Yesterday Blair told the BBC that he would have gone to war even if he had known Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. He would have deployed "different arguments" to remove Saddam, Blair said - undermining his long-held case that Saddam needed to be toppled because of the threat of WMDs.What kind of naked liar would say he would use "different arguments" for the same outcome ?? Especially with something so important as making preventive war? His statement makes clear he is still lying - if he would argue for the same outcome, but make different arguments, what is the REAL reason he agreed with our idiot, lying president to make the worst strategic military disaster in 2,000 years? My guess is Blair went along with Bush purely to ingratiate himself, which is why he will NEVER admit the true reasons for his horrible judgment.
"I would still have thought it right to remove him. Obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat. I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons still in charge."
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Tony Blair continues to lie
You wouldn't know it from consuming our traditional media, but England is conducting an inquiry into the false assertions that led them into the war on Iraq. An article in the New Zealand Herald News makes clear that former PM Tony Blair is still lying about the war: