a few more problems menu books like you are sure or not sure and nothing is ever black or white at that moment of truth there's only one person i can truly sit down with and in no the advice coming back is unbiased and hear what do i really think is the right thing and that is sitting with my father. >> thank you very much. fascinating. [applause] . .

>> good morning governor, look forward to your message. >> before we begin, let me say that the thoughts and prayers of every new mexican are with the people of haiti during this terrible disaster. what we don't hold in riches, we have in generosity. and i would like to encourage our citizens to do all they can to help those in such great need. lieutenant governor diane denish, speaker ben lujan, senate pro tem, tim jennings, distinguished members of the new mexico legislature, pueblo governors, the state supreme court, members of our great congressional delegation, senators bingaman, you dahl and

teague. also, among our distinguished guests, new mexico's first lady, barbara richardson. (applause.) >> and my fellow new mexicans. in an effort to save time and money, because i have known for these long speeches, i was tempted to deliver my speech using twitter, but sending out 168tweets is probably over kill so here i am. >> that went over well. >> i am sure you will agree that this year, more than any other, represents a defining moment for all of us. how we respond to tough times like these is a test of who we

are as a people. for 16 months now, new mexico has felt full impact of the word-wide economic downturn. each of us knows someone who has been hurt by this recession. a family member, who has lost their job. a small business barely making payroll, seniors who have delayed retirement, or a friends who home is on the brink of foreclosure. but, perhaps, more than any other time in history, p.m. in new mexicans need and are relying on state services from workforce training and access to healthcare, to the delivery of unemployment benefits. and they recognize the crucial role of our education system and wait plays in charting the path for personal improvement and competitiveness in a changing economy so while we continue to cut spending and

look for ways to make government efficient we must not turn our back on the most vulnerable citizens, nor wreckless with budget cuts and reverse progress we have made in the last seven years. i want new mexicans to know that we have been and will continue to be good stewards of their money. new mexico has always benefits cally responsible. unlike washington, with the exception of our congressional delegation, new mexico cannot run a deficit. nor overspend. we must have a balanced budget. and we have balanced the budget every single year and in the past, when we had extra resources, some were tempted to spend our cash reserves but i refused. i insisted we hole reserves at minimum of 10% of overall

spending. at one point that was 650 million dollars in our savings account. that savings benefited us all when the national economy spiraled downward. we have also grown our state's permanent funds which are recovering after the financial melt down. those funds are back up to 13.4 billion dollars. four billion higher than they were under my predecessor. during the last year, we saw a 19% return on our investments. and over the last seven years, together, the legislature and governor, we cut taxes by more than 1 billion dollars, much of it that went straight into the pockets of working new mexico families. however, despite balancing our budget every single year, building a sensible savings account and investing wisely in

our future, we face a serious revenue shortfall. the national and global recessions have taken their toll on our economy and just like 48 other states, new mexico must respond. after a period of strong economic growth in our state, with incomes jumping by 30%, and a 39% growth of gdp between 2003 and 2008, the global recession has hurt our efforts to keep up that pace. the good news that is unemployment in new mexico is still lower than the national level. and we continue to attract new jobs. but, many new mexicans are out of work. and many more are doing more with less pay. we must never forget them as we grapple with the tasks before us. i am proposing a responsible

and fair approach to balance our budget deficit. we have already cut hundreds of millions in state spending, while we can make mortar getted cuts, it is important to note that most state agencys have been cut to the bone. and any further cuts would mean certain layoffs. closing facilities and ending public services, when our citizens need them most. but, i also believe that increasing taxes alone, is irresponsible and not the answer to balancing the budget. i will not give anyone a blank check to raise taxes and overburden hard working new mexico families. nor should we roll back important tax cuts and incentives that we have used to create jobs and open new mexico for business. our efforts to build a high wage, high tech economy must

continue. most urgently now in this time of job loss and economic turmoil. to be fair and to be responsible, we need to take the middle path, a balanced approach that combines targeted spending cuts and short term revenues with strong accountability measures. like our citizens, this administration has tightened its belt since recession began. i implemented a hiring freeze more than a year ago and currently have 3,000 vacancies in state government. i eliminated positions and cut salaries of exempt state employees. those appointed by me by 2%. now, 110 exempt positions are vacant. painfully, i ordered five furrlough days for about 17,000

employees. i froze 150 million installed capital outlay projects, both mine and yours and i urged this body to eliminate those projects. and we have cut state agency budgets by 7% on average. none of these measures were popular. but, all were necessary. my budget plan for the next fiscal year reduces spending by 510 million, through the following measures. first, make permanent the 218 million in cuts that we made during the special session and by executive order. second, reduce costs by another 158 million, by cutting spending across state government. third, is a said, eliminate stalled capital outlay projects and end the problem of double

dipping. last, streamline and merge government functions. based on recommendations from the committee on government efficiency. by consolidating agencies, boards and commissions with overlapping functions, we can save at least 25 million dollars. i want to thank former governor gary druthers for letting this effort and thank former governor tony anaya for taking on the critical job of overseeing the federal stimulus money flowing into new mexico. please give these 2 former governors -- (applause.) >> as we look to raise revenue to help us through this crisis, i will only support a temporary revenue increase that automatically expires in three years or less. i will also oppose any tax increase that hurts our efforts

to keep the state economically competitive and create new jobs such as increasing personal income taxes, growing back our capital gain tax cuts or decreasing business tax incentives or credits that are working to create jobs. nor will i support reinstating the food tax. (applause.) >> we cannot ask working new mexicans to pay more for groceries when too many are struggling to make ends meet. even in a time of shortfall, i insist that education must remain our top investment. (applause.) >> let me also be very clear, budget cuts are not an excuse for cutting quality, for

rolling back accountability, for lowering our standard or for giving up our responsibility to educate new mexico's children. we have invested more than 1 billion dollars in classroom spending, much of that for professional teacher salaries, tied to increased accountability. we rank third in the country for percentage increase in average teacher salaries in the last decade and we move from 46 to 37th in salary ranking. and over that time, we have moved from 67% of core courses being taught by highly qualified teachers to 98%. our investment in pre k and full day kindergarten is paying off. new mexico pre k graduate scored higher on early math and literacy skills than children to who did not participate and last year when the first class of full day kindergarten

entered third grade and took their first round of standardized tests, they far out performed third graders from previous years. (applause.) >> and we did that together. but i want to us go much further. i want new mexico to be the first state of the nation to have a hispanic education act. we will be held accountable by results, by creating an annual report card on the status of hispanic education. we'll increase parental and community involvement and close the achievement gap. we're also bringing back 10,000 drop outs to complete their education as part of our graduate new mexico initiative. through aggressive interventions and low performing schools, we're going -- we'll make sure more young men and women enter the workforce with the skills to get better paying jobs. i will also continue my strong

support for innovative charter schools. (applause.) >> i believe the increased choices and competition charter schools provide is healthy for our state. that is why i will fight any move to place moratoriums on new charter schools. (applause.) >> finally, while we have seen a positive return in our investment, we must always be accountable for taxpayer money and safeguard limited educational resources. to that end, i propose all local boards receive financial training to see that held accountable for money they spend. i want school boards to establish strict policies and procedures to prevent abuse of credit and purchase cards.

we must do all we can to stop fraud and abuse in our schools. and i want to recognize the work of the legislative finance committee. and state auditor, balderas in prosecuting these abuses. my bottom line in this, i don't want to cut teacher salaries and i don't want to cut classroom spending. and if we have to cut education spending, we should start with the bureaucracy and district administrations. >> together we have passed significant ethics reforms, setting strict campaign contribution limits, providing public financing for judicial

posts and capping gifts to candidates, but several vital reforms have been put off for too long. whistle blower protections to shield employees from retaliation for reporting fraud, waste or abuse, disclosure by any contractor wishing to make a bid on a state project of any contribution of $250 or moreover the last two years. a ban on candidates doing taxpayer funded public service announcements. end to the revolving door where legislators this year become lobbyists, next year, just like we did for state officials. a ban on campaign contribution by some corporations, state contractors or lobbyists. if we as elected officials want the public trust, then we must trust our people. i believe we also need an independent bipartisan citizen led ethics commission.

this commission must be able to investigate, discipline, fine, and not just public officials or state employees but also contractors and lobbyists. 41 other states have such a commission. and new mexico needs one too. you know our road -- (applause.) >> our road to long-term solvency cannot depend on the whims of the oil and gas market. it must be built on the revenues generated by creating thousands of high paying jobs in emerging sectors of the economy such as alternative and renewable energy, aerospace, high tech, advance research and development, media and others. nothing is more important to our families and nothing is more important for our state. at the beginning of my administration, i asked this legislature to give me the

tools and we will get the jobs. you did that and i thank you. today, i am pleased to report that those tools like targeted tax incentives to attract innovative companies offering high wage jobs are paying off. we have successfully recruited fortune 500 companies like hewlett pack and, schott solar, we're creating 6,000 high paying jobs in new mexico. but those incentives working equally to recruit medium size companies for rural new mexico. we have announced 200 jobs at precheck in alamogordo, 600 jobs at in belen, 40 jobs at sun land peanuts in sun land park. 20 at e solar in sun land park, 318 jobs at the new business conference center in silver city. 50 jobs at northern new mexico

wood business park, in las vegas. just last week, 150 new jobs at johnson plate and tower manufacturer in sata theresa. i'll be announcing new companies offering hundreds of jobs in gallon up and roswell. i am very -- in gallup and roswell. i am very closed to report that space port america is ahead of schedule and under budget. as we speak right now, 467 new workers are on the job constructing the first commercial space port in the world with 150 to 300 more hires expected over this year. the space port is fulfilling its promise of inspiring young men and women to study math and signs. developing our southern and state-wide economy. and expanding tourism, one of

our top industries. for those who doubt of the space port will bring in business, you should know that virgin has 42 million deposited for more than 300 reservations for men and women to go into space. no, i will not be the first, as some of you wish. the demand there is. i will go up but not first. the the demand is there. you're clapping because want me to go. the demand is there and new mexico will get its return on investment. to make sure new mexico remains competitive against virginia, florida and texas, i am asking this body to pass legislation allowing participants to assume the risks of space flight. a singular bright sector in our economy throughout the state

remains the film industry. today, today, more than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs and thousands of new mexico businesses are tied to the film industry. including over 250 new businesses started here in new mexico. (applause.) >> and more than 130 major movie and television productions have been made in new mexico during this administration. bringing over three billion dollars in economic impact and generating hundreds of millions in state and local tax revenues. these film and tv productions bring new dollars and showcase not just the attractions of albuquerque or santa fe, but also the charm of new mexico's great small towns and pueblos. like, stanley and roy, santa ana, willard and madr ditch,

care dough, pecos, as well as coach tee. while new mexico does not provide the most general -- generous film incentives in the nation, we do provide the most effective ones. we built the global reputation as both a leader and preferred production location to talented workforce, experienced management and unmatched natural beauty. indeed, with two more golden globe awards going to the new mexico film crazing heart this past sunday night, new mexicans continue to prove we make some of the finest films in the world. just today, today, for my speech, movie maker magazine announced that due to the state's excellent incentive program, albuquerque has surpassed new york and la to become the best place in america to live and work in film production.

(applause.) >> now, due to our past efforts, which we did together, the legislature and the governor, and given the direction the industry is moving in, we have a unique opportunity over the next 12 to 18 months to make this industry an integral part of the state's economy along with ranching, oil and gas and other core sectors. with more than 12,000 new mexico students around the state preparing for careers in film, our commitment to this industry is our commitment to their future. next, we will continue to keep our responsibility to protect our communities. we have thrown the book at drunk drivers, mandating ignition interlocks for every offender, running state-wide

super bladeses, cracking down on pars that over serve and opening a 24 how hot line. proud to report since 2003, our alcohol involved fatalities have decreaseed by almost 30%. and remain lowest in state history. new mexico is no longer in the top 10 states for alcohol involved fatalities. (applause.) >> this session i am proposing new legislation to continue our fight against dwi and gang violence. specifically, i will once again push for tougher penalties or gang crimes and criminal gang recruitment and close loop holes in laws that allow offenders to skip out of mandatory jail time. last session, we passed smart legislation to help victims of domestic violence take time off to get a protection order. and granted law enforcement new

tools to fight stalking. i am proposing that the taskforce that authored this legislation, and dozen of other domestic violence initiatives become permanent in stature. i also want to recognize and thank first lady barbara richardson for her tireless work to end domestic violence in our state. (applause.) >> next, i am calling for a state-wide ban on the use of hand held cell phones for talking or texting while driving. we must get the message across to drivers, put down your phones and focus on the road. you are putting peoples' lives at risk. perhaps the greater area of partnership between the legislature and this administration has been in

making new mexico the clean energy state. others like california have tried to claim that title. but, i believe we have earned it passing aggressive portfolio standard, creating the renewable energy transmission authority, and creating the most comprehensive package of clean energy tax incentive in the nation. of course, aided by the chairman of the senate energy committee, senator jeff bingaman. (applause.) >> and just last session we went further with new initiatives to train our green jobs workforce, to establish new districts for renewable energy financing and to expand solar market development credits. this year we must build on the progress by doubling incentive for solar electricity producers who locate in our state. you know last year's state of the state, i announced a creation of the green jobs cabinet to create a state-wide

strategic plan for clean energy, clean technology, and job creation. through the work of that cabinet, we have developed ambitious goals. 1, be the leader in renewable energy export. 2, be the center of the north american solar industry. 3, lead the nation in green grid innovation. 4, be center of excellence for green building and energy efficiency and 5, highly skilled clean tech workforce. on each of these, we have made tremendous progress. in terms of exporting new mexico, will soon be home to the tra amigas super station, connecting three main power grids enabling our state to export renewable energy to customers in the u.s., canada and new mexico. this happening in eastern new mexico. in terms of solar manufacturing, we're now new

home of m core, signify net solar and for schott. and soon announce 1 of the world's largers solar generating plants. green grid collaboration among the national labs and research universities is being built. as a test that tom this work on in-occasion, we're proud to count a new partner, the government of japan. but we must do more. coal fired energy plants remain a major source of energy at home and at work, but pump far too much pollution into the skies. we must demand responsibility actions by industry. and we must also give them the tools to do it. that is why i am proposing three bills. one, to punish those who repeatedly and grossly pollute our air. another, to enable coal companies to initiate carbon

storage and, 3, a global warming cap and trade bill to create market mechanisms for reducing pollution and rewarding efficiency. with the help of senator udall went villa speech vidal wild, and we kept oath tear owe mesa. we also opened four new state parks to the public, eagleness, vietnam memorial, mesilla, cerrillos hill and authorized creation of pecos canyon state park. to continue our legacy of conservation, i am proposing passage of the national conservation will act, to fund efforts to protect forests and watersheds, working farms and ranches, as well as habitat restoration and management. i ask you to address three more important issues, one, our tax code is hitting too many

homeowners, with unfair increases. sometimes two or three times as much as neighbors. i will send this legislature proposal to move us towards a more fair and equitable property tax system. two, our native american communities, tribal communities, have over one billion in critical infrastructure needs. i believe it is time to dedicate moderatest recurring funding, 5% of annual severance tax bond capacity to our successful tribal infrastructure fund for the native american peoples of new mexico. (applause.) >> no. 3, it is time to extend domestic partnership rights. (applause.)

>> a committed couple who agrees to spend their lives together did he serves equal treatment under the law. and as i have said before and i will say again, as a states who diversity is its strength, we cannot accept discrimination in any form. (applause.). >> while we have accomplished much together this legislature, republicans, democrats and executive branch, there are times when we have stood far apart. when we have stood behind bully pull pits pointing fingers instead of sitting side-by-side at the table sol offing problems. i may have been wrong myself, once or twice. let's not push that. but, you know, heading this session, i urge everyone in this chamber to consider the

following words from a great new mexico governor who passed away last year. his name was bruce king. when asked what his legacy would be, this is what buys bruce king said. "i guess just getting new mexico to realize if we're going to be successful, we're all going to have to be a family, one large family." you know -- (applause.) >> i believe in this time of need, if we are to succeed, we must work together, maybe even as a family. our state cannot afford stalemate. we must act responsibly. as i reflected how i wanted to conclude state of the state,

please don't clap yet, i thought back to how it all began during campaign i started eight years ago. i remember as we went down to town, door to door, little towns, big cities, chapter houses, trying to explain what we wanted to accomplish, but, i remember the 16 i cans told us we couldn't do it, we couldn't do the following: we can't use money from the permanent to instress in school classrooms. we can't hold school district accountable by forcing them to shift dollars from administration to the classroom, we can't invest in modern public school buildings but we did. we can't hold polluters accountable for their affect on the environment or create new parks or set aggressive renewable energy standard and become the clean energy state. but we did.

we can't build a film industry or a space ported or modern commuter rail, but we did. we can't lower taxes for working families or improve access to healthcare, or raise the minimum wage, but we kdid. we can't start a pre kindergarten part or expands full day kindergarten and we can't get junk foods out of the schools, but we did. we can't invest one billion into modern and safe highways, curb domestic violence and there is absolutely no way you can reduce drunk driving. but we did. if there is one thing i know about the people of new mexico, it is that we can get past our beliefs that sometimes something is too difficult, or far too out of reach. then we can accomplish great things. ladies and gentlemen of new mexico, our state, new mexico,

will recover. it is going to take hard work. and it is going to take shared sacrifice. we will need to remember to believe in ourselves, and never forget to believe in each other. as i said in the beginning of this address, how we respond to these tough times is a test of us as a people. let our response in these extraordinary times be as extraordinary as our people. may god bless us all, thank you. and god bless. (applause.)

witness to respond must be a respected and those here today were selected through the free public ballot overseen by an independent arbiter. we remind them of the behavior they are expected to observe. mr. blair will be giving evidence intercessions. this morning and this afternoon with a lunch break and about one and a half hours and this will help ensure those who will become for the afternoon session are able to take their places before we start proceedings. >> good morning. >> good morning.

i would like to start by welcoming our witness and the others to join that the queen elizabeth conference center today as well as those watching this session either on television or through the internet. today's hearing is understandably much anticipated and in the circumstances the committee thinks it important to set out what this hearing will and will not cover. the u.k. involvement in iraq remains a divisive subject as one that provokes strong emotion especially for those who have lost loved ones in iraq and some of them are here today. they and others are looking for answers as to why the u.k. committed to military action in iraq and whether we did so on the best possible flooding. our questions aim to get to the heart of those issues. the purpose of the iraq inquiry is to establish a reliable account of the u.k. involvement

between iraq 20001 and 2009 in light of the lessons for future governments facing similar circumstances. the inquiry is not a trial. the committee before you is independent and non-political. we come to work with no preconceptions and we are committed to doing a thorough job based on the evidence. we aim to deliver our report around the end of this year. this is the first time, mr. blair is appearing before us and we are currently holding our first round of public hearings. we shall be holding further hearings later in the year when we can return to subjects we wish to explore further. if necessary we can speak to mr. blair again. today's session covers six years of defense or complex and controversial. it would be impossible to do them all justice in the time we

have available today. the committee is therefore made the decision to center its questioning on a number of specific areas. if necessary we shall come back to other issues at a later date. we plan to focus our questions, first, on the evolution of strategy towards iraq up to 2,002, including key meetings such as those with president bush in april and september 2002 as well as complex diplomatic process at the united nations. we will then look at how the policy was presented to parliament and the british people. it will be followed or the later stages of diplomacy and early 2003. we will then move to the planning for the invasion of iraq in march and april google's and three, its aftermath and the reality that confronted the coalition on the ground in iraq. we plan to conclude with the

secure situation in iraq, the levels of secretary of violence in 2006 and 2007 and how the united kingdom responded to this and followed lastly by how the british government provided strategic direction. i say as i do on every occasion we recognize this to lead to witnesses are giving evidence based on their part of the recollection of events and we can cross check what we hear against the papers to which we have evidence to lead to access. i remind every witness that he will later be asked to sign a transcript of the evidence to the effect that the evidence of it is truthful, fair and accurate. i would like to begin the proceedings by excerpting the broad question by many people who've spoken and written to us so far is why did we invade iraq kuhl y saddam hussein and why march 2003. there's been any public speeches, steegmans, interviews

and parliamentary committee hearings about iraq but in fairness to everyone concerned and to the witness we want to today to promote this question that lies behind many of the specific issues which shall be examining in the course of today's hearing and i shall now turn to sir robert to answer the questions. >> mr. blair i would like to start with the first of the areas, saddam hussein was mentioned, the way that the government under door leadership developed its broad strategy of iraq in 2001 and into the early months of 2002 and if i can just summarize the situation at the beginning of this since 1991 a strategy of containment operated internationally and with the u.n. backing through the embargo trade sanctions, no-fly zones,

naval embargo stationing of coalition forces in the region had prevented saddam hussein from threatening his neighbors from developing nuclear weapons but at the same time there were concerns by 2001 as there had been about his aspirations for an effort to break out, is missile development program, intelligence about his chemical weapons and biological weapons capabilities, the leakage and growing unpopularity sanctions that we've heard from a number of previous witnesses and enforcement of the no-fly zones. we will come in detail on the wmd issues later on. the policy that your government

and the united states administration under the newly elected president bush adopted in 2001 through parallel reviews of iraq policy was to reinforce this strategy of containment to strengthen that and the two governments are putting forward what was called a smart sanctions resolution at the united nations, didn't succeed in getting the u.n. security council to adopt that the summer of 2001 but was eventually adopted in may of 2002 as a security council resolution 1409. in that period what was the view that you took of this strategy of containment or perhaps i could divide the period before

9/11 how did you view containment? >> that's absolutely right to divide our policies up into two separate parts. up to september 11th, after september 11th. optus at embrey leffinge, saddam hussein was still a problem and a major problem, the sanctions framework was eroding. there were continual breaches of the no-fly zone. we were worried about enforcing the no-fly zone. you've probably seen correspondence from cook at the time. there's an attempt to put in place a different former sanctions so-called smart sanctions and perhaps you can come to that in detail a little later and of course the very first walter reaction i've taken was with president clinton back in 1998 against saddam. >> and we'll come back to that

leader, too. islamic that is a very import a moment as well but however i think i would fairly described or policy up to september 11th as doing our best, hoping for the best but with a different calculus of risk assessment. in other words of two sat embrey leffinge we thought it was a risk, but we thought it was worth trying to contain. the crucial thing after september 11th is the calculus of risk change. >> coming on to that in just one minute. in the period of to september 11th effectively would it be right to say that containment as a broad strategy had been effective while still sustainable needed reinforcing, was expensive and difficult. that's roughly speaking what we've heard from some earlier witnesses including johns

lawyers working for you at the time. he said i think it was working but the costs were high and there were risks to the various elements of policy we wanted to reduce. would that be a fair summary? >> the way i would put it is the sanctions were obviously eroding. we couldn't get support for them. the so-called smart sanctions from work prior to as a timber elephant couldn't get support at that time, so we were in a bit of a difficulty there and of course the fact is saddam hussein as we took military action in 1998 there was a long history of course with the dealings of saddam. one of the things i've done for the inquiry is go back through my speeches prior to september september 11th and i've got one or two of them here but it's quite interesting. >> i want to refer to them later as i am sure colleagues will.

>> let me summarize the impact. the impact is regularly through 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001i am saying saddam must comply with u.n. resolutions and forces and option but all of this frankly was in the circumstances where this was in the top priority for us and i remember the very first meeting that we had myself and president bush in february, 2001 just after he had come to power as president of the united states we dealt with iraq with colin powell but it was very much in the context of trying to get a different sanctioned framework in place. >> if i put it in a rather simple terms he hadn't at this point broken out of the box he had been put in although there were some holes in the box. would that be -- >> buckles were quite substantial.

>> they needed attention. >> but the critical thing and if you forgive me for interrupting but it's absolutely essential to realize this. a september 11th hadn't happened our assessment of the risk of allowing saddam any possibility of him reconstituting his programs would not have been the same but after september 11th and if you'd like me to now i will explain what a difference that made to the thinking. after september 11th our view, the american view changed dramatically. >> that is precisely what i would like to come to because we have heard from many witnesses and i don't think anybody is in doubt about this question but 9/11 was a massive hushovd which changed the international environment and particularly with regard to this question and your former foreign secretary spoke about the city tells a we

probably don't need to go over all this ground again. it changed the way that the united states received the world. it changed the perception of risk, it changed attitude towards perceived threats and as jack straw was leader to put it to you in the middle of the 25th march, 2002, summarizing the situation with regard to iraq objectively the threat from iraq hasn't worsened as a result of the 11th of september. what has however unchanged as the tolerance of the international community especially that of the united states and i wonder if you could tell how your attitude toward iraq not that of the united states evolved in the months after 9/11? >> st after 9/11 and in a statement i made to the house of commons, just a few days after, i think on the 14th of september

i specifically deal with this issue, to do with weapons of mass destruction and the danger of the link with terrorism. here's what changed for me the whole calculus of risk. it was my view then, it remains my view now. the point about this terrorist act was that over 3,000 people had been killed on the streets of new york and absolutely horrific event. but this is what really changed my perception of risk, the calculus of risk for me. if those people, inspired by this religious fantasies some could have killed 30,000, they would have. for those of us who dealt with the terrorism from the ira, and incidentally i don't want to minimize the impact of the terrorism, each act of terrorism was wicked and wrong and to be deplored. with the terrorism that an

organization like the ira were engaged in was terrorism directly towards a political purpose, maybe unjustified, but it was within a certain framework that you could understand. the point about this act in new york was that had they been able to kill even more people than those 3,000, they would have. and so after that time, duke was you could not take risks with this issue at all, and one dimension of it because we were advised obviously that these people would use chemical or ideological weapons or a nuclear device, if they could get hold of them -- that completely changed our assessment of where the risks for security and they come and just so that we make this absolutely clear, this was not an american position, this was my position and the british position and very, very clearly

so from september 11th and donner words we obviously had to deal with afghanistan but from that moment, iran, libya, north korea, iraq, the machinery as you know of a.q. khan was the former pakistani nuclear scientist and who had been engaged in illicit activities and disturbing this material, all of this had to be brought to an end. >> so that was your exception of the way the global risks had changed that one had to think about them differently. but saddam himself was not a sponsor of al qaeda. he hadn't been involved in 9/11 in any way, shape or form. had saddam hussein at this point become more of a threat than he was before 9/11.

>> i think jack puts it correctly in his letter to me it wasn't the object for he had done for it is that our perception of the risk of shifted and the reason for dealing with iraq, and i think i said this at that time was because it was iraq in breach in the united nations resolutions and ten years of defiance and we felt it was important that we make it absolutely clear he is to come back into compliance. >> we will come back to the details of this later on. i just want to follow the evolution of your strategy a little further if i may end then i will hand over two colleagues. at this point now let's say in the first half of 2002 where did that leave containment? was it still, if one could reinforce it strategy? >> yes, i think this is a really important point actually, and i've looked at a quite carefully because i did at the time and

it's worth reflecting on for a moment now. and that is the nature of this replacement sanctions framework. we know saddam had effectively to erode support for the previous sanctions. he was on some accounts the sums of money buried there were billions of dollars or basically being illicit lee used by iraq. and frankly, what he had done -- because we gave him the money to buy food and medicines for his people, but he was deliberately not giving them the food or the medicines in the way he should@b ay of containing

him. and it's worth just going to the -- and i think that -- forgive me if i mentioned the document and if you haven't -- i think that you've got the options paper we got before -- >> the march options paper is in the public domain. you can get it on the internet. i'm not certain of hand of whether or not it has been declassified. [laughter] maybe i will just -- i will just say -- >> the government was elected under your leadership. >> let me just summarize the affect of it because it dealt specifically as one of the options with this issue of containment. and it described as the least worst option. if you read the paper, what they are saying is it is possible

that might work, but equally it is possible it won't. but here is a point i think is really, really important on the so-called smart sanctions, that there was then, following that paper, a whole series of government discussions about these smart sanctions. each of them were indicating that they might work but they could give no guarantee of it working. the previous regime had obviously not yielded -- the previous sanctions framework had not yielded the benefits that we thought, in terms of sustainability, and the thing that i think is very important about this is the paper which i think has been declassified, because i think that was done just yesterday, which is about iraq, the new policy framework. this is the paper on march 7th, 2001. the iraq new policy framework describes the arrangements that

would apply on this so-called smart sanctions framework and, i just want to draw attention to one, because the whole issue about the previous sanctions eroding had been saddam's ability to get stuff in through the borders of the surrounding countries, and therefore, one very important part of this new sanctions framework was for border monitoring, a limited number of border crossings into iraq from jordan, syria, turkey, saudi arabia, iran. so the idea was, in this new sanctions arrangement, to make sure that you sealed off the borders and around iraq so that it was more effective. the important thing to realize is that when we then came compost 9/11 --

post-september 11th and finally adopted this united nations resolution -- and i think it is united nations resolution 1409 -- the tightening of the borders had been dropped. we couldn't get the russians on board unless we dropped it. and so the very thing that even back then people were born in me, even with this tightening of the borders, it might work, it might not, that the tightening restrictions had been dropped by the time you get to may, 2002. therefore, you can still argue, i guess, that this sanctions from work would have been successful, but i think i would say it is as least as persuasive an argument that it wouldn't have been. >> trade sanctions were only, as i described earlier, one of my many elements that comprise contant that were keeping saddam in this box. you had some forces stationed in neighboring countries in the region, the americans had a lot

of forces as a deterrent. we had the no-fly zones. if the arms and margo had beverley effective, the trade sanctions were leaking. parts of the border monitoring was effective, in the sense that there was a naval embargo which we helped operate through the armilla patrol i think other parts were leaking. was the totality of this containment -- this remained the official policy of government and at least the first half of 2002. but as a strategy and i am still trying to stem the strategic level did you see this as something at that time first of 2002 this is a strategy which could be sustained over the medium term or did you feel it was a gonchar? >> i think what is being advised and common sense it might have worked and might not have worked but it's as least.

and sir roderick if i can make this point because i think fairly draw attention to the range of different measures. the no-fly zones were causing this difficulty and the trade sanctions were a vital part of stopping him getting material into reconstitute wmd programs because, remember, the whole point about this new sanctions remark is that we were going to move from, effectively, we will tell you what you can have in common to a different framework which is actually in many ways much weaker of course, which is to say you can have in whatever you like apart from these 300 items on the so-called goods review list. so the trade sanctions part of this, which we know he had been breaking under the previous regime was not a peripheral, but an essential part of that sanctions framework being valid, and so the problem was, i mean an accurate summary of the position -- i don't think anyone could really dispute this at

that time, is that containment through sanctions had basically been eroding, we now had new sanctions from work this new sanctions from work to get through the u.n. had been more to doubt and the absolutely vital component of the trade restrictions, and i don't -- whether it is may be worth actually sending you there is this book by someone called kenneth paul, who has written specifically on the sanctions from work and saddam and what he does when he comes to the so-called smart sanctions as he said there were seven preconditions to the smart sanctions and then he goes on to explain one of them what actually happened. >> let's just summarize that then and by all means since the book, please. we have no shortage of material to read what we are always ready for more. contender for is a policy that is in question at this point. you are clearly aspirin minister

in the first half of 2002 not very -- based on the advice coming to you you are not very happy about the way that it is working. so what are your other strategic options at this point and by what process did you read you what your options were? >> that is the reason we called for the options paper. i mean, the options were basically these: we had taken the decision, post-september 11, that this issue had to be confronted, and there were a number of different ways it could be confronted. it could be confronted by an effective sanctions from work. it could be confronted by some, allowing the inspectors back in to do their work properly and compliance with u.n. resolutions, or in the final analysis, if he was not prepared -- if the sanctions could not contain him and he was not prepared to allow the u.n. inspectors back in, then the option of removing saddam was there. adoption, incidentally, had always been there.

after september 11th what change, as i say, was our calculation, and i think the americans as well, that we couldn't go on like this. >> said the options paper, looked as you say, at continent strengthened as one broad course. an alternative strategy, the possibility of regime change, which by then was being much talked about in the united states, and then three different ways in which that might be affected. and i don't want to go into each of those at this particular point. i am, as i say, trying to think about the process of formulating strategy. having got that paper, what did you do in order to have it discussed and reviewed and looked at? what kind of meetings to do about it? comb did you consult? >> obviously we were talking -- i was speaking very closely with jack straw, with those who were advising me at the time, we were talking obviously to the

ministry of defence people and the defense secretary as well, and we were trying to get an assessment -- that's why, as i say, there were a lot of discussions inside government. is this new sanctions for import really going to do it or not, is this going to be effective? as i say, i think the conclusion was, in the end, you certainly couldn't rely on it. >> did you have an actual meeting to discuss the paper and take a decision on it? >> we had a meeting, i think -- the options paper was given to us before the meeting with president bush, and i think van -- i'm not sure whether it was before or shortly after but i can look it up for you. i think we then had a meeting of the key people to decide whether we were then going to go. >> i think you got the paper in march. you were seeing president bush in april and before you went to see president bush you had a meeting at checkers with a number of people which was a sort of briefing meeting for crawford by you didn't have anything like a cabinet committee meeting that looked up

this paper and had a sort of structured debate about it. >> we have a structured debate. it happened to the cover-up that happened at checkers rather than downing street is irrelevant to it but i think the simple answer is did we consider these other options that's why we had the paper drawn up. >> when you consider those options, how diverse was the range of advice you were getting on them? or you getting edify said in a from people with a real knowledge in the middle east and iraq or were you having people challenging the paper and pointing out some of the possible down sides if you work this way or that way? >> for one thing i have found throughout this whole matter is i was never short of people challenging me on it. >> can you identify who they were? >> people in the cabinet for example robin cook and from time

to time player short. >> they were not at the meeting? >> know what we would discuss this and obviously breyer to the invasion in iraq i think if you will more than 24 different cabinet meetings this was a topic that was right through the mainstream. >> to discuss the paper in the cabinet? >> we didn't discuss the options paper specifically in cabinet -- >> clear shortstop and to the paper. >> yes but the discussion that we had in the cabinet was a discussion again and again and again and the options were very simple. the options were a sanctions framework that was effective, alternatively the u.n. inspectors doing the job alternatively you have to remove saddam. those were the options. >> what were the downside arguments being put about removing saddam? >> this was partly for example reading telegrams coming from the ambassadors abroad and so

on. the downside arguments were obviously going to be that not military action or something that you should consider as a last resort but there were issues to do with relationships and the muslim oral and to do with what the effect would be in the arab world and so on. but what you find in the situations as you will get a range of different views. some people were saying you must not know account, contemplate military action. other people were saying it's time you acted. so for example and i think made 2002 the conservative party put out a paper saying this is why saddam is a threat and we have to act. i think the others were saying you may be a threat but you shouldn't for a lot of reaction so it isn't as if we were getting the full range of the views. we got the full range of the views from the beginning. the trouble was we had to take a decision and my decision was we

could not afford to have the situation go on. how we then dealt with it was an open question. >> what were the views, did they include people warning you what happened after you topple saddam hussein if one did end up doing that would raise some difficult questions and risks of secretary and strife within iraq. how much was that spelled out in the advice in the time? >> most of the advice was worried about a humanitarian catastrophe and saddam was removed and there was advice and i called for the people papers on this later about what the sunni shia relationship would be and that was obviously an issue we raised within our own deliberations with the americans and elsewhere and so all of these things were factors the we had to take into account. but the primary consideration for me was to send an absolutely

powerful, clear anb@ @ @ @ @ @ ú humanitarian intervention that you had first negative set out in a very public way in your chicago speech of april, 1999, and in april of course in 2002 after your meeting with

president bush you returned in your speech at the george bush presidential library at college station when he sat talking in general of regime change not specifically in this paragraph about iraq if necessary the action should the military and again if necessary and justified issued involved regime change. i have been involved as british prime minister in three conflicts involving regime change and milosevich, the taliban and sierra leone. had you reached the point where you regarded within this philosophy removing saddam hussein's regime and i don't think anybody was ever in doubt of the evil mist of saddam's 3g as a valued objective for the government policy? >> no, the key issue was the wmd

issue but i think it is just worth at this point and then i will come specifically to the texas speech and to go with this notion that somehow in crawford i shifted opposition. >> we will talk out crawford separately. i'm sticking on the strategy. >> i thought you were -- >> i'm referring to the speech. this is in the day after the crawford meeting. >> it's in the context of your philosophy of regime change. >> let me make it clear in the chicago speech in 1999, but i was doing was sitting out very clearly what i felt the consequences were of an interdependent world and what i was saying was in the past people might have thought a security problem in one part of the world can be divorced from its impact on another part to

and the part that was developing we were no longer able to do that, not financially, not in terms of security in terms of the cultural issues. in other words as a result of an interdependent world it then became in our self-interest not as some moral cause but in our self-interest to regard ourselves as affected by what was happening in a different part of the world. i actually have the chicago speech if you want me to refer to it. >> i have it, too and have referred to a. >> this is an important speech. >> yes, because if you read the speech, you will see very clearly that the basis for what i am saying is not that i now believe that we should apply, rather ravenna a test of national interest, and morrill test -- i mean, i think there are moral issues to do with dictators and so on. what i was saying was that, from now on, in the new world that is

developing, we should realize that is in our national interest to understand the problem is a different part of the world can come back and hit us in the hours. and the reason i was so strongly in favor of action in kosovo, action incidentally to rescue and essentially muslim population from persecution by a country that was a christian country, the reason was not simply that i felt affronted as i think people shouldn't and did to about the prospect of ethnic cleansing but also because i was convinced the consequences of allowing such action to go unchanged would never stay at the borders of the balkans. that is the basis. when we come to the texas speech it is all that i suddenly say now is the regime change rather than wmd. on the contrary you quoted a passage and i then go on to say

we cannot of course intervene on all cases but where countries are engaged in the wmd business we should not shrink from confronting them. some can be offered a way out, route to respectability. i hope in time syria, iran and north korea can accept the need to change their relationships with the outside world. the new relationship is on offer but the most note sponsoring terrorism or wmd is unacceptable and then i go on to do with iraq. as for iraq i know some precipitous action, they needn't. we will proceed as we did after september 11th in a calm, measured, sensible but firm firm way and i go on leave in iraq to develop wmd and reach them along than nine separate united nations resolutions refusing still to allow weapons inspectors to do their work properly is not an option. now i then want to describe the brutality of saddam but then i

come back to the issue of wmd. so free the issue was very simple. it was about the need to make clear from now on view did not defined international community on wmd. i will also like to make one other point because i read a lot of the evidence that is being given to you. i think there is a danger we end up with a very binary distinction between raising change here and wmd here. the truth of the matter is a regime that is brittle and oppressive that for a sample has used wmd and killed people by the use of chemical weapons such a regime is a bigger threat if it has wmd the one that is otherwise benign so if he were to look at iran today, the

reason i take and still take a very hard line on iran and nuclear weapons is not just because of nuclear proliferation. it is because the nature of the iranian regime makes me even more worried about the prospect of them with a nuclear device. >> so you are making this argument at that time with regard to iraq both about the nature of the regime and about wmd and as you quite rightly say when you got home to iraq in a speech as other locations you made the toole argument but of course in a recent television interview with britain you were asked if you had known and now there were no wmd is what you have gone on and still of thought it right to remove him so even without the wmd is you said in december. recently that you would still fall that right to remove him and what i am going for is precisely that point. >> let me deal with britain interview and even with all my

experience in dealing with interviews, it still indicates i've got something to learn about it. this was an interview let me explain that was given weeks before your inquiry began. >> know, we'd been doing some weeks by the time we started -- sprick the actual interview was given -- >> it was recorded. >> it was recorded before july of last year. >> not before july but before you began your public hearings. exactly and the point i'm making is simply this i did not use the word of regime change in that interview and i did not in any sense mean to change the basis. obviously all i was saying is you couldn't describe the nature of the threat in the same way if you knew then what you know now because some of the intelligence about wmd is shown to be wrong. it was in no sense a change of the position and i just simply say to you the position was it

was the breach of the united nations resolutions on wmd. that was the cause. it was then and it remains. >> in april, my final point before i hand over, of 2002, you are not taking the view that the need to change the regime in iraq should be the main driver of your strategy because the situation on wmd essentially haven't changed very much over the previous three or more years. >> sorry, the position on wmd have a chance to dramatically as a result of september 11th. >> the fact on wmd hadn't changed. the perception of the risk changed but not the risk itself. >> one of the things you always

have to do in this situation and you are absolutely right to draw attention to it, is you have to when you were charged with the responsibility of trying to protect your country and that should be the job of the prime minister, you have to take an assessment of risk. my guess is the first prior to september 11th was that saddam was a menace, threat, monster but we would have to try to make best. if you ask me prior to a timber 11th did i have any real belief in his good faith, no i didn't. did i think that a new sanctions framework was going to do the trick? no i didn't. on the other hand, precisely because the consequence of military action is so great for me the calculus was look we are just going to have to do the best we can. after september 11th, that

changed, and that change is still believe is important for us today. because the reason today as i say i do take such a strong line on iran or any other nation that tries to develop wmd. we cannot afford in my view and other people may have different views but in my view, we cannot afford the possibility that nations, particularly nations that are breughel, rogue states, states that take an attitude that is wholly contrary to our way of life you cannot afford such to be allowed to develop or proliferate tebeau mt. >> my colleagues are going to come back to this until later on because it is crucially important and i apologize for as it were interrupting at this stage but i think it is time i asked, you carry the story forward a bit before we get back into the detail of wmd if you are content with that? expect the chair wanted to say

something? >> the government last night declassified to documents. we were not proposing to put them on the web site because in themselves the ottilie very small part of the story but since our witnesses referred to one of them we shall put both on the website. they are declassified. >> mr. blair, i now want to pick up the more detailed development in policy particularly in the beginning of 2002 because i think it was eight years ago today when president bush took the congress in his whole state of the union address about the axis of evil, and i think what you're to advisers, mr. powell and david manning said the sum since there was a shift in emphasis particularly when regime change have actually become an active policy for the usa because although it had been

-- there had been the liberation and was a policy that was an active policy that actually become an active policy at that stage. when you sensed a shift in policy what was your response in brief to tell and then i want to go on to the preparation from the crawford meeting. >> i would say the shift happened after september 11th. i think if i may just quote from st. after september 11th what i actually said on this issue, when i reflect on the terrorism we know these groups of fanatic killing without discrimination. the numbers they kill and benefits of killing are not governed by any sense of morality. the limits are only practical and technical. we know they would if they could

go further and use chemical biological or even nuclear weapons. we know also there are groups of people vocationally states who will treat the technological capability of such weapons and then i go on to say you have been warned and we should act on this morning but i would say it is not really about the president bush taxes of evil speech or anything else. i think after september 11th it was clear this whole thing was a different from work. >> but my point was how do we begin to respond to the change, the shift lot of the sinking earlier but how we respond to that. >> we tend to respond with how do we deal with it. >> said that was, the preparation for the meeting at crawford that took place at chequers and according to mr. campbell's diaries he told the meeting it was regime change in part