Tony Blair takes ‘full responsibility’ for 2003 Iraq invasion, but stands by decision

[webfact]

Blair takes ‘full responsibility’ for 2003 Iraq invasion, but stands by decision



LONDON: -- Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has taken full responsibility for the British invasion of Iraq in 2003, but says he stands by the decision.

“The decision to go to war in Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein from power in a coalition of over 40 countries led by the United State of America was the hardest, most momentous, most agonizing decision I took in my 10 years as British Prime Minister. For that decision today, I accept full responsibility, without exception and without excuse,” he said.

Blair was responding to the Chilcot Report which found “no imminent threat” from Iraq’s then-leader Saddam Hussein at the time of going to war.

Arguments have been ongoing since 2003 over whether or not the invasion was legal and whether or not parliament was misled ahead of taking the vote on whether or not to take military action.

Chilcot slammed Blair for overstating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and for failing to make adequate plans for after his downfall.

“It is now clear the policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence and assessments. They were not challenged and they should have been,” said Chilcot.

Chairman of the Iraq Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, said the “scale of the UK effort in post-war Iraq never matched the scale of the challenge.”

“Mr Blair told the inquiry that the difficulties encountered in Iraq after the invasion could not have been known in advance. We do not agree.”

‘A better and safer world’
However, Blair said he believed “the world is better and safer as a result” of toppling Saddam Hussein.

“It is claimed by some that by removing Saddam we caused the terrorism in the Middle East and that it would have been better to have left him in power. I profoundly disagree,” said Blair.

Family members of some of the 179 Britons who died in Iraq were briefed on the report in advance. Some chose to boycott the presentation, over fears it would be a whitewash.

“I know some of the families can not and do not accept this is so. I know there are those who can never forget or forgive me for having taken this decision and who think that I took it dishonestly. As the report makes clear, there were no lies. Parliament and Cabinet were not mislead, there was no secret commitment to war. Intelligence was not falsified and the decisions was made in good faith.

“However, I accept that the report makes serious criticisms of the way decisions were taken and again I accept full responsibility for these points of criticism, even where I do not fully agree with them.”

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-07-07

[pitrevie]

It wrecked his premiership and his reputation. I thought Robin Cooke in his resignation speech put his finger on it when he stated that had the previous incumbent still been in the White House it would never have taken place. The ironic thing is that on that side of the pond the only one to have come out and put the blame where it belongs is Trump. "The Big Fat Lie" as he called it.

[Laughing Gravy]

The man is a liar and the report in so many words has leaned towards saying it, without using them words, which is a shame. He should be up for war crimes but hopefully his reputation has been ruined and he will not be involved in anything in politics again. He sold the working class people and labour down the river and is a self centred narcissist. I believe he is a truly an evil man.

the man is an establishment through and through and has been protected once again. How he has the cheek to call himself, a man of the people, whilst charging a million dollars for a talk. He is a fraud and one day I hope those who lost their lives in the unnecessary Iraq war get their justice.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[Jimbo2014]

Like many people in Thailand, he chased a bush without thinking of the consequences. Right now he is trying to polish a turd but he must know what he did was incredibly irresponsible. Terrible legacy.

[NumbNut]

Well he can keep standing for his decision in an international court of law. Alongside Dubya and Howard

[Kwasaki]

Well l will stand by my verdict too, as l have already posted a comment before about Saddam he gassed 1000's of people if that gas is not a WMD well tough but he was stopped from using it again.

I thought PM's were exempt from prosecution so what's the good of an enquiry that ends up saying Brit soldiers could be prosecuted, absolutely disgusting, the 10,000,000 could of been spent somewhere where it was needed.

[klauskunkel]

“The decision to go to war in Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein from power in a coalition of over 40 countries led by the United State of America was the hardest, most momentous, most agonizing decision I took in my 10 years as British Prime Minister. For that decision today, I accept full responsibility, without exception and without excuse,”

"...and to that end I donate my personal fortune to rebuilding the country of Iraq. No, no, no, what am I saying? The buck stopped there, two sentences ago. Is it Alzheimer's already?"

[Bunnychow]

Like many people in Thailand, he chased a bush without thinking of the consequences. Right now he is trying to polish a turd but he must know what he did was incredibly irresponsible. Terrible legacy.

A polished turd who becsme very rich on the back of his premiership...he should be in prision along with Bush, Chenney and the rest of the cabal who were involved in these lies

[impulse]

If he wants to take full responsibility, he should step up and volunteer to be judged at the Hague.

So should Bush and his entourage.

Then, win lose or draw, they should dedicate their lives and their fortunes to making whole as many of their victims as they can.

[dexterm]

Well l will stand by my verdict too, as l have already posted a comment before about Saddam he gassed 1000's of people if that gas is not a WMD well tough but he was stopped from using it again.

I thought PM's were exempt from prosecution so what's the good of an enquiry that ends up saying Brit soldiers could be prosecuted, absolutely disgusting, the 10,000,000 could of been spent somewhere where it was needed.

Yes, Saddam was a monster, but "regime change" was NEVER mentioned as the reason Blair led young soldiers and 100,000s of Iraqis to their deaths in a wholly unnecessary war.

It was ALL about the phony threat of non existent weapons of mass destruction.

That is the big lie.

There's an interesting article from the BBC about reaction to Chilcot and the Iraq invasion.

One man, Kadhim al Jabbouri, who was imprisoned by Saddam and later was famous for helping to topple Saddam's statue.

"Saddam has gone, and we have one thousand Saddams now," he says. "It wasn't like this under Saddam. There was a system. There were ways. We didn't like him, but he was better than those people."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36706265

Edited July 7, 2016 by dexterm

[Bunnychow]

Well l will stand by my verdict too, as l have already posted a comment before about Saddam he gassed 1000's of people if that gas is not a WMD well tough but he was stopped from using it again.

I thought PM's were exempt from prosecution so what's the good of an enquiry that ends up saying Brit soldiers could be prosecuted, absolutely disgusting, the 10,000,000 could of been spent somewhere where it was needed.

According to some he could have been stopped without invading Iraq given the connection between the US and Him

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/how-times-have-changed-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-use-chemical-weapons

Edited July 7, 2016 by Bunnychow

[Scott]

Saddam was an awful man and there was plenty who hated him inside and outside the country, but as has been stated, it was the devil they knew. Regime change is always a very tricky thing and the deeper entrenched the regime is, the more catastrophic it is likely to be.

At the time of the invasion, Saddam had very little power. The No Fly Zones over the North and South of the Iraq were successful in keeping him from further major atrocities against the Kurds or the Shiites. The Kurdish factions had settled some of their differences and were running the North of the country quite well. Of course, neither Iran nor Turkey were happy seeing them operate well in a semi-autonomous manner.

I didn't support Saddam being in power, but his removal needed to come from within the country itself and not from the outside. The dismantling of the institutions, including the military and police left an enormous vacuum in the country.

[Basil B]

And now Iraq has a thousand Saddam's

I am convince that TB if not lying certainly twisted the facts.

There should be a inquiry into his and others involvement in this travesty of deceit that may lead a trial for war crimes, but from what we already know he and others should be barred from public office,

IE not allowed to sit in the commons or lords, to be appointed to any government or diplomatic position or serve in the civil service.

[Khun Han]

Send him to The Hague. Lets see how good his renowned acting skills are there.

[Rancid]

Well he can keep standing for his decision in an international court of law. Alongside Dubya and Howard

We'd all love to see that, but the imagery of a snowball in hell comes to mind.

Prosecuting leaders like them for mass murder sets a bad precedent for those that follow them and do the same thing, the establishment would never allow that happen. Note though that after Iraq came Libya, Syria and Yemen, different leaders, same mass murders, same positive press, same companies profiting, same as it ever was...

Only worry is that they are running out of 'easy to bomb' Arab states, now its China and Russia in the cross-hairs as tensions are ramped up. "...in the fields the bodies burning, as the war machine keeps turning". Black Sabbath wrote that along time ago in a different war, but nothing has changed except maybe complete lack of a protest movement and by such aren't we all that don't object also guilty?

[dexterm]

Well l will stand by my verdict too, as l have already posted a comment before about Saddam he gassed 1000's of people if that gas is not a WMD well tough but he was stopped from using it again.

I thought PM's were exempt from prosecution so what's the good of an enquiry that ends up saying Brit soldiers could be prosecuted, absolutely disgusting, the 10,000,000 could of been spent somewhere where it was needed.

According to some he could have been stopped without invading Iraq given the connection between the US and Him

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/how-times-have-changed-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-use-chemical-weapons

Indeed they could have halted the invasion. There were several offers made for Saddam to go into exile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_Iraqi_peace_initiatives#Exile_proposal

But more than 6 months previously, the war criminals Blair and Bush had already decided to invade come what may.

Memo (28 July 2002 revealed in Chilcot) Tony Blair to George Bush,

"I will be with you, whatever..."

The needless invasion went ahead on 20 March 2003.

[thaibeachlovers]

It wrecked his premiership and his reputation. I thought Robin Cooke in his resignation speech put his finger on it when he stated that had the previous incumbent still been in the White House it would never have taken place. The ironic thing is that on that side of the pond the only one to have come out and put the blame where it belongs is Trump. "The Big Fat Lie" as he called it.

Not for nothing is Blair known as Bliar.

He had 2 large majorities and the good he could have done for Britain would have been immense. Instead he threw it all away on a foolish adventure as Bush's poodle. I have always believed that he was overawed by Bush, much to the disadvantage of the British people.

I can only hope that one day he will be tried in the Hague as the war criminal he is. I doubt that Bush/ Cheney and Rumsfeldt will ever pay for their crimes, given that the US establishment rarely hold their rulers to account, as seen when the FBI chose not to charge HRC with gross negligence recently.

Edited July 7, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

Saddam was an awful man and there was plenty who hated him inside and outside the country, but as has been stated, it was the devil they knew. Regime change is always a very tricky thing and the deeper entrenched the regime is, the more catastrophic it is likely to be.

At the time of the invasion, Saddam had very little power. The No Fly Zones over the North and South of the Iraq were successful in keeping him from further major atrocities against the Kurds or the Shiites. The Kurdish factions had settled some of their differences and were running the North of the country quite well. Of course, neither Iran nor Turkey were happy seeing them operate well in a semi-autonomous manner.

I didn't support Saddam being in power, but his removal needed to come from within the country itself and not from the outside. The dismantling of the institutions, including the military and police left an enormous vacuum in the country.

Where it all went so wrong in Iraq was that there was ZERO thought of what to do AFTER the war. Germany after WW2 was an example of what happens when the aftermath is prepared before the invasion.

[Bunnychow]

It wrecked his premiership and his reputation. I thought Robin Cooke in his resignation speech put his finger on it when he stated that had the previous incumbent still been in the White House it would never have taken place. The ironic thing is that on that side of the pond the only one to have come out and put the blame where it belongs is Trump. "The Big Fat Lie" as he called it.

Not for nothing is Blair known as Bliar.

He had 2 large majorities and the good he could have done for Britain would have been immense. Instead he threw it all away on a foolish adventure as Bush's poodle. I have always believed that he was overawed by Bush, much to the disadvantage of the British people.

I can only hope that one day he will be tried in the Hague as the war criminal he is. I doubt that Bush/ Cheney and Rumsfeldt will ever pay for their crimes, given that the US establishment rarely hold their rulers to account, as seen when the FBI chose not to charge HRC with gross negligence recently.

You read on here all time how corrupt people are in Thailand, they are lightweights in comparsion with the US and UK

[MissAndry]

Tony Blair, according to this reporter.

Edited July 7, 2016 by MissAndry

[Andaman Al]

Taking responsibility for anything is easy, it is simply words, what Tony Bliar will NOT do is take accountability ! It needs someone of high net worth who has done everything in their bucket list to finance a private law suit for one of the families of the soldiers that died. Get Blair in the dock.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Andaman Al

[vogie]

No words necessary.

[Kiwiken]

The Guy and his Counterpart across the Atlantic are Genocidal murderers. They tried the Serbian Leader and jailed him. But these Maggots get to plead and hide behind a litany of lies. They are just the same as the man they murdered Saddam. They put him there. Built him up. Encouraged him pt attack Iran. Then dumped and pillaried him when he reacted the way they had programmed him to. Time we cleaned out our Own Garbage before promoting Freedom elsewhere.