Tony has no regret
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Maswood Alam Khan
While testifying in front of an official inquiry into Britain's role in the Iraq conflict, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said last Friday he would 'take the same steps again to counter what he portrayed as a threat from Saddam Hussein that had assumed far greater dimension after the attacks of September 11, 2001'. Several hundred protesters gathered outside Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, the venue of the in central London, calling Blair a criminal. During the 6-hour session he denied the claims that he had struck a covert deal with the then US President George W. Bush in 2002 pledging British backing for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The inquiry committee is headed by former British civil servant John Chilcot.
What really shocked people listening to the inquiry proceedings, telecast live in BBC, was that there was not even an iota of regret in Tony Blair's statements in spite of the fact that bereaved family members who lost in Iraq war their loved ones, including 179 British troops killed, were listening to his every word sitting just behind him in the same room where the inquiry was being held.
Observers in Britain and elsewhere in the world are quite eager to know why the 'the 45-minute claim' was mentioned in the foreword to the intelligence document, known as the September Dossier, that was published in September 2002. This had prompted The Sun, Britain's biggest selling daily newspaper, to carry the headline "Brits 45 Mins from Doom" and The Star newspaper to report: "Mad Saddam Ready to Attack: 45 minutes from a Chemical War".
In the foreword, written by Tony Blair, was mentioned: "The document discloses that his (Saddam Hussein's) military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them." The claim was subsequently proven completely untrue as no significant caches of chemical or biological weapons have been found in Iraq since the invasion.
The dossier, Blair said during the trial, was "clear" in backing up the (45-minute) claim he had made in the preface. He however denied he had inserted the '45-minute claim' to make the intelligence document seem more important.
One statement made by Blair during the session, which may spark debates, was: "even knowing what we know now, had we left Saddam in power we may have had to deal with him in circumstances that would have been worse". The phrase 'what we know now' would be interpreted by sceptics and critics alike as 'knowing there was no WMD', especially after a controversy Blair sparked by indicating in an interview with Fern Brittan aired last month on the BBC. Mr. Blair said that he would have gone to war even if Saddam had been found to have no weapons of mass destruction though he subsequently denied that he would have supported the invasion of Iraq even if he had thought Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD.
Mr. Blair also said during Friday's inquiry session that if Saddam had not been removed, today we would have a situation where Iraq was competing with Iran both in terms of nuclear capability and in respect of support of terrorist groups.
Hundreds and thousands of critics in Great Britain, as in other parts of the world, want that Tony Blair be tried in The Hague and be awarded a long prison sentence.
One blogger said: "That despicable little man has a great deal to answer for and I don't just mean on the lone issue of Iraq. Everything he's touched has been a disaster".
Many British critics also assailed Mr. Blair for what they depicted as his slavish support of Mr. Bush, who, unlike the British leader, has not been called to account publicly for his decisions.
Many Britons believe that 'Blair took them into a war on lies and is responsible for hundreds of British soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children being killed, probably more than the number of people killed by Chemical Ali. He has brought Britain into disrepute in the eyes of the world and he should face trial'.
Mr. Blair was seen desperate to secure a lasting place in history but he, many of his critics believe, has already gone down in history as a lackey of Bush and as a disgraceful British Prime Minister, best known for his bungling and ill-conceived foreign policy disasters.
Some critics are still hoping that at the end of the inquiry Mr. Blair would be exposed as a criminal and that as a result he, being charged with war crimes, will have to appear before the International Court of Justice.
Whatever the conclusion of the inquiry many will continue wondering: 'Why did Blair lie before the Iraq war? Why did he lie during the Iraq war? And why is he still lying?'
The writer is Editorial Consultant of The Financial Express. He can be reached
at: maswood@hotmail.com
While testifying in front of an official inquiry into Britain's role in the Iraq conflict, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said last Friday he would 'take the same steps again to counter what he portrayed as a threat from Saddam Hussein that had assumed far greater dimension after the attacks of September 11, 2001'. Several hundred protesters gathered outside Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, the venue of the in central London, calling Blair a criminal. During the 6-hour session he denied the claims that he had struck a covert deal with the then US President George W. Bush in 2002 pledging British backing for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The inquiry committee is headed by former British civil servant John Chilcot.
What really shocked people listening to the inquiry proceedings, telecast live in BBC, was that there was not even an iota of regret in Tony Blair's statements in spite of the fact that bereaved family members who lost in Iraq war their loved ones, including 179 British troops killed, were listening to his every word sitting just behind him in the same room where the inquiry was being held.
Observers in Britain and elsewhere in the world are quite eager to know why the 'the 45-minute claim' was mentioned in the foreword to the intelligence document, known as the September Dossier, that was published in September 2002. This had prompted The Sun, Britain's biggest selling daily newspaper, to carry the headline "Brits 45 Mins from Doom" and The Star newspaper to report: "Mad Saddam Ready to Attack: 45 minutes from a Chemical War".
In the foreword, written by Tony Blair, was mentioned: "The document discloses that his (Saddam Hussein's) military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them." The claim was subsequently proven completely untrue as no significant caches of chemical or biological weapons have been found in Iraq since the invasion.
The dossier, Blair said during the trial, was "clear" in backing up the (45-minute) claim he had made in the preface. He however denied he had inserted the '45-minute claim' to make the intelligence document seem more important.
One statement made by Blair during the session, which may spark debates, was: "even knowing what we know now, had we left Saddam in power we may have had to deal with him in circumstances that would have been worse". The phrase 'what we know now' would be interpreted by sceptics and critics alike as 'knowing there was no WMD', especially after a controversy Blair sparked by indicating in an interview with Fern Brittan aired last month on the BBC. Mr. Blair said that he would have gone to war even if Saddam had been found to have no weapons of mass destruction though he subsequently denied that he would have supported the invasion of Iraq even if he had thought Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD.
Mr. Blair also said during Friday's inquiry session that if Saddam had not been removed, today we would have a situation where Iraq was competing with Iran both in terms of nuclear capability and in respect of support of terrorist groups.
Hundreds and thousands of critics in Great Britain, as in other parts of the world, want that Tony Blair be tried in The Hague and be awarded a long prison sentence.
One blogger said: "That despicable little man has a great deal to answer for and I don't just mean on the lone issue of Iraq. Everything he's touched has been a disaster".
Many British critics also assailed Mr. Blair for what they depicted as his slavish support of Mr. Bush, who, unlike the British leader, has not been called to account publicly for his decisions.
Many Britons believe that 'Blair took them into a war on lies and is responsible for hundreds of British soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children being killed, probably more than the number of people killed by Chemical Ali. He has brought Britain into disrepute in the eyes of the world and he should face trial'.
Mr. Blair was seen desperate to secure a lasting place in history but he, many of his critics believe, has already gone down in history as a lackey of Bush and as a disgraceful British Prime Minister, best known for his bungling and ill-conceived foreign policy disasters.
Some critics are still hoping that at the end of the inquiry Mr. Blair would be exposed as a criminal and that as a result he, being charged with war crimes, will have to appear before the International Court of Justice.
Whatever the conclusion of the inquiry many will continue wondering: 'Why did Blair lie before the Iraq war? Why did he lie during the Iraq war? And why is he still lying?'
The writer is Editorial Consultant of The Financial Express. He can be reached
at: maswood@hotmail.com