Blair wants to tell Iranian tales
Fraser Nelson 4:02pm
Iran. That’s the news story which poor Mr Blair is trying to spin to the panel – but they don’t pick up on his hints. It would have all been all right in Basra – he’d like to say - if it hadn't been for those pesky Iranians. As Prime Minister, if he blamed Iran in public then that would have had implications. He’d have had to follow up on it. But now he wants to tell us, or he would if those chaps on the panel would kindly probe him on it.
When he was talking to Baroness Prashar he tried to start: “If what you’d ended up having was an indigenous violence or insurgency, or criminality and looting and so on…” She wasn’t interested “We’ll come to that later…” and handed over to Chilcot. But Blair insisted:
“We could have handled the situation if that had been the problem. It was the introduction of the external elements of Al Qaeda and Iran that really caused this mission very nearly to fail, but fortunately at the end it didn’t. Those are the same forces that we are facing in Afghanistan and right round the region.”
Lets wait for him to put the bellows under this Iran line after the break.
UPDATE: More Iran stuff for tomorrow’s newspapers:
“I also sent Jack [Straw] to talk to the Iranians. We tried very hard to reach out, make an agreement with them. Give them a strong indication that the Americans were not there, having done Iraq, to move to Iran. One of the most disappointing, but most telling aspects to that is that the Iranians were a major destabilising factor in this - and quite deliberately.”
Previous
Jez
January 29th, 2010 4:14pm Report this commentI've just said that in DB's below- with an excellent tie-in to the social debacle gripping the UK now- by Nulab (maybe?).
You Conservative's *need* to get your acts in order here.
This is an open goal.
Blair mentioned 'Failed State'.....
*Nulab is a Failed Political Party.*
What are you guys waiting for?
Start to make some proper, firm but fair, decent political decisions- for the country.
You know, the one we all live in right now.
Jane
January 29th, 2010 4:48pm Report this commentI am not sure I agree with you Fraser. What he is saying to me is that States that are brutal with their citizens and neighbours were a problem. Add weapons to this type of regime and they pose a greater risk to us all. He was right to say he was worried about Iran and what would happen after Saddam was removed. That was my interpretation of why he sent Jack Straw to reassure Iran that the US would not cross their borders. I am sure he was also advised of how Iran would likely behave if the opportunity arose.
Being disappointed in Iran's subsequent actions and the destabilising role they played was again understandable. I again thought this was relevant in terms of how the enquiry was proceeding as it related to difficult decision making by those charged with protecting us. The issue of Iran is with us and will need to be dealt with at some time.....
Maggie
January 29th, 2010 5:07pm Report this commentApart from a few vacuous questions from the ineffectual panel Blair has spent six hours bending the truth and providing self-justifications for his crimes. He's even just given them those bogus statistics on child mortality that were quoted on the Today programme this morning. If this is the level of interrogation on offer in this farce of an enquiry then it would be pointless to question Gordon Brown. This enquiry is not interested in the truth.
jon dee
January 29th, 2010 5:38pm Report this commentA document starved, supine panel allowed Blair to waltz around the truth and their convoluted questions.
Shameful rhetorical questioning from Gilbert and Freedman while chairman Chilcot simpered in the background.
No doubt Tony and cronies will party tonight on the strength of a masterful disingenuous political performance.
Anyone for whitewash ?
Boudicca
January 29th, 2010 6:13pm Report this commentIraq and Iran were joint and balancing powers in the region. They had fought a vicious war for many years and neither side came out victorious because they WERE balanced. Iran is an Islamic Theocracy - where extremists have been allowed to florish. Iraq was secular; the religious nutters were contained and controlled - ruthlessly, but at least they were controlled.
Bush and Blair took away one side of the regional balance of power - arguably the wrong one - and completely c0cked up the aftermath. Did they seriously expect Iran to just sit by, watch and not try to exploit the situation.
In the European Cold War, if NATO had (for whatever reason) not been there as a balance to the USSR, does anyone seriously think the Russians/Warsaw Pact would not have exploited the opportunity!
We are now left with a dangerous and unopposed Iran - with many in southern Iraq supporting them - and with Blair hinting that if he were PM, Iran would be next on his target.
Morons!
THE ESSSEX BOYS
January 29th, 2010 6:57pm Report this commentWe believe that many TV commentators have done us an diservice by suggesting that the public has no appetite for 'yet another' enquiry. This is to misjudge both the mood and the limited scope of previous enquiries. Further important information is being revealed all the time and this may NOT be the final chapter once a new government takes stock and possibly adds to the Enquiry's reach and ability to follow-through.
The question - Why was Mr Blair so keen to go to war? - is intriguing.
'Sticking with our major ally'...'The right thing to do'...and vague implications that a higher power was guiding him just do not wash. Why THEN, with Blix in situ as a result of the massing of troops. Those troops could have waited longer while Blix continued and further post-conflict planning was undertaken in case necessary.
It is perfectly clear now - as we have stated continuously since 2003 - that blind support of the USA in general and President Bush in particular has benefited Mr Blair in his personal life and we see no reason why this possibility should not be explored. Human nature is human nature.
We also believe that the President and close family associates in Saudi Arabia - well explained in the film 'Fahrenheit 911' - have benefited enormously from the much higher price platform for crude oil in the world market since the invasion. These figures and earnings are a matter of fact.
We believe that this far-reaching Enquiry has the scope to explore these possible motives for decisions that so many of us at the time, and ever since, have found inexplicable. We see no reason why the laws of defamation should impede such natural questions that we believe are in the minds of so many.
There is a great sense of injustice in this country when we see the material benefits that the main exponent, Mr Blair, and former political colleagues now in his employ have enjoyed while our military and their families have paid such a heavy price for little personal reward.
It is important for the fabric of society that this injustice is not ignored but is understood and probed in depth.
2trueblue
January 29th, 2010 11:55pm Report this commentThe public have an appetite for some robust handling of the inquirey. The panel come across as wet and unqualified. It would have been far more effective to put in some really good lawyers and journalists. It is a total waste of time, where those being questioned are running it.
Steve
January 30th, 2010 1:38am Report this commentIm sure it will take a few days to digest all of what was said today but I'd like to mention one of the main points Blair made . It concerned the Link between Saddam and 9/11. Contrary to what many believe it was not Blairs Position that Saddam was directly linked to 9/11 as far as involvement went . Rather by that time, the stand off with Iraq took on a greater urgency in the light of the 9/11 attacks. A bit like a festering sore which if not dealt with was now seen to have the potential of resulting in further attacks on the West by an embolded Dictator.
Imagine an individual had just had a severe kicking by some enemy and was left lying in the street and then someone watching from the wings not directly involved in the first attack then taking the opportunity to have a kick themselves when the victim is on the ground. Iraq was seen as that enemy watching from the wings.
Frank Leader
January 30th, 2010 9:56am Report this commentHe is a very smooth operator; nothing sticks to him at all. Arrogant and unfeeling. Would make an excellent Fiction writer.
Back to top