Skip to content

Critics Of Iraq War Policy Proven To Be Correct

December 12, 2009

Those of us who charged the Bush White House was only interested in regime change in Iraq was proven correct by the bombshell statement made today by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.   There was never any doubt about what action the American policy would be, in spite of all the talk about wanting war to be a last resort.  The facts at the time, and the growing evidence over the past months supports what liberals have said over and over again.  Conservatives wanted to pretend that President Bush was not into ‘nation-building’, but the facts are not supporting them.  There was not so much interest in stopping weapons of mass destruction  as there was in changing the Iraq government.  The cost in national resources and dead soldiers (in America and Iraq) makes that regime change a mighty bloody undertaking.  A stain on our foreign policy, and the Bush presidency that will forever remain.

Tony Blair has dropped something of a bombshell by admitting that he would have favoured removing Saddam Hussein regardless of any arguments about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The admission, in an interview being broadcast on the BBC on Sunday, will convince cynics of British and American policy that they were right all along to say this was always about regime change.

It might also make those who laboured to produce the evidence suddenly seem rather irrelevant.

The former British prime minister’s statement goes beyond simply saying that he did believe at the time that Saddam had such weapons but feels now that the war was right in any case.

That is the conventional approach used by some people who supported the war and who think it produced a worthwhile result, though at a high price.

Others have now changed their minds and say it was a mistake.

Not Tony Blair. Typically, perhaps, he is not repentant. And more than that – he says he would have gone to war anyway.

These were his words when asked if he would have “gone on” if he had known then there were no WMDs: “I would still have thought it right to remove him.”

He even suggests in the interview how he would have justified such a war – “the threat to the region.” The argument would have been that with Saddam in power, there was a threat to the wider Middle East and a block on its democratic development.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: