Teflon Tony isn't a vote winner, as far as I'm concerned.

Didn't we see enough of him when he was PM? That's as bad as having previous BB contestants popping up again.  A definite no-no!

Hope they don't wheel Margaret hilda out an' all. 

At a time when Labour has been at it's least popular for a decade, the last thing they want to be doing is getting Tony Blair out of the cupboard.  This is a guy who was responsible for Britain's participation in the unlawful invasion on Iraq.  All his appearance does is server to remind us of why enough is enough,  Labour needs to go!!

Which the tories were also in favour of the lib dems voted against it..

I wonder whether the Conservative Party would still have been in favour of it if they hadn't been lied to  like the rest of us mugs in this country?

Yes Bliar (sp) deceived the opposition parties as well as people of this Country.

Saddam lied to everyone.
Even his own people, who were suffering under the UN sanctions, because he wanted everyone to believe he still had WMD.

I'm delighted at the news of Tony Bliar's return - hopefully it should put the final nail in the coffin of our current government.

Actually that happened 2 days ago.  Blair coming out is his icing on the cake.

Yeh I don't think British Military Intelligence was based on Saddam's assertions but rather our own reconnaissance.

But you think the Intelligence community would have told the Tories something else?

I think Bliar told the Tories, Lib Dems, indeed the whole Country something else.  At least the Lib Dems had the good sense and morals to realise that such an invasion based on such flimbsy evidence would be unlawful at best.

You cant assume they were lied to they know exactly  what goes on the why,s and the were for's for going to war, why would they be taken in which would mean the lib dems were not, does not say a lot about their judgement either then IF that was the case which I doubt it was ,either way they were in favour.

Blair, and most of the rest of the world, thought that Saddam still had a secret weapons programme.
Saddam was happy to continue the deceit, despite it continuing his own people's hardship, as he wanted his enemies (including his own people) to continue believing that he was armed.

I'm not saying that mistakes weren't made and claims weren't exaggerated, but to claim that Blair knew that there were no WMD programmes and lied about it, is just ridiculous.

I agree with your post Blizzie..

What is ridiculous is Blair engaging in an unlawful invasion of a Country, with no documentary evidence at all of there being WMDs in existance other than supposed hear-say.

Amazing!  Have you been following the Chilcot enquiry? Not only did Tony Blair and George W Bush know beforehand that there were no WMD's they tried hard to persuade NATO to back them and then pushed ahead without the backing of NATO which was an illegal act.

Marguerita if you honestly believe that the sitting government keeps the opposition in full cognisance of its policies then may I respectfully suggest that you do not know how government works.

So, a war mongering dictator, who had used WMDs in the past (even chemical weapons on his own people) and had definitely been trying to develop more, and had spent about twelve years watching his people suffer, while he obstructed weapons inspectors and even ejected them from his country, should have been given the benefit of the doubt?

I supported the invasion for the liberation of the Iraqi people, which we should have done during the first Gulf War. Every Iraqi I heard talk about it, was desperate to get rid of this blood thirsty dictator.

The only argument I have is with the timing of the invasion and the poorly thought out aftermath.

If action needed to be taken against Saddam Hussein by an international force then the only way in which it could legally be undertaken was with the backing of NATO.  There is a great doubt over George W. Bush's motives in invading and many people think that Tony Blair's backing of his action was extremely ill-advised to say the least.  There are many people in the world who would have them both tried as war criminals.

I don't think that they knew that there were no WMDs - I think they honestly believed that there were weapons programmes still in development and that he still had stocks of chemical weapons etc hidden around the country. I think they were as suprised as everyone else, when none were found.

As I said earlier, I do agree that they exaggerated the evidence, but not because they believed the weapons weren't there, but because they did believe they were there, somewhere!

As for the UN (not NATO), I don't remember people being too concerned when we invaded Kosova to protect another Muslim population, without the UN's approval, and the UN sanction regime was killing Iraqis, while their leader carried on pulling the wool over the world's eyes for twelve years and various UN employees got rich on backhanders.

Ooh what a great tail tweaking thread  

This was a matter that was gone into in great detail by the UN (you are correct).  If there had been any WMD's then the UN would have backed the invasion.  They refused.  Tony Blair has, I seem to recall, admitted that they knew there were none but he and George W felt that Saddam had to be removed because he was a dangerous man.  Admittedly he was a dangerous man but it was not a time for unilateral action.

I dont pretend to be an expert like some do,  on policies they all lie to one another and to us the people, but on war Intelligence reports would have been seen by all parties.

Believe me, some parts of the Labour party were kept in the dark let alone the opposition.

With respect squiggle that is your opinion the point is they still agreed to go to war along with labour.. end of.

Yes they did agree, people on this forum also agreed with the illegal invasion.  How many of us would have agreed if we had been given the courtesy of being told the truth is an entirely different matter.

The UN requires agreement by all permanent members of the Security Council. France had made it perfectly clear that they would not support the invasion.

Maybe it was happy with the benefits it was getting from the UN's totally corrupt Oil for Food programme? Surely they should have been arguing for an end to the sanctions, if they believed there were no WMD programmes and that Saddam had disarmed?

I don't think Tony Blair has admitted anything of the sort. He did say that he was glad that Saddam had been removed from Office, weapons, or no weapons, but that is not an admission that he had lied.

Depends what you feel was the truth the truth to me is  they did not know and that is what I believe.

Just out of interest, did you see the Kosova invasion as illegal?

This quote from The Guardian is illuminating

Tony Blair has said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public.

The former prime minister made the confession during an interview with Fern Britton, to be broadcast on Sunday on BBC1, in which he said he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

"If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?" Blair was asked. He replied: "I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]".

Significantly, Blair added: "I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat." He continued: "I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons in charge, but it's incredibly difficult. That's why I sympathise with the people who were against it [the war] for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, in the end I had to take the decision."

Blair was "absolutely prepared to say he was willing to contemplate regime change if [UN-backed measures] did not work", Sir David Manning, Blair's former foreign policy adviser,told the inquiry. If it proved impossible to pursue the UN route, then Blair would be "willing to use force", Manning emphasised.

The Chilcot inquiry has seen a number of previously leaked Whitehall documents which suggest Blair was in favour of regime change although he was warned by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, in July 2002, eight months before the invasion, that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action".

What exactly does Kosovo have to do with this?

squiggle with all that knowledge have you ever thought of being a member of parliment

Indeed, but no admission that he was aware that there were no WMDs.

I watched documentary, after documentary, about Iraq. How the people were being systematically murdered by their leader. How Shia Muslims were discriminated against by a secular leader. How the Kurds were poisoned in their own streets and denied humanitarian aid, because the UN's Oil for Food programme gave all monies to Saddam to distribute and he kept the Kurds share for himself.

Most people think we should have intervened in places like Rwanda, as the genocide unfolded, but Saddam's genocide was allowed to go on, year after year.

I'm not surprised some feel his removal was necessary.

Marguerita, probably like you I am just an ordinary wife and mother.  I do take an interest in current affairs and of course I do form opinions.  I would hate to stand for public office but I must admit we do need a lot more honest people in politics.  An opinion I read years ago made me smile, that anyone who expressed a desire to become a politician should be automatically precluded from ever holding public office

It had no UN backing. NATO acted unilaterally.

I agree Blizzie but illegal action is never the route to take and one of the reasons that Labour is now in such trouble is because in many people's minds they are associated with lies, spin, smears and scaremongering.