Posted on 05/29/2003 9:33:31 AM PDT by Brian S
29 May 2003
Tony Blair stood accused last night of misleading Parliament and the British people over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his claims that the threat posed by Iraq justified war.
Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, seized on a "breathtaking" statement by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that Iraq's weapons may have been destroyed before the war, and anger boiled over among MPs who said the admission undermined the legal and political justification for war.
Mr Blair insisted yesterday he had "absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction".
But Mr Cook said the Prime Minister's claims that Saddam could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes were patently false. He added that Mr Rumsfeld's statement "blows an enormous gaping hole in the case for war made on both sides of the Atlantic" and called for MPs to hold an investigation.
Meanwhile, Labour rebels threatened to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for the cardinal sin of misleading Parliament - and force him to answer emergency questions in the House.
Mr Rumsfeld ignited the row in a speech in New York, declaring: "It is ... possible that they [Iraq] decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict and I don't know the answer."
Speaking in the Commons before the crucial vote on war, Mr Blair told MPs that it was "palpably absurd" to claim that Saddam had destroyed weapons including 10,000 litres of anthrax, up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tons of mustard gas, sarin, botulinum toxin and "a host of other biological poisons".
But Mr Cook said yesterday: "We were told Saddam had weapons ready for use within 45 minutes. It's now 45 days since the war has finished and we have still not found anything.
"It is plain he did not have that capacity to threaten us, possibly did not have the capacity to threaten even his neighbours, and that is profoundly important. We were, after all, told that those who opposed the resolution that would provide the basis for military action were in the wrong.
"Perhaps we should now admit they were in the right."
Speaking as he flew into Kuwait before a morale-boosting visit to British troops in Iraq today, Mr Blair said: "Rather than speculating, let's just wait until we get the full report back from our people who are interviewing the Iraqi scientists.
"We have already found two trailers that both our and the American security services believe were used for the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons."
He added: "Our priorities in Iraq are less to do with finding weapons of mass destruction, though that is obviously what a team is charged with doing, and they will do it, and more to do with humanitarian and political reconstruction."
Peter Kilfoyle, the anti-war rebel and former Labour defence minister, said he was prepared to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for misleading Parliament. Mr Kilfoyle, whose Commons motion calling on Mr Blair to publish the evidence backing up his claims about Saddam's arsenal has been signed by 72 MPs, warned: "This will not go away. The Government ought to publish whatever evidence they have for the claims they made."
Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "No weapons means no threat. Without WMD, the case for war falls apart. It would seem either the intelligence was wrong and we should not rely on it, or, the politicians overplayed the threat. Even British troops who I met in Iraq recently were sceptical about the threat posed by WMD. Their lives were put at risk in order to eliminate this threat - we owe it to our troops to find out if that threat was real."
But Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defence Secretary, said: "I think it is too early to rush to any conclusions at this stage; we must wait and see what the outcome actually is of these investigations."
Ministers have pointed to finds of chemical protection suits and suspected mobile biological weapons laboratories as evidence of Iraq's chemical and biological capability. But they have also played down the importance of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Earlier this month, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, provoked a storm of protest after claiming weapons finds were "not crucially important".
The Government has quietly watered down its claims, now arguing only that the Iraqi leader had weapons at some time before the war broke out.
Tony Benn, the former Labour minister, told LBC Radio: "I believe the Prime Minister lied to us and lied to us and lied to us. The whole war was built upon falsehood and I think the long-term damage will be to democracy in Britain. If you can't believe what you are told by ministers, the whole democratic process is put at risk. You can't be allowed to get away with telling lies for political purposes."
Alan Simpson, Labour MP for Nottingham South, said MPs "supported war based on a lie". He said: "If it's right Iraq destroyed the weapons prior to the war, then it means Iraq complied with the United Nations resolution 1441."
The former Labour minister Glenda Jackson added: "If the creators of this war are now saying weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before the war began, then all the government ministers who stood on the floor in the House of Commons adamantly speaking of the immediate threat are standing on shaky ground."
The build-up to war: What they said
Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons
George Bush, Us President 18 March, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd
Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary 28 May, 2003
And then Asia, then Europe, THEN THE WORLD!!!!
I'm so glad you are in charge Adolph.
No. The irony here is that most have the sense to understand the real strategic reasons behind the overthrow of Hussein, while those who don't call us "naive."
Which they were forbidden to have under the terms of their surrender in '91 and under U.N. resolutions. Note they were not merely forbidden to have ready-to-use WMD, they were for forbidden to have WMD programs, and they were required to disclose full information about such programs, which we now have manifest proof (the mobile labs) they did not do.
In fact, Saddam's failure to fully disclose WMD programs provided fully adequate legal justification for military action as long ago as last December, when the U.N. inspectors affirmed that Iraq's report on WMD programs, required under resolution 1441, was innacurate and incomplete. This legal basis does not evaporate retrospectively just because Saddam decided (if he did) to dump his bio/chem agents into the Euphrates, or ship them off to Iran and Syria, or whatever, at the 9th hour.
Heck, even if Saddam never had usable WMD, but still for some nutty reason insisted on keeping ineffectual programs hidden from inspectors at the risk of his regime, that still wouldn't effect the legal basis for the war: his utter failure to comply with obligations he accepted to preserve his regime 12 years ago.
But we knew that already since we had supplied them with a bunch of biological weapons when they were fighting Iran.
Is it your usual practice as a FReeper to recycle left-wing agitprop? There is not a shred of evidence, nor are there even credible or coherent accusations that the United States ever supplied Iraq with biological weapons. IIRC, the most that has been asserted (with what actual evidence, if any, I don't know) is that the United States government looked the other way, allowing Iraq to acquire standard laboratory strains of pathogens, and/or precursor chemicals, which they then developed into bio and/or chem weapons.
The point is, when the inspectors returned in 2002, Saddam immediately began playing his same old games, when it was imperative on him to completely cooperate with the process. This was not a trial in this country, where the defendent has the benefit of the doubt and the prosecutor must make the case - instead, under the terms of the 1991 cease fire and subsequent resolutions, Saddam had to destroy his chemical and bio weapons and concretely document the process. Instead, we got 12 years of games. Saddam could have destroyed the weapons - but when and how? He had to both destroy AND document instead of obstructing.
If I were wrong about Iraq having WMDs, then three successive presidents put this country at risk by assigning the role of weapons inspections to a foreign organization (the United Nations) that has no legitimate role in the defense of this country.
I'll take you up on your bet, but only if you agree to this: if it turns out that Iraq does have WMDs, then I'll take it upon myself to clean up the results of the attack if you agree to render swift, punitive justice to those three presidents.
CIA convinced truck-trailers held bioweapons labs
Britain finds Iraq's 'smoking gun': a top-secret missile
Actually per the UN sanctions orders, the burden was on Iraq.
The subject matter of the sanctions, and why Saddam spent so much effort avoiding the requirements is a story unspoken in these type of articles. WMD wasn't created out of whle cloth, there was a context. If Saddam didn't have them why did he act so? Now that's a real investigative story.
Uh, dude, we had that little event called 9/11 that changed our entire view about containment versus pre-emptive action.
No, I'm looking for the U.S. do do something effective that addresses a real problem. There's no excuse for the fact that throoughout the last ten years the U.S. was far more effective in maintaining a no-fly zone over Iraq than at protecting the citizens of this country from foreign assailants.
No, that was a "what's your point" statement - whether Saddam destroyed them or not, he did not give us evidence that the weapons were destroyed, nor did he cooperate with the inspections process. So your condition only becomes viable with the hindsight of being in country to inspect for ourselves - something we did not have prior to invasion - in other words, you're position becomes a catch-22.
If that doesn't make sense to you, then I don't know what to say.
Anyone who truly believes that the United States government would have placed thousands of U.S. military personnal in close proximity to Iraq if there was any chance in hell that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" is naive.
No, it actually reinforces my assertion. This is exactly why the U.S. was willing to wage war against a nation whose "weapons program" consists of a few mobile labs and old protective suits, but calls for "multi-lateral discussions" with a nation that has a weapons program that represents a legitimate threat.
Ah, if this buttresses your original assertion, that being that countries with weapons of mass destruction prevent US troops from being deployed in close proximity to said nation, then this must mean that the US will soon withdraw its forces from South Korea, much less from the Korean DMZ, correct? If the logic of your contention holds up, this is the only possible course of action. However, I believe that you will find that the US will be willing to wage war against North Korea if necessary, regardless of their WMD status.
Now as to the mobile labs and protective suits, let that fall out over time. Ignore the personality of the dictators and stick to the subject raised: WMDs possessed by unfriendly nations prevent the US from positioning or using its Armed Forces in the furtherance of its National Security Policy because of fears of loss of life, equipment etc.
North Korea has a few nukes, once they are used on either South Korea or Japan, they will cause their casualties and be over with, as will the North Korean government. You see they do not have enough weapons or range to provide a strategic threat to the US, only a tactical/operational one. As insurance, President Bush is pushing forward an early deployment of National Missile Defense (NMD) to complicate the planning in North Korea.
Without strategic delivery mechanisms, North Korea and Iran are regional threats, which is why the US is involving the other 'regional' Powers, not because of the fear of WMDs.
dvwjr
I'd love to hear what those reasons are, especially in light of all the lame ones that have been provided to the American public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.