bad my speech was yesterday. that's how bad. you know, if it were bad, folks, these guys -- they don't care about polls. they don't care about anything. they only care about what one thing. what's the one thing? ratings, ratings. so i made a speech last night that some of the folks gave an "a" to and some of them give an a-plus to, but when i saw nbc, sleepy eyes chuck todd this morning say he had a chance to really go after hillary clinton. oh, what i did to her. but after a while we have to talk about other things, ok. so here's the story. we're going to make america great again. we're going to make america great. we're going to take our country back, for everybody. not for us. not for this room. not for this room. not for the overflow room. not for the people outside. we're going to take our country

back for everyone. we're going to take it back for african-american youth who have a 59% unemployment rate, by the way, 59%. we're going to take it back for african-american youth who have a 59% unemployment rate and have no chance. they have no chance in our society. you know who i just spoke to, big don king. big don king. just spoke to him. don, i would love you to speak at the convention, because you know what. you beat the system. and he's a friend of mine. big don, biggest boxing promoter of all time. in fact, somebody said and mike tyson endorsed me as you know and don king endorsed me. you know what don king does. he owns a newspaper. he endorsed donald trump for president, bernie sanders for vice president, and how do you like that? he put a big ad in the paper, his paper.

he wants bernie sanders for vice president. i said that's a new one. big don king. >> [crowd chanting "newt"] >> i like that, too. we like newt, and i'll tell you what. newt has been my friend for a long time. i'm not saying anything and i'm not telling newt anything, one form or another, newt gingrich will be involved with our government, ok? he's smart. he's tough. he gets it. and he says i'm the biggest thing he's ever seen in the history of politics. now, newt's going to be involved

if i can get approval from his wife. that may be tough, but that's ok. and, you know, i have somebody else very special here. so i have wonderful children and and i'm lucky they were smart. they were born smart. they were smart, and god was good and they went to great schools and they did well and they are in business and they do well and they feel so strongly about what i'm doing. they don't even like it in terms of doing it themselves. they love what they are doing. my one boy is here. eric trump, eric. and i'm very proud of eric. he's done a great job in the real estate business and knew i threw him into this political business and he's doing a good job and he loves the real estate. let me tell you a little story. i love this crowd. isn't it nice when you don't read from a speech? ladies and gentlemen, thank you

very much for being here or hillary with the teleprompters every single time. and whether you go north and south or east and west donald trump is a bad person. donald trump made a lot of money in atlantic city and she hurt the little people. calls it the little people. didn't. made a lot of money and government, what they did, i'll tell you, did you see that sham? i left seven years ago. but she goes and after a little while, ever notice after 12 minutes, people start leaving. we can't do that. the nice part is let me tell you. i go to scotland and i know i'm going to get killed if i go to scotland because the press is so dishonest. and i went there to make sure that my boy, i bought turnberry four or five years ago and doing a massive renovation just like we're opening the old post office in october. we're a year ahead of schedule. i could open it sooner but i

wanted to get it as close to the election. i was going to open in auction, -- august, i'm delaying it, the hotel is going to open sooner. but i want to say we're more than a year ahead of schedule and we're under budget and the product is even better than i said it was going to be, right? maybe i'll open it on november 7th, the day before the big day, and we're going to have and the press will be there. they will be there by the hundreds, but they don't say we're under budget. they won't say we're ahead of schedule. people know, but what happened is we have children. we have children and i want to support my children and i want to support my children. so i put eric trump, ivanka has been great and don has been great, and tiffany is just starting now, she's just graduating from college. baron has great potential but he's 10, you know. but he has great potential and i

put my children as they grow a little bit older in charge of different jobs and i put eric in charge of the great turnberry resort in scotland, the home of the british open which now they call the open championship, and eric spent the last year going back and forth. he'd spend two days over there and go back and fight with contractors and he got great contractors and they did an unbelievable job and i've been hearing about it and if i go over there these dishonest horrible human beings trump went over to play golf in the middle of a campaign. i can't do that, but i have to support my children, right? so i said, you know what. i want to fly over and i'm going to fly back and i want to support my son. so what happened -- but just to show you -- no, no. just to show you how dishonest hillary clinton is and the press, so i go out and we have the bagpipes, we have everything. we have a ribbon cutting on the ninth tee, on the beautiful

ninth tee overlooking the ocean, and -- and the beautiful lighthouse. one of the greatest courses anywhere in the world. we rebuilt the course and everything. we rebuilt the hotel. it's great, and -- and that was the day that europe had the big turn where the uk left, right? they left. and i said, not brag being, but i have a pulse. we need somebody with touch. we have horrible people. they have no touch. no brain. no nothing. so obama says if that happens they will go to the back of the line. i would say that -- i think obama might have been the reason that they broke away, ok? he said that the uk is going to the back of the line. not a nice statement. not a nice statement. can you imagine if i said that? the back.

oh, would i be killed for that statement. going to the back of the line. bottom line, they asked me a lot of times. i think they are going to break away. i think they want their independence. i think they are going to break away. break away. i see what's happening where countries are being forced against their will to take these people and they don't want them and instead of building these wonderful places where they can ultimately go back to their homeland where they want to be anyway, they are just being forced so germany is a disaster right now. sweden, parts of sweden. i mean, things are really bad, so i said i think they are going to -- by the way, the odds were 20% that i would be right. 20, because they said it's not going to happen. they are going to abrief and that's going to be the end of that. i was right. they broke away. they broke away. i was right. and then the next day oh, they said trump was right, the same thing could happen in the united states. let me tell you. we're going to right a second time and we're tired of incompetent people and hillary clinton, i said bad judgment.

she's incompetent, ok? she's incompetent. the only good thing she's ever done is get out of trouble when anybody else would have been in jail by now. that's the only thing that i've ever seen her do that was a great job. i've got to give her credit. i got to give her credit. i've got to give bill clinton credit for going to that plane and saying for 39 minutes he talked about his grandchildren and he talked about golf. there's no way you can do that. i told you. two minutes for the grandchildren, two minutes for golf. we've got 35 or 36 minutes left. what are we going to talk about? let's talk about hillary. and hillary then talks about i think i'd reappoint the attorney general and you're waiting for a decision by the attorney general and you're saying you're going to give her a job. you're not allowed to do that. that's bribery, folks, and then the attorney general comes out

as newt said, but the attorney general comes out and the attorney general says no charges. that's bribery, wouldn't you say that's bribery? she said she's going to reappoint the attorney general and the attorney general is waiting to make a determination as to whether or not she's guilty and boy was that a fast determination, wow. could have at least waited a little bit longer. don't just come out with one or two sentences. talk about it a little bit. so, look, again, again, trouble. here's what happens. so i go to scotland, beautiful. the weather was beautiful and the waves are crashing up on the rocks. we're opening the course and getting ready to cut a rib bonn. we have so many press. we had over 400, the legendary, how many, 400. 450.

it was unbelievable because they are all there for brexit and they were all there to see what was going to happen. will the uk break away and now that's about six hours old so they are bored and they want the next story and the next story is trump so i go there and all of a sudden i start hearing what's trump doing in scotland? well, he's playing golf. so i have a news conference. even newt said that was a great news conference. even i did a good job. i did a good job, newt? when newt says i did a good job. he's a very critical guy. he sometimes says i don't like what he's saying and so let me just tell you. any questions. any questions? and the place goes crazy, the cameras. i'm telling you, we had as big a group of media as you've ever seen. they all drove up, you know, from london, different places. everybody just converged on turnberry and i'm taking questions, and one of the questions was mr. trump if the pound goes down, how will turnberry do? so i say i didn't bring this up.

i said, look, here's what happens. if the pound goes down, turnberry will do very well because a lot of people are going to travel to the uk, they will come to scotland. turnberry is going to do very well if the pound goes down, period, next day it's in an ad by crooked hillary clinton and i'm all over the place and they don't show the question. here's the thing. did you hear donald trump? all he talked about was his resort and they show me. they don't show the question. if the pound goes down, turnberry's going to do very well. ok. then they gave me a golf club. i said i don't want to touch it. i don't want to touch golf. i don't -- i'm leaving. i inspected the hotel. i inspected the course. i said eric trump, you did a great job. i'm getting the hell out of here now because i want to be back campaigning. i'm going to get out. congratulations, my boy, i love you. come up, eric, come up, eric. i love you, my boy. i love you.

i said -- that's my 6'6" boy but he's always going to be my boy, right? so i said, eric, i'm out of here. i'm going, i'm leaving, i've got to go, but they said, mr. trump, would you like to hit the first ball? no, i don't want to touch a club because i know if i touch a club these horrible, horrible human beings plus the hillary clinton 1,000-people staff that she has, right, will come up with a clip of me holding a golf club so i don't want to touch it. we cut the ribbon, i inspected the property and i'm very proud of the job he did, unbelievable job, and i went around and i got out of there, i was in scotland one night. that's not easy. it's a long trip, right? i was there one night and i was out of there. so here's what happens. the next day the news comes on. donald trump who went to scotland in the middle.

of the campaign to play golf, but here's what's worse, they took my statement on the pound, if the pound goes down, turnberry's going to do great. they don't know i'm answering a question, so everyone thinks i'm brag and i want the pound to go down, but here's the worst. so that crooked, crooked, disgusting group that works for hillary clinton, now, remember, i never touched a club. i never -- they show me hitting a ball. donald trump playing golf in scotland during the, you know, troubles and everything else of the world and they put it in an ad, but the picture was from two years before at a different course! the only good thing -- no, it's true, and they said playing golf at turnberry. two good things happened out of it. number one, the head of turnberry said, sir, did you take an ad because we're being swamped with business, really?

that's good, right, that's good, and the other thing is the swing looked good. they didn't put one of my bad swings. i have them. the swing looks very good. hillary, thank you very much. how dishonest is the that? so they show me playing golf at turnberry and i didn't play golf. the picture was two years old or more. in fact, it was more! you know how i can tell it was was more? i was even thinner. i said, man, i like that -- i never -- i love the swing and i looked thin, well, relatively thin. i just want to say that this young guy, my daughter, my other son don, my wife who puts up with a lot with all of that going on. i mean, this is big stuff. this is big stuff. but my family has been so -- my sister, who is incredible, my sister who is a federal judge, court of appeals.

my other sister, elizabeth. my brother robert who is a great guy. i have one brother who passed away, but i have great children. tiffany has been so amazing. my kids, my family have been so unbelievable, and this is not easy for them. they go out. mostly people love it, but some people don't. you know, the one thing that's interesting, and i told this to eric on the plane, my wife said, you know, when you go out, you never -- everybody loved you. now most people love you, but there's people that don't. you never had those people before. i said but we have to make america great again and ultimately, hopefully, my biggest dream is to have those people love me, too, not because of me, but because we're going to do such a great job, does that make sense, right? so i'll introduce eric trump. rarick trump did an unbelievable job. he's doing an unbelievable job, and he was pushed into the world of politics not because he

wanted it, but because i said good luck on television tonight, you're doing the show. so eric trump, everybody. >> well, thank you. we have some good fans over there. and my father is just the greatest and i truly say this from the bottom of my heart. i love him to death. as a family we love him and thank you for loving him. as a family we are so proud of him. you know, he is going to win this. we are going to win this. he is going to make america great again. we are going to beat crooked hillary clinton. there's no question about it. we're going to bring this country back and thank you guys so much for all the support from the entire family. thank you, we love you, ohio. [applause] >> thank you, eric, thank you. thank you to your brothers and sisters and thank you, everybody, and family has just

been incredible. so when i was getting off the plane i just wanted to tell you a couple of good things and a couple of bad things about the country and what's going on. terrorism is at a -- just at a horrible, horrible level. people don't feel safe. polls are coming out people feel more unsafe right now than they have at any time for many, many years. we're going to make feel safe again. you're going to feel safe again. i'm very, very proud of the fact in a when we ran that in the history of the republican party, you've got the most votes ever by a lot. almost 14 million votes. more than anybody that's ever run and i'm very proud of that fact. and maybe more important, and i want to thank the rnc and reince priebus. he's been great. i have to tell you reince has been great, and i mean that 100%. he's been so amazing. he works hard. he'll fly if there's an event in california. he will fly on that plane and he'll be there. i'll say weren't you just in washington? yes, i flew to be at the event.

the guy is really terrific, but it was just announced that the republicans in terms of the primary voters, final count, final count, 62% up from four years ago. it's unheard of. that's unheard of numbers. [applause] >> that is an unheard of -- did you know, that newt? that is an unheard of number. the democrats. there was a mosquito. i don't want mosquitos around me. i don't like mosquitos. i don't like those mosquitos, i never did. speaking of mosquitos, hello, hillary, how are you doing? [applause] >> so the democrats -- the democrats were down, with all the bernie sanders stuff and everything you hear and all this and by the way, our crowds are so much bigger than his, it's not even close, but with all of the things you hear the

democrats are down 21% from four years ago. there's no real enthusiasm. if they had enthusiasm for bernie and bernie was outflanked by the establishment. he was really outflanked. he never had a chance and frankly i wouldn't have had a chance except we were winning by such large numbers. if we didn't win, florida a 21-point victory, won 66 of 67 counties. new york, pennsylvania, connecticut. you look at all of these different places, rhode island, maryland, delaware. we had a group where we won every single county in every single state. in california i got 78% of the vote, and there were still lots of names on there, and you know when you have the largest number of votes in the history of the republican party and we had 17 people running, folks. that's a big difference as opposed to two or three or four. we had 17 people so it's impossible to win that number when you have 17 people, and we won easily, more than ronald

reagan who we love. more than richard nixon, more than the bushes, more than dwight d. eisenhower who did have a lot to do with the second world war victory in all fairness. that's a great thing. the bad part is this. in coming off the plane i heard that our trade numbers are a disaster, a disaster. getting worse than ever before. we're losing so much money. we have trade deficits that are so massive. not only with china, not only with mexico, which is massive. i give -- i take my hats off to the leadership of mexico for the job they have done on us. they treat us like we're babies. they treat us at the border and with trade. you ever see the companies that are moving to mexico? i think i won indiana largely because carrier air conditioning company -- i love indiana and i also won because of the great bobby knight, right, bobby knight. i told you that story where

bobby called up and he said, sir. you've got to run for president. that a year before i did it. you're going to run for president. i said is this really bobby knight. i didn't know bobby knight and then when i ran and i got to indiana, somebody said you think you could ever get bobby knight? and i said i think so and i had his paper and i had his number, and he picks up the phone and he goes i've been waiting for you to call. he's a cool dude. he won 900 games. he won three championships for indiana. he won the olympics. he won the pan-am games. he had the last undefeated season in college basketball. he's a winner. jack nicklaus and jack, you know, when ohio, to me having his endorsement is so great and jack and bobby, we have so many unbelievable champs endorsing, so many unbelievable champs and here's the story, folks. we're going to turn it around. we're going to bring our jobs back to this country, and we're going to bring them back big league.

we're not going to let companies leave our country without there being consequences, consequences. as an example. when carrier left and they left 1,400 people and those 1,400 people, many of them followed me all over indiana. they love trump because i'm the only one that spoke their language. they were fired like dogs. they were fired by a mid-level management guy. they had jocks, some of them for 30 years. they were fired viciously like you never saw anything like it, and fortunately somebody had the cell phone and we never -- i probably wouldn't be talking about it right now and it was all over the news, and it made a big impact, and i've been talking about it long before i went to indiana. the other guys just started talking about it when they arrived to try and win because that was going to be the fire wall. remember, the fire wall. trump is going to win new york, but trump is going to win also pennsylvania and these other

states, connecticut. we're doing great in connecticut, too, by the way, but trump's going to win all these states but when we get to indiana, that's the fire wall. trump's not going to win the firewall. and we won the firewall in a landslide. that was a big, big, and then everybody just said, you know what they said? we just can't take it anymore. we're leaving, gone and that was the end of that, right? but we've had an amazing period of time, but what i would have told carrier air conditioning, and i would if i can get there in time. i would have said enjoy your plant, hot weather. pretty hot up here, too, by the way. hot weather. i said enjoy your plant and make lots of air conditioners, but when you start selling air conditioners through a very strong border and we have a very strong border and i want people to come in. i want people to come into the

country. they are going to come in by the thousands, but they are going to come into the country legally, right? legally. so i'm going to say myself or my rep, and i always say to my wife but i want to call carrier. you're the president of the united states, you're not supposed to be calling but it's so much fun. i'll get carl icahn to call, so many people endorsing us. and we call carrier and say enjoy your new plant and i hope you have great success but every single time you make a beautiful air conditioner and you want to sell it to the united states, there's going to be a 35% tax on that air conditioner coming into this country. [applause] >> ok? now a lot of conservatives, you know, these characters that have been fighting me never trump, never trump, never trump. oh, these are people -- here's a guy, you talk about a great

conservative but he gets it. some of these people don't go it. never trump. never trump is disappearing rapidly. you heard about the 51 million, anybody? 51? raised $51 million, right? $51 million. [applause] >> even newt couldn't believe that, right, newt? $51 million raised. ok. so here's what's going to happen and i just started really -- listen. sounds like a football game. newt, newt, newt. i don't know, newt, are they booing or are they saying newt? it's one of those names, right? no, they love newt. they do love newt. we all love newt. newt gets it. i'll tell you one thing, folks. i'm not saying it's newt, but if it's newt, nobody's going to be beating him in those debates, that's for sure, right? nobody. nobody's beating on newt in the debates.

yeah. we raised $51 million and "the washington post" had a good story for the first time in a long time and gave a great story. $51 million. nobody can believe it, and i only started mid-june because they were beating me up. trump was down -- and i'm raising the money for the party and i'm putting up a lot of my own money, like i put up over 50 for the primaries. i'm putting up a lot of my own money, but here's what's going to happen. folks. here's what's going to happen. we're going to be so successful, and when people call me, pundits, people right up here in these platforms, look at all these people, i can't stand them, but look, look, one of them called who is here today and said mr. trump, what you've done is incredible. sir, this is a pretty liberal guy. i was surprised he called me sir actually. what you've done is absolutely incredible and honestly i said, you know, it's not so incredible. i haven't won. they said, no, no, you don't have to win.

what you've done has never been done before in the history of politics. it's incredible. i said let me give you a little clue. if i don't winning the one person left then i've wasted a lot of time and a lot of money. that's the way i feel about it. because we're not going to be able to lower your taxes, we're not going to be able to get you good health care, we're not going to be able to save your second amendment which is under siege, by the way, and the national rifle association, the nra, endorsed me with the earliest endorsement they have ever given to a candidate, ok? and hillary clinton wants to take your guns away. she wants to effectively abolish the second amendment. that's why they gave me the early endorsement because she is unthinkable for the nra. unthinkable. but all of these things are going to happen, so let me just finish my saying the following.

i love ohio. i love the people of ohio. go out and vote for rob portman. he's been terrific. go out and vote for rob, but i love the people of ohio, and we're going to start winning again, folks. we don't win anymore as a country. we don't win on trade. we don't win with the military. you know, when i was young, we never lost a war, all of us, a lot of you my age. when we were young, i still feel young, don't you feel young? but -- but when we were young, we never lost a war. they used to say we've never lost a war. now we never win a war. we never win a bat. we never win anything. we have these idiots that get on television saying we are going to attack isis in 48 hours and when we attack we're going to hit them from the rear and we're

going after fallujah and that will take place in exactly two weeks and after that thanks place we're going to ramadi and we will -- now what happens is they say, oh, i mean, the only problem is they can't be anybody is so stupid to be saying all so sometimes they don't believe it and we can get away with it. can you imagine, newt, the great general george patton getting on television to say when we're leaving iraq. we are leaving on that date so the enemy goes back and they say nobody can be that stupid to say that. we don't really believe it, but you know what? just in case obama is serious, let's just pull back. hey, you know. they don't want to be killed. you know they talk about they want to be killed, trust me. they can live. they would rather live. they will have their time. but you know what? pull back, pull back. so now they pull back and he didn't leave anybody behind.

i didn't want to go into iraq from beginning. i said you're going to destabilize the middle east, once you go in, the way he got out was unbelievable. draws the line in the sand, the line in the sand. it is a violation. the line in the sand doesn't mean anything. nothing means anything. we have a president who is terrible. we have a president who is -- who is right now what he wants to do is -- all he wants to do is campaign. he has fun campaigning. he has a good time campaigning. i want a president that's going to be focusing on knocking the hell out of isis. i want a president that's going to focus on making great trade deals so that china and us, we don't have a $505 billion a year trade deficit. i want a president that's going to create strong borders and i want a president that's going to keep criminals out of our country and people that kill us, people that are going around shooting people in the back.

jameel shaw great, shot in the face by a person who shouldn't be in this country. kate, san francisco, shot in the back by somebody that was thrown out of the country five times and probably got forced back in. we're going to have a safe country again, folks, and we're going to start winning again. we're going to win and we're going to win so much, and i'm telling you, and i have saying this, but there's nothing fun about it because of what's going on. but we're going to win so much that the people of ohio are going to call your representatives. they are going to call matt borgess, head of the republican party, good guy, by the way. matt, you better win ohio for me, matt. they are going to call matt. they are going to call rob. you're going to call you have to see the president. we're winning too much. we're not used to winning this much. we're going to win with our military. we'll knock the hell out of isis.

we're winning with the vets and with health care and we're winning with the border and we're winning with the wall and we're winning on our second amendment. mr. president, sir, you're winning too much. the people of ohio can't stand so much winning. we're not used to it, and you know what? i'm going to say i don't care, rob. i don't care, matt, we're going to keep winning because we are going to make america great again. thank you, everybody. i love you. thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you, ohio. thank you, cincinnati. i love cincinnati. ♪

♪ ["you can't always gedt what you want" playing]

>> here are some programs to watch out for. on saturday, hillary clinton's takes a village." knew what they were talking about. it is hillary's branding. >> it was a big moment to declare as she did i am a moderate. is pushing ideas she was pushing today. equal pay, child care. that was a huge issue for her right now. >> gary burns discusses his a white house secret service officer discloses his first-hand account of hillary, bill, and how they operate. bookwards, discussing the can't want is of a memoir and

his experiences serving as an interrogator. >> a number of men chained to their cell doors. it was essentially forced standing which was an enhanced technique. donald rumsfeld said he stands at his desk all day, why can we? someone in a four standing position is nothing to do with standing at a standing desk. it was torture. >> go to book tv.org for the full we can schedule. >> every will invest additional $100 million into higher education, we have to change the way that we deliver education. we have to expect more for the dollars we are getting. >> so tonight, gerard robinson talks about the state of education in the u.s.. >> there was a body of

literature that it's clear there are certain courses you should take now that should be in place if you expect to be successful in college. whoimply accept students haven't felt that curriculum obligation to let them into a school i think is doing a great disservice to them. he this sullying the effort of further action which is something i support. >> that is on c-span's q&a. a recently published official british report on the causes of said003 invasion of iraq the intelligence leading to it was flawed. former prime minister tony blair reacted to the report apologizing for his decision to join the us-led invasion saying his main goal is maintaining a close relationship with washington. after his statement, the former prime minister answers questions from the press. this is an hour and 50 minutes.

chilcot report mr. blair: good afternoon. the statement that i make will be fairly long. after the statement has ended, i am happy to stay and take questions for as long as you want to ask them. the decision to go to war in iraq, and remove saddam hussein bym power, and the coalition over 40 countries led by the united states of america, was momentous andst agonizing decision i took in my

10 years as british prime minister. acceptcision, today, i full responsibility. without exception, and without excuse, i recognize the decisions by many of our country over the war, and in particular, i feel deeply and sincerely, in can properly words convey, the grief and suffering of those who lost ones they loved in iraq. of our members armed forces, other armed forces, or iraqis. the intelligence assessment made turned out to be wrong.

the aftermath turned out to be more hostile, and bloody than ever with you mentioned. -- we imagined. we encountered another, a nation whose people we wanted to set free and secure from the evil of saddam. it became, instead, victims to sectarian terrorism. express moreis, i sorrow, regret, and apology than you may ever know, or can believe. cannot say.ngs i byis claimed by some that

removing saddam because the terrorism today. i profoundly disagree. addam was, himself, wellspring of terror. he was a continuing threat to peace, and his own people. if he had been left in power in 2003, i believe he would've once again threatened world peace. when the air resolutions of 2011 began -- arab revolutions of he would've threatened with the same deadly consequences we see in syria today. iraq, for least in all of its challenges, every government that is elected, recognized internationally as legitimate, and fighting terrorism with the support of

the international community. the world was, and is, in my judgment, a better place without saddam hussein. agreely, i will never that those who died, or were injured, made their sacrifice in vain. the definingn global security struggle of the 21st century, against the the terrorism and violence which the world over destroys lives and divides communities. their sacrifice should always be remembered with thanksgiving and on her when that struggle is eventually won, as it will be. familiesme of the cannot, and do not, except that this is so. canow there are those who never forget or forgive me for having made this decision. and who think i took it

dishonestly. as the report makes clear, there were no lies. parliament and the cabinet were not misled. there was no secret commitment to war. intelligence was not falsified. the decision was made in good faith. thever, i accept that report makes serious criticisms of the way decisions were taken. again, i accept full responsibility for these points of criticism even were i do not fully agree with them. i do not think it is fair or accurate to criticize the armed forces, the intelligence services, or the civil service. it was my decision they were acting upon. the armed forces in particular

did an extraordinary job throughout our engagement in iraq in the incredible difficult mission we gave them. . pay tribute to them any faults derived from my decisions and should not be attached to them. they are people of enormous dedication and coverage, and the country should be proud. right moment to go ofk and look at the history that time. even those that passionately disagree with at least understand why i did what i did. and i hope we learn the lessons to do better in the future. threat?hy was saddam a my position changed completely on september 11 comes with thousand one. 9/11 was the worst terrorist atrocity in history.

over 3000 people died that day in america, including many british people making it the worst ever loss of life of our own countries and citizens from any single terror attack. 9/11 was not the first attack. prior to then, 23 countries had suffered terror attacks of this 2002, 20 different nations lost people to terrorism. for over 20 years, the regime of saddam had become a notorious source of conflict in the middle east. he had attempted a nuclear weapons program, only halted by a prevented strike in 1981. he is chemical weapons in the war he began with iran, which lasted seven years with around one million casualties. iranian experience can their own nuclear weapons program. and invaded kuwait in 1990

used chemical weapons extensively against his own people. thousands died in a single day. community madeal frequent attempts to bring him into compliance with you and as of march in 2003 he was in breach of those in more than 17 you and resolutions. 1998, following the injection of you and weapons expected from iraq, president clinton and i authorized military strikes of his facilities. from that point regime change in iraq became the official policy of the u.s. administration. in a country where a majority of theis are shia muslims, and percent of the population kurds, he ruled with an unparalleled brutality. the government was formed almost exclusively of the sunni 20% minority.

the onlyas not development of weapons of mass destruction. libya had a program, north korea was trying to obtain that technology. the network of pakistani scientists was an active liberator of such technology. actuallyregime had used such weapons, that of saddam's. al qaeda wanted to acquire such material, and 9/11 showed they were prepared to cause mass casualties. only 15 important, not years after 9/11 to report the atmosphere at that time, america had never suffered such an attack on its own soil before. the population was devastated. they regarded themselves at war. taliban, would give an century to al qaeda have been removed from power in afghanistan. but the 2002 bali bombings in

which over 200 victims lost their lives showed the continuing threat. all western nations were changing their security posture. we were in a new world. at that time we did not know what the next credible danger would come from. the fear of the u.s. a administration, which i shared, was terroristic groups acquiring chemical weapons, biological weapons, or even a primitive nuclear device. the report accepts that after 9/11 the country was at risk and was changed fundamentally. we believed we had to change policy for nations developing such weapons to eliminate the possibility of wmd and terrorism coming together. the place tome was start. not because he represented the only threat, but because his was the only regime to have used

such weapons that were outstanding you and resolutions. his record of bloodshed suggested he was capable of aggressive and catastrophic action. in addition, the un's sanctions imposed oniraq for crumbling. containment was faltering. the final survey report which was composed into the wmd program, those findings are accepted. saddam didthat indeed intend to go back to developing the programs after the sanctions. to putk people themselves into my shoes as prime minister. back then, more than a year from are, in late 2002, you seeing the intelligence mount up on wmd.

a changeding so in context by a new form of terrorism. you have at least to consider the possibility of a 9/11 here, in britain. your primary short responsibility is to protect you your country. these right considerations at the time. war. was no rush to inquiry rightly dismisses the conspiracy theory that i pledge to britain unequivocally to military action in april of 2002. i did not, and could not, as they explicitly conclude. i was absolutely clear publicly and privately that we would be with the usa in dealing with this issue. i make that clear in the note in

to2, but i said we had proceed in the right way. i set the conditions necessary especially that we should then go down the u.n. route, and avoid precipitous action. that is with the inquiry found. i, as it again finds, persuaded a reluctant american administration to take the issue back to the u.n.. this resulted in the resolution a finaling saddam opportunity to come into full and immediate compliance with you and resolutions and cooperate fully. find ascompliance was to a material breach. finally, only after threat of cooperationion, his was not the full nor immediate. seeing the report of the inspectors, and that of the seventh of march, referred to in

the body of the report. however, by then, there was substantial disagreement on the security council. america wanted action, president putin and the leadership of france did not. in a final attempt, i agreed with the inspector, based on his noncompliance, with which he had to comply immediately. that included things like interviews with those responsible for his program. that had been refused. were drawn up in the resolution and accompanied by an ultimatum. the noncompliance would result in military action. again, i secured american agreement for a new resolution and tests which, if he had passed, would have avoided military action. united states understandably

insisted that in the event of continued failure, the u.n. had to be clear that action would follow. this was the approach rejected by saddam. the americans and the u.k. and other partners from over 40 nations had assembled a force in the gulf ready for military action. clear he bush made it was going to act. the british government, under my leadership, chose to be part of that leadership. the leaders of the opposition have been given access to exactly the same intelligence presented to me. the inquiry finds that as of the 18th of march that war was not the last resort. at the u.n.,asse and the insistence of the that it states for reasons like -- united states for reasons like billy understood.

it could not be kept there indefinitely. it was the last moment of decision for us. the report accepts that. by then, the u.s. was going to war. it was going to move with us or without us. the inquiry finds that going to war without a majority of the un security council undermined the authority. we had continually tried to act with the authority of the u.n.. i convinced the americans to go back in november of 2002 as i said, after the initial conflict it was again britain which put you in authorities back in place for the aftermath. christians were in there with full u.n. authority. as of the 18th of march, it was gridlock at the u.n.

1441 had been agreed to give him one final time to comply. it was accepted he had not done so. 1441,t case, according to action should have followed. it didn't because by then politically, there was an impasse. i say the undermining of the u.n. was the refusal to follow through on 1441. subsequent statements from president putin and the president of france they would veto any new resolution authorizing action in the event of noncompliance it was clearly not possible to get a majority to agree. the president of chile explained that any decision would be vetoed. thisn the 18th of march, is the vital thing to understand, given what sir john said this morning. we had come to the point of

binary decision. withmove saddam or not, america or not. the report itself said this was a stark choice. that militarys action is not the last resort. with respect i didn't have the option of that delay. i had to decide. record, theat his character of his regime, i thought of our alliance with america, and it's important to us. i waited carefully. i took this decision with the heaviest of hearts. already, as the inquiry finds, received a part that we should be part of it.

if you read our private notes for march of 2002 you will see my caution and recognition that this was not like kosovo and afghanistan. of march, 2003, no middle way. no further time for deliberation. no room for more negotiation. the decision had to be taken. it was my stake as prime minister. i took it. i accept those possibility for it. i stand by it. i only ask with humility that the british people except that i took this decision because i believed it was the right thing to do based on the information that i had. and the threat i perceived. my duty as prime minister at

that moment in time in 2003 was to do what i thought was right. process,oments of theis such as this is profound obligation of the person leading the government of our country to take responsibility and to decide. not to hide behind politics, expediency, or even emotion. is ao recognize that it privilege above all others to lead this nation. the compliment of that privilege for the interests of our nation are so supremely at stake is to lead. not to shy away, to not avoid decision. to discharge that responsibility.

history, nor the raucous conduct of modern politics, with all of its love of conspiracy. and addiction to believing the worst and everyone should falsify my motives in this. i knew it was not a top of the decision. i knew what the cost might be politically. that shrinks into complete insignificance beside the human cost. i did it because i thought it was right. i thought that the human cost of inaction of leaving him in power would be greater for us and the world in the longer term. the action commenced on the 18th of march, and less than two months american and british armed forces and other nations successfully deposed saddam. was part of the campaign,

brilliantly conducted by our military. we should never forget that. u.n. resolution was agree putting the coalition forces in charge of helping the country to a new constitution with you and support. -- u.n. support. in august, the u.n. had to withdraw following the bombing headquarters by al qaeda. then it's led to new chaos. a state of near civil war continued until a surge of american forces began in 2007 which restored the country to relative calm. largely peaceful election in which the party with the most about was a nonsense terry and coalition was held -- nonsectarian coalition was held. 2010, al qaeda and iraq

was defeated. in 2011, the arab spring began. they built its base in raqqa, then came back over the border and iraq named as isis. it exploited the situation in iraq and created what we see today. we should never forget that as a result of the removal of saddam, bya agreed to yield up its nuclear and chemical weapons program. this led to the complete the program under international inspection which turned out to be much more advanced than we knew. it would have itself pose a serious threat. the network was shut down. i come to our alliance with america.

it was my prerogative as prime minister to decide to be with united states military action. the inquiry questions whether this was necessary. /11 was an event unlike any other in u.s. history. i considered it an attack on the whole free world. i believe america -- britain is america strongest ally should be with them. i believed it important that , but parts not alone of a wider coalition. in the end, even the majority of the european union nation supported action. do not believe would have had that coalition or persuaded the bush administration to go down the u.n. path without our commitment to be alongside them in this fight. throughout my time as prime minister, first with the clinton and administration than the bush recognized asas

the united states's strongest ally for it allowed us to protect more in this and people and we could have alone. we were the core partner in the post-9/11 world. i believe that was right. i believe there are two essential pillar to u.s. policy, our alliance to the united states and our partnership in europe. .e should keep both strong people can disagree with that. that was my judgment as prime minister. the weaponsddam and of mass destruction. i have always apologize for the lack of intelligence that saddam had a stockpile of chemical weapons. the inquiry endorse the findings that there was no evidence that intelligence was improperly 10luded, or that number

improperly took the text. it finds that the intelligence had not established that saddam had wmd. i ask people read the reports given to me thursday march 2002, other days. in hindsight, we know some of this information was not correct. i have to act on the information. i point out to other things, first, virtually every intelligence agency reach the same conclusion with very good reasons. of weaponsevious use and his disregard for the loss of human life and the conviction that even action of you and inspectors in 1998. it is essential to consider the findings of the iraq survey

group. conducted by a leading un weapon's inspector with 1400 people in his team. this was done after the war in interviewse basis of including with saddam himself. report.ght to read that it is authoritative. the inquiry itself calls it significant. with respect to them, they never explained the significance. thesurvey group finds that priorities in the late 1990's and 2001-2003 was to get sanctions lifted. theyonce they were lifted, find it was his intent to reconstitute his program. he believed it to be essential to his political survival. this group report finds the intent to go back to nuclear

program during the iranian development of nuclear weapons. he kept his teams and capability to develop those, and chemical weapons, when sanctions were removed. of course, we can never know what he would have done. that for aou knew fact this dictator had used chemical weapons on his own , and lied about having them city could continue to use them, and that he killed thousands of his own people with no respect whatever for human would you have wanted to take that risk of leaving him in place? would you have wanted to eliminate him? saddam, in my view, was going to pose a threat for as long as he was in power. the planning and the aftermath, we have several criticisms of that.

i accept that in hindsight vision approached the situation differently. these criticisms are significant, and include failure to sick assurance is a better planning on the american side, which i accept. the failures in american planning a well-documented and accepted. i note, nonetheless, that the inquiry fairly and honestly admits that there's not even after this passage of time been able to identify alternative approaches which would've guaranteed greater success. suggest is for the very simple reason that the terrorism we face, and did not expect, would have been difficult in any circumstance to counter. this is the lesson we learned from other conflict stones -- zones. proceeded that those risks we were principally

warned, namely the possibility of a humanitarian disaster, the theof wmd by saddam and challenges of reconstruction. in the event, the report does not deal with this in detail, the real problem with is caused by terrorism and from causes we did not expect. alal qaeda's attacks in the u.s. and the population hit the country to the brink of civil war from 2004-2006. ied attacks and others supported by iran. the inquiry finds there were warnings about sectarian fighting and bloodletting. i accept that. i would point out that nowhere with these highlighted is the main risk. it was not the anticipated internal bloodletting but all out insurgency stimulated by external money. assad know that the

regime in syria was purposely agents across the border. this inhibited the ability to make progress. sameort, we fought the elements are fighting everywhere in the world. the consequence was that as we were trying to rehabilitate the country, those elements were trying to wreck our efforts by sectarian violence was at that is what we did not foresee. the inquiry finds that in 2003 there were no other options presented to cabinet. i note the cabinet alone debated iraq 26 times in the run-up to the conflict of september 28 meetings of the ad hoc committee. i accept i could have and should have insisted on the presentation of a formal option. i come to the legality. the report does not make a finding on the legal judgment.

they were very good reasons for not speaking it. the whole negotiating history of britain since 1441 and it clear the u.s. and the u.k. had always refuse language to the second resolution. the obligations of iraq that t hey comply was a material breach and was a reasonable basis for action. the fact that the attorney general was in line with others, and distinguish legal experts. i accept others took a different view. where the politics is hotly contested, the law will be also. the inquiry why finds that this process was far from satisfactory. it does not alter the legal conclusion. it was after the detailed meetings explaining the negotiating history of 1441 that he came to the view that it was

not necessary for second resolution. andave that view orally provided that in writing. i accept it would've been better to provide the full written advice to the cabinet. this was not the legal precedent and was not requested. none of these matters alter the fact that his advice was clear and not challenge. point says at one there was no indication of why gave my view to the attorney general that saddam was in material breach of 1441. as the attorney general has explained, my view is not legally necessary sense 1441 constitutes that. he sobbed my confirmation -- sought my confirmation. saddam was accepted by anyone to not be in compliance for stabile basis of my six tests was to

adjust the failure to comply. intelligence that is still considered sound showed saddam in breach of you and resolutions to -- u.n. resolutions. the issue was rather despite the breach, he should've been given more time. i accept it is better politically if the security council make such a determination. i then, given the decision within the security council about the fundamental disagreement it was clear there would be no agreement with respect to the circumstances. this important point. as the world safer less safe as the result of the removal of saddam in 2003? the report never deals with this issue in specific terms. again, with respect to the

bequiry, this issue must debated if we reach a conclusion on the wisdom of the judgment i made. i ask that fair-minded people consider the following. if we had withdrawn, and pulled back of her forces, -- our forces, we would've found it impossible to reassemble those forces in that number. sir john says that it might have been necessary to take military action later. he accepts that. i don't see how we would reassembled. have swiftlyuld even ordered. it been hard to have kept an invasive process in place. saddam would have remained. eventually, he would of them politically strengthened. plus, he would have the benefit of $100 a barrel oil.

this is where the survey group is so important. it indicates you resumed his earlier development of nuclear and chemical weapons. if that is conceivable, as it surely is, thenhis removal avoided what would have been an unacceptable risk in my judgment. i acknowledge completely, and respect, the other part of you. i simply ask that people respect my point of view. and the judgment i took based on the facts at the time. we come to the state of iraq today. this is still engaged in conflict, one going on all over the middle east. for those that say but for the action and 2003 it would be peaceful there, i asked them to consider the following. no doubt the sectarian policies of the government contribute to the conflict.

but the decisive event of the last five years in the middle east is the arab spring of 2011. starting in tunisia, regimes ss north africa and the middle east were toppled or put under sustained attack. in some places, the regimes fell. 2011, the revolt of the syrian people began. in syria, as with the saddam regime, a small minority ruled the majority on sectarian lines. syria --ase, of between 2003 and 2011 all of those regimes had remained in power. not one of them had changed. supposing saddam had stayed in power, i ask this counterfactual -- is it likely he would have

been in power in 2011? is it likelt tha -- likely that have aqi people would join the arab spring? iraqilikely that if the people had revolted, if there had been surely it is at least possible that the answer to all of those questions is affirmative. in that case, the nightmare of syria today would also be happening in iraq except with the shia-sunni balance inverted. consider the consequences of that. even if you disagreed with removing saddam in 2003, we should be thankful we're not dealing with him now. saddam was himself deeply

sectarian as the latest research shows the leadership of the regime was heavily sectarian and deliberatively made so. and to those who think removing saddam is the cause of the turmoil in the middle east and there is some unbroken line between the removele of saddam in 2003 and what is happening in iraq today, i say the following. after the surge of the 2007, al qaeda was defeated and margalized. in 2010, iraq was rather stable. it was in syria after the arab spring when aq became isis headquartered in racka, syria where we failed to intervene. the opposite of intervention where more people have died within the whole of iraq with the worst refugee crisis and no ah greement as to the future. at least for all the challenges in iraq today there is a government actually fighting terrorism and doing so with western support, recognized as

a legitimate government and with a prime minister welcome in the white house and in cap tolls across the globe. none of this excuses the mistakes we made, or the failures, for which i take full responsibility and apologize. but it shows that in the uncertain and take russ world we live in decisions are difficult. the only thing a decisionmaker can do is to take those decisions on the basis of what they ginly believe to be right and that is what i did. on the final passage i will draw a few lessons from this conflict and then conclude and then take your questions for as long as you wish to ask them. so i was the prime minister in the period after 9/11 through iraq and afghanistan. since then i have spent the bulk of my time in the middle

east and studied the origins of character of islamist extremism. what is clear is that this extremism is a global problem not confined to the well-known theaters of the middle east or pakistan or afghanistan. it has crossed africa, including nigeria, chad, omalia, in bangladesh, central asia and here in urept and the united states. watch decision makers now struggle as i did. there will be lessons in iraq and other conflict but i will summarize them here. the danger of revolution or regime change is that once the dictatorship is removed, no

matter how abhorrent, elements of extremism will move in. so unlike cozzvow or indeed even germany, the challenge becomes one of not reconstruction but of security. therefore, it is possible evolution or a degreed process of change is better than an overthrow. that is why when the arab spring began it would have been better to try to agree processes of transition so as to control the aftermath and made change without destroying stability. it would be sensible now as a precaution to invest in nation bileding in those parts of the world where plainly over time the risk of failed states and collapsing lead to extreme yimple. certain states in africa are a clear example. some parts of development aid should be devoted to this. second where we decide to intervene in a majority muslim country we need to do so in a strong alliance with muslim nations otherwise we risk being

accuseded, however unfairly of intervening because they are muzzlum and not because they represent a humanitarian threat. so the war waged by terrorist groups requires a completely different type of military strategy and capability than conventional warfare. we now have tuge experience. we need to construct the new capabilities which allow us to do so effectively. for us in the west, the pain of taking casualties in a fight that is often politically controversial and which does not involve defense of our own territory is now so great that we risk a situation where political leaders are reluctant to commit especially ground forces to combat. on the other hand, western forces particularly those of the united states and u.k. have the most experience and highest level of capability. this needs an act of conversation whether we require

a different level of volunteering for these missions otherwise we're fighting for the best available forces to do the work. and for the u.k., we have to have an active debate including with our armed forces about our desired levels of participation in such mission given that we will always be a partner and in the case of the u.s.a. in terms of assets and capacity. what we can all agree in principle the u.n. is the right body to decide issues of international policy. but the reality is the u.n. is gridlocked with russia and u.s.a. on different sides. how can the u.n. be reformed? how can a clearer set of rules be agreed? fifth, we must understand the true nature of the threat we face. t is islamist creamism and extreemism. this should be a combination of hard and soft power including

the global commitment of education to reform education systems, encouragement of reformist clerics and an effective propaganda. and then we need our own. the west has a big decision to take. what level of commitment is it prepared? my view is obviously that it does have such an interest and should make the necessary commitment. so in conclusion, many will find it impossible to reconcile themselves to the decision to remove saddam or my motives in taking it. but it is vital we do not continue to allow iraq to absecure what our real threats to world security which reflect absolutely the difficulties we actually encountered in iraq.

this extremism men ases so many nations those with us in iraq and those opposed iraq those with an aggressive foreign policy and those who have a specific one, developed and developing nations. this is the scourge of our time. it is the challenge of our generation and requires us to act bravely even when imperfectly. at some point we will reach for and achieve the unified comprehensive foreign defense policy that can defeat it. iraq will be a chapt anywhere this struggle and an important one. it wasn't the first and it won't be the last. i want to thank the team for the report and time and care it has taken. we can't make decisions with the benefit of hind siggede but we can and should learn from our experience and mistakes made. i hope future leaders can learn from those that i made so that

our determination in confronting violence is not less but our ability to do so effectively is much greater. the decisions i made i have carried with me for 13 years and i will do so for the rest of my days. there will not be a day in my life where i do not relive and rethink what happened. people sometimes ask me why i spend so much time in the middle east today. this is why. this is why i work on middle east peace on the dialogue between faith and how we can prevent young people growing up with hatred in their hearts towards those who look, think, and believe differently from them. it is my belief that if we learn the right lessons today, if we do, the nex-gen ration will see the dawn of a lasting peace in the place where all this began and where it must finally end, which is the

middle east. thank you. ow, questions. >> two quick questions. one is, you have said in the past you would do it again. would you still stand by that? and secondly, would you reply now through the cameras to the families of the soldiers who died, who said the question they would like to ask you is look me in the eye and tell me you did not mislead the nation. >> i can look not just the families of this country but the nation in the eye and say i did not mislead this country. i made the decision in good faith on the information i had at the time. and i believe that it is better that we took that decision. i acknowledge all the problems that came with that decision. i acknowledge the mistakes and

accept responsibility for them. what i cannot do and will not do is say i believe we took the wrong decision. i believe i made the right decision and that the world is better and safer as a result of it. now, many people can disagree with it. that is their prerogative. but as this report makes clear, and it does when you go through the report, there was no lies no deseat and no deception but there was a decision, a controversial decision, a decision to remove saddam and a decision to be with america. many people will disagree with both those decisions. that is fine. but if you are going to do that you have to say what the consequences of the opposite decision would have been. because the point about being prime minister is you are the decisionmaker. you sit in the seat and take the decisions and your obligation to the country is to

take it as you believe it to be. and all of this stuff about lies and deseat, it is all a y of getting to obscure what is the essence of the question. that time in march 2003 was that the right decision? now as we look back 13-year-olds later would it have been -- 13 years later would it have been better to take the opposition decision and what would be the consequences? if you can't answer that question then you are a commentator and not a decision maker. so i had to take the decision. sometimes people talk about this and talk about me in this regard as if i don't care about the loss of life or the grief and suffering of the families. not just the families of our armed forces but the families of all those who have died in iraq since 2003. but i have to decide, are more people going to suffer? are more people going to die?

if we leave this brutal dictator in place who already killed so many people. that's the decision, i'm afraid. >> you said, you wrote to george bush in july 2002, nine months before the war, i am with you whatever. now, that does sound and it was read by the americans like a blank check for war. >> did you do enough to disabuse them of that as a blank check for war? by the way, colin powell and jack storm didn't read them that way. in july 2002, the whole thing -- the whole purpose of my intervention was to get him to go down the u.n. route. so after july 2002, comes november's u.n. resolution. has saddam complied with the u.n. resolution?

that would have been the end of the matter. he didn't. but it was absolutely clear and i think clear even the words that continue after that statement in the memorandum i think -- i don't explain all the difficulties why we proceed with enormous care. and the whole purpose of what i was doing was making it clear i was going to be with the americans in dealing with this. that was absolutely clear. inquiry is in to the but we needed to go down the u.n. route. >> [inaudible] >> no. the thought was we have to go down the u.n. route. if we don't, i'm not in a position where i can support this. >> you said you had to make on the 18th of march, 2003. you took that decision. but the consequences of the

decision were that if you had pulled back the americans would have gone through anyway, our military contribution was irrelevant in getting the job done. and when you face a choice between your frustrations with pursuing diplomacy as a blocked u.n. and effectively pulling the trigger that you had already loaded because you couldn't keep the troops there indefinitely was the plunge this country for 14, 15 years of this agony. you could have said no i am going to continue with the u.n. and saddam would have been gone anyway. >> so let's really -- that's a really important point. first of all by the way our forces did play an important part in removing saddam. we were absolutely central. [inaudible] >> so what you're saying is that we should have pulled back at that point. we should have let the u.s. do it. i don't know whether you think we should have been in the

aftermath or after as well. that would have been a huge decision for this country to take. at that point we were the u.s.'s strongest ally. i had actually gone and sought the commitment from our armed forces that they wanted to be part of this, that we should be part of it. and then right at the last minute we were going to pull out and let the other countries go forward. [inaudible] >> diplomacy had been exhaustd in this sense. there was by then an impasse at the u.n., which is familiar to us today. russia on one side, the u.s. on the other. >> we have to continue to war. >> touf make a decision. that's what i said. the problem with this debate on iraq is once you clear out of the way all the allegations, the deseat and so on, -- i rsh deceit and so on. i hope people read this report. in the end i agree with you. you've got to go back in my

shoes as decision maker and say at that moment are we going to pull out, leave the u.s. to do it hoping that they do it. >> [inaudible] >> ok. they would have done it. but then we're saying we think it's the right thing to do but we're not going to be part of it. [inaudible] >> sure. >> >> rejection as you said of the fact that the invasion was in not responsible with the terrorism that has gripped iraq and the region. as you know very well, al qaeda seeks what it calls ungoverned spaces. the way that the aftermath was unplanned for in the aftermath of the invasion, ungoverpblgd space was created in iraq. the military was disbanded, all of it was eviscerated within months. and into that void came al qaeda. what is happening in syria today have been led by the very men who were in the american

camp. they grew out of al qaeda. to say what is happening in syria today has no links with iraq is disingenuous. >> i'm not saying it's got no links but let's be clear about this. you're completely right. between -- particularly when the civil war began in 2004-2006, then i agree, al qaeda used that, the removal of saddam in order to move in and create sectarian tensions. then came the surge and the surge largely succeeded. so what shifted after 2010? iraq had an election in 2010. they elected the government then. the leading party was one that was largely secular. after that time, what changed dramatically was syria. now, you're right that there are people from iraq who then went into syria but it was in the chaos of syria exactly the

same point, by the way, in the chaos of syria in that ungovernable space, that's where isis came into being. they headquartered themselves and went back over the border into iraq. now, my point -- you know we've had this debate about syria. my point is i agree when you leaf that space ungovernable that's where terrorism breeds. but nonintervention can also lead to those spaces being created. partial intervention can lead to those spaces being created. and the one thing i've got to say about this report -- and i say this with respect. but it's the difference between people writing a report and making decisions. nowhere did they say what they believe would have happened if they -- well they don't quite advocate but imply. nowhere did they say that. people are going to say the decision was wrong, they have to at least consider the points i'm making, that saddam might have gone back and

reconstituted his program as the iraq survey group finds, and we might have had the same situation in iraq today as we have in syria. and let us be clear, in syria today more than double the people have died in iraq have died in syria with the worst refugee crisis since world war ii. and that is where we didn't intervene and remove the dictator. >> along the roads of that statement. a fundamental disagreement. chill coth said you went to war when there was no imminent threat from saddam. he does say that the legal process for authorizing the war was unsatisfactory. there was no proper planning for the aftermath, that the intelligence was flawed and our troops were inadequately resolved and therefore put an undue risk. now, you have said two things today. on the one hand you have created the impression that you

are apologizing but you also say that you stand by your decision to go to war. so what i'm unclear about and i suspect people watching this now are unclear, what are you apologizing for today? >> for the mistakes. >> what mistakes? >> the mistakes on planning and process i abst. louis acknowledge. i accept responsibility. i'm not passing responsibility off to someone else. i accept full responsibility for those mistakes. but it is not inconsistent with that to still say that i believe we took the right decision. and the difficulty with the report like this is those two things get mixed up together. and by the way, in the first part of this military campaign, i mean, at one point i think again in his statement at least this morning sir john said we didn't achieve our objectives. the first part of this campaign was a brilliant military success and the british troops deserve enormous credit for

that. what happened afterwards we know. but the question is, would we be in a better place today if we had taken the opposite decision? >> [inaudible] >> i would take the same, back in the same place, with the same information, i would take the same decision. that's the decision i believed was right. all i'm saying today because obviously some of the intelligence has turned out to be wrong, the planning wasn't done properly. i accept those criticisms and responsibility for them. but i think people want me to go one step further. and this is my problem. it's a very fundamental problem and i know it causes a lot of difficulty even with people who might support me otherwise. they say no we want you to apologize for the decision. i can't do that. i can't honestly tell you -- and i'm in the middle east two, three times a month. and i tell you the roots of this terrorism go so much deeper than what happened in iraq. we got caught up in the problem in iraq and ultimately if we're not prepared to take these

types of decisions and engage in this way we will make the world less safe. which is why i believe in 2013 when parliament had to take the decision in syria and chemical weapons we made a fundamental mistake. i supported the prime minister at the time. nd these things are difficult. but we're not going to be in a better position if britain absents itself. >> [inaudible] shied away. in iraq. >> well, is it? or is it because we now know how difficult these interventions are? you see, the worry that i have from all of this is that the lessons we learned are lessons essentially of political safety and not political strategy. but ultimately, these decisions are difficult. i mean, i don't regret taking the decision. but there is no doubt about how difficult it has been, how

controversial it has been. how much it has overshadowed. it overshadows what people think about me. of course this is difficult. if we had intervened in syria it would have also been really difficult by the way, but in my view it would have been better if we had taken the action rather than not. so look, this is where i understand all the criticisms the report makes of the process. but i do think and i try to do this -- too long to go into all these things, -- there are real lessons. i don't see where these are in this report. i don't see where it tells you what's the right capability today to try to defeat they'rism. what sort of alliances should britain be constructing in the world today? how does britain make sure it leverages its power in the most effective way to defeat terrorism? given the countries affected

are countries of every description, whether they're aggressive or benign, north or south, pro iraq, anti-iraq. this report doesn't tell us what we should do as decisionmakers. >> it's clear you stand by your decision. [inaudible] to the conflict. but this report is a devastating catalog of the failures of your government and paint a very clear picture of a prime minister who was determined to act with the united states almost come what may. do you understand the sentiment that some of the families whoible you ought not just to said sorry a long time ago, but that now you should face some kind of punishment? >> by the way, it's completely incorrect that i have not said sorry before. i have always apologized for mistakes and planning. and in the intelligence, even though i'm not actually responsible for the intelligence. it's see, i can't --

true. i took the decision after 9/11 we should be america's closest ally. again, you can disagree with that. i personally think, when you're fighting this terrorism in the world today, it would be better if britain today had a really strong tight relationship with the united states. now, i personally think when our parliament decided not to back president obama in syria, which really dealt a blow. i'm sorry but i do. so i -- none of that diminishes the pain of those families or my sorrow for them. and sorrow for what they've gone through and their suffering. but i can't -- [inaudible] >> i know. but i with great respect think -- well, but the fact is that they called upon us as the u.k. to back them at that point and we didn't and i regret that. although to be fair to the

prime minister he was abdicating. >> what do you say to the people -- [inaudible] >> that's up to them to call for what they want. but what i'm trying to do today is explain why i acted as i did. in the end, what more can i do than to say to people this is why i took the decision i took? and if you disagree with me fine but please stop saying i was lying or i had some dishonest or underhanded motive. i had the motives i explained. and the reason i can't depart from the decision is i look at what's happening in the world today and i'm afried -- do not believe that we are safering today than we were back then. >> i just want to pick up on two things you haven't mentioned and also on the matt's point. the report said you undermined the security council before the war and at the end of the war the war ended in hue millation for british forces in basra. do you accept those that it has done lasting damage to

britain's reputation? and on the memo of the 28th of july when you wrote that you would be with president bush whatever. whatever what? whatever the intelligence? whatever the evidence? whatever the u.n. says? what? >> i was going to be with america dealing with this. whatever the political difficulty, whatever problems that there were going to be, i was going to put us alongside in america in dealing with this. but it had to be done right. which is why the whole point of the 28th o of the july interaction was to persuade the americans. remember, there were members of the american administration completely opposed to doing this. i think the inquiry does actually say this. i persuaded president bush to go down the u.n. route. that was the vital thing we were doing. first of all, i don't believe british troops were ever humiliated. i think british troops fought with enormous distinction in the south of iraq.

>> [inaudible] >> i'm afraid i profoundly disagree that the british troops did anything other than a magnificent job. >> you're making a deal with the very people firing on them. that was the other thing. >> again, i think that was done in 2008. but in any event, those decisions are incredibly difficult. most of the attacks actually in the south wrr attacks on british troops. that's why it is very different than what happened in baghdad. there can be a debate. when i was prime minister, all i can say is i found our armed forces absolutely magnificent. every time they had to do something they did it and did it in a brilliant way. and i won't accept any criticism of them whatever. on the u.n. security council again the important point because we face exactly the same problem today. the ht say in parenthesis, u.n. security council you can

see in syria how deadlocked it's been. and i don't notice president putin seeking u.n. security council authority for things he has done. but when it's ded locked like that, -- deadlocked like that you can't say you're undermining its authority when we have gone back to the u.n. specifically to get a resolution to have one last chance to comply. the u.s. wanted to do this much earlier. the reason it was delayed is because we went through this u.n. process. so i understand -- i understand of course it would have been better politically to have done it with the u.n. resolution. but by then you had a blockage. you had a stalemate. >> mr. blare you talked entirely so far about decisions before the war, almost nothing about decisions in the aftermath and during the

occupation period. commanders on the ground urged you to reconsider the strategy. you yourself told george bush in the letter in june 2003 that we are not geared up for this. it was quite clear things were going badly on the ground. why did you not change that strategy, pull the troops out or surge and enforce like the americans did? why did you continue to allow, which led to many deaths? >> i don't believe that did at all. if you had withdrawn the troops would have been difficult. there was no need to surge the british troops at that point. and we of course did adjust the strategy enormously and rightly said we were in correspondance continually with the americans. i was saying particularly after my visit in may or june in 2003 in iraq we had to shift strategy. we did. we then put a lot more emphasis on building the iraqi security capability and we made sure that, for example, the elect

ral process was put in place so that they could have an election as soon as possible. remember, iraq was a country that was governed by 20% governing the other 80%. that's why in the end it was never sustainable. and why, when the arab spring, had saddam been in power he would have been subject to the same revolt going on elsewhere. but it is not correct that we didn't shift strategy. but the inquiry itself says -- and we can look up the reference -- that they can't actually identify any other strategies that would have worked. and the reason for that is very simple. you get to a certain point with these terrorist groups where it is not the planning, it is the fighting. and that fighting had to be done. and it was done by our troops with enormous courage and the u.s. and other nations. there were 40 nations in this coalition. >> t