Blair avoids protesters on his day at the Iraq Inquiry

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...aks-early.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8485694.stm

• Blair: 9/11 changed everything, Saddam had to go

• I'd do it all again, defiant ex-PM declares

• 'Monster' could have killed millions in chemical attack

• Iran is new threat that could warrant intervention

• Fury as he arrives early and goes in through the back

• Families of war dead walk out in disgust at 'smug' Blair

Tony Blair was defiant today as he admitted he had made clear he would join the U.S. in a war to topple Saddam Hussein after 9/11 even if they failed to get UN backing. The former prime minister said the terror attacks in New York convinced him he could not 'run the risk' of allowing the dictator to carry out an atrocity using chemical, biological or nuclear missiles. Mr Blair was branded 'cowardly' after sneaking inside two hours early for his long-awaited appearance before the Iraq inquiry, meaning he avoided a gauntlet of hate through protesters.

To the disgust of families of dead soldiers, he offered no apology for taking Britain to war despite the lack of concrete proof about weapons of mass destruction and said he would do it all again. As hundreds of protesters demonstrated outside, Mr Blair described Saddam as a 'monster' and 'psychopath' who was intending to develop an arsenal of WMDs. But relatives of soldiers who died in the conflict watching his evidence were repulsed at his attitude, accusing him of 'smirking'. One walked out after an hour, branding the inquiry a 'waste of time'.

Mr Blair told the Chilcot inquiry he assured George W. Bush in April 2002 that 'if it came to military action because there was no way of dealing with this [Iraq] diplomatically, we would be with him.' He admitted the controversial claim in a September 2002 dossier that Iraq could deploy WMD in 45 minutes was a mistake that had later 'assumed a vastly greater significance'.But he denied duping the nation over the justification for war, insisting: 'This is not a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception, it was decision I had to take.'He also defended saying in the dossier that the intelligence had established 'beyond doubt' that Saddam the weapons. 'I believed it was beyond doubt,' he said.

And he dismissed claims he secretly 'signed in blood' to war at the April summit in Texas, almost a year before the invasion, insisting that the means of removing Saddam was left open. 'It was obviously a possibility that military action would be the outcome of what was going to happen. So there was a general discussion of the possibility of going down the military route, but obviously we were arguing very much for that to be if the UN route failed.'

I watched an hour or so of it and boy is he as good as ever at avoiding questions/telling lies. The man trails off to something totally unrelated when asked a question and its hard not to get lost listening to him. The only way you can pin someone like Tony Blair is to have someone who will not only question him but will question his answers. 'Sorry Mr Blair but thats not answering the question, please try again.' - The thing with Blair is that he makes a very convincing liar because he actually appears to believe his own lies, then again I suppose you have to when you have over a million deaths hanging over you.

I really feel for the families who sons and daughters were killed over a lie, Mr Blair still has his kids - those families can never see or speak to their sons/daughters ever again. What did they die for?

[Tash.]

Of course Blair is good at twisting his arguments, he's a lawyer and he's married to one, that's what he was trained to do. Not only this but he's a politician so again, trained to avoid awkward questions by diverting the questions off on to another topic.

Anyway, yes I feel dreadfully sorry for those who have lost their lives/children because of this, but regardless of this they were not forced to joint the armed services. They did so out of choice and a very good one if you're brave enough. But to me if you join any of the armed services you do so with the knowledge that if called to fight you do it and if you die then that is a risk of the job. This is not me being cold hearted, but honestly, you do not join the armed services and expect to not fight. No matter how their son/daughter was killed these families are going to be upset about it because that's human nature. When we're upset we find someone to blame for it and we stick to it until we feel a sense of justice. To me it wouldn't matter how these poor people died, there would still be upset about the circumstances.

[BeanEgg]

Born guilty.

You can just see the oil in his eyes. :@

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course Blair is good at twisting his arguments, he's a lawyer and he's married to one, that's what he was trained to do. Not only this but he's a politician so again, trained to avoid awkward questions by diverting the questions off on to another topic.

Anyway, yes I feel dreadfully sorry for those who have lost their lives/children because of this, but regardless of this they were not forced to joint the armed services. They did so out of choice and a very good one if you're brave enough. But to me if you join any of the armed services you do so with the knowledge that if called to fight you do it and if you die then that is a risk of the job. This is not me being cold hearted, but honestly, you do not join the armed services and expect to not fight. No matter how their son/daughter was killed these families are going to be upset about it because that's human nature. When we're upset we find someone to blame for it and we stick to it until we feel a sense of justice. To me it wouldn't matter how these poor people died, there would still be upset about the circumstances.

You expect your government to send you into harms way only when it is absolutely necessary - Iraq was not necessary. Why do they want somebody to blame(?), well the simple answer is because the Prime Minister sent their son/daughter into a war for no reason at all and they have lost their life because of that.

[Tash.]

You expect your government to send you into harms way only when it is absolutely necessary - Iraq was not necessary. Why do they want somebody to blame(?), well the simple answer is because the Prime Minister sent their son/daughter into a war for no reason at all and they have lost their life because of that.

'When absolutely necessary' is a relative term and means different things to different people. Some believed that WWI and WWII were not necessary wars to be engaged in but nobody would argue now that they weren't necessary. It's all a matter of perception. My belief is that on the whole the Iraq war was necessary even if not for the purpose that was originally stated.

[Yoshimitsui]

As much as i feel sorry for all those who have died and their families, you cannot pin it all on one man simply because he was the one to sign the paper or what havyer. Disregarding all the political rubbish that he was the one who made everyone go and so its all his fault is utter stupidity.

There were many people involved in the setup and construction of starting the Iraq war, it was necessary as we were suffering long down the line and the same goes for Afghanistan.

So what if the guy used a back door to avoid being mobbed by everyone wanting to mash his head in for something he can't be entirely blamed for. He made the final decision yes, but he did it for the right reasons.

[Bun]

woah, bias aside, i thought he handled it really well? :S you can't moan if your child dies in the army for going to war, that's like moaning about a fireman dying in a fire. fires, like war, aren't wanted by anyone but are unavoidable.

[-:Undertaker:-]

'When absolutely necessary' is a relative term and means different things to different people. Some believed that WWI and WWII were not necessary wars to be engaged in but nobody would argue now that they weren't necessary. It's all a matter of perception. My belief is that on the whole the Iraq war was necessary even if not for the purpose that was originally stated.

WW1 and WW2 were necessary as they were vital to national security aka they posed a threat. The invasion of Iraq is nothing like and cannot be compared to WW1 and WW2. On Iraq if you do believe it was necessary as does Mr Blair, when will you be proposing to invade North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe and China who have far more dangerous and evil regimes than the Ba'ath regime in Iraq?

Oh wait, we don't want to touch any of them because they can give us a smack in the face back. We were nothing but cowardly bullies.

As much as i feel sorry for all those who have died and their families, you cannot pin it all on one man simply because he was the one to sign the paper or what havyer. Disregarding all the political rubbish that he was the one who made everyone go and so its all his fault is utter stupidity.

There were many people involved in the setup and construction of starting the Iraq war, it was necessary as we were suffering long down the line and the same goes for Afghanistan.

So what if the guy used a back door to avoid being mobbed by everyone wanting to mash his head in for something he can't be entirely blamed for. He made the final decision yes, but he did it for the right reasons.

What were we suffering from Iraq?

There were no terrorists in Iraq and Iraq and Saddam posed no threat to the western world or his neighbours, infact when the Bush Administration gained office numerous high figures such as Colin Powell stated when asked if Iraq posed a threat, that Iraq did not pose any threat.

woah, bias aside, i thought he handled it really well? :S you can't moan if your child dies in the army for going to war, that's like moaning about a fireman dying in a fire. fires, like war, aren't wanted by anyone but are unavoidable.

The Iraq war was not unavoidable, it was chosen. That is the vital difference between WW1, WW2, the Korean War, the Cold War and the Falklands War. We chose to send our men and women into a war, and for what exactly?

[Yoshimitsui]

So 9/11, 7/7 and all other attempted terrorist attacks don't count? Because the so called leaders and initiators of these attacks have resided in many of these places and are known to be involved in their coordination. The Taliban and all the other things they call themselves all seem to fall back to the same leaders who carried out these tasks.

And don't come back and say George Bush had the bombs planted in the world trade centre.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So 9/11, 7/7 and all other attempted terrorist attacks don't count? Because the so called leaders and initiators of these attacks have resided in many of these places and are known to be involved in their coordination. The Taliban and all the other things they call themselves all seem to fall back to the same leaders who carried out these tasks.

And don't come back and say George Bush had the bombs planted in the world trade centre.

So would you care to tell me how a Saudi Arabian living in Afghanistan had anything to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq?