world

Families reject Blair apology over Iraq dead

51 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

51 Comments
Login to comment

I heard Blair was not asked to put his right hand on the Bible before giving evidence. Apparently Chilcot didn't want to get blood on his Bible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One day when Britain finds itself in the midst of jihad on it's doorstep then maybe the Brits will look back at him as the hero he is. Liberal thinking blinds people to the evil in this world.

Only he and Bush could see that with the new war on terror that Saddam would have remained a thorn in the world's side and would have taken advantage of their preoccupation in Afghanistan. His only crime is not admitting this along with Bush, Powell and Rums. But with the bleeding heart UN they had to lie to try to get support. So any country who opted out. That's their decision. But I think the US and their coalition partners did a good thing. Only Blair could see this in Britain while the liberal bleeding hearts were handing the country over to home grown jihadists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They should put both Bush and Blair on the stand together and see what they will say. I bet they both will have a different answer for each question that is asked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I for one am glad Bush, President Cheney, and Blair finally got all those weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bush and Blair's actions have produced very little, if any gain. They knew Saddam's U.S.-made poison gas had expired, they knew Iraq's military would be in an even worse state than it was in Gulf War 1, and it now appears they knew any legal justification was 'threadbare.' bush and Blair's actions have undoubtedly emboldened Iran, taken out Iran's no. 1 enemy on the U.S. taxpayer's dime(!), and unleashed a never-ending spiral of conflict and violence that is hopping from one country to the next while simultaneously breeding an entirely new generation of terrorist and spawning even more hatred for the west. And no amount of arms spending is going to be able to put a lid on it.

If all of that wasn't bad enough, the 2 wars that bush, Blair and co. launched have seriously drained the treasuries of both the U.S. and the UK, strained and weakened both countries' militaries, created a whole bunch of new and ongoing threats, led both countries to curtail the freedoms of their own people, and led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

heckova job.

It's freaking unbelievable to see there's still some loners out there who claim the war actually did some good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hey Sushi, how come your memory is so selective? Why do you fault on two and only two men? Who gave the faulty intel to Bush and Blair - Clinton's CIA, Colin Powell made the case to the UN.. why do you completely give them a pass?

When I heard Powell, I was for it.

As for the WMD's, there's a wikileak circulating that says there were WMDs found (but I'm not one to believe wikileaks anyway but you were hugging up to them).

As for embolding Iran on the Tax payers' dime I will for once agree with you, but because the war was fought wrong.

drained the treasuries of both the U.S. and the UK, strained and weakened both countries' militaries," but you laughed at this. Now you use it as part of your argument?

Oh, and Sushi, this is not a personal attack on you, if you are offended, I'm apologize.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip, I believe the CIA gave the WMD intel to the bush WH, whick edited it before presenting it to Congress. Anyone who had access to it and still backed the invasion is imo should be hung out to dry. Not so Congress if they were fed and voted for spin.

I laughed? Sure you're not mixing me up with someone else? Draining a treasury for a pointless war is idiotic, not comedy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe the CIA gave the WMD intel to the bush WH" You believe George altered it or you know he altered it? Why wouldn't Powell not have said that?

Not so Congress if they were fed and voted for spin." Not even those on the intel committees?

I laughed? Sure you're not mixing me up with someone else? Draining a treasury for a pointless war is idiotic, not comedy." No, you smirked because it was a screw up by GWB and that's what mattered to you most.

Again, this is not a personal attack on you...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tony Blair's detractors defend their position with nothing other than conspiracy theories.

How funny.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mikehuntez: "One day when Britain finds itself in the midst of jihad on it's doorstep then maybe the Brits will look back at him as the hero he is. Liberal thinking blinds people to the evil in this world."

Save when they stop to think about it for more than the gut-reaction so many Americans base decisions on and realize the jihad is the RESULT of them going to Iraq. When did the subway bombing happen? Before or after Blair agreed to go along with the absolute lack of evidence the US based their decision to go in on?

Anyway, good on these families. If American's weren't so proud and in denial they'd do the same. Of course, when the parents are old and have no one to look after them, no grandkids to say goodbye to, they'll probably be miserable and bitter, and if age has finally given them wisdom they'll ask why and curse those who put their children to death for absolutely no reason. Of course, bush and co will be long gone by that time as well.

SolidariTea: "Tony Blair's detractors defend their position with nothing other than conspiracy theories."

Actually, in this case his 'detractors' have defended their position with the loss of children and loved ones.

"How funny"

I don't think that's very funny at all. Your parents wouldn't either if you actually answered the call and died 'in duty'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the jihad is the RESULT of them going to Iraq. When did the subway bombing happen? Before or after Blair agreed to go along with the absolute lack of evidence the US based their decision to go in on?"

So let's see what you are saying. British citizens born in Great Britain to Pakistani iimmigrants fortunate to be delivered from their third world existence were driven to kill over fifty innocent strangers because British soldiers joined American soldiers in Iraq? British and US soldiers killed foreign born Al Qauaida killers who invaded Iraq or local Iraqis (also performing Jihad) financed by non-Iraqi Mohammedans.

If I understand you correctly you are showing us that the common element in all this religion, Mohammedism to be precise, with its well-known call to Jihad.

Congratulations, you proved MikeHuntez correct.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wish those outraged families and other families of UK to think twice before let go your son or your daughter to join the military if you couldnt bear the consequences or knowing the facts of politics. Western politics were ugly and corrupted, there were full of deceptions that fooling your children to misbelieves serving the country was 'patriotic'. Mr blair was serving the interests of oil coporations like BP instead of the benefits of people of Britian!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Mr blair was serving the interests of oil coporations like BP instead of the benefits of people of Britian!"

Blair was serving the interests of BP? Could you tell us How ? Did BP win contracts in post-Saddam Iraq? Cuz if they did I sure didn't read about it. I think BP, like any other oil company not in Iraq, would have preferred that Iraq's oil business( you know - the competition) remained a wasteful, state-run operation. Saddam took a lot of Iraq's oil revenues and used them to bribe his many enablers. It was money wasted though, from a business viewpoint.

The BBC got got a few million pounds to re-establish their perfidous presence in the region:

"The BBC World Service Trust was given £6.7m by the Department for International Development to work on a project for ‘Re-establishment of radio and television broadcasting capacity in the four southern governorates.’" (froom the BBC).

Blair was a BBC stooge!

The British Council website informs the reader "The British Council received £3,131,151 from DfID for projects including ‘Education Team to Support Coalition Provisional Authority’; Iraq: Political Participation Fund; Iraq: Civil Society Fund. The British Council removed anti-war articles from its website in September 2005"

What a scoundrel that Blair was! In the pockets of the British Council. "

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've always liked Blair. He's articulate and he has sincerity that makes it hard to disagree with him. I guess I'm lucky that I don't often disagree with him on the issues that I'm aware of.

The BBC's article had more of his statement about Iran:

He said Iran "is doing everything it can to impede progress in the Middle East peace process, and to facilitate a situation in which that region cannot embark on a process of modernisation it so urgently needs".

.

He added: "And this is not because we have done something. At some point - and I say this to you with all the passion I possibly can - the West has got to get out of what I think is this wretched policy, or posture, of apology for believing that we are causing what the Iranians are doing, or what these extremists are doing. The fact is we are not.

.

"The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and they will carry on doing it unless they are met with the requisite determination and, if necessary, force."

Sums it up nicely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With their lies, the Blair and Bush regimes destroyed two countries and killed millions, including their own.

And now he has the gall to urge "Western leaders to confront a growing threat posed by Iran." Those threats wouldn't be based on the same type of lies from the same liars, would it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"With their lies, the Blair and Bush regimes destroyed two countries and killed millions, including their own."

A bunch of ridiculous hyperbole, I see, to make it easier to insert your usual anti-semitic conspiracy bunk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Soliaritea - anti-semitic? How so.

And I hate to break it to you, but the word "Conspiracy" isn't a magic talisman. It doesn't negate the need to acknowledge known facts.

Blair lied to his country and took it to illegal war on a deception, even going so far as to keep his own attorney general out of the loop lest he trouble the plans with law. He should be answering questions at the Hague, not a toothless establishment inquiry.

May he never sleep again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought Blair was the only one being honest about the while thing. He seemed to have a genuine desire to end the rule of a dictator. The only problem was that he was selling it to a bunch of Westerners who really couldn't care less.

In the end the same people who tried to keep Saddam in power and the same people who say Blair belongs at The Hague. Funny how that works out in some people's minds...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A bunch of ridiculous hyperbole, I see,...

Fact: the Bush and Blair regimes both lied to get the war started.

Fact: Iraq and and Afghanistan were destroyed; that is why they are now busy rebuilding.

Fact: the death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly adds up to at least 1 million. I suspect much more.

Fact: thousands of US troops, who were sent there because of these lies, were killed, and many more have been badly injured.

... to make it easier to insert your usual anti-semitic conspiracy bunk.

A bit paranoid, I see. Seems you see anti-semitism everywhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"In the end the same people who tried to keep Saddam in power and the same people who say Blair belongs at The Hague. Funny how that works out in some people's minds"

A very good point. it is queer to see ppl demand Tony Blair be made answerable not just for Iraq but for all the depredations that Great Britain is guilty of in the Middle East.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With their lies, the Blair and Bush regimes destroyed two countries and killed millions, including their own.

Do you mean Iraq whose leader destroyed their neighbor Kuwait? And would the other be Afghanistan whose religious tyrants allowed groups to train to take out targets in western countries and then refuse to hand them over after they committed a crime in a western country? Oh the lies the lies!!

How can anyone make Saddam and the Taliban into villans here is beyond me. Blair had vision about Saddam and the Taliban. He knew Saddams time was up and that so was the Taliban's ruling time was up as well. He had a hard job to sell it to westerners who complain that it's "all about oil" and then they keep every petroleum using product in their own homes without cutting back. How hypocritical can they be?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks for mentioning my point which shows the mistake where I meant to say "are" instead of "and"....heh Perhaps in the end we're lucky that those supporters will probably put the same effort into getting Blair sent to the Hague as they did Saddam, which would be no effort at all. Just makes for good mental masturbation, I suppose.

sabiwabi: Fact: the Bush and Blair

Please, please, please, please continue to post your opposition to the war. I'm more than happy to put you right beside the other Saddam supporters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib,

"thought Blair was the only one being honest about the while thing. He seemed to have a genuine desire to end the rule of a dictator. The only problem was that he was selling it to a bunch of Westerners who really couldn't care less."

History is being re-written as we speak! Did you forget blair was actually selling it on a case that were based on dubious evidence, or in the case of the 45 Minute claim, pure fantasy?

"In the end the same people who tried to keep Saddam in power and the same people who say Blair belongs at The Hague. Funny how that works out in some people's minds..."

How many times must I debunk this stupidity? There were numerous arguments that were cause for worry, posted and argued about a million times on Japan Today and elsewhere. Sadly, most of which have come to pass, along with a body count in at least six figures. SIX FIGURES! And you have the gall to talk about the people who didn't want to tawt the hornets nest with the club as supporters of Saddam? Sorry buddy, that's just childish...the only retort on this level remains that the pro-invasion crowd support the on-going carnage that happens in today's Iraq. It's an un-tenable position that simply reeks in denial and opposed by the reality of the carnage left in America's wake.

Heh, and I'm amused at Blair talking about Iran whilst he's supposed to be being grilled on Iraq. If you've got any honesty left for this debate you have to admit Iran has been emboldened, nay, laughing their asses off as the US struggled with a third world insurgency. And obviously, the threat of froce now a paper tiger as they continue full steam towards The Bomb...

At the end of the day, nothing has done more to fuel Islamic extremism than the invasion of Iraq. Suicide Bombings happen on a frequency so alarming, daily, that the media doesn't even bother to report unless the carnage is huge. It has become recognized as a whole new style of warfare since your so-called "liberation".

You know I reaspect you, but calling the people who opposed Bush and Blair's crusade supporters of Saddam is intellectually bankrupt. I'd expect it from some of the cranks here, but not ye...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tony Blair's detractors defend their position with nothing other than conspiracy theories.

And the nice fat salary and cushy position at JP Morgan. Payoff for services rendered.

Who exactly do you think gets rich when governments go into debt to remove the dictators, the same dictators that those same governments backed in their rise to power in the first place?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The mission of the West should not be to end the rule of dictators. The mission should be to create societies that are so exemplary that people living under onerous dictatorships will end that rule themselves. When the West takes on a crusading posture it ceases to be that exemplar.

Blair may be sincere in his insistence that the West has done nothing to cause Iran to engage in the activities which he finds objectionable. However that claim is laughable and disregards the history of British imperialism and Anglo-American pressure. Idealism does not justify interference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: There were numerous arguments that were cause for worry, posted and argued about a million times on Japan Today and elsewhere.

And how many of those actually rang true? Let's be honest, the most frequent bumper sticker was "No Blood For Oil!" What happened to that? What happened to the theory that the Middle East would be thrown into chaos and other governments would fall?

The argument about "emboldening Iran" only came online a few years ago. It certainly wasn't being said during the first war. It certainly wasn't being said by those who wanted to keep crippling sanctions on Iraq. It wasn't said by anyone who wanted to limit Saddam's military through inspections. When those were the issues at hand the pro-Saddam crowd never said a peep about "emboldening Iran" by weakening Iraq.

If you're saying "war's gonna kill people" and pretend that no one knew that going in then you're not honestly showing the position of the other side. The fact that no invasion was going to kill people by letting Sadddam continue, and it would have killed a much greater number of people over a much longer time. So if you want to put that on the table you should look at both sides.

What happened was sectarian violence, and if you think the pro-Saddam crowd was talking about that then you're delusional. You guys couldn't care less about the average Iraq and their situation back then and to try to play that card now is absurd. Please tell me how another few decades of Saddam-type rule followed by a civil war when he eventually fell would have produced fewer deaths. We've seen the deaths with an international presence in Iraq keeping the two sides apart. Now imagine the number of dead if Iraq had been left on its own after an overthrow of Saddam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought Blair was the only one being honest

And those few words say so much about the depth of understanding on display. Blair is synonymous with lies and deception.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Blair understands Britain has yet to repay what their colonial misadventures cost the Arab world.I think we can agree he wanted troops in Iraq to help the nation into its next phase, a more American one. Iraq had the worst of European governance under Saddam (Ba'athism is modeled on Nazism) and Blair recognized they deserved better.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No he doesn't. No we can't because that wasn't why. And no he didn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Blair understands Britain has yet to repay what their colonial misadventures

He strikes me more as someone who is guided by a strong, moral internal compass. That's to say he's not trying to sanitize anything but actually trying to make things better. That's a very, very rare quality for a European in this day and age, especially a politician. Most are content to characterize themselves as "pacifists" while translates to sitting on the sidelines and criticizing the US for the way we deal with the problems they had a hand in creating.

I admire him for continuing to work in the Middle East. It would probably drive the average man insane to wake up every morning and dodge the catchphrase throwers while you're actually trying to make a difference. Maybe in some ways he's more American than European and by being himself he exposes European flaws.....and they really, really, really don't like that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For Blair to set himself up as some kind of emissary for peace in the Middle East is akin to Harold Shipman running Help The Aged.

I hope God forgives Blair. Because history and the people of England will not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He strikes me more as someone who is guided by a strong, moral internal compass

Priceless. You keep digging, pal. This has got to be a wind-up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope God forgives Blair. Because history and the people of England will not.

That's why I admire him. He continues to work every day to improve the situation in the Middle East despite his own people stabbing him in the back. The guy is a rock. This whole circus of an investigation is just a way for the current government to say, "Hey, man, like, we're not with this guy so don't blame us...it's America and this one Brit."

Priceless. You keep digging, pal. This has got to be a wind-up.

It's definitely not a wind-up. I remember after the invasion a British friend of mine watched a show where Blair talked to people about the war. My friend was against the invasion but said that Blair really had a way of making him think that there was a humanitarian angle involved and for a moment my friend said he could actually believe what Blair was saying. But he quickly dismissed it by saying that Blair didn't talk like that before the war (as if the whole "Saddam is a dictator" thing was news to him). It was actually interesting to watch someone admit that there might actually be more than just black and white, then convince himself right after that it never happened.

Look at your statements. It's like the 2nd grade all over again. The fact is that the man has some poignant things to say about Iraq and the Middle East and you're just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!" over and over again. You're just not very convincing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're just not very convincing.

I'm not convincing? What's not convincing is Blair's crocodile tears for the millions whose lives he destroyed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Would you like more milk and cookies before recess?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's going to be a long list. Here's a couple to start with:

Because he misrepresented the threat posed by Iraq. He told the House that he knew Saddam has battle-ready weapons ready to strike Britain, and could do so within 45 minutes;

Because he kept his Attorney General (lord Goldsmith) out of the loop in order to avoid any inconvenient disagreements, at the same time pretending time and again that he was operating under legal scrutiny and acting in the remit of international law;

Because he had the dossier making the case for war rewritten to produce the illusion of a greater urgency than there was;

Because he committed the nation to war in private conference with the US President, not after parliamentary process;

Because he now pretends to give two hoots for the people of the region his policies have shattered.

That'll do for now. I know he "seems" sincere. He may well "strike you as someone with a strong moral compass". That's what he's good at. We all believed him at one time or another because he's a very convincing liar. But he is a liar.

Now you explain why you think he's trustworthy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He told the House that he knew Saddam has battle-ready weapons ready to strike Britain, and could do so within 45 minutes;

Where can I find information about this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

atamant

I'm surprised this is news to you. Google "Blair 45 minutes"

From the BBC website 24 September 2003

The dossier is published with a foreword from Tony Blair, which says: "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

The prime minister tells MPs the intelligence concludes that Saddam Hussein "has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What you first wrote is a bit different than the BBC quote. You made it seem like Blair said Britain would be struck within 45 minutes. Does that mean you are "lying"? Does the BBC article you talk about show Blair knowingly lied? It does not seem to actually. It just shows he was wrong and that the intelligence was wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And he knew his intelligence was wrong, "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" (to instigate regime change).

So no, I'm not lying, and when I tell a lie it doesn't cause the deaths of thousands of people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You were mistaken in the bit you wrote. Mistaken and lying are obviously two different things. I am trying to see where you know Blair was lying. You still have not shown a lie that I can see. I am not saying one does not exist. I am saying you have not shown it.

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"

Blair said this? I am under the impression this is in regard to the US government. How do you know Blair knew his intelligence was wrong? Isn't it possible that there were different views on the subject even within the British government?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why do you think that the document from which that quotation was taken is called "The Downing Street Memo"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Why do you think that the document from which that quotation was taken is called "The Downing Street Memo"?"

If the "Downing Street Memo!" had any validity we would have had corroborating evidence from Wikileaks, and by the ton.

But we didn't did we.

Because the big scary Downing Street Memo was a Big Fat Zero.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Define what you mean by a Big Fat Zero. Are you saying it is a forgery?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zero means non-starter. Nothing came of it. Rightly so. Move along. Nothing to see. Get over it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the lesson you're advising we learn from this is that if someone gets away with a crime, the rest of us should just suck it up. Nice civilisation you build that way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This thread is about Blair, and why his name is a synonym for deception in the UK. We know the Bush wing can't get enough of him because he did as he was told. But that doesn't get you many brownie points among the people whose children you send off to die.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

atamant: You were mistaken in the bit you wrote. Mistaken and lying are obviously two different things. I am trying to see where you know Blair was lying. You still have not shown a lie that I can see. I am not saying one does not exist. I am saying you have not shown it.

That's been the nifty trick pulled by the pro-Saddam crowd (I refuse to call them anti-war). Sometimes the information that people use can be faulty. It's a part of life. And given Saddam's desire to hide as much as possible it's not that surprising that the West had a hard time knowing exactly what he had. He made it clear that he wanted to inflate his capabilities because of his fear of Iran and in a twist of fate the West ended up buying it. And yet there are still some who will say that inspections were "working."

We just learned that North Korea has a much more advanced nuclear processing facility that previously thought. But I've yet to hear someone come out and say that the West was lying about North Korea. It was a simple matter of not having perfect information which will be the case 100% of the time. But if you mention Iraq, faulty intelligence suddenly turns into "lies."

The information we did know, and what the pro-Saddam crowd refuses to acknowledge, is the brutality of Saddam. That's why I tended to have a level of trust with Blair. He often spoke of regime change on a humanitarian basis. But he was just naive to think people in the West would give a shit. Saying the WMD information was faulty is like saying the tax evasion charges against Al Capone was flawed. We know the guy was a murderer. Crying about faulty intelligence on WMDs when the guy is known to have killed upwards to a million people is just absolutely absurd to me. With or without WMDs he deserved to be taken out. And if you think Saddam had the right to continue to control Iraq then saying Blair belongs in the Hague is equally silly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib - interesting argument. You seem to be suggesting that the validity of the case made for WMD was almost irrelevant, so long as it got the job of regime change done.

I'm not pro-Saddam. I'm fully aware he was a Bad Man. So please don't call me pro-Saddam. There is no reason whatsoever to do so, and calling anyone who disagrees with you pro-Saddam is as disingenuous as the verbal gymnastics Blair employed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All of my British acquaintances were thrilled when Blair took power.

"He is our Bill Clinton" is how it was all explained to me.

But politicians usually lie for gain. There is zero proof Blair profited financially from his decision to support the removal of Saddam Hussein. Aligning himself with Bush (or any American politician, for that matter) can't have helped his party.

I think British people going after Blair are over-reacting, or trying to work out some displaced anger, or frustration, or shame or guilt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let the British take care what is British. The British PM is on the service of the British folk first and foremost after all. If the British folk think they had been lied to, then that's their prerogative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites