Monthly Archives: April 2013

Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence

Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence

Secret testimony to Chilcot Inquiry by British intelligence shows former PM ‘accepted Libya was a bigger threat’

Hitherto unseen evidence given to the Chilcot Inquiry by British intelligence has revealed that former prime minister Tony Blair was told that Iraq had, at most, only a trivial amount of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that Libya was in this respect a far greater threat.

Intelligence officers have disclosed that just the day before Mr Blair went to visit president George Bush in April 2002, he appeared to accept this but returned a “changed man” and subsequently ordered the production of dossiers to “find the intelligence” that he wanted to use to justify going to war.

This and other secret evidence (given in camera) to the inquiry will, The Independent on Sundayunderstands, be used as the basis for severe criticism of the former prime minister when the Chilcot report is published.

Mr Blair is said to have “realised” and “understood” that Libya was the real threat and that he knew “it would not be sensible to lead the argument on Saddam and the WMD issue” according to evidence of a conversation on 4 April 2002, the day before he flew to the US to spend a weekend with Mr Bush.


(Part 1) Interview given by President Bashar al-Assad to Turkish – April 5 2013

Why the Death Count in Syria Actually Doesn’t ‘Count’

Civilian deaths only count when as a pretext for ‘intervention’

In July 2012, Senator John McCain argued the US’s unwillingness to intervene militarily in Syria to stop a humanitarian catastrophe was “shameful and disgraceful,” because it has allowed Bashar al-Assad “to massacre and slaughter people and stay in power.” Last month, he called on the US to “lead an international effort” to conduct “airstrikes on Assad’s forces.”

“The Assad regime has spilled too much blood to stay in power,” McCain insists.

McCain’s interventionist allies in Congress have been making similar pleas in Washington to initiate military action to stem the Assad regime’s violent crackdown on an armed rebellion. Hawks in the media, like Max Boot and Jackson Diehl, have just this week argued that 70,000 dead – according to a United Nations estimate – is too much not to intervene.

I’ve written ad nauseam and in detail about how disastrous direct US military intervention in Syria would be. Everything from directly arming the rebels to imposing a no-fly zone to sending boots on the ground to topple the Assad regime – all of it carries the predictable consequence of making the humanitarian situationunimaginably worse, which is ironic for war hawks who justify intervention on humanitarian grounds.

But we can expose the weak and even dishonest case for military action in Syria in a much simpler way: by analogy.

%d bloggers like this: