I KNOW, it’s a shock to learn for certain he’d lie about even war, eh?
All that talk about WMDs meant nothing afterall because he’s admitted he wanted war against Iraq anyway. Who dragged this out of him: Paxman? Humphreys? No, it was hard-hitting breakfast TV presenter Fern Britton, during an interview for a BBC One religious programme.
Discussing Saddam Hussein and the decision to invade Iraq, Mr Blair was asked: “If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?”
Mr Blair replied: “I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean, obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat.”
Therefore citing WMDs so much was just a tactic all along. If that argument were not available, another would have been rolled out. Truth and morality can go hang, Blair simply had an argument to win. Even if you agree with the Iraq war and think Saddam Hussein should have been ousted, the truth cannot be sacrificed, which happened because, in February 2003, Blair told the House of Commons:
I detest his regime—I hope most people do—but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN’s demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully. I do not want war. I do not believe anyone in the House wants war. But disarmament peacefully can happen only with Saddam’s active co-operation.
Now we know this was a lie delivered to Parliament to involve us in war. We know for certain also that going to the UN to bring back Security Council resolutions on Iraq’s WMDs was a fig leaf, yet another piece of spin to justify a war he’d decided he’d have anyway. At least Bush was honest: he’d make Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act happen with or without WMDs. For Blair, all he needed was an argument that worked.
You can still support the war and think the eventual outcome worth it, but no-one can defend Blair’s duplicity in how he involved us in it.