
The former prime minister admitted the notorious 45-minute claim achieved undue significance — but blamed the media rather than the fact it was in both the dossier and his own foreword.
Referring to the headlines it provoked, he conceded: “It would have been better to have corrected it in the light of the significance it later took on.”
The September 2002 dossier said Saddam's troops had orders that chemical and biological weapons be ready in 45 minutes.
Mr Blair's foreword called them WMD, though the intelligence referred to battlefield munitions.
“I mentioned it without any great emphasis and I mentioned it, I think, in reasonable, sensible terms,” argued Mr Blair, refusing to take the blame for the importance placed on the claim.
Asked by Sir Lawrence Freedman if he understood that the intelligence behind it only referred to battlefield munitions, not long-range missiles, Mr Blair was woolly. “I did not focus on it a great deal at the time,” he said.
Pictures: Protests as Tony Blair gives evidence
The claim had been mentioned just twice in 40,000 parliamentary questions up to the war and did not feature at all in the Commons debate to approve the invasion, he said.
“What strikes me most, when I look back at the dossier, is that it was actually seen as somewhat dull and cautious at the time,” he said.
“It assumed a vastly greater importance later precisely because of the allegation, which was a serious one, that we in Downing Street deliberately falsified the intelligence, which we did not.”
On the wider intelligence picture, described as “sporadic and patchy” by the Butler Inquiry, he insisted he was convinced that Saddam had WMD.
“Of course now, with the benefit of hindsight, we look back on the situation differently,” he said. “What I said in the foreword was that I believed I was beyond doubt. I did believe it and I did believe it was beyond doubt.”
He denied going to war for oil or any secret promises to President Bush.
“This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception,” he said. “It's a decision.
“And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam's history, given his use of chemical weapons, given 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 personally wanted the political cover of a further United Nations resolution but that hope was torpedoed by French and Russian opposition. “A second resolution was obviously going to make life a lot easier, politically and in every respect,” he said. But George Bush felt from the start that a special UN resolution was not necessary.
“The American view throughout has been, This leopard isn't going to change his spots — he was always going to be difficult',” said Mr Blair.
He admitted making a promise to Mr Bush that Britain would help to topple Saddam nearly a year before the Iraq war. His “commitment” to military action was made during a private dinner at the US President's Texas ranch.
Mr Blair told the President in April 2002 — 11 months before the invasion — that the UK would be “with him” on war if diplomacy via the UN failed.
He said he acted to protect Britain's “alliance” with the United States and because he felt the West had to send a strong message that it would not tolerate weapons of mass destruction.
He said the “calculus of risk” relating to Saddam's supposed WMD changed “dramatically” after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York the previous year and he believed rogue states had to be “brought to an end”.
Mr Blair arrived by the back entrance to the QEII Conference Centre in Westminster to avoid anti-war protesters waving “Bliar” placards. Inside the cramped hearing room, 20 relatives of British soldiers killed in Iraq looked on as he tried to claim history would in the end judge him right to overthrow the Iraqi dictator.
Chairman Sir John Chilcot insisted “the inquiry is not a trial”, but critics still believe Mr Blair should
be prosecuted for “war crimes” for going ahead with a conflict that led to the deaths of up to 700,000 Iraqis and 179 UK troops.
Mr Blair made a U-turn on remarks he made to chat show hostess Fern Britton last year, when he said he would have argued for the toppling of Saddam even if he had known there were no WMD.
He claimed that his comments, which suggested “regime change” rather than disarmament was his main objective, were garbled.
“It was in no sense a change of the position,” he said. “The position was the breach of UN resolutions on WMD. That was the cause of war then and it remains.”
He said he still had “something to learn” about media interviews.
Mr Blair revealed that the first secret Government “options paper” on Iraq was discussed in March 2002 at Chequers, as his inner circle prepared him for his Texas summit with Mr Bush.
It included three options to contain the threat from Baghdad: smarter sanctions, tougher UN weapons inspections or removal of Saddam himself.
Mr Blair said the President also made clear at their ranch dinner that he would have to adjust US policy if Saddam did surprise everyone and disarm.
He defended his belief that the danger to the West lay in rogue states, Islamist terrorists and WMD. “We still face this threat today, in my view,” he said.
He rejected the accusation he was Mr Bush's poodle and said: “I would not have done Iraq if I had not thought it was right, full stop.”
Pictures: Protests as Tony Blair gives evidence
Follow Paul Waugh at the Iraq Inquiry on Twitter
The session is streamed on the inquiry's website, www.iraqinquiry.org.uk.
Reader views (80)
Nothing short of a war crimes trial would do.
- John Smith, London. UK, 01/02/2010 09:47
Report abuse
It would have been quite refreshing if Bliar could have brought himself to actually answering just one question put to him last week. He didn't have to tell the truth. That would have been far too much to expect, but he could have, just for once, not began his answers with " I think what's really important here is..." or "What we actually needed to do was..." and so on and so forth.
You know the ploy. Regardless of the question, change it to something you want to talk about that has nothing to do with the question and then witter on interminably in the hope that even the questioner eventually forgets the question or becomes so bored with the 'answer' that his mind goes into drone drive.
The antidote to this rubbish will be Clare Short. She'll answer the questions and tell it like it was. I'm looking forward to that.
- Scallywag, Deepest rural France, 31/01/2010 15:03
Report abuse
I do not support Blair's political views. However, I admire his courage and conviction in the matter of Iraq, especially because of his political views. I think it is a disgrace to have this enquiry at all. Goodness knows how any future leader will have the courage do what he thinks is correct for your nation.
- Cob, Brisbane, Australia, 30/01/2010 21:05
Report abuse
Once again for Jan of Rye. Would you kindly tell me from who the Brits stole the Falklands. According to my knowledge they were initially discovered by French sailorSwho gave them the name Malouinnes from whence the Spanish name Malvinas.There were no inhabitants as far as the history books tell me and the French abandoned the islands. The Argentine claim is based on Spanish colonial law in view of the proximity to the mainland.
- Peter Glazier, Sao paulo, Brazil, 30/01/2010 13:46
Report abuse
To Jonny in London,
It is incorrect for you to say that no-one would feel better if he was burned at the stake. There are quite a few people who would say that some such punishment is "the right thing to do" and that they believe that Mr. Blair is telling lies "beyond reasonable doubt".
The facts of the matter are that Mr. Blair was wrong, wrong, wrong, a lot of damage has been done all over the place and hundreds of thousands of people are dead.
I say that if he really believed it was the right thing to do (which I very much doubt) then the right thing for him to do now is to donate all of his millions to our injured soldiers and to charities in Iraq. If he doesn't (which he isn't) then I know beyond all doubt that he isn't going to go upstairs come his real judgement day.
- Jules, Ilkley, U. K., 30/01/2010 02:47
Report abuse
Dry your eyes, Lucy from Soho.
I spent time in Iraq and those who fought out there joined the military as volunteers in the full knowledge they may be sent to war, whether for the good or the bad, they still made that choice and we should respect that. Conscription is a thing of the past.
- Eoin Mcgreeghan, Derry, NI, 29/01/2010 20:44
Report abuse
Having watched blair performing all day, it is my considered opinion that his nickname TT is apt and his demeanour can only described as slick. On a global scale i would be more content were he to limit his activities to selling vacuum cleaners.
- Peter Sturdgess, Fishguard Wales, 29/01/2010 18:59
Report abuse
If you wanted to take out Sadam, one bomb, one bullett, one execution would have done it. I heard Obama say the USA had spent 1 trillion dollars on the War, how much the UK ?....why?. one bomb, one bullet, one execution is so much cheaper and used so often..why this route? Because that route would not given them a foothold and control via their 'proxy' ' democratic' ( ha ha ) pawns they have again established in power in Iraqi or resources and a base for expansion into other Middle East Countries in the name of Democracy.
- Clif, London, 29/01/2010 17:46
Report abuse
Moving this beyond the usual abuse and partisan arguments (which no-one seems willing to give one inch on!), can anyone here doubt that Blair's ability to recall detail,his knowledge and his political skill as a communicator.
Whether or not you agree with Blair's beliefs and motives, can you imagine our fabulous Mayor having lasted an hour, let alone several, without chucking his toys out and leaving in a huff?
Would Boris' legendary grasp of detail and record of "hard work" have stood such scrutiny?
I, for one, can never see Boris as PM.
As it is likely that Cameron will be the next PM, I hope that as well as trying to look and sound as much like Blair as he can, he is able to show that he too has a solid grip of the PM's job during his tenure.
Gordon Brown must also be feeling a little worried, in comparison he looks like a pretty poor successor to Blair in style and content.
I believe that the lack of an effective plan after the initial miltary action, and the inability to influence and manage the disastrous Bush more effectively was a stain on his time in office, contributed to the death-toll, and probably causes Blair more regret than any other aspect of the Iraq War.
- Fresh, London, 29/01/2010 17:20
Report abuse
Mr Blair gave a very impressive performance and made his arguments forcefully, it reminded me of why he was so popular during his heyday.
The WMD argument would have not have been a consideration if Iraq had truely prospered, unfortunately everybody underestimated the vested interests who wished to make political capital out of Iraq.
- Richard, London, 29/01/2010 17:18
Report abuse
@ Rogan, He was elected by the people. On behalf of whom all decisions were made. Those decisions affected some of us fatally. And have affected families up and down the country, as well as the populace in general.
It's because he was elected by us, is why we are discussing him now. That is what democracy is, and how it works. Free speech is an old trait in the UK.
- Robert, London, 29/01/2010 17:01
Report abuse
Blair will walk away from this inquiry and resume his champagne lifestyle with his hideous wife...but he will never get the blood off of his hands,and the many thousands of innocent civilians that have died and continue to die in the Afghan/Iraq theatres of war will be the only lasting legacy of this devious lying person,damn the man.
- Jacob, Canterbury Kent, 29/01/2010 16:38
Report abuse
European, LONDON - and you were there to hear him make this solemn promise between Bush and his son?
This comment section is full of people putting their own beliefs on events at the time forward as the ultimate truths, yet denying this man whose job it was to make decisions the right to have his own beliefs on the matter (based upon better information than the people here I would add). I particularly liked that comment about the Belgrano sinking - that's an old favourite of the anti-Maggie crowd (hint - they were at war... just because the ship was pointing in the wrong direction doesn't mean it ain't a target!)
My own take on Blair is that he is a two-faced opportunist champagne socialist who thinks he knows what is best for everyone, no matter what they might think themselves - but he was elected but popular vote whether his detractors like him or not. It was his JOB to make that decision.
- Rogan, Irving, 29/01/2010 16:05
Report abuse
A year before the second Gulf war, I was visiting my daughter in Texas. In a beach bar in Corpus Christie, I was having a beer when I was approached by three Texans, also on holiday. After the usual preambles, they came right out and asked me if I thought that there would be another war(the first being the invasion of Kuwait)
I said yes, but they would have to find a way of "selling" it to the British public.
One of them offered his take on the reason for an invasion of Iraq
Bush senior, having won the previous war was frustrated that politics did not allow him to "finish" Sadaam once the war had been won.
Bush Junior was intent on gaining revenge on Sadaam, and would invade on whatever pretext he could find.
Can anyone fault this reason for the removal of Sadaam?
Doesn't what happened sometime after show to what lengths they all went to find an excuse for George Bush's revenge for the short comings of the first war?
What suckers we all are to believe any politicians
- Ronnie, what used to be Engalnd, 29/01/2010 15:54
Report abuse
Sue from Kent - how do you decide that the Falklands was a "proper" war. In fact, not only was Iraq a proper full-scale war, as opposed to an elongated skirmish over some tiny islands, Britain has fought in Iraq before - in the early 1990s, when the Tories were in, and in the 1920s when the RAF aerially bombarded Iraqi territory. We have a long history in Mesopotamia. There is no comparison with the Falklands adventure.
- Tony Mcmahon, London, UK, 29/01/2010 15:52
Report abuse
Usual embarrassing scenes from the mob...just think if global warming/anti fur/ heathrow new runway could have been woven into the proceedings they would have had a field day. Saddam required taking out he murdered many people. I assume if this bunch had been around in 1939 Hitler would have been left alone to kill even more people
- Sheila, london uk, 29/01/2010 15:50
Report abuse
Jan, your ignorance astounds me. We were at war with Argentina as they took over the Faulklands which is part of our territory. At least Maggie could organise a proper war properly, these Labour idiots couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery. It was a proper war and in war people die hence the Belgrano being blown up. Gibralter is British so I've no idea what the hell you are talking about.
- Sue, Kent, 29/01/2010 15:37
Report abuse
Yes I appologise as to where the war took place,but having serving soldiers in my family who have said it was a unjustified war I am inclined to believe them rather than you. Originally the Falklands was stolen and all the other countries from the Natives all to make the British Empire.
- Jan, Rye Sussex, 29/01/2010 15:27
Report abuse
He sent our men to War without the equipment they needed, not enough body armour, not enough ammo, radios didnt work, no NBC protection for troops or vehicles, lack of helicopters...you name it...
- John, UK, 29/01/2010 15:10
Report abuse
I watched BBC lunchtime TV News, and listened to a very articulate lady, who was the UK representative of the Kurdish Central Government. Her views on the Iraq war were very eloquently and powerfully put. Made me think about the UK position, and Blair's position in particular. I hope this spokepersons comments to BBC TV have not been missed by other sections of the media. I do not necessarily condone Blair's actions, but at this enquiry stage this representatives viewpoint is food for thought and relevant.
- Mike, France, 29/01/2010 14:50
Report abuse
Faceless Coward, along with Alistair Campbell....Now let's see who really did kill Dr Kelly...it was all covered up then and secretly body taken to Mortuary, and Its all been covered up again by this let's make the British Public feel justified (soft n Sic)
- B Stanhope, Exeter, 29/01/2010 14:29
Report abuse
I thought this a sterling perfomance from tony blair. I beleive him to be an honest man true to his beliefs. I think we were right to topple saddam and to support our us allies
- Peter Webster, Moenchengladbach, Germany, 29/01/2010 14:19
Report abuse
"Fresh" out of heroes,
Your blue? eyed boy doesn't just have his opposition detractors to contend with. A whole host of celebs, who cut a regular rug at the jollies at Downing St in Blair's time, have rejected him. Julie Walters is only the latest, stating she won't even be voting. So too, are many disillusioned Labour voters, some of whom are on here.
Whitewash or not, whatever one's point of view, after many years of his Prime Ministership, many people have a thoroughgoing contempt of Blair and his character. If it boils down to personality alone, maybe it's just that Winni had a lot more going for him and was thought of (as his American relatives might have said), a 'stand up guy'. Also, Winni pulled it off. Tony never did that. Big difference between a winner and a loser if you put yourself up on the world's stage.
- Greg, Wenlock Edge, 29/01/2010 14:15
Report abuse
i think the clue to all this is THIS paragraph:
Mr Bush also made clear at the private dinner that he would HAVE TO adjust US policy if Saddam did surprise everyone and disarm. “President Bush made it clear to me that if the UN worked, made it work, we would HAVE TO take Yes' for an answer.”
i.e, they would be FORCED to abandon plans for war,
i.e, war was their default and ideal scenario rather than a last resort
- Kate, London, 29/01/2010 14:07
Report abuse
Did anybody really expect him to say 'Sorry, I made a mistake because I was drunk with power and felt that I was the centre of the universe' Or, 'Sorry, I mislead the country because I wanted to be G. Bush' best mate'?
This inquiry is just another waste of time and resources, which will only serve to give TB the publicity he so craves and will add 000 to the ££££ he earns as a world celebrity. In the meantime, let the amputee and maimed soldiers fend for themselves.
- Beatriz, London, 29/01/2010 14:05
Report abuse
Eoin Mcgreeghan from Derry you make me laugh. Not everyone in London has 9-5 jobs and some people who have lost their kids in the war think it is important to be there this morning.
- Lucy, soho, 29/01/2010 13:53
Report abuse
Tony Blair gives the impression that he thought he was on some kind a mission when it came to Iraq, albeit one that ended in a ongoing mess.
I do not like him personally or his arrogance but he did make a contribution towards assisting the Northern Ireland peace process.
It is easy to judge him now and say where he went wrong. Could anyone have predicted just how big a shambles it would turn out to be in Iraq?
- Maria, London, 29/01/2010 13:52
Report abuse
You may not like Tony Blair etc but once again he has shown he is of prime minister material whereas Gordon Brown the most unpopular for a 100 years.
- Edwin Underhill, beaconsfield bucks, 29/01/2010 13:48
Report abuse
Fresh, London. The difference was the defense of our country from an invader and the other was to make a convenient regime change and damn the consequences. And please don't suggest we were under any threat.
- Robert Thornton, Malaga, Spain, 29/01/2010 13:46
Report abuse
The bitterness towards Mr Blair is considerable. What saddens me is that no one seems to realise that it won't help them feel any better. In fact the likelihood is that your bitterness will effect you a lot more than it will Mr Blair.
Its also worth remembering that Tony Blair was a legally elected Prime Minister and as part of that role he is compelled to make tough decisions that inevitably being human, will occassionally be wrong. History shows that perfectly normal and influential people have made cataclysmic mistakes in otherwise exemplary lives. It is the nature of being human.
For us to pass judgement on him as being an evil sinister man shows more about our own personal state of mind than it does about him.
So much of what is written on here is highly emotional opinion that lacks any real sense of wisdom.
Its a modern day witch hunt and the sad fact is that no one will feel any better when he is burned at the stake!
- Jonny, London, 29/01/2010 13:37
Report abuse
..And so the world is supposed to be a safer place now. Drones flying above our heads, eye scans, thumbs prints taken, body scans, nail files and liquids all seem to pose more of a threat than Saddam. I wasn't duped but I know a few million who were. We were all warned about 'The 'Military Industrial Complex, but did anyone listen?
- Max, London,UK, 29/01/2010 13:18
Report abuse
I feel that we need to concentrate our hatred and anger towards Blair,and not dilute its considerable power by snipeing with each other..."now if we can just focus"!.
- Jacob, Canterbury, 29/01/2010 13:16
Report abuse
I dislike the man intensely, but I must admit, I fully support his actions regarding the Iraq War and subsequent actions. All we ever hear are the whinging liberal lefty tree-huggers going on and on about the same old nonsense. . . do they have no jobs to be going to today rather than prancing about complaining on the streets of London???
- Eoin Mcgreeghan, Derry, NI, 29/01/2010 13:12
Report abuse
Bush say "jump". Blair say "How high".
Lapdog, Poodle, MUG!!
- Whocares?, London, 29/01/2010 13:11
Report abuse
Spot on European London,un finished family business.
Mr Blair told President Bush in April 2002 — 11 months before the invasion — that the UK would be “with him” on war, Well Mr Blair you have no business telling GW Bush that Before you had put it to parliament!contempt for democracy or what! ps Eddie&H Wilson this will be my last posting today as i have to be in work for 1400 hrs and i need to wash and shave,ok.
- Kev, London uk, 29/01/2010 13:11
Report abuse
Even if we have to wait 70 years, history will condemn Blair, Brown, Cambell, Straw and other senior Cabinet Members as deceitful and devious and I believe, guilty of a great deal more.
- Norman, Eastcote, 29/01/2010 12:57
Report abuse
Mugabi is also a monster - what did Blair do about that? No interest I guess... no money to be made
- Paul, Chatham, 29/01/2010 12:54
Report abuse
At least Saddam kept them from fighting each other
- Richard Edmunds, Rayleigh UK, 29/01/2010 12:44
Report abuse
Why are we wasting further £00,000s more on what is done?
And why arent those protestors at work or havent washed?
- H Wilson, Chelmsford, 29/01/2010 12:40
Report abuse
It doesn't matter what happens today, Blair can't win.
If he puts up a good performance then he's a liar and a coward and the enquiry is a whitewash.If he doesn't, then ditto, and it's not a whitewash.
Strong leaders take strong and sometimes unpopular decision if they have principle. Weak leaders take whatever suits the mood at that time, regardless of principles.
On the evidence of the posts here today, can anyone tell me how the "Greatest Ever Briton", Winston Churchill, would have been regarded by those same posters after he sent hordes of UK and ANZAC soldiers to certain death at Gallipoli despite military advice, and how sending troops to shoot strikers in the North of England would have been regarded? Is that alone not a criminal act?
The summary execution of an unarmed suspect in Gibraltar, was that not done with Thatcher's full knowledge, as was the Belgrano sinking- well outside, and sailing away from, a clearly defined exclusion zone.
The summary execution of Terrorists in the Iranian Embassy siege.
The support and lavish praise for a fascist dictator who was responsible for thousand of deaths and disappearances in Chile?
Apparently all of these were to be admired as "strong leadership".
Explain the difference, or even justify the above in light of the vitriol aimed at Blair.
Or is it all pure partisan hypocrisy?
- Fresh, London, 29/01/2010 12:40
Report abuse
Bloke, Lambeth, when was Blair made Head of State then? Such ignorance!
- Abe, Lewes UK, 29/01/2010 12:37
Report abuse
Eddie, so your wasting time at work are you,i wouldn't employ you for that reason alone,also the whole world does not work 9to 5, and we do get holidays and time of for working bank holidays etc,Actually by your logic the demonstrators are more likely to be the rich or members of the Tory party. ps have you no tolerance for democracy and the right to demonstrate! Or maybe your a plant employed by Mr Blair to divert attention from the real issues!! are you on his team?
- Kev, London uk, 29/01/2010 12:34
Report abuse
Everyone is missing the point about the meeting that took place in the USA between Blair and Bush(jnr).It is a well known fact in the USA that when Mr Bush (Snr) was President and HUMILITATED by Saddam over the Kuwait issue,the son Bush(Jnr)gave his father a solemn promise that if he became President he would get rid of Saddam,but to do this Bush (jnr)had to have a cohert,enter Mr Blair....Bush(jnr) was hell bent on getting Sadam because he had bought disgrace to his father....
- European, LONDON, 29/01/2010 12:32
Report abuse
There is no doubt that Sadaam was a monster who killed many thousands of innocent people.
I wonder how many innocent people Blair/Brown killed inn air strikes etc.?
If the criteria for what makes the biggest monster is how many did he kill, then Blair wins hands down.
- Ronnie, what used to be Engalnd, 29/01/2010 12:20
Report abuse
I believe he lied back in 2002, I believe he continued to lie. And I believe he lies today. Will we ever know the truth, possibly but thanks to the official secrets act probably not in our lifetime. The man is a sham who I honestly believe doesn't care two hoots for the brave, young men he sent to their deaths.
As for those who protest, I truly pity those who attack them. The right to protest is a corner stone of democracy, but you needn't fret, our civil liberties are being eroded so quickly (another of Blair's shameless legacies) that it won't be long before no one is allowed to take to the streets and protest about anything.
(Full time working, labour supporter - in case you were wondering James.)
- Simon, london, 29/01/2010 12:20
Report abuse
"Falklands" Jan it was "The Falklands" not Gibraltar! How the hell can you make a howler like that ?
As far as the Belgrano being sunk in "unnecessary war"-we were at war with Argentina in a conflict THEY started she was advised by the military that the Belgrano was part of a pincer movement and an imminent threat to our fleet and she acted accordingly.
Thatcher isn't my fave person in the world by a long, long way but I don't think she personally can be faulted on this. If it was the wrong decision then it was one she was advised to make by experts and no-one amongst her advisers that I am aware of feels the way you do.
- Jason S, Stratford, Newham, 29/01/2010 12:07
Report abuse
History will not be kind to backdoor Blair,and hopefully his conscience will trouble him until his dying day,no amount of personal wealth can ever eradicate the stain on his character.
- Jacob, Canterbury Kent., 29/01/2010 12:04
Report abuse
Your one big lying twisting devious monster Mr Blair,maybe the Soviets or the Chinese etc should have invaded the uk and changed a regime they didn't like! for gods sake where would it end if every country that didn't agree with the regime in power where to invade!Not for nothing is regime change not a justification for a invasion/war.The world would be constantly at war.Any body up for invading china!then the soviets!just hope they dont adopt the same philosophy as you Mr Blair!!
- Kev, London uk, 29/01/2010 12:03
Report abuse
James,London
I sent my comment whilst at work as I'm sure many do.Unlike the majority of Labour supporters I can manage both as I'm employable!
- Eddie, London, 29/01/2010 12:00
Report abuse
Virtually nobody supported the Iraq war apart from Blair and the Tory party. As far as Britain is concerned it has turned out to be a huge waste of time, money and innocent lives. Blair should have done what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s when the Americans were desperate for us to join them in Vietnam: stood firm like a man and told them no. Instead he behaved like a weak coward.
- Matt, London, UK, 29/01/2010 11:57
Report abuse
Blair decided that Britania could Wave the Rules! end of.
- The Bigmaddog, BARKING!, 29/01/2010 11:56
Report abuse
At least two of the panel were given jobs by Bliar when he was PM: Did he pick the panel himself?
- Wa, Oxfordshire, 29/01/2010 11:55
Report abuse
Blair says he never paid any importance to the 45 minute claim headlines in the media - "so we never bothered correcting it" It was planted in the press by his govt, thats why Campbell could hardly phone up to correct it. How on earth did we become so gulible so that we elected him for a second term.
- Brian G, Norfolk Gorleston, 29/01/2010 11:42
Report abuse
After Nulab governing this country for over a decade, what immediately comes to mind when thinking of their legacy? A picture of the devastation on 9/11 wrecked on the 'twin towers'in NY., would be appropriate! Our economy, our international credibility, the credibility of our politicians etc., all gone, destroyed! And, who was the conductor of this catastrophe ...? No wonder he had to sneak in the back door, like the cowardly blaggard he is!
- Kevin Sullivan, Roehampton, London, 29/01/2010 11:38
Report abuse
Would it not be right to hear the arguments before coming to a conclusion?
"Why aren't those protesters at work?Obviously Labour supporters.
- Eddie, London"
That includes you as well Eddie !
- James, London, 29/01/2010 11:31
Report abuse
There are plenty of monsters around the world.
Think Zimbabwe, the various ex-Soviet Central Asian republics, North Korea. The list is endless.
Just what precisely made THIS monster, Saddam, the one to depose? And why have we left the others in place?
Was it the oil? Was it religion? Was it selling oil in Euros? Was it to create an American-friendly alternative to Saudi or Iranian oil?
These are the questions, Mr Blair. Until you come clear, your legacy, for which your ego was so desperate, will be the cloud that hangs over you.
In 1997, we hoped for so much better. We hoped for a cure to the perceived ills of Conservatism, and you turned out just the same, only even worse as you papered over your international deeds with a fake boom at home, stoked by celebrityism, that has now imploded.
I even voted for you, but I feel utterly utterly betrayed, and I feel that you do not care or understand that I feel betrayed.
- Matt, London, England, 29/01/2010 11:30
Report abuse
Well I our Prime Minister at the time did the right thing. We have to remember Britain has alliances and he would not make decisions like this lightly. Emotional lost of loved ones are not how we govern & deploy our troops and with monster events of 9/11 governments have to act to protect this world. We should respect our Prime Minister & believe he would not enter any war with a light hearted attitude.
- Jack, London, 29/01/2010 11:27
Report abuse
I like his tie: it matches all the blood he's spilled.
- Neil, People'S Republic Of Europe (Formerly England), London UK, 29/01/2010 11:26
Report abuse
Does any one really a word this man says other than ´´ my fee for appearing on your programme is ......``
As for Jan of Rye she is as lamentable as is Blair.She is presumably referring to the Falklands not Gibraltar and should remember that the islanders are British subjects and were entitled to protection from the Thatcher government.
- Peter Glazier, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 29/01/2010 11:25
Report abuse
"Mr Blair said the 9/11 attacks on the United States completely transformed British policy towards Saddam."
What did Sadam have to do with the 9/11 attacks was that not commited by a US trained Saudi operative namely Osama whilst in Afghanistan , why is Blair allowed to repeat such rubbish , has he no respect for British public .If they want to stop terrorism and feared for our protection surely this should have been addressed in Saudi Arabia but then i forget the US have the Saudi regime in their pocket.
- Adam, London, 29/01/2010 11:23
Report abuse
Blair will never end up at the Hague court. He'll have the protection of powerful American Republicans.
He'll never acquire his greatest desire however, and that's to 'clear' his name. He took us into America's wars in such devious ways. Time and again Parliament and the British people were deliberately terrorised by mis-information and repeatedly lied to. Britain's and Parliament's credibility have been destroyed by an, any means justify the ends, process.
Things may have swung more in his favour if he had achieved seriously lower civilian and troops death tolls. However, the failures in Afghanistan, the long term future commitment there while lowering the army budgets, and most of all, the lack of foresight and capability in moving into and managing Iraq, will always be testimony to big plans and nil capability in foresight and management. Dr David Kelly and his hounding will always leave a dark stain on those principally concerned.
History will not be kind to Tony Blair.
- Geoffrey, London, 29/01/2010 11:21
Report abuse
The brave soldiers who have died in Iraq have not died in vain. They have given their lives in a noble cause. The Prime Minister had good reason to use military force in Iraq. As head of state, he had the authority to do so. It is a pity that those who oppose his decision do not acknowledge these three points.
- Bloke, Lambeth, 29/01/2010 11:17
Report abuse
This man really knows how to mislead,hes at it again,Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the bombing of the twin towers.All but one of the bombers where of Saudi extraction i believe! then the logic would be to bomb and invade Saudi Arabia! Saudi royal family oil barons!Bush family Texas oil barons!!! So obvious !!!!!you been had my friends,well and truly suckered.
- Kev, London uk, 29/01/2010 11:12
Report abuse
Jan, Rye Sussex. If you are going to rant about Thatcher, get your facts right. Thatch didn't go to war against Gibraltar, but against the Falklands. As the Argies had invaded and made the locals prisoners on their own Island we had every right to launch a war. The illegality of it was the Argentinian invasion, not our recapture.
