Can he get away with admitting that he lied?
In what the Guardian is describing as a “big shift in his ground” Tony Blair is saying, in a BBC interview to be broadcast tomorrow, that he would have invaded Iraq in 2003 even without evidence of WMDs and would have found a way of explaining this.
The papers reports : “.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.”
This frank admission comes as he prepares to face the Chilcot inquiry in the New Year and it might come as a surprise to all those who thought that the war was all about the threat of weapons of mass destruction. It will, of course, take the focus off the economy.
As SimonStClare noted on the previous thread “..Is. Tony Blair coming to Gordonâ€™s rescue or dumping the present Government with the admission that Iraq was all about regime change and they were prepared to lie to take us to war?”
This raises the question, as well, over whether Mr. Brown was complicit in the deception.
Blair, of course, is the master of the “big performance” and no doubt his public appearance will dominate the headlines for days.
Whatever your view of the former PM you have to admire his chutzpah!