Tony Blair Defends Allied Invasion of Iraq; Says It was Right to Remove Saddam Hussein - Video

Freedom's Lighthouse ^ | December 12, 2009 | Brian

[Federalist Patriot]

Here is video of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair defending the Allied invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. Blair said even without the belief Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, "I would still have thought it right to remove him."

Blair pointed to the fact that Saddam had thumbed his nose at United Nations resolutions for 12 years, and the knowledge he had used chemical weapons against his own people as reason to believe Saddam Hussein and his two sons would have been an ongoing threat to the world.

Blair is right. The fact no WMDs were found has overshadowed in the minds of many the real threat Saddam and his regime were to the world. The fact no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found after the invasion only serves to prove it does not appear he had them YET. It does not prove he was not, or would not have pursued them again, or provided funds and assistance to others who would have pursued them. The world is better of without Saddam and his regime, and the brave men and women of our Armed Forces and those of our allies should be commended for the job they did in disposing of the tyrants and giving the people of Iraq a chance at freedom. . . . (VIDEO)

[Yossarian]

The fact no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found after the invasion only serves to prove it does not appear he had them YET.

Gads, we have to kill this meme....

Iraq's chemical weapon attack on Halabja.

[fred2008]

Blair is of course correct.

That the world believes no WMDs were never found may be the intel coup of the century.

Ask yourself one question: What is the easiest and most effective way to prevent a whole bunch of Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters to search for possible WMDs in Iraq?

Answer: Tell the world you were wrong and take the heat.

Think WWII and the disinformation campaign about D-Day. Patton will invade at Calais. Even a dead general with partial invasion plans washing up on shore to further the plot.

Brilliant stuff.

[Ev Reeman]

The invasion of Iraq was completely justified for at least three reasons:

First, it would get rid of an unstable dictator and without him might help that country immensely by freeing its 25 million people, putting it on a path to a kind of democratic representative government and which also may become an important partner in the war on terror.

Second, at the time of the invasion it was thought by many people that Saddam either had weapons of mass destruction (we knew he already had chemical and biological weapons which he used against his own people) or was negotiating to obtain or develop nuclear weapons. These opinions were not only by Bush officials but by prominent democrats like Bill Clinton and John Kerry as well as other foreign governments and foreign spy agencies.

Third, by invading Iraq after Afghanistan, it forced Al Qaeda and the Taliban to split their forces and resources to two different fronts in the war. This strategy ultimately proved successful but it only worked when the troop surge was approved for Iraq.

[Carley]

Dittos.

[avacado]

Saddam never honored the surrender agreement from the first Gulf War, therefore the war never ended until GWB took issue with the regime. End of story.

[Zman516]

And in addition to that, “Regime change” in Iraq was official US policy established, by all people, the Clinton administration.

[avacado]

Clinton December 16, 1998

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
...
...
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html