Community | December 13, 2009 | 8 comments

Tony Blair: the Iraq war was fought to get rid of Saddam Hussein

Image
Aimee_Kligman
~y2009m12d13-Tony-Blair-the-Iraq-war-was-fought-to-get-rid-of-Saddam-Hussein

As if we didn't know.

Hans Blix summed it up quite well when he told the BBC: 'Blair's remarks gave the strong impression of a lack of sincerity; The war was sold on the weapons of mass destruction [argument], and now you . . . hear that it was only a question of a 'deployment of arguments'. He added: 'It sounds a bit like a fig leaf that was held up, and if the fig leaf had not been there, then they would have tried to put another fig leaf there'.

Would George Bush have been able to sell the war at home based on a desire for regime change in Iraq? It's doubtful. So he and his team took America on the biggest ride, albeit illegal, of our history. Facts were fabricated, claims were exaggerated, mushroom clouds appeared, and the WMD story took a few months, but America plunged into an abyss of fear and bought it.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics
  2. tags:
    War Fraud Saddam Hussein Downing Street Memo
  3.     
    |

8 comments // Tony Blair: the Iraq war was fought to get rid of Saddam Hussein

  • Ragan
    • 0
      Ragan  
    • After the Civil War, every war was provoked by the Democrats and the Warlords of finance. Bush was the first Republican warmonger and killer to provoke an all out world war. If WWI was a world war thwn WWII was the second and this Iraqi/Eurasian war is WWIII. We Americans adore and worship the art of war. Remembering the kids who have died in battle is just an excuse for the celebrations Everything in America is entertainment noting else counts. A military draft would certainly make some of the yellow worry warts think twice about the military and those who risk their lives fighting these political personal battles. It has been expose for some time now that both Democrats and Republicans sleep in the same beds. The CFR people are running the country. Politicians need plenty of advisors because they don't have enough brains to wake up and rule the day. They have their own empire right there in D.C.and 350,000,000 subjects to look down on.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
    • 0
      samthesixth  
    • Tony Blair is right. Clinton and Gore supported regime change in Iraq. The white house was wrong to use the WMD argument. The argument should have been the 17 UN resolution violations and the 1000+ violations of the treaty that suspended hostilities from the first Gulf War. In any case seeing it as Bush's war is too simplistic as he fulfilled the wishes of the prior President, a Dem. Aside from Kucinich and a handful of Dems, the party of peace embraced this effort with the vigor normally reserved for Repub warmongers.

    • 2 years ago
  • Tyr
    • 0
      Tyr  
    • The day will come to pass when all of the boys who's fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, brothers. sisters, grandfathers, and grandmothers we've killed or maimed " mistakenly" you know, "collateral damage"...hundereds of thousands who now have a burning hatred for America and Americans will take their revenge. we will reap the whirlwind , make no mistake about it. No nation that has visited the kind of indiscriminent death and destruction on people who have done nothing has escaped the consequences, we will be no exception. I have the feeling that future generations will hold George W. Bush accountable for being the president who set Americas decline in motion, both economically and internationally.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ragan
    • 0
      Ragan  
    • The leading advisor in Washington has planned the intrusion all the way into Eurasia. And that is going to take some time and blood to complete.and as far back as 1997 when he published his best seller "The Grand Chessboard".

    • 2 years ago
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  
    • A U.S. government report from before September 11 proves that America was already planning a military conquest of Iraq. The war is now almost impossible to justify as a "war on terrorism".

      "As the United States prepares for war with Iraq, a report commissioned
      early in George Bush's presidency has surfaced, showing that the US
      knew it was running out of oil and foreshadowing the possible need
      for military intervention to secure supplies."
      [ Sidney Morning Herald, "Oil has always been top of Bush's foreign-policy agenda", 7 October 2002. ]

    • 2 years ago
  • ryan8566
    • 0
      ryan8566  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      you are right. i remember soon after the war (iraq) started, and before most of the media got in to bed with bush/cheney, there were reports aired and in print that attested to a
      'government-in-waiting', headed by cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, et alia, that met regularly to decide on measures to be taken once they were back in power. this was during the last years of the clinton presidency (who was strapped by the republican congress re: a blow job--millions of dollars and days and days). we will never know the truth, but the reports clearly stated that the top item was drawing up the plans for "the war in iraq'. this was years before 9/11. when cheney flexed some muscle these reports dropped from the media. i'm going to do a 'search' for them.

    • 2 years ago
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  
    • In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

      However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

      Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

      Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

    • 2 years ago
  • Maitereya
    • 0
      Maitereya  
    • we would have bought it no matter what he said. As long as Americans dont have to get off the couch we'll buy it. We still buy it.

      I think it was less about Saddam and more about control of key oil sources. Saddam was just a bonus.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos