It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Tony Blair: Regime Change Always Our Policy.

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 06:12 AM
In answer to a question from Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, at todays Prime Ministers Question Time, Tony Blair admitted that the policy of the British Government had been regime change as long ago as March 2002.

In an extraordinary reply about the nature of remarks made by the British Ambassador to the U.S.A at that time to reassure the Bush administration that Blair was resolutely behind the proposed U.S action he replied that British policy had always been that regime change was the only way to ensure security in the region.

This despite the repeated assurances he gave in the run up to war, almost a year later, that Saddam Hussein could still retain power if he complied with UN resolutions.

This particular point was raised by a Labour backbencher, Bob Wareing, later in PMQs in a boisteous debate dominated by the reasons for war in Iraq.

Mr Kennedy dug a neat bear trap for the prime minister by pointing out that, now the WMD issue was dead, the only justification the prime minister had left for the war was the removal of Saddam Hussein.

As a result, he had led the country into an illegal war, he declared.

That really rattled/angered the prime minister who sneered back that he did not accept the argument.

"If he had his way, Saddam Hussein and his sons would still be running Iraq."

If Mr Kennedy had been allowed another question he might have shouted "bingo".

Instead it was left to a Labour backbencher Bob Wareing to take up the line of argument by pointing out that on 25 February last year - before the war- the prime minister had said that if Saddam had complied with UN resolutions his "detestable regime" could continue.

Or, to put it another way, if the prime minister had had his way last February, Saddam and his sons would still be running Iraq.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by John bull 1]

[edit on 13-10-2004 by John bull 1]

posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 06:41 AM
What a fekin LIAR! He took Great Britain into a war on lies and more lies, WMD which Saddam had no more, the (non existant) link between Saddam and Bin Laden.

Regime change indeed, we are out there because of oil and the revenue we will get out of it. Saddam just happemed to be sitting on the worlds third biggest oil field and just happened to be an easy target with an easy excuse.

That man is so full of his own #e it's untrue.

posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 06:54 AM
I think by blaming Tony you are giving the guy way too much credit.

Firstly I think the UK had no choice in the matter, and tony even less. OK he is the figurehead of the government but thats all he is.. he has strings attached.

This does however clearly indicate that the government does not feel obliged to tell the parliament, let alone the people, what line the real policy is following.

posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 07:02 AM
I was watching it live on TV.That is why I was able to report it as it was happening.

I couldn't believe it!

Nor could Parliament.There was incredulous heckling when he admitted it.

posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 08:40 AM
Bush was going into Iraq no matter what. If he had gone it alone the situation would have been far far worse. We all known the american army is sometimes over enthusiastic with their guns ! So imagine their gun-ho attitude in Iraq if they were there alone. Reality check folks. Blair is far far smarter than Bush and knew fine well he had to defuse the situation. In the end he had two choices : 1. Exceptionally bad and let Bush go alone, 2. Very bad and go into Iraq with incomplete UN support. Which would you choose ?

Now here we are again with folks saying Blair lied. He didn't but people will try and shout that long enough in the hope that people will forget that the problem was bad intelligence incorrectly assessed by a committee. It was not a piece of paper from MI6 stating that Iraq had no WMD's read by Blair in the privacy of his front room which he then lied to parliament about. Although that's what you would think with some of the mindless/forgetful comments sometimes.

The following statements are NOT mutually exclusive :

1. Britains policy is regime change in Iraq
2. Saddam Hussein could remain in power if he complied with the UN.

If you don't know why then I suggest you go back to school and read some books.

As for the behaviour of MP's in parliament you forget one very important point. They are on TV and there is an election next year so they will say and do almost anything to win points in an attempt to gain votes. Especially if it means ignoring the difference between the meaning of "could","would" and "should" which Sun readers have great difficulty with !

new topics

top topics

log in