FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD (It's in the Breaking News sidebar!)
Posted on 07/10/2003 6:27:07 AM PDT by Brian S
July 10 — By Dominic Evans
LONDON (Reuters) - Almost four months after the United States and Britain invaded Iraq, a senior British official said on Thursday it would be "extremely difficult" to find banned weapons they said justified war.
The British official, who has closely monitored Iraq's military capability, said it was more likely Iraqi scientists or army officers would eventually come forward with evidence to support the U.S.-British charges -- instead of leading them to the weapons themselves.
"The fact that the Iraqis did not use any (weapons of mass destruction) during the conflict clearly indicates that they decided to do something else with the weapons that we genuinely believe that they had," he told Reuters.
"So they've either hidden, destroyed or dismantled them. And it's going to be extremely difficult to come up with the evidence. Not impossible, but it would be difficult."
"On the other hand, it is much more likely that scientists, military officers, over time will come forward to say what was happening in respect of the programs that we believe were being developed in Iraq," added the official, who declined to be identified.
But Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman insisted weapons "programs and products" would be found in Iraq.
"The Prime Minister has absolute confidence that we will find evidence, not only of the programs but also concrete evidence of the products of those programs" of weapons of mass destruction, Blair's spokesman told reporters.
The failure to discover such lethal arms in Iraq has raised questions about the case for war. The row has undermined Blair's credibility and dented his popularity.
The British Broadcasting Corporation said on Thursday senior figures in London no longer believed banned missiles or chemical weapons would be found in Iraq.
Some observers have detected a tactical retreat in Blair's reference to "weapons programs" rather than just "weapons."
But Blair's spokesman said the prime minister believes proof will be found that would have convinced the United Nations Security Council to back the war if inspectors had found it.
ACRIMONIOUS ROW
Last September, in a bid to win public support for possible war, Blair published a dossier saying Iraq had chemical and biological weapons that could be deployed at 45 minutes notice.
Blair's government is now locked in an acrimonious row with the BBC over a claim the government "sexed up" the dossier. The BBC quoted an anonymous intelligence source.
In the latest twist, the Ministry of Defense has challenged the BBC to say whether the source for the claim was former U.N. weapons inspector David Kelly -- who the government says played only a limited role in compiling the September dossier.
Blair's spokesman said the government now assumes Kelly was the BBC's source since the broadcaster will not name names.
A parliamentary committee said this week Blair's government did not mislead parliament or doctor evidence to justify the war on Iraq. But the foreign affairs committee said it gave undue prominence to the 45-minute claim and said "the jury is still out" on the quality of intelligence used to make Blair's case.
BBC is at it again..
They just won't give up...
Saddam knew we were coming for months ...what do you think he did....post signs at every WMD site saying LOOK HERE------->
He hid them.....
Just an observation.
Myself, I'd rather we had leveled about half of the region over there.
I think it's somewhat natural that you would give a person whom you regard as trustworthy and honest a bit more leeway than one you consider a habitual liar and a cheat, don't you?
I also find it a bit interesting that EVERYONE, and I do mean EVERYONE, was of the opinion that Saddam had WMD, or was developing them, prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, yet somehow only GW's feet are held to the fire now. The only objections back then was over how to handle the situation. I don't recall anyone saying inspectors weren't needed because there were no WMD, not even Saddam. As I recall he's objection was based on national integrity. But now only Bush was wrong. How convenient.
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.