Tony Blair claimed that the threat Saddam presented to the us was uppermost in his mind. The development of weapons of mass destruction was an aspect of that threat.
He has been asked if he would still have gone on to invade had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction, he said: ‘I would still have thought it right to remove him.’”
Why does this matter? Because it proves that Blair willfully misled the British public into the war. At the time, he said that if Saddam would have disarmed then the war would have been averted
Tony Blair denied that regime change was British policy
The widely held view that Mr Blair arranged the intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to suit his political decision to back Mr Bush.
International and British lawyers have long argued that the war was illegal and controversy has raged over the fact that the Government’s legal advice appeared to change in the run up to war.
The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith eventually claimed the war was legal because Saddam Hussein was in breach of UN resolutions – despite Mr Blair’s failure to secure a resolution explicitly endorsing war.
Regime change by military force, and without legal justification, is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention and international law.
We are a nation of laws and treaties.Due to violent history of the British Empire we have had to learn from it.
It’s about our tolerance and rule of law,a sense of fair play.
