"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]". Blair added: "I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat." He continued: "I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons in charge, but it's incredibly difficult. That's why I sympathise with the people who were against it [the war] for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, in the end I had to take the decision."An interesting precedent. This amount to a justification for any war, against anybody, as long as the UK deems it to be in their strategic interest, regardless of whether the threat they posed turned out to be real or not. Imagine if Russia acted with similar impunity — the howls of outrage.
Dec 16, 2009
From the mouths of fools
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
He's an oily creep who flew in the face of overwhelming public and political opposition.ReplyDelete
I hope this inquiry continues to expose him as the cynical warmonger he truly was. Criminal charges would be entirely appropriate, but I think pigs will fly first.