saddam-hussein

Johnson & Johnson Settles Foreign Bribery Charges

by on April 8, 2011

Huffington Post…

Johnson & Johnson on Friday agreed to pay $70 million to settle U.S. charges that it paid bribes and kickbacks to win business overseas, the first big drug company to settle since the Obama administration began its scrutiny of the industry more than a year ago. Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay a $21.4 million fine to settle Justice Department criminal charges and pay more than $48.6 million in disgorgement and interest to settle charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the agencies said. The Justice Department announced in November 2009 that it would focus on prosecuting those in the pharmaceutical industry who try to bribe foreign officials for preferential treatment of their products, leading to a wide-ranging probe. Dating back to 1998, subsidiaries of the company were accused of paying bribes to public doctors in Greece to select its surgical implants and in Romania to prescribe its medicines. J&J units were also accused of paying bribes to public doctors and hospital administrators in Poland to win contracts and of paying kickbacks to Iraq to win 19 contracts under the U.N.’s Oil for Food Program. Iraq had demanded that companies pay a 10 percent fee in order to do business with the Saddam Hussein government, Johnson & Johnson said in a statement. “More than four years ago, we went to the (U.S.) government to report improper payments and have taken full responsibility for these actions,” J&J Chairman and Chief Executive Officer William Weldon said in a statement. J&J did not admit or deny the SEC’s allegations but acknowledged responsibility in the Justice Department case for the actions of its units, employees and agents who made the improper payments. Under the settlement, J&J will enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department. (Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky, editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Phil Berlowitz) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read this article:
Johnson & Johnson Settles Foreign Bribery Charges

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Tagged as: , , , , , , ,

{ 0 comments }

Jeffrey Rubin: Regime Change Not Bullish for Oil Production in the Middle East

by on March 30, 2011

Huffington Post…

If the Western military intervention in Libya is really being driven by oil, maybe it’s time to think again. History says regime change is never bullish for oil production in the Middle East and even less so for oil exports. Iran and Iraq, two of the larger producers in the region, are cases in point. While no one misses the Shah’s regime, Iran and the rest of the world still miss the oil production and the oil exports his regime once produced. At the height of the Shah’s power, Iran was pumping out six million barrels a day. Today, 32 years after the Iranian revolution sent Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his cronies packing, Iran barely produces four million barrels a day. Exports have fallen even more than production. During the Shah’s reign, Iran consumed less than a million barrels a day, leaving over five million barrels for daily export. Today, thanks to decades of massive fuel price subsidies, domestic oil consumption has almost doubled, leaving only two million barrels a day for export — or 40% of the export volumes prior to the Iranian revolution. Iraq’s experience should give Western allies no more confidence in their Libyan mission than the Iranian one. Prior to the invasion of Kuwait and the trade sanctions it triggered, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq produced around three million barrels a day in the late-1980s. Since then, oil production has never been close to that level. When the Americans invaded Iraq in 2003, the U.S. Department of Energy confidently predicted the country would be throwing its arms open to foreign investment and the oil sector would be producing over four million barrels per day by 2010. Instead, the Sunni insurgency broke out and a whole lot of pipelines (and people) started getting blown up. Oil production plunged, and it has taken almost a decade to get production back to pre-invasion two and a half million pace. What will happen in Libya is still anyone’s guess. Will a defeated Muammar Gadhafi try to blow up the oil fields like Saddam Hussein did on his forced retreat from Kuwait? Will oil production and oil installations simply collapse as collateral damage in a protracted civil war that partitions the country? Or will a new regime take over and prove to be as dysfunctional as its predecessor or less inclined to develop the country’s oil reserves? Whatever happens, both the Iranian and Iraqi experience suggest a post -Gadhafi Libya will produce less, not more, oil. Of course, maybe the missing 1.3 million barrels of oil exports from the country have nothing to do with why we are in Libya. Maybe it is just a humanitarian mission after all. But if protecting defenseless populations from Middle Eastern dictators is what this is all about, why aren’t we intervening in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria as well?

The rest is here:
Jeffrey Rubin: Regime Change Not Bullish for Oil Production in the Middle East

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Tagged as: , , , , , , , ,

{ 0 comments }

Al-Qaeda’s Two Top Leaders in Iraq Are Killed During Raid, Al-Maliki Says

April 19, 2010

By Nayla Razzouk and Caroline Alexander April 19 (Bloomberg) — Iraqi security forces killed the two senior leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq in a raid on their hideout in the province of Salaheddin, north of Baghdad, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said today. U.S. intelligence forces helped in the operation that killed Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayoub al-Masri over the weekend, Al-Maliki told a televised news conference in the capital. The U.S. military confirmed the deaths and said it was a joint operation, and that the men were killed on April 19 about 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) southwest of the city of Tikrit. “The death of these two terrorists is a potentially devastating blow to al-Qaeda in Iraq,” the U.S. military said in an e-mailed statement. The identity of al-Qaeda’s leader in Iraq has been the subject of debate and his capture and death has been announced before, most recently last year. The prime minister said this time authorities got the right person and that they had seized hand-written letters, computers, and other evidence to prove it. He also showed photos of the two men both alive and dead. Al-Baghdadi and al-Masri were in direct contact with Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri , al-Maliki said. In April 2009, Iraqi security forces said they had arrested al-Baghdadi in a raid in Baghdad. The following month the Defense Ministry aired on national television what it called his videotaped confession. The detainee in the video described links between al-Qaeda and late Saddam Hussein’s banned Baath party. The U.S. military in July 2007 said al-Baghdadi was a fictional character, invented to put an Iraqi face to a foreign terrorist organization. To contact the reporter on this story: Caroline Alexander in London at calexander1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Allawi’s Secular Bloc Wins Narrow Victory in Iraqi Vote, Commission Says

March 26, 2010

By Kadhim Ajrash and Caroline Alexander March 26 (Bloomberg) — Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi’s alliance won the biggest bloc of seats in parliament, beating his closest rival by two in a narrow victory that may intensify political tensions. Allawi’s secular Iraqiya alliance secured 91 seats in the March 7 election, the Independent High Electoral Commission said. Prime minister Nuri Al-Maliki’s Shiite Muslim State of Law alliance won 89 seats. No group came close to winning the majority of the 325 seats needed to form a government, forcing them to start talks to build a coalition. Those negotiations may drag on for months, hampering the Obama administration as it prepares to pull combat troops out of the country by the end of August. Al-Qaeda has threatened a new campaign of attacks against all of the parties. “It doesn’t really matter who came first and who came second because it is basically a tie,” said Julien Barnes- Dacey, a Middle East analyst at the London-based Control Risks Group. “Everything is up for grabs now.” The Iraqi National Alliance, which is pro-Iranian and led by Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim , came third with 70 seats. The Kurdsitan alliance won 43 seats. Candidates will have three days from tomorrow to appeal the results before they are certified by the Supreme Court. Disputes The ruling coalition that emerges from talks will have to resolve long standing disputes over federalism versus centralism, sharing oil revenue among regions and whether to include the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in the Kurdish autonomous region in the north. As election officials were preparing to announce the results, 42 people were killed and 65 wounded in twin bombings in Diyala, north of Baghdad. Al-Maliki said after the tally was announced that the results “aren’t final” and he won’t accept them. Speaking in a news conference aired live, he said Allawi’s win wasn’t expected by the Iraqi people or political parties and he would try to form the biggest bloc in parliament. Al-Maliki has already started talks with potential partners. Safia al-Suhail, a member of State of Law, said on March 24 that the prime minister was close to reviving an alliance with INA that swept him to power in 2005. “There are important steps that the State of Law and the Iraqi National Alliance are taking on the road to integration and creating a big bloc in the next parliament,” Suhail said. New President Allawi has also held talks with several groups, including with supporters of anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr , and the Kurdistan Alliance, according to an interview with Asharq al- Awsat newspaper published on March 25. The Kurds, who backed al-Maliki in 2005 and hold the presidency, have yet to give any clear indications about who they will support this time. Once today’s results are certified, current President Jalal Talabani will have 15 days to call for lawmakers to convene and elect a speaker and two deputy speakers. A new president must then be elected, who will invite the leader of the largest bloc to form a government. The prime-minister designate has 30 days to do this. Talabani has already signaled his willingness to stay on in the post. “He is the major nominee to the post of the President of Iraq and he is approved by all,” State of Law member Hassan al-Sanid said on March 24. Al-Qaeda What is less clear is the candidate for prime minister. State of Law’s Suhail said the alliance is committed to al- Maliki serving another four years, while al-Sadr supporters, who dominate the INA, have said they are against the premier staying on. Al-Maliki led a crackdown against Sadrist militias in 2008, taking back control of the main oil exporting city of Basra. As the horse-trading got under way, al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Omar al-Baghdadi said in an internet audio message on March 19 that Iraqi political leaders would be targeted as part of a new military campaign, the SITE monitoring Group reported. Attacks have dropped from a peak between 2005 and 2007, when Iraq tipped toward civil war, though violence continues, especially in Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul. Fraud The parliamentary vote was the second since Saddam Hussein’s ouster by U.S.-led forces in 2003. Sixty two percent of the 19 million Iraqis eligible to cast ballots turned out. The United Nations envoy to Iraq, Ad Melkert, said just before the results were announced that the vote met “all reasonable demands and standards.” He called on all parties to accept the results. Most parties have made complaints of fraud, with Talabani and al-Maliki demanding a manual recount. An ideal outcome would see a new government including both al-Maliki and Allawi, Barnes-Dacey said. Neither party seems ready to “embrace this solution because of personal animosity and ambitions,” and so the most likely outcome would be an alliance between al-Maliki, the INA, and the Kurdistan Alliance, he said. Sunni Muslims are likely to be angered if Allawi is excluded from the government. A minority in Iraq, they dominated under Saddam Hussein and formed the backbone of an insurgency against U.S.-led forces after the 2003 invasion. “How they negotiate through the coming months is a test of whether they can put the Iraqi state interests above their own partisan ambitions,” Barnes-Darcey said, referring to all of Iraq’s political parties. To contact the reporters on this story: Kadhim Ajrash in Baghdadt ; Caroline Alexander in London at calexander1@bloomberg.net ; Henry Meyer in Dubait .

Read the full article →

Al-Maliki’s Party Says It Wins Most Seats in Iraqi Parliament, Seeks Talks

March 14, 2010

By Kadhim Ajrash March 14 (Bloomberg) — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al- Maliki’s political bloc, predicting it won most seats in March 7 parliamentary elections, named a commission to hold talks with rival parties on forming a government, an official said today. Al-Maliki’s State of Law group is leading in five of 11 Iraqi provinces, including Baghdad, the Independent High Electoral Commission reported this weekend. Results are partial as no more than 30 per cent of ballots have been reported. Seven remaining provinces have yet to release any results. Al-Maliki’s bloc will win about one-third, “or more than 100,” seats out of the 325 at stake, Abbas al-Bayati, a State of Law candidate, said in a telephone interview in Baghdad. “We have formed a small committee to go into talks and we will make sure that we won’t close doors to anyone that wants to negotiate with us.” Osama al-Najafi, a member of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi ’s Iraqiya alliance, said his group will win 80-90 seats. “We have started communicating with other parties,” he said by phone. “The doors of dialogue are open.” The statements track with analysts’ opinion that no party or bloc will win a majority when final votes are tallied. Contestants are generally winning in areas of core sectarian support, according to the first tallies. ‘Bargaining’ “The vote won’t produce a decisive winner and there will have to be bargaining for a ruling coalition,” Marina Ottaway , an analyst at Washington’s Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in a telephone interview. Such uncertainty challenges President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce U.S. troop strength in Iraq from 96,000 to 50,000 by August. Violence may increase if Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds aren’t all included in a governing coalition, said Ahmed Ali, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy . Iraq pumped about 2.4 million barrels of crude oil a day last month, according to Bloomberg estimates. Its 115 billion- barrel reserves are behind only Saudi Arabia and Iran. The U.S., which led a 2003 invasion to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein , is scheduled to pull out all its troops by the end of 2011. State of Law, dominated by al-Maliki’s Shiite Dawa Party, is winning in southern provinces populated mainly by Shiite Muslims. A rival Shiite-led group, the Iraqi National Alliance, is leading in two southern provinces. Iraqiya, whose candidates ran on a non-sectarian platform, is ahead in three Sunni Muslim provinces. The Kurdistan Alliance leads in a Kurdish province. Coalition negotiations could last months, analysts predicted. To contact the reporter on this story: Kadhim Ajrash in Baghdadt .

Read the full article →

Iraqis Defy Bombs, Mortar Attacks in `Wide-Open’ Parliamentary Elections

March 7, 2010

By Kadhim Ajrash and Caroline Alexander March 7 (Bloomberg) — Bombings and mortars struck several Iraqi cities as voters cast ballots in parliamentary elections that are unlikely to produce a clear winner. At least 24 people were killed in the attacks in Baghdad alone, including 14 in the bombing of a building in the northeastern part of the capital, the Associated Press reported. In Mosul, the country’s second-largest city, five precinct stations were moved to avoid assaults. Al-Qaeda’s branch in Iraq warned yesterday it would use “military means” to prevent the poll and called on Sunni Muslims, once the bedrock support for deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein , not to participate. The elections come at a time when U.S. troops are preparing to leave the country and are handing over security control to the Iraqis. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki , who said last week that no single party is likely to win an outright majority, predicted a large turnout despite the efforts at intimidation. “I know the Iraqi people,” he said after casting his ballot in Baghdad this morning. “When they are challenged, they persevere.” Even as bombs went off, across the country many voters were casting their ballots while carrying Iraqi flags. Authorities deployed 500,000 soldiers and police to provide security. “Despite the bombs that I heard on my way and the fact that I was stopped and searched three times, I insisted on voting,” said Ali Salim, a 32-year-old public school teacher in Baghdad and a Shiite Muslim, the country’s majority sect. “I even put on my best suit and tie.” It is important to have “new people” in power to tackle Iraq’s security and economic problems, Salim said at a voting station. U.S. Withdrawal The cities of Fallujah, Baquba and Samarra were also struck by mortars or bombs, many of them near polling stations, Agence France-Presse reported. The vote is the second since Saddam Hussein ’s overthrow by U.S. forces in 2003. More than 6,200 candidates from 86 political groupings are seeking seats in the 325-member legislature. The election comes less than six months before U.S. troop strength in Iraq, currently 96,000, is scheduled to be halved. Iraqi forces have taken over almost all security in the country. All U.S. forces are scheduled to leave Iraq by the end of 2011. The withdrawal is “strongly on track,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters in Washington on March 4. Al-Maliki said last week that he expected his State of Law coalition to gain the most votes, although it would need to build a coalition to govern. Deadlock Political fragmentation may lead the parties to “do what they did in 2005 — go for the weakest compromise candidate to prevent a strong prime minister,” said Joost Hilterman , an analyst at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group . “These elections are wide open.” Other main election alliances include the Iraqiya movement of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi , which is advocating non- sectarian politics. Sunnis are being wooed by an array of Islamic parties. Iraq’s Kurds, who enjoy semi-autonomy in the north , backed al-Maliki after the last election, although they’ve since feuded with him over sharing oil revenue and control of Kirkuk, an oil- rich northern city. The main Kurdish parties, the Kurdish Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, have formed an election alliance that is being challenged by a new party called Change. U.S. ambitions to leave a peaceful and stable Iraq may be threatened by a post-election deadlock. If significant portions of Iraq’s main sectarian and ethnic groups — the majority Shiite Muslim and minority Sunni Muslim and Kurds — are not represented in the government coalition, violence could grow. Iranian Influence “If an inclusive coalition doesn’t emerge, the backlash could be very violent,” forcing the U.S. to reconsider its withdrawal plans, said Ahmed Ali , an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy . The election is the biggest in Iraq’s history. Almost 19 million people are registered to vote at 64,000 polling stations, according to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees . Baghdad, a city where once the only portrait of a politician on view was that of Saddam Hussein, is festooned with thousands of posters plastered to walls and giant campaign ads draped from buildings. The growing influence of Iran has been evident in the run up to the vote. Shiite parties once aligned with al-Maliki formed the National Iraqi Alliance under the auspices of Iran, according to Reidar Visser , an Iraq analyst at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. The U.S. has accused Iran of training militias that have attacked American troops in Iraq. Iran has denied the charge. Iran’s influence over Iraqi politics is inevitable, said Marina Ottaway , director of the Middle East program at Washington’s Carnegie Endowment for International Peace . “The U.S. presence is transitory, Iran is in Iraq to stay,” said Ottaway. “In the long run, Iran will be more influential.” To contact the reporters on this story: Caroline Alexander in London at calexander1@bloomberg.net ; Kadhim Ajrash in Baghdad at kajrash@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Tony Blair Says `Calculus of Risk’ Changed After Sept. 11 Attacks on U.S.

January 29, 2010

By Thomas Penny and Kitty Donaldson Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) — Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair said the “calculus of risk” changed after the Sept. 11 attacks and made the invasion of Iraq necessary to stop weapons of mass destruction getting into terrorist hands. Blair, who is today facing six hours of questioning in London on the conduct of the Iraq war and Britain’s part in the conflict, said that before 2001 the strategy was to contain Saddam Hussein . “Up until September 11 we thought he was a risk, but it was worth trying to contain it,” Blair said. “The crucial thing about September 11 is the calculus of risk changed. What changed my perception of risk is if these people inspired by this religious fanaticism could have killed 30,000 they would have done.” The probe, which opened on Nov. 24 and is chaired by a retired civil servant, John Chilcot , is the fifth into the war since the invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein from power. Blair backed the war and sent more than 40,000 troops, costing him popularity at home that led to his resignation in 2007. Blair said that he feared chemical and biological weapons in Iraq could get to the terrorists. “These people would use chemical or biological weapons or a nuclear device if they could get hold of one,” Blair told the hearing. From 2001 “my view was you could not take risks with this issue at all,” Blair said. “From that moment Iran, Libya, North Korea, the machinery of A.Q. Khan, the former Pakistani nuclear scientist — all of this had to be brought to an end,” he said. ‘Unremitting Message’ Blair said he wanted to send “an absolutely powerful, clear and unremitting message that after September 11 if you were a regime engaged in WMD, you had to stop.” Blair said in September 2002 that a dossier of intelligence showed “beyond doubt” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The inquiry has been told that the information in the dossier, which included a claim that Iraq could deploy missiles in 45 minutes, contained a number of caveats. The Iraq committee has already heard evidence from senior diplomats and ministers who were involved in the decision to back the U.S-led invasion in 2003. Prime Minister Gordon Brown , who was finance minister at the time, will give evidence in the next few weeks. The inquiry aims to publish its conclusions after the general election that must be held by June. Blair’s Opponents “ Tony Blair enters the arena this morning with a very large swathe of the political class already against him, including people who have now changed their mind since 2003,” former Home Secretary David Blunkett told BBC radio today. The review is being carried out by a panel of the Privy Council, which is investigating the period from summer 2001 to July 2009. The panel, which includes Usha Prashar , a member of the House of Lords, Lawrence Freedman , a security academic, Martin Gilbert, a historian, and Roderic Lyne , a senior adviser to JP Morgan Chase & Co., has the authority to question any British citizen and to see all relevant documents. In 2003, the Foreign Affairs and the Intelligence and Security committees each investigated the intelligence used in making the case for war and found that too much prominence was given to the claim that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein could deploy missiles in 45 minutes. Blair, who is now Middle East envoy for the Quartet of the United Nations, the U.S., the European Union and Russia, will cooperate fully with the inquiry, his spokesman said when the probe was launched in July. U.K. combat troops carried out their last patrol in Iraq on April 30 last year and have left the country, according to the Ministry of Defence. The conflict claimed the lives of 179 British service personnel. Between 95,158 and 103,819 Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion, according to the Web site Iraq Body Count. To contact the reporters on this story: Thomas Penny in London at tpenny@bloomberg.net ; Kitty Donaldson in London at kdonaldson1@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Iraq Executes `Chemical Ali’ for Poison-Gas Attacks on Kurdish Civilians

January 25, 2010

By Caroline Alexander Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) — Ali Hassan al-Majid , the cousin of Saddam Hussein known as “Chemical Ali” for his role in poisonous-gas attacks on Iraqi Kurds, was hanged today in Baghdad, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said. The execution was carried out in the presence of a “limited” number of people, including a judge, a prosecutor, and a doctor, al-Dabbagh said in an e-mailed statement. Three car bombings targeted hotels in the capital today, killing at least 36 people and wounding 71, Agence France-Presse said. There was no jeering or applause as al-Majid was put to death, according to the statement. Hussein’s execution by hanging in 2006 drew widespread condemnation after a video surfaced on the Internet showing an unruly crowd telling the dictator to go to hell. Al-Majid’s execution had been planned for 2007 and was delayed as Iraqi officials struggled with legal questions, including who should sign the order. Iraq’s High Criminal Court sentenced Al-Majid to death on Jan. 17 for his role in a poisonous-gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja. He had already received three death sentences for crimes during Hussein’s rule, including campaigns against Shiite Muslims in the 1990s and the Kurds in the 1980s. Al-Majid, former head of the Sunni Muslim-dominated Baath Party’s Northern Command, was the King of Spades in the pack of cards of most-wanted Iraqis issued by the U.S. military after the 2003 invasion and was arrested in August of that year. To contact the reporter on this story: Caroline Alexander in London at calexander1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Blair Tells BBC He Would Have Supported Iraq War Without Nuclear Evidence

December 12, 2009

By Caroline Alexander Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) — Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would have favored removing Saddam Hussein from power even with no evidence that the Iraqi leader had weapons of mass destruction, he said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. “I would still have thought it right to remove him,” Blair said when asked if he would have backed a war against Iraq knowing that Hussein didn’t have nuclear weapons. “Obviously, you would have had to use and deploy different arguments” to justify the war to lawmakers and the public, he told the BBC. The possibility that Hussein had nuclear weapons was only one factor behind his decision to support the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, Blair said. The “notion” that Hussein presented a threat to the region was “uppermost” in his mind, he said. Blair has justified the invasion on the grounds that Hussein was in breach of United Nations-backed demands that his country abandon its weapons of mass destruction program. The former British leader said he sympathized with people opposed to the war, adding “but for me, you know, in the end I had to take the decision” and “I can’t really think we’d be better with him and his two sons still in charge.” Blair, who is now Middle East envoy for the so-called Quartet of the United Nations, is due to give evidence early next year to a British inquiry into his government’s decision to go to war against Iraq. He denied religion played a role in it, saying his faith had only sustained him through a very “difficult time.” Britain sent 40,000 troops to Iraq, the second largest contingent behind the U.S., contributing to a loss of support for Blair that played into his decision to step down in 2007. British combat troops carried out their last patrol in Iraq on April 30 and have left the country, according to the Ministry of Defence. The conflict claimed the lives of 179 British service personnel . The interview will be broadcast tomorrow on BBC One’s Fern Britton Meets interview program at 10 a.m. local time. A transcript was e-mailed to Bloomberg News. To contact the reporter on this story: Caroline Alexander in London at calexander1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Blair Tells BBC He Would Have Supported Iraq War Without Nuclear Evidence

December 12, 2009

By Caroline Alexander Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) — Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would have favored removing Saddam Hussein from power even with no evidence that the Iraqi leader had weapons of mass destruction, he said in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. “I would still have thought it right to remove him,” Blair said when asked if he would have backed a war against Iraq knowing that Hussein didn’t have nuclear weapons. “Obviously, you would have had to use and deploy different arguments” to justify the war to lawmakers and the public, he told the BBC. The possibility that Hussein had nuclear weapons was only one factor behind his decision to support the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, Blair said. The “notion” that Hussein presented a threat to the region was “uppermost” in his mind, he said. Blair has justified the invasion on the grounds that Hussein was in breach of United Nations-backed demands that his country abandon its weapons of mass destruction program. The former British leader said he sympathized with people opposed to the war, adding “but for me, you know, in the end I had to take the decision” and “I can’t really think we’d be better with him and his two sons still in charge.” Blair, who is now Middle East envoy for the so-called Quartet of the United Nations, is due to give evidence early next year to a British inquiry into his government’s decision to go to war against Iraq. He denied religion played a role in it, saying his faith had only sustained him through a very “difficult time.” Britain sent 40,000 troops to Iraq, the second largest contingent behind the U.S., contributing to a loss of support for Blair that played into his decision to step down in 2007. British combat troops carried out their last patrol in Iraq on April 30 and have left the country, according to the Ministry of Defence. The conflict claimed the lives of 179 British service personnel . The interview will be broadcast tomorrow on BBC One’s Fern Britton Meets interview program at 10 a.m. local time. A transcript was e-mailed to Bloomberg News. To contact the reporter on this story: Caroline Alexander in London at calexander1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Iraq Attack Targets Iranian Shiite Pilgrims, Leaving Six Dead, 30 Injured

July 22, 2009

By Ali Sheikholeslami July 22 (Bloomberg) — Six Iranian pilgrims were killed and 30 injured in a shooting in Iraq, where they planned to visit Shiite Muslim shrines, Iran’s state-run Mehr news agency said.

Read the full article →