- Marc, Edgware, Uk, 29/01/2010 10:50
Report abuse
Many of the protesters have taken time away from there jobs and businesses etc,its good that the world can see that some of us British care and are passionate enough to show it.This man is despicable,so despicable he deceived parliament to send our troops into a conflict zone based on a lie,whats more the troops where sent into war ill equipped for the sake of his own political agenda,and that cost the lives of British service men,not to mention the carnage visited on the innocent people of Iraq,and the destabilization of the whole area.Its no coincidence that Iran is now in ascendants,and they will not be a push over,thanks to Bliar and Bush future generations will pay for this,the biggest foreign policy disaster in 100s of years, with there blood.
- Kev, London uk, 29/01/2010 10:39
Report abuse
Jan - Rye Sussex.
What war in Gibraltar was that? Do you mean shooting a terrorist? Thats a good thing IMO.
Belgrano - have you forgotten the Falklands invasion by armed Argentinian troops then? That kind of stuff legitimises an armed response. On your basis should we have given Hitler the benefit of the doubt until about 1990 then?
- Ethan, EUSSR, 29/01/2010 10:38
Report abuse
Oh dear Rentamob had nobody to squeal at. Never mind, they can always go back to work now. Oh, I forgot!
- Carl, London, 29/01/2010 10:25
Report abuse
Blair says he never actually used the words Regime Change in the Fern Britton interview.
What was said was - 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.”
Isn`t that Regime Change? Typical lawyer answer.
- Brian G, Norfolk Gorleston, 29/01/2010 10:22
Report abuse
This whole episode is just a waste of taxpayers money,nothing will come of it,it is like the expenses of MPs,even when told to give the money back like Lib Dem Jeremy Browne,they just appeal it and get away with it.Hopefully,come election,we the British public with get rid of the whole lot of rubbish that we entrusted to run our country,but the people are to weak to do what needs to be done,and the politicians know it.
- Dave, london, 29/01/2010 10:18
Report abuse
Why aren't those protesters at work?Obviously Labour supporters.
- Eddie, London, 29/01/2010 10:06
Report abuse
As the creature who hid under Bush's coat tails (it's a family paper so won' be more explicit), it is typical of him to sneak in the back door to the Chilcot appointment to avoid the censure of the crowd. He knows, to make it worse for us, that this 'day of reckoning' will be a walkover for him, with his slimy ability to use every trick in the trained lawyers book. It's not Blair who is the loser ( see his wealth go up and up), but the reputation of the UK, which is now in tatters internationally, as a country which has no respect for truth.
- Jon Kent, Hertford. UK, 29/01/2010 09:57
Report abuse
Charles from Kennington - evidently he does.
- David, Fleet Hampshire, 29/01/2010 09:56
Report abuse
When will Thatcher face a court for the war in Gibralter that was an unessasry war, and the Belgrano was blown up under her orders, no of course she wont as she was clever enough to put an order on it so all of us that remember it will be dead by time you are allowed to read all about it.
- Jan, Rye Sussex, 29/01/2010 09:56
Report abuse
These are not peaceful protesters but there to cause an incident. Let Blair tell his story and Chilcot find him wanting.
- Dhan Raj, Basildon, 29/01/2010 09:39
Report abuse
Do a few dishevelled protestors, shouting at the top of their voices, really believe that Tony Blair gives a hoot about them?
- Charles, Kennington, 29/01/2010 09:36
Report abuse
A white feather should be given to Blaire for every man and woman killed in his war! Coward!
- Raminder Bhalla, Northolt, 29/01/2010 09:26
Report abuse
What a brave man. He was full of bravado sending our young people to war and being responsible with GW Bush for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Yet he hasn`t got the back bone to face the relatives of our dead soldies and those people protestinbg on behalf of the rest of us. Just wait for the backlash when Brown awards Blair a knighthood as will inevitably happen. Brown may as well call an election tomorrow. NuLabour are finished. This enquiry has exposed what a bunch of spineless people we had running the country.
- Brian G, Norfolk Gorleston, 29/01/2010 09:21
Report abuse
To be honest,we all would sneak in.Who wants to face a baying mob?
I don't like the bloke,never have,but why face hostile crowds before a grilling if it can be avoided?
- Steve, London, 29/01/2010 09:18
Report abuse
What a coward!
- Leon, London, 29/01/2010 08:59
Report abuse
Coward!
- S.Howard, london, 29/01/2010 08:38
Report abuse
