The Case For War Is Blown Apart

Independent UK ^ | 05-29-03

[Brian S]

By Ben Russell and Andy McSmith in Kuwait City

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

[section9]

Once again, the link between 9/11 and Iraq would be...

No one in the Bush Administration ever asserted a link between Saddam and 9-11. That's a Straw Man argument that has been foisted on us by liberals.

However, there was no satisfactory resolution to the Al-Ani-Mohammed Atta meeting of April 2001, which supposedly took place in Praha. I am convinced that it took place, but the story was pooh-poohed by people in the State Department who wanted to forstall the war. Czech Intelligence never backed off its claim that Atta was observed meeting with Colonel Al-Ani of the Mukhabarat at Praha Airport. However, despite the fact that Atta and our friend the Colonel may have met, it would have been a violation of al Qaeda's committment to Operational Security to bring Saddam in on the plot. I don't think they did, but they did have a relationship with Saddam going back to the mid-nineties.

More compelling, of course, was the fact that Saddam sheltered AQ in the wake of the Afghan campaign and gave them medical care in Baghdad. This is not the first time, of course. Salman Pak was used as a training center for hijackers and terrorists. The Marines came across the famous airplane at Salman Pak when they overran the base. In addition, in the chaos of post-Saddam Baghdad, a couple of reporters from London's Daily Telegraph made a beeline for Mukhabarat headquarters. There they came across the papers that outlined the relationship between AQ and Saddam going back to 1995. It appears that it was Saddam who was playing the earnest suitor, with bin Laden playing the coy, demanding bachelorette. The second Gulf War put paid to the budding alliance.

As to the WMD, we've found the mobile labs, which should indicate to you that there was a much wider and more extensive production operation. In all probability, what happened was that some chemicals were probably transferred to Syria for "safekeeping" (probably demanded by Syrian intelligence to Saddam loyalists for safe passage and refuge in Syria). I'm more concerned about what happened to biotoxins. You have to understand that it is a big, big desert out there, and there's lots of places to bury stuff. Much of it was probably destroyed by members of the lower echelons to cover their tracks. Some of it, sad to say, probably found its way to various terrorist groups as the regime began to fall apart.

Finally, as to the criticism of the campaign by the Labour back bench and the left British press; these are people who, let's be frank, were objectively pro-Saddam. They had no interest in the freedom of the Iraqi people, so long as Saddam could remain in power and poke the eye of the hated Americans.

It is not that the left in Britain and Europe loves Saddam less; rather, they hate America more.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Alberta's Child]

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 . . .

I agree with you 100%. The problem here is that this position makes no sense in terms of the U.S. response to the threat that was identified. There are two basic types of "weapons of mass destruction" that would be a threat to U.S. civilians -- those that could be launched at the U.S. from a foreign country (like a nuclear warhead) and those that could be smuggled into the U.S. (like chemical or biological agents).

Iraq clearly didn't have the former, but they may have had the latter. But an invasion like the one the U.S. just carried out will not remove the threat of the latter. Chemical and biological agents can be created in someone's basement, which means the U.S. can't possibly eliminate them as a threat in Iraq unless we are willing to occupy Iraq with several million weapons inspectors and search every square inch of a country the size of California.

[SunStar]

I did not think that war was necessary or in the best interest of the United States. I do support the president and the War on Terror. I voted for Bush and supported the war in Afghanistan.

OK, well then you must understand that the 1991 Gulf War was seen as an Iraqi victory in the Arab world. We were seen as weak and able to be beaten by Muslim vigilance and terrorist tactics. The big, bad U.S. went into Iraq and left with the biggest Arab leader still in power. In short, we never had a complete military victory in the Arab world until Op. Iraqi Freedom. It certainly showed that we are indeed a force to be reckoned with, and the true "paper tigers" are these tyrannical Arab governments. I believe it was 100% in our interests to be tough and victorious over Saddam Hussein in our long-term War on Terror.

[occam's chainsaw]

I don't know what the hell it was for.

Maybe it was for the purpose of nuetralizing a dangerous threat to the American people (and the rest of the world) before it was too late to do so. The details are irrelevant (for the most part).

[dirtboy]

But an invasion like the one the U.S. just carried out will not remove the threat of the latter.

It removes one source of both weapons, and, even more importantly, funding to terror groups from Saddam. Because even though you can make chemical weapons in your basement, it still takes some money to carry out a manufacturing plot of any scale.

Did this campaign end the threat of WMDs? No. But it eliminated one source of weapons and funding AND showed that the United States was no longer content to just talk, but was also willing to act.

[lasereye]

And that didn't prompt us to invade Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Algeria, etc. and all the other nations whose citizens carried out those 9/11 attacks, did it?

The citizenry has nothing to do with it. It's certain governments who were in cahoots with Al Qaeda. Like the Taliban. Were you against the invasion of Afghanistan?

[dirtboy]

But an invasion like the one the U.S. just carried out will not remove the threat of the latter.

IMO he was not taken out because UN resolutions only called for Iraq's removal from Kuwait AND his continuance justified a permanent U.S. military presence in the Gulf. And, quite frankly, there was an oil element with the current campaign - not to take the oil for ourselves, but to remove Saddam's control of that much oil wealth. If Iraqi oil becomes a dependable commodity not tied to a despot, it gives us the opportunity to actually rattle sabers at the Saudis - because, for now, the Saudis represent the only significant surplus oil production capacity in the world.

[Dead Dog]

I don't know what the hell it was for. And neither do you, frankly.

At a certain point cynicism is counterproductive. We have to trust our leaders, and then hold them accountable (with a closed fist) when they betray that trust.

But it's becoming more clear to me that it wasn't about "weapons of mass destruction,"

Your logic is p!ss poor at best. Since we haven't found WMD in the short time we've been in Iraq you've concluded there never were any. Although the USMC found traces of mustard agents in the Euphrates river, we are currently in control of a nuclear research facility completely unknown to the UN, we have the wicked cool tractor trailor rigs for making baby milk and fertilizer while cruising Iraqs scenic highways, and there are 400Kips of anthrax unaccounted for.

Yet, you are more willing to believe that a country awash in oil is developing nuclear energy for civil puroposes then you are willing to believe the honost intentions of the US to defend itself.

Do you see how stupid you sound?

Blind cynicism is no more a virture than blind faith.

[Alberta's Child]

Were you against the invasion of Afghanistan?

Not at all. The background of the Taliban government was a lot more complex than most people realize, though. And part of the reason for its rise to power was the ignorance and benign neglect on the part of the United States. It is events like Afghanistan that make me scrutinize U.S. military action so closely, because we rarely seem to do things effectively when it comes to long-term thinking.

[Alberta's Child]

Were you against the invasion of Afghanistan?

Not at all. The background of the Taliban government was a lot more complex than most people realize, though. And part of the reason for its rise to power was the ignorance and benign neglect on the part of the United States. It is events like Afghanistan that make me scrutinize U.S. military action so closely, because we rarely seem to do things effectively when it comes to long-term thinking.

[Dr. Frank fan]

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?

No, I don't think that's the point at all. So what if the case which was given to Congress relied less on, exclusively, the "WMD" angle than the case given to the UN? Again, I have absolutely no problem with using and exploiting the UN for our gain. Do you?

[You're telling me that US soldiers in 1991 never were under any threat from WMDs all along?] Were they?

Weren't they?

If the U.S. effectively negated the threat of Saddam Hussein's WMDs in 1991 by agreeing to leave him in power

Who says that agreeing to leave him in power is what effectively negated his WMD threat? I thought you explained to me earlier that we made precise threats of what would happened if he used WMDs, and that's why he didn't.

why else would he refrain from using them? -- he had to know that there was an up--side

Yes, the up-side is that he wouldn't be nuked. And?

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.

Right: we won't use nukes. That would have appealed to him. No?

Clearly we didn't offer to let him stay in power, so what was it?

Seriously, unless I'm totally missing your point, I thought it was obvious that our military leadership gets the message to enemy leaders that doing certain things will be considered such no-nos that all options (meaning "nukes") will be put on the table. That's what I thought you meant by all this, now I'm really not sure.

[Alberta's Child]

We have to trust our leaders, and then hold them accountable (with a closed fist) when they betray that trust.

Since we aren't willing to use that closed fist no matter how egregiously these leaders betray our trust (see Clinton, William Jefferson for details), then I see no reason to trust them in the first place.

Your logic is p!ss poor at best. Since we haven't found WMD in the short time we've been in Iraq you've concluded there never were any.

The efforts by the U.S. to find WMDs in Iraq is not the basis for my conclusion. As you point out, there is no reason to expect anything to be found in such a short period of time. What is most telling, though, is the number of comments you're starting to hear from supporters of the war and administration officials, pointing out any number of reasons why such WMDs may never be found. When someone starts telling me why I cannot and will not find something that "certainly" existed at one time (while at the same time saying that it's too early to tell), I generally assume that they're no longer able to rationalize its existence.

[zip]

- what it boils down to is the opposition party saying "you have to provide proof I'll accept, and nothing you provide will be acceptable."

Excellent point, Bill. I see a lot of the "opposition party" posting on this thread so I'll just say to them "if the shoe fits...".

[chudogg]

So are you trying to refute my claim or support it?

The USA today article claims that the shipments were legal under policies of the Commerce Department and aproved by the CDC.

But "JANES.COM" says that President Bush authorized them while he headed the CIA and Vice Presidency. Janes.com is also very vague in its description of the Congressional report by Congressman Donald Riegle, and i couldn't find anything elso on that report on google with the information they gave.

My theory, either Janes.com is misconstrued the actual contents of the report, or the congressional report itself is incorrect. I see no reason why a CIA director or Vice President would have to personnally authurize a completly legal (and rather irrelevant) transaction under the commerce department, and only needs the approval of a midlevel desk jockey at the CDC.

I will keep looking for the Congressional Report.

[ought-six]

"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."

Preposterous comment. We had troops staring nose-to-nose at the Russians for 40-some years in Berlin when the Russians had nukes deployed right there. Your comment that the U.S. would not put troops in close proximity to WMD is ludicrous and completely ignores the facts and history. Your comments suggest you are from some socialist paradise like, oh, Canada or some such place.

[Alberta's Child]

Yes, the up-side is that he wouldn't be nuked. And?

If the U.S. was going to kill him in his bunker anyway, then what difference did it make to him? Isn't he supposed to be a madman of some sort? Oh, sorry -- I forgot. That was just part of the soccer-mom propaganda campaign.

(Note: Clearly the U.S. had no intention of killing him in his bunker, as we are now starting to learn.)

That's what I thought you meant by all this, now I'm really not sure.

Where do you think Saddam Hussein is right now? Clearly the U.S. must have offered him some kind of protection, or else he would have had no reason to refrain from using his WMDs.

[Prodigal Son]

Simply stunning. Would you adopt the same attitude if a Democrat was in the White House?

It's a moot point isn't? There isn't a Democrat in the White House is there?
(Well, if there is he/she probably gets paid by the hour.)

Mr Clinton had no stomach for taking on such villains. He had eight years to do so. Had he seriously called for taking down Saddam in 1992- I would have given him 100% of my support and you know why? Because he was my commander in chief at the time. He was more interested in sending me to places like Macedonia and Bosnia though and running with his tail between his legs from places like Somalia.

Had Mr Clinton not p!ssed himself and run from Somalia, 9/11 may have never happened. His actions led the bin Ladens and Saddams of this world to believe that the US had no stomach to root out evil. He had his chance at greatness. History is a notoriously fickle beast.

Evil is being rooted out now. This is what matters to me. I would go so far as to say it is being rooted out despite the Democrats' best machinations.

Enjoy the elections next year. I plan to.

[willowpar]

What is most telling, though, is the number of comments you're starting to hear from supporters of the war and administration officials, pointing out any number of reasons why such WMDs may never be found.

More bad news, Blair is gonna take even more heat over this than the Bush administration.

BRITISH INTELLIGENCE AGENTS REPORTEDLY DISPUTING CLAIMS THEIR GOVERNMENT MADE ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WEAPONS PROGRAMS

[Prodigal Son]

It's a moot point isn't? = It's a moot point isn't it?

sorry about that folks