January 30, 2010Citing 9/11, Blair Defends Legacy at Iraq Inquiry
By JOHN F. BURNS and ALAN COWELL New York Times
LONDON — Almost seven years after he ordered British troops to join the American-led invasion of Iraq, former Prime Minister Tony Blair mounted an unwavering defense of his actions on Friday, saying he would take the same steps again to counter what he depicted as a threat from Saddam Hussein that had assumed far greater dimensions after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
In an appearance before an official inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq conflict, Mr. Blair sought to reshape the unflattering legacy molded since he left office in 2007 by his many critics in Britain. He has been accused, often bitterly, of pliantly following former President George W. Bush’s lead into an illegal and unpopular war, and of misleading his countrymen about his reasons for doing so.
For Mr. Blair, a grueling six hours of broadcast testimony provided a rare return to the public spotlight at home after 30 months of frenetic travel as a Middle East peace negotiator, and as the beneficiary of lucrative public-speaking engagements and consultancy deals, many of them in the United States.
Taken together, popular opprobrium over Iraq and the sense that he has used the stature derived from 10 years in office to amass a fortune — said by British newspapers to be worth at least $30 million — have made the 56-year-old former prime minister, once popular enough to win three general elections, into something approaching a pariah at home.
Concern for his safety led the police to mount a huge security cordon around the conference center in central London where the inquiry has been taking testimony, and to usher Mr. Blair’s limousine in and out of the building through a heavily guarded underground parking garage. The protests largely fizzled, however, with fewer than 300 demonstrators mounting a noisy vigil outside the conference center in a drizzling rain.
But whether Mr. Blair’s standing was enhanced or diminished by his testimony was uncertain, particularly after a jarring exchange at the end of his testimony, when he was asked by the inquiry’s chairman, Sir John Chilcot, if he had any regrets. After Mr. Blair said he accepted “responsibility” and regretted the divisions the war had caused in Britain, but did not feel “regret for removing Saddam Hussein,” decorum in the hearing room briefly collapsed.
“No regret, come on, man!” shouted James Sadri, a young man in the public gallery, prompting the startled inquiry chairman to demand silence. But that was followed by the sounds of sobbing from women in the gallery whose soldier sons had died in Iraq.
“You are a liar!” one woman cried, followed by another saying, “You are a murderer!” As Mr. Blair left the room, he passed close to the two women as they were comforted by others in the gallery.
A third of the seats in the gallery were assigned to relatives of the 179 British servicemen and women killed in Iraq in the six years of conflict that ended for Britain with the withdrawal of its last units in July last year. Many of the family members told reporters afterward that they were bitterly disappointed not to have heard the former prime minister express some contrition over the conflict, or at least over the deaths of British troops.
The inquiry offered Mr. Blair a prominent platform to map out his version of a history that has brought much vilification in his own land. He defended his close relationship with Mr. Bush, depicted by Mr. Blair’s adversaries — and by some of his former aides in their testimony before the inquiry — as having involved a covert plan by Mr. Blair to circumvent hostile opinion both in Britain and at the United Nations.
“This isn’t about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception,” Mr. Blair said. “It’s a decision. And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam’s history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given 10 years of breaking U.N. resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons program or is that a risk it is responsible to take?”
Taut and ill at ease at the outset of his testimony, Mr. Blair quickly caught his rhythm, and rode out a series of impatient thrusts by members of the inquiry panel, effectively dominating the hearing. He offered no apology for joining President Bush in toppling Mr. Hussein, saying repeatedly he thought it was in the best interests of Britain and the world.
“The decision I took — and frankly would take again — was: if there was any possibility that he could develop weapons of mass destruction, we would stop him. It was my view then and that is my view now,” he said.
The former prime minister said the attacks of Sept. 11 had hardened his resolve on the need to curb the threat that he said Mr. Hussein posed with his years of defiance of United Nations resolutions demanding that he abandon efforts to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
“The crucial thing after Sept. 11 is that the calculus of risk changed,” Mr. Blair said. “The point about this terrorist act was that over 3,000 people had been killed on the streets of New York, and this is what changed my perception of risk: if these people inspired by this religious fanaticism could have killed 30,000, they would have.”
Some of the most probing questioning turned on Mr. Blair’s confidential meetings with Mr. Bush, starting with an encounter at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Tex., in April 2002, where Mr. Blair has been accused by critics of secretly committing Britain to war. “What I said to George Bush was that we are going to be with you” in countering the perceived threat from Mr. Hussein, he said, but he said he had made it clear that Britain would join in military action only after all diplomatic options had been exhausted.
On several occasions, Mr. Blair urged the inquiry to shift from its focus on what led Britain to war to the “2010 question” of what the situation would have been without the invasion. If the United States and Britain had not toppled Mr. Hussein, he said, “we would be facing a situation where Iraq would be competing with Iran on nuclear weapons capability and in support of terrorist groups.”
John F. Burns reported from London, and Alan Cowell from Paris.
Tony Blair "You are a liar," "And a murderer".
I've no regrets says defiant Blair
Friday, January 29 06:11 pm ITN
A defiant Tony Blair has mounted a vigorous defence of the invasion of Iraq, insisting he had no regrets over removing Saddam Hussein and would do the same again. Skip related content
Related photos / videos Blair has no regrets about going to war in Iraq Play video Blair has no regrets about going to war in Iraq Play video Blair wanted UK to be 'at the centre' of Iraq war Play video I've no regrets says defiant Blair
In his long-awaited appearance before the Iraq Inquiry, the former prime minister denied he had taken the country to war on the basis of a "lie" over Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction.
He suggested the world could now be faced with the threat of a nuclear-armed Iraq if he and President George Bush had not taken action to confront the Iraqi dictator.
Asked at the end of six hours of testimony by inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, whether he had any regrets, he said: "Responsibility, but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein.
"I think that he was a monster. I believe he threatened not just the region but the world. And in the circumstances that we faced then, but I think even if you look back now, it was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office."
One member of the audience shouted out: "What, no regrets? Come on". Then as he left, another audience member heckled: "You are a liar," while another added, "And a murderer".
His voice apparently beginning to fade, after what had been a largely assured and fluent performance, he insisted that Britain - and in particular the armed forces - should feel an "immense sense of pride" for the role they had played.
"I had to take this decision as prime minister. It was a huge responsibility and there is not a single day that passes by that I don't reflect and think about that responsibility and so I should," he said.
"But I genuinely believe that if we had left Saddam in power, even with what we know now, we would still have had to have dealt with him, possibly in circumstances where the threat was worse.
"In the end it was divisive and I am sorry about that and I did my level best to bring people back together again but if I am asked whether I b
elieve we are safer more secure, that Iraq is better, that our own security is better, with Saddam and his two sons out of office and out of power, I believe indeed we are."
===========
Tony Blair accused of putting war with Iran on the electoral agenda
Former prime minister slammed for trying to shift focus onto threat from Tehran during appearance at Chilcot inquiry
David Batty guardian.co.uk, Saturday 30 January 2010 13.01 GMT
Tony Blair has been accused of warmongering spin for claiming that western powers might be forced to invade Iran because it poses as serious a threat as Saddam Hussein.
Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Iran, accused Blair of trying to make confrontation with Iran an electoral issue after the former prime minister repeatedly singled out its Islamic regime as a global threat in his evidence to the Iraq war inquiry yesterday.
Blair said many of the arguments that led him to confront the "profoundly wicked, almost psychopathic" Saddam Hussein seven years ago now applied to the regime in Tehran.
"We face the same problem about Iran today," he told the Chilcot inquiry.
Dalton, the UK ambassador to Iran from 2002 until 2006, said it was essential that all the political parties made clear in the run-up to the general election that there would be no repeat of Blair's actions in respect of Iran.
"One result of Tony Blair's intervention on Iran – he mentioned Iran 58 times – is to put the question of confronting Iran into play in the election," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
"We need to be much clearer, as voters, with our politicians and with our candidates that we expect a different behaviour and a greater integrity in our democracy next time."
Blair warned that the international community must be prepared to take a "very hard, tough line" with Iran, a country "linked up with terrorist groups", to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
He said that if action had not been taken in 2003 to topple Saddam, Iraq could be locked in a nuclear arms race with Iran with potentially devastating consequences for the region and the wider world.
