(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off

Tony Blair admits: I would have invaded Iraq anyway

WMD were not vital for war says ex-PM ahead of appearance at Chilcot inquiry

Tony Blair and Fern Britton

Tony Blair told Fern Britton, in an interview to be broadcast on BBC1, that he would have found a way to justify the Iraq invasion. Photograph: BBC

Tony Blair has said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public.

The former prime minister made the confession during an interview with Fern Britton, to be broadcast on Sunday on BBC1, in which he said he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

"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]".

Significantly, 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."

He explained it was "the notion of him as a threat to the region" because Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people.

"This was obviously the thing that was uppermost in my mind. The threat to the region. Also the fact of how that region was going to change and how in the end it was going to evolve as a region and whilst he was there, I thought and actually still think, it would have been very difficult to have changed it in the right way."

Though Blair has always argued that Iraq would be better off without Saddam Hussein, to parliament and the public, he always justified military action on the grounds that the Iraqi dictator was in breach of UN-backed demands that he abandon his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programme.

It is possible that Blair has shifted his ground in anticipation of his appearance early next year before the Chilcot inquiry. The inquiry has heard that Blair made clear to President George Bush at a meeting in Texas 11 months before the Iraq invasion that he would be prepared to join the US in toppling Saddam.

Blair was "absolutely prepared to say he was willing to contemplate regime change if [UN-backed measures] did not work", Sir David Manning, Blair's former foreign policy adviser, told the inquiry. If it proved impossible to pursue the UN route, then Blair would be "willing to use force", Manning emphasised.

The Chilcot inquiry has seen a number of previously leaked Whitehall documents which suggest Blair was in favour of regime change although he was warned by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, in July 2002, eight months before the invasion, that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action".

Manning told Blair in March that year that he had underlined Britain's position to Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser.

"I said you [Blair] would not budge in your support for regime change, but you had to manage a press, a parliament, and a public opinion which is very different than anything in the States," Manning wrote, according to a leaked Whitehall document. A Cabinet Office document also seen by the Chilcot inquiry, dated July 2002, stated: "When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford [his Texas ranch] in April, he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion ..."

Now Blair appears to be openly admitting that evidence of WMD – the purpose behind the now discredited weapons dossier he ordered to be published with the help of MI6 and Whitehall's joint intelligence committee – was not needed to invade Iraq, and he could have found other arguments to justify it.

Blair did say in a speech to Labour party conference in 2004, over a year after the invasion: "I can apologise for the information [about WMDs] that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam.

"The world is a better place with Saddam in prison not in power."

Blair told the former This Morning presenter how his religious beliefs helped him in the invasion's immediate aftermath.

"When it comes to a decision like that, I think it is important that you take that decision as it were on the basis of what is right, because that is the only way to do it," he said.

"I think sometimes people think my religious faith played a direct part in some of these decisions. It really didn't. It gives you strength if you come to a decision, to hold to that decision. That's how it supports your character in a situation of difficulty."

Most "really hard" decisions involved a "downside and an upside either way", he added.

Sir John Sawers, Blair's former chief foreign policy adviser and now head of MI6, told the Chilcot inquiry on Thursday that Iraq was one of several countries where Britain would have liked regime change. Discussions took place on "political" actions to undermine Saddam, including indicting him for war crimes, Sawers said. There was no talk in 2001 in Whitehall of military action, he added.

"There are a lot of countries ... where we would like to see a change of regime. That doesn't mean one pursues active policies in that direction."


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Comments are now closed for this entry.
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

  • Ruprecht27 Ruprecht27

    12 Dec 2009, 3:22PM

    Well, this appears to be a rather undemocratic positon that indicates contempt for Parliament.

    More importantly, I wonder if these remarks have now sealed Mr. Blair's fate in history as a man who participated in an act of aggression and has no remorse about that. I wonder if we will see Mr. Blair stand trial in the Hague...

  • moonlightninja moonlightninja

    12 Dec 2009, 3:23PM

    Please can the Guardian start some kind of fund or organization to start a prosecution against this man. He is now openly admitting starting a war of aggression. There must be some possible organized response for the millions of people from every political persuasion sickened by the way he lied, started a war, caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and has in part thanks to his resulting popularity in America become a multi-millionaire. There MUST be something we can do collectively about it, even just to try. He and Cherie ought to lie awake at night in their mansion scared stiff of the screech of tires signaling the police have arrived and he will have to answer for all these deaths and his lies.

    Any ideas? Anyone? There must be something we can do.

  • gedupre gedupre

    12 Dec 2009, 3:23PM

    I think the thousands that are dead in Iraq would disagree with Mr. Blair that they would have been better off if the US and UK had not invaded and occupied Iraq. I know there are millions in the US and UK, and around the world, that have better uses for the billions spent in that enterprise. It's amazing that we have no effective checks on the power of such people, or means of bringing them to justice. What's even sadder is that we will probably end up with an authoritarian regime in the stitched together region we created called Iraq before this is all over - ending where we started with many more dead, wounded, and poverty-stricken for the exercise. True Believers such as Mr. Blair do not seem to care about the consequences of their actions, but the rest of us should.

  • MarkScott77 MarkScott77

    12 Dec 2009, 3:24PM

    Ah ha ! The plot thickens in the Blairs Iraq Wars Chilcott Inquiry !

    So Tony now admits that he invaded another soverign nation because he felt like it ! And Dubya talked him into it over a barbecue !

    I believe that there should be an exception made in the capital punishment legislation for this War Criminal and the Pierrepoints need to be asked for !

  • FrankFinlay FrankFinlay

    12 Dec 2009, 3:24PM

    So Blair finally admits that, as we all knew, he invaded Iraq expressly for the purpose of illegal regime change and would have used any available pretext to do so. Which means by extension that he lied to parliament and the country. I find it very hard to believe, given this statement that there are no grounds for prosecution against this war criminal.

  • Hannahbaby Hannahbaby

    12 Dec 2009, 3:27PM

    An arrogant, mealy-mouthed liar, contemptuous of public opinion and the lives of our Armed Forces, brazenly admitting he failed to tell the truth.

    I've disliked many politicians over the years bit Bliar is the only one that I hate with every atom of my soul.

  • offwithbrown offwithbrown

    12 Dec 2009, 3:33PM

    Is it a joke? april 1st or what?

    If true Blair and all his aides should be arrested immediately. Do not bother to wait for the enquiry (will be a whitewash anyway) NICK HIM NOW and seize all his
    blood stained houses.

    Would be interesting to hear Brown's views on that !!!

  • omarov omarov

    12 Dec 2009, 3:34PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • stamfordbus stamfordbus

    12 Dec 2009, 3:34PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • offwithbrown offwithbrown

    12 Dec 2009, 3:35PM

    Is it a joke? april 1st or what?

    If true Blair and all his aides should be arrested immediately. Do not bother to wait for the enquiry (will be a whitewash anyway) NICK HIM NOW and seize all his
    blood stained houses.

    Would be interesting to hear Brown's views on that !!!

  • agpcuk agpcuk

    12 Dec 2009, 3:37PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • THREEcheers THREEcheers

    12 Dec 2009, 3:39PM

    When I look at Blair's repulsive eyes, I think of the innocent children burnt alive as a consequence of the war that he and Bush initiated.

    And Blair has the cheek to call himself a Christian.

    No wonder the church is in disarray.

  • Kazbah Kazbah

    12 Dec 2009, 3:43PM

    So... why didn't we just use any of the golden opportunities to actually legally help the Iraqis to change their regime over the decade Blair was in office? It's not like the man didn't give plenty of good reasons not to.

    Oh, I forgot. We had arms to sell and oil to grab, so all those human rights abuses were worth putting up with as long as he didn't look like destabilising our interests in the area.

  • Antonymous Antonymous

    12 Dec 2009, 3:45PM

    Invading Iraq, a sovereign country would still have been illegal.

    Adding another invention to replace the silly 45 minutes? Madness.

    Oh, dear Mr. Blair, it does begin to look rather bleak for you.

    We watched you LIE live on television in front of an audience. You begged them, and us all to trust you and believe you and your faith in your decision.

    And now, today you tell us you would have gone to War in any event?

    Sounds like a guilty plea to me.

    Poor excuses Mr. Blair cannot absolve you from your despicable decision to ignore your electorate who marched in front of your very own eyes, all of whom had the sense and guts to try and tell you to STOP.

    You must face the consequences.

  • omarov omarov

    12 Dec 2009, 3:45PM

    note to Guardian editor: i'm not intentionally double-posting it's just that every time I post, my comment doesn't show so i have to post again, and then i am unable to remove my previous comments for some reason

    my technical ignorance notwithstanding, Blair is a war criminal and his punishment should be: let him get the chance to see how grateful the Iraqi people are for this liberation. So please drop him off in Fallujah among his liberated subjects and let them show their gratitude first hand.

  • gandolfo gandolfo

    12 Dec 2009, 3:46PM

    Invade a sovereign nation because you don't like who's there
    well looks like you'll be going to trial cos it's ILLEGAL, a war crime and
    flagrently against international law Bliar

  • guydenning guydenning

    12 Dec 2009, 3:46PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • THREEcheers THREEcheers

    12 Dec 2009, 3:47PM

    I wonder if Blair has a conscious over the innocent Iraqi women and children who were burnt alive as a consequence - directly and indirectly - of the war that he initiated.

    Probably not. You have to be human to have a conscious.

  • brooklynesque brooklynesque

    12 Dec 2009, 3:50PM

    Time and again Blair came to Washington, listened to the lies told to him by the incumbent incompetent criminal politicians and, sadly, his response was to be flattered by this attention and, subsequently betray the people that elected him. I'm not sure that this is quite the 'logical' conclusion of conviction politics as believed by Blair or just dangerous stupidity.

    For Britian, it seems that there is no need to wait til next summer for Thatcher's children to return to government. New Labour's legacy is so damning that it would seem being a war criminal pales when compared to being a zealot who carries such hubris on his sleeve.

  • labourpartysuicide labourpartysuicide

    12 Dec 2009, 3:53PM

    "Also the fact of how that region was going to change and how in the end it was going to evolve as a region and whilst he (Saddam) was there, I thought and actually still think, it would have been very difficult to have changed it in the right way."

    When Blair talks about 'how the region was going to evolve' he means how Israel was going to evolve as the dominant power. Saddam was removed for launching those scud missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War.

    Look into Israel's connections to Blair's New Labour Party for a reason for his support for the Iraq invasion.

    He's a war criminal, send his to the Hague.

  • Bulgakov Bulgakov

    12 Dec 2009, 3:55PM

    @guydenning

    And to think I though Thatcher was the worst PM in my living memory.

    As was the case with Shelly's creation, Blair was Thatcher's inevitable legacy to Britain.

  • ShropshireLass ShropshireLass

    12 Dec 2009, 3:58PM

    Hundreds of thousands have been crippled or wounded in this war. MILLIONS have been displaced from their homelands. Suicide Bombings are a daily occurrence due to the huge instability caused by unleashing Islamic sects against each other.. I suggest that Tony Blair should trade places with Radovan Karadzic and be tried for war crimes. Now!

  • Paul1960 Paul1960

    12 Dec 2009, 3:59PM

    The right and hard decision would have been for 'our' Tony of the people' to say NO to the other Rightous 'god' oppessesed medlomaniac war criminal and his hawks in the US. Of course Sadam was not a nice man, Maggie loved him in her day though when he was at war with Iran. Just for the record I haven't forgotten the 'small matter' of the sinking of the Belgrano either, equally a crime She didn't pay for.

    I would contribute to a private 'peoples' prosecution' of; 'Blair the mistaken' or is it 'Blair the rightious' or even 'Blair the deluded'

  • freethisworld freethisworld

    12 Dec 2009, 3:59PM

    For a world known war criminal, like Tony Blair, a liar, who took the west and his country to an unecessary war, a clinical case of warphilia, a born oil company executive adviser, is the best way to sum up his dissaster.
    Shame on you Tony Blair. Go home and never come back. Most of the people in this world think of you as WAR CRIMINAL.

  • MarkScott77 MarkScott77

    12 Dec 2009, 3:59PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • 13thDukeofWybourne 13thDukeofWybourne

    12 Dec 2009, 4:07PM

    Nothing sums up the vapid, amoral, mass media fixated, empty, insipid nature of Tony Blair better than a justification of war interview.....with Political heavyweight Fern Britton.

    The banality of evil.

  • Brynus Brynus

    12 Dec 2009, 4:07PM

    moonlightninja

    I'm with you on that, and so would be virtually every regular Guardian reader.

    He has admiited this decision to invade whatever the reality of Saddam's weapons purely to cover himself when he appears at the inquiry. He's changing the story before anyone changes it for him. The veil he hides behind of doing something for the good of the entire region is laughable and should lead to his summary dismissal by the Quartet. He has no right to be at large.

  • Mertyl Mertyl

    12 Dec 2009, 4:08PM

    Before the endless deluge of comments from the Fellow Travellers of Blair and his path to a now admitted pre-decided War of Aggression come onto this thread and admit too that yes, they didn't really care about legality all along either, let me just reaffirm that no one on the Left or the decent Right liked Saddam Hussein. No one with a heart was comfortable with the crimes he continued to commit... And no one cheers the bombings and abuses of the various terrorist and gangster cliques that claim Islamic justification in Iraq to this day either...

    Instead, let me just quote from a younger, far more sensible William Shawcross, in his book "Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia", when he was accused in Kissinger's official response of siding with the equally brutal and inhumane Khmer Rouge in said book;

    Rodman [who wrote the official response] concludes by declaring: "By no stretch of moral logic can the crimes of mass murderers be ascribed to those who struggled to prevent their coming to power." Only by ignoring "moral logic" can Rodman, like Kissinger, invent such a formulation. Has he forgotten that it was the North Vietnamese America was fighting in 1970? The 1970-1975 war did not prevent the Khmer Rouge coming to power; it created them and created the opportunity for them to come to power....

    Just as the Bolsheviks could come to power in Russia only after the destruction of World War 1, so the Khmer Rouge were enabled to control Cambodia only by the 197-1975 war....

    Reflecting this, I wrote at the end of Sideshow (page 396) "Statesmen have to be judged by the consequences of their actions. Whatever Kissinger and Nixon intended for Cambodia, their efforts created catastrophe."

    A lesson that Shawcross, in one of the most depressing moments of my life, apparently forget when I caught him Newsnight justifying the war against Iraq. But still, the lesson remains. Statesmen are judged by the consequences of what they achieve. Oh, I'm sure you interventionists thought you'd be greeted by flowers and sweets, instead of the thumbs up, flipping off you actually got... but you didn't even bother to plan for the aftermath of the destruction you were so eager to unleash. You left the Iraqis for years without electricity or clean water or sewage disposal. You allowed private companies to basically loot their infrastructure and the aid money sent to rebuild it. You unleashed violent terrorist groups you couldn't even control, and had to bribe them with positions in Government to keep the lid on the hell you had bought forth. Hell, you even made Saddam Hussein of all people a sympathetic figure by allowing your local proxies to basically lynch him...

    THIS was the consequences of your actions. We warned you time and time again before you went into the country this is what would happen. We begged you after you'd gone in to stop and think and plan a better way forward, and were just accused of supporting the criminals you'd handed Iraqi society over too. And now, your beloved Blair has finally admitted he was going to do it all along, as we all said he would. So don't you dare come into this thread and claim moral superiority. DON'T YOU DARE.

  • Gerbilator Gerbilator

    12 Dec 2009, 4:09PM

    @CLAD

    On John Rentoul's website, we learn that

    He has written a biography of Tony Blair, whom he admired more at the end of his time in office than he did at the beginning.

    Enough said, I think.

  • labourpartysuicide labourpartysuicide

    12 Dec 2009, 4:12PM

    If Blair goes completely unpunished for his war crimes then this will happen again under future democratically elected leaders. He is setting an example of how to get away with it.
    He MUST be prosecuted or his example will undermine any sense of accountability by those who follow on from him.
    He didn't only violate international law. He subverted our democracy too.

  • MarkKearney MarkKearney

    12 Dec 2009, 4:17PM

    Well, I guess his recently discovered religious conviction has made him want to clear his conscience by admitting his sins?

    Seriously though, it's strange to read a warmonger justifying his decisions in the language of morning television, always Blairs most natural environment.

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

Comments are now closed for this entry.

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

Guardian Jobs

UK

Browse all jobs

USA

Browse all jobs

  • Loading jobs...

jobs by Indeed job search