Tony Blair Sticks to His Guns – Even Without WMD Evidence Invading Iraq Was the Right Thing to Do
Leftist Heads Explode.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair still gets it. The staunch Bush ally told the BBC that even without weapons of mass destruction he would have found a justification for invading Iraq.
Iraqi children wave at members of the US military after Saddam Hussein was removed from power.
The LA Times reported:
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he would have found a justification for invading Iraq even without the now-discredited evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to produce weapons of mass destruction.
“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,” Blair told the BBC in an interview to be broadcast this morning.
It was a startling admission from the onetime British leader, who was President Bush’s staunchest ally in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
Blair’s comments were immediately denounced by critics who accused him of using false pretenses to drag Britain into an unpopular war that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of allied troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Speaking to broadcaster Fern Britton, Blair insisted that ousting Hussein had improved the situation in Iraq by laying the foundation for a more democratic country. He described the upcoming Iraqi elections as “probably the single most significant thing that’s happened to that region for many years.”
“I can’t really think we’d be better with him and his two sons still in charge,” Blair said of Hussein.
Tony Blair is 100% correct.
Here in the United States the state-run democratic-media complex has successfully influenced enough Americans to believe that the US invaded Iraq only because of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction that he used against his own people.
Of course, there were other factors that were cited by the US Congress as justification to invade Iraq:
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
* Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”
* Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
* Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
* Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
* Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
For some strange reason the democrats didn’t ever focus much on these other factors.
Thank goodness George W. Bush and Tony Blair stuck to their guns and did not flee the quagmire as democrats wanted when the situation looked dire.
Related… Leftist Howard Zinn says Bush was killing Iraqis for oil, drugs.