Praise the Lord, for the sinner has ‘fessed up:

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.

I, for one, cannot wait to watch this interview very carefully – I hope I can find it on iPlayer. I suspect that the Great Dissembler will not be answering the question that he’s being asked. I suspect that he’s not being entirely truthful, because I suspect that he knew all along that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction to be found.

This observation seems to be particularly troubling:

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”.

I don’t know if I’m just reading something that he didn’t say, but it really does come across as an admission that actually, there is a new crusade against Islam.

And I really don’t like the sound of that at all.

1
Blink December 12, 2009 at 17:16

Let’s just see how quickly the authorities move on this one. It’s my belief that absolutely nothing will happen to Bliar. His arrogance rides before him.

Over at the Guardian the knives are out for him too:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/12/tony-blair-iraq-chilcot-inquiry#start-of-comments

This has happened now to minimize the issue when his time with Chilcott approaches. Why else has the interview with Fern Brittan (Fern Brittan?%%???!%!!!?&??**?) been highlighted even before it is shown on the telly tomorrow at 10am?????

The Chilcott interview is going to be bad enough as it is. However, this will prove just how far down the fascist road the British state is. The McCanns have a greater chance of finding Madeleine than we have of seeing justice with a Bliar trip to the Hague!

2
Sarfaraz December 12, 2009 at 18:41

He’s obviously trying to take premptive action by giving Fern the interview. Amazing admission from a recent Prime Minster and one of the architects of the so called War on Terror that is indeed a War against Islam (or hes saying an even bigger lie to get himself out of the lie of WMD and responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths)

either way….slimy

3
john ward December 12, 2009 at 19:44

I’ve no desire to be fair to Blair, but I fancy he waged war against Hussein for two reasons:
(1) He didn’t want to go down in history as yet another wet Labour PM who did nothing about a tyrant.
(2) He wanted a legacy.
I honestly don’t believe it had the slightest scintilla of anything to do with Islam: this is a convenient post-rationalisation. If he was so keen on a crusade against Islam, why did he offer Britain’s Muslims effectively a law raising them above criticism in late 2004? Only the 7/7 Bombings made it impossible for him to deliver on that promise to Sacranie and his chums.
Tony Blair is a fame-freak who only ever wanted to be rich and well-known. I suspect he married Cherie because her Dad was famous. Look at how he entertained the glitterati at Number 10 when he was there: the bloke is an incurable rubber-necker.
He went along with Little Dubya’s Iraq venture because he knew it would make him an immortal hero in the US….with infinite lecturing possibilities.
The chief thing we need to ask ourselves is this: why is it that only gargoyles like Blair seem attractive to the voters?
As to Islam, I’m afraid I too think they are our generation’s Nazis. I’d rather do almost anything than be on the same side as Blair. But if any of us truly are decent libertarians and 20th Century children, then radical Islam (and all its hypocritical fellow-travellers) have to be either put back in a box, or destroyed. They are madder than any Spanish Inquisitor.
YM x

4
Joe Public December 12, 2009 at 19:49

And after WW2 the (victorious) allies executed Japanese hierarchy for “Waging aggressive war”. [NB Not for war crimes or breaking Geneva Convention etc]

So the precedent has been set.

5
bleedin’ obvious! December 12, 2009 at 20:23

This piece of shit is a war criminal. It doesn’t require any cold and calculated admission on his part to prove it. He’s a mass murderer who’s being shielded by his globalist masters. This protection is about to be sorely tested. Very sorely tested indeed.

6
Saul December 13, 2009 at 01:21

Blink , you ask why this interview has been highlighted before it has even been shown.

The simple answer is because then it has already become yesterdays news when it is transmitted. In this age of 24 hr news, the voracious appetite for “new news” and exclusive’s means that, no matter the subject it is soon forgotten. The expense scandal has alreedy died a death, despite the recent attempt to revive it.

Come the general election everything will be ancient history and a record low turnout will vote in, the government of their choice. The new phrase heard around the country will be “I didn’t bother to vote, no matter who gets in they will all be the same as the last lot”.

Party Politics died when MP’s of all parties were caught with their collective fingers in the till. We should just let the civil service run the country.

Back in the mid 70’s Brian Clough said the majority of MP’s were inherently dishonest.
Nothing has changed.