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
Try the fact that Bush declared that countries that sponsored terrorism either must stop or be dealt with. No direct link. But 9/11 changed this country's approach towards terror-sponsoring states. And Iraq was one of the worst of such countries (oh, and that was another violation of the 1991 cease-fire. Look it up).
Yes but you are trying to argue that "the case must be weak if he did publicly XYZ". I'm just reminding you that the "case" you saw on CNN is not necessarily the same "case" which was given to Congress. That case, evidently, convinced Congress.
You'd have a hard time convincing me that Congress' "approval" made Clinton's foray in Kosovo morally right.
My memory is fuzzy about Kosovo, to be honest. Because, I seem to recall that Clinton went in there under NATO, without even going to Congress first, and there was a danger he would run up against the 90-day limit (for wars w/o prior approval) imposed by the War Powers act, but the whole thing was basically retroactively "approved" by Congress eventually. Is that correct? If so, we're talking about apples and oranges here.
In any event I agree with you that Congress passing a War Powers resolution doesn't make a war "moral". But since when was that what we were talking about? You sure seem to shift your points around a lot.
Clancy's novels are built around intricate, fascinating military-related story lines with lots of intrigue and misleading angles. If he wrote one using the sequence of events that have unfolded in Iraq over the last 12 years, his publisher would have printed about 50 copies and put them right on the $2 discount rack.
Gotcha. I'll take your word for it. Still don't know what you think this is supposed to prove. Anything?
Because I was never sold on the need for the first Gulf War to begin with.
That's a reasonable answer. The problem is, once done, such things can't be undone. Given that there was a '91 Gulf War which left Saddam in power in a uneasy situation (sanctions, "500000 dying Iraqi babies", no fly zones, etc) for 12 years, escalating the war and ousting him once and for all is not necessarily a worse option for anybody than continuing the damn thing.
LOL. As if I would otherwise be a "dove?" I am "playing the hawk" to point out a clear inconsistency here.
Something to note here: If the U.S. secured Saddam Hussein's "cooperation" in 1991 by agreeing to leave him in power, then what price do you think we paid to secure his "cooperation" in 2003?
Since we didn't attack Iraq based on the 9/14/01 authorization of force, I don't see that a direct link to the crime of 9/11 was needed. A separate authorization of force against Iraq was sought by President Bush and obtained.
Saddam Hussein was clearly unfinished business in the Arab world, which contributed to their correct observations of the USA as a "paper tiger" until Op. Iraqi Freedom came along and blew that belief away.
What is your ideological perspective on the matter? You seem to be clearly against the War in Iraq (and maybe even the War on Terror). What's your beef with President Bush and the actions of the United States?
For what reason? So we could wait 12 years before taking Saddam out? Why not just take him out in 1991?
This is just silly and insulting. You're telling me that US soldiers in 1991 never were under any threat from WMDs all along?
Which means those WMDs could not possibly have been a legitimate reason for the war, and therefore any argument on this point is meaningless.
Argument on this point is meaningless, but only because your statements are ridiculous.
Something to note here: If the U.S. secured Saddam Hussein's "cooperation" in 1991 by agreeing to leave him in power, then what price do you think we paid to secure his "cooperation" in 2003?
I have no idea what you're getting at.
Wrong logic again, dude. The primary position of Bush about these weapons was NOT that the weapons were a major threat to US troops. The point was that the weapons were a threat, were they to land in the hands of terrorists, against US CIVILIANS - just as four civilian 767s were not a threat against a fighter plane, but killed thousands of civilians.
What a weasel.
I agree with you 100%. But this also means that the "case" that was given to Congress may have had absolutely nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.
Which is really the point here, isn't it?
Were they?
I'm not giving him a "free pass". I just happen to agree with him, and it just seems like all the anti-war FReepers are all-of-the-sudden becoming quite vocal again, when it was quite clear before the war that 90-95% of us were for Op. Iraqi Freedom. What is there to discuss?
I believe that Saddam Hussein moved, hid, or destroyed the weapons before Op. Iraqi Freedom to make us look stupid.
You believe that Bush misled us.
What does that say about your beliefs, other than the fact that you don't even trust conservative politicians? And if that is the case, what is your goal here? Do you vote? Did you vote for Bush? If not, why? If so, how is it that you think he (and not Saddam) is the one who misled you?
Because President Bush 41 was a complete wussy, and didn't want to offend the UN?
Did you vote for them in 2000?
Ask yourself that question. If the U.S. effectively negated the threat of Saddam Hussein's WMDs in 1991 by agreeing to leave him in power (why else would he refrain from using them? -- he had to know that there was an up--side), and you stated that the U.S. could have negated the threat of Saddam Hussein's WMDs in a similar manner in 2003, then we would have had to offer him something in return. Clearly we didn't offer to let him stay in power, so what was it?
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.