The former prime minister attacked the Islamic regime for fomenting the insurgency that followed the invasion of Iraq by US and UK forces.
He claimed that Iran, which follows Shia Islam, had supported al-Qaida, despite it following the rival Sunni branch of the faith, because they both had a common interest in destabilising Iraq.
Dalton dismissed as a "piece of spin" Blair's claim that the Iranians almost caused the failure of the coalition mission in Iraq through their support for the insurgency.
"To say that Iran was the principal reason seemed to me to be part of a broader argument which he was trying to make, namely that it makes what he did in Iraq look better if he extends it to the future and says the policies then might have to be applied. But Iran is a completely different situation," Dalton said
=========
Blair attacked over Iran stance
By Gavin Cordon, Press Association
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Tony Blair was strongly criticised today after he warned that the international community must be prepared to take a "very hard, tough line" with Iran over its banned nuclear programme.
In his evidence yesterday to the Iraq Inquiry, the former prime minister said that many of the arguments which led him to confront Saddam Hussein now applied to the regime in Tehran
He attacked the Iranians for fomenting the insurgency which followed the invasion of Iraq by British and US forces, and he said that they must not now be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
He said that if action had not been taken in 2003 to topple Saddam, Iraq could now be locked in a nuclear arms race with Iran with potential devastating consequences for the region and the wider world.
However his claim that the Iranians almost caused the failure of the coalition mission in Iraq through their support for the insurgency was dismissed as a "piece of spin" by a former British ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton.
"To say that Iran was the principal reason seemed to me to be part of a broader argument which he was trying to make, namely that it makes what he did in Iraq look better if he extends it to the future and says the policies then might have to be applied. But Iran is a completely different situation," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
Sir Richard said that it was now essential that all the political parties made clear in the run up to the general election that there would be no repeat of Mr Blair's actions in respect of Iran.
"One result of Tony Blair's intervention on Iran - he mentioned Iran 58 times - is to put the question of confronting Iran into play in the election," he said.
"We need to be much clearer, as voters, with our politicians and with our candidates that we expect a different behaviour and a greater integrity in our democracy next time."
=========
Unrepentant, unforgiven, Blair says: ‘I’d do it again’
From The Times January 30, 2010
Tony Blair was branded a murderer and liar last night after he ended his historic appearance before the Iraq inquiry with a blank refusal to voice regrets over toppling Saddam Hussein.
After six hours in which the Chilcot inquiry team had largely failed to breach his defences, the former Prime Minister brought trouble on himself by failing to show the contrition that his critics wanted.
Mr Blair, who gave a fluent, assured performance, refused to apologise for going to war, said that he would do the same again, and then warned that today’s leaders might have to take similar action to disarm Iran.
He went as far as telling the inquiry that it should pose the “2010 question” and ask what would have happened if America and Britain had lost their nerve and allowed Saddam to go on and build nuclear weapons.
Last night declassified documents released by Downing Street revealed that Mr Blair had already indicated Britain’s support for regime change in Iraq six months before the 9/11 attacks. The memo is from Sir John Sawers, foreign policy adviser to Mr Blair at the time and now head of MI6, to a senior diplomat. Dated March 7, 2001, it said that Britain would support the US in toppling Saddam “when the circumstances were right”.
The Iraq inquiry audience stayed silent through most of yesterday’s testimony but cracked when Sir John Chilcot, the chairman, offered Mr Blair two chances to voice regret. To the first he replied: “Responsibility but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein. I think he was a monster. I think he threatened not just a region but the world.” There was a cry of “What, no regrets?”; then shouts of “You are a murderer”, “and a liar”.
There were also sobs from relatives of some of the 179 British service personnel killed in the conflict. Mr Blair said: “It was divisive and I’m sorry about that but I tried my level best to bring people back together again.”
Earlier the former Prime Minister said that many of the arguments used to justify overthrowing Saddam’s regime now applied to Iran. He said that Iran was now a greater risk to Britain than Iraq was at the time that he ordered the invasion in March 2003.
His voice apparently beginning to fade, he insisted that Britain — and in particular the Armed Forces — should feel an “immense sense of pride” for the role that had been played.
“I had to take this decision as Prime Minister. It was a huge responsibility and there is not a single day that passes by that I don’t reflect and think about that responsibility, and so I should,” Mr Blair said. “But I genuinely believe that if we had left Saddam in power, even with what we know now, we would still have had to have dealt with him, possibly in circumstances where the threat was worse.”
I've no regrets says defiant Blair
Friday, January 29 06:11 pm ITN
A defiant Tony Blair has mounted a vigorous defence of the invasion of Iraq, insisting he had no regrets over removing Saddam Hussein and would do the same again. Skip related content
Related photos / videos Blair has no regrets about going to war in Iraq Play video Blair has no regrets about going to war in Iraq Play video Blair wanted UK to be 'at the centre' of Iraq war Play video I've no regrets says defiant Blair
In his long-awaited appearance before the Iraq Inquiry, the former prime minister denied he had taken the country to war on the basis of a "lie" over Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction.
He suggested the world could now be faced with the threat of a nuclear-armed Iraq if he and President George Bush had not taken action to confront the Iraqi dictator.
Asked at the end of six hours of testimony by inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, whether he had any regrets, he said: "Responsibility, but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein.
"I think that he was a monster. I believe he threatened not just the region but the world. And in the circumstances that we faced then, but I think even if you look back now, it was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office."
One member of the audience shouted out: "What, no regrets? Come on". Then as he left, another audience member heckled: "You are a liar," while another added, "And a murderer".
His voice apparently beginning to fade, after what had been a largely assured and fluent performance, he insisted that Britain - and in particular the armed forces - should feel an "immense sense of pride" for the role they had played.
"I had to take this decision as prime minister. It was a huge responsibility and there is not a single day that passes by that I don't reflect and think about that responsibility and so I should," he said.
"But I genuinely believe that if we had left Saddam in power, even with what we know now, we would still have had to have dealt with him, possibly in circumstances where the threat was worse.
"In the end it was divisive and I am sorry about that and I did my level best to bring people back together again but if I am asked whether I b
elieve we are safer more secure, that Iraq is better, that our own security is better, with Saddam and his two sons out of office and out of power, I believe indeed we are."===========
Tony Blair accused of putting war with Iran on the electoral agenda
Former prime minister slammed for trying to shift focus onto threat from Tehran during appearance at Chilcot inquiry
David Batty guardian.co.uk, Saturday 30 January 2010 13.01 GMT
Tony Blair has been accused of warmongering spin for claiming that western powers might be forced to invade Iran because it poses as serious a threat as Saddam Hussein.
Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Iran, accused Blair of trying to make confrontation with Iran an electoral issue after the former prime minister repeatedly singled out its Islamic regime as a global threat in his evidence to the Iraq war inquiry yesterday.
Blair said many of the arguments that led him to confront the "profoundly wicked, almost psychopathic" Saddam Hussein seven years ago now applied to the regime in Tehran.
"We face the same problem about Iran today," he told the Chilcot inquiry.
Dalton, the UK ambassador to Iran from 2002 until 2006, said it was essential that all the political parties made clear in the run-up to the general election that there would be no repeat of Blair's actions in respect of Iran.
"One result of Tony Blair's intervention on Iran – he mentioned Iran 58 times – is to put the question of confronting Iran into play in the election," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
"We need to be much clearer, as voters, with our politicians and with our candidates that we expect a different behaviour and a greater integrity in our democracy next time."
Blair warned that the international community must be prepared to take a "very hard, tough line" with Iran, a country "linked up with terrorist groups", to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
He said that if action had not been taken in 2003 to topple Saddam, Iraq could be locked in a nuclear arms race with Iran with potentially devastating consequences for the region and the wider world.
The former prime minister attacked the Islamic regime for fomenting the insurgency that followed the invasion of Iraq by US and UK forces.
He claimed that Iran, which follows Shia Islam, had supported al-Qaida, despite it following the rival Sunni branch of the faith, because they both had a common interest in destabilising Iraq.
Dalton dismissed as a "piece of spin" Blair's claim that the Iranians almost caused the failure of the coalition mission in Iraq through their support for the insurgency.
"To say that Iran was the principal reason seemed to me to be part of a broader argument which he was trying to make, namely that it makes what he did in Iraq look better if he extends it to the future and says the policies then might have to be applied. But Iran is a completely different situation," Dalton said
=========
Blair attacked over Iran stance
By Gavin Cordon, Press Association
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Tony Blair was strongly criticised today after he warned that the international community must be prepared to take a "very hard, tough line" with Iran over its banned nuclear programme.
In his evidence yesterday to the Iraq Inquiry, the former prime minister said that many of the arguments which led him to confront Saddam Hussein now applied to the regime in Tehran
He attacked the Iranians for fomenting the insurgency which followed the invasion of Iraq by British and US forces, and he said that they must not now be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
He said that if action had not been taken in 2003 to topple Saddam, Iraq could now be locked in a nuclear arms race with Iran with potential devastating consequences for the region and the wider world.
However his claim that the Iranians almost caused the failure of the coalition mission in Iraq through their support for the insurgency was dismissed as a "piece of spin" by a former British ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton.
"To say that Iran was the principal reason seemed to me to be part of a broader argument which he was trying to make, namely that it makes what he did in Iraq look better if he extends it to the future and says the policies then might have to be applied. But Iran is a completely different situation," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
Sir Richard said that it was now essential that all the political parties made clear in the run up to the general election that there would be no repeat of Mr Blair's actions in respect of Iran.
"One result of Tony Blair's intervention on Iran - he mentioned Iran 58 times - is to put the question of confronting Iran into play in the election," he said.
"We need to be much clearer, as voters, with our politicians and with our candidates that we expect a different behaviour and a greater integrity in our democracy next time."
=========
Unrepentant, unforgiven, Blair says: ‘I’d do it again’
From The Times January 30, 2010
Tony Blair was branded a murderer and liar last night after he ended his historic appearance before the Iraq inquiry with a blank refusal to voice regrets over toppling Saddam Hussein.
After six hours in which the Chilcot inquiry team had largely failed to breach his defences, the former Prime Minister brought trouble on himself by failing to show the contrition that his critics wanted.
Mr Blair, who gave a fluent, assured performance, refused to apologise for going to war, said that he would do the same again, and then warned that today’s leaders might have to take similar action to disarm Iran.
He went as far as telling the inquiry that it should pose the “2010 question” and ask what would have happened if America and Britain had lost their nerve and allowed Saddam to go on and build nuclear weapons.
Last night declassified documents released by Downing Street revealed that Mr Blair had already indicated Britain’s support for regime change in Iraq six months before the 9/11 attacks. The memo is from Sir John Sawers, foreign policy adviser to Mr Blair at the time and now head of MI6, to a senior diplomat. Dated March 7, 2001, it said that Britain would support the US in toppling Saddam “when the circumstances were right”.
The Iraq inquiry audience stayed silent through most of yesterday’s testimony but cracked when Sir John Chilcot, the chairman, offered Mr Blair two chances to voice regret. To the first he replied: “Responsibility but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein. I think he was a monster. I think he threatened not just a region but the world.” There was a cry of “What, no regrets?”; then shouts of “You are a murderer”, “and a liar”.
There were also sobs from relatives of some of the 179 British service personnel killed in the conflict. Mr Blair said: “It was divisive and I’m sorry about that but I tried my level best to bring people back together again.”
Earlier the former Prime Minister said that many of the arguments used to justify overthrowing Saddam’s regime now applied to Iran. He said that Iran was now a greater risk to Britain than Iraq was at the time that he ordered the invasion in March 2003.
His voice apparently beginning to fade, he insisted that Britain — and in particular the Armed Forces — should feel an “immense sense of pride” for the role that had been played.
“I had to take this decision as Prime Minister. It was a huge responsibility and there is not a single day that passes by that I don’t reflect and think about that responsibility, and so I should,” Mr Blair said. “But I genuinely believe that if we had left Saddam in power, even with what we know now, we would still have had to have dealt with him, possibly in circumstances where the threat was worse.”
No comments:
Post a Comment