Originally Posted By: King Brown
We can take the little fella's word or the British prime minister's at the time for whether the intelligence was wrong. Tony Blair apologized yesterday on CNN for acting on wrong information and that there are "elements of truth" in the theory that the invasion helped feed the rise of ISIS.

As for fudging, he acknowledges intelligence confirming presence of WMDs was also wrong. Blair's confession and apology on US television is seen by some pundits as getting out his story before the official Chilcott Report expected next month. From The Independent:


"It is as part of a longer documentary, Long Road To Hell: America In Iraq, set to be screened on Tueday.

With the cameras rolling, Mr Zakaria asked Mr Blair: “Given that Saddam had no WMDs, was the war a mistake?”

He replied: “I apologise for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong. I also apologise, by the way, for some of the mistakes in planning, and certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime. But I find it hard to apologise for removing Saddam.”


King, as you well know, there is a giant gap between acting on information that turned out to be wrong and acknowledging that when compared to acting on information you know to be incorrect or fudged.

I read that interview with Blair. I read clearly he is apologizing for acting on information that later turned out to be somewhat incorrect. In fact the article identifies the Italian agent who was the source of the incorrect intel. At no time does Blair acknowledge or accept that he knew the intel was wrong.

Or am I wrong?

The